Offworld real estate (was Ethicists Tell NASA...)

On Apr 12, 2014, at 1:32 AM, Joe Strout wrote:

> On 4/12/14 4:10 PM, sailorbarsoom@... wrote:
>
> > The reason we don't have business booming on the Moon is because getting
> > stuff and people to the Moon is difficult, dangerous, and expensive.
>
> Well, that's certainly part of it. But I don't think it's the whole
> story. Half the things SpaceX has done (and more of what it's currently
> working on -- like soft-landing a booster) were said to be impossible
> before they did it,
>
Im sure someone said it, but although SpaceX has done really great work, its hasnt been in the impossible range. They built a low cost launcher using modern manufacturing techniques in a centralized setting, designing the system to get economies of scale (using many identical engines, for example) and put their prices on the web. They were able to reduce launch costs by about 30% for comsats (over Ariane). Very nice work, but not exactly like saying well put a man on the Moon back in 61.

BTW: the first soft landing of a booster happened in the early 80s and was done over 100 times the space shuttle orbiter which included the main engines (although not the fuel tank). Weve known for many years that one can soft land rockets (Apollo lunar lander and DCX). Again, SpaceX is doing fabulous work but I dont know anyone who, 5-10 years ago, would have considered soft landing a first stage impossible. Difficult, sure.

> but they've done it anyway, mostly on the basis of
> Elon Musk's fortune (earned elsewhere) and very personal desire to
> develop space.
>
> But the number of space-minded billionaire angels is low... sure they'll
> get us there eventually, but we'd get there faster if there were clear
> business cases to entice ordinary investment.
>
> > We shouldn't act like it's easy-peasy and if only The Market were allowed
> > to do Its thing we'd all have Lunar chateaus by now.
>
> No, but we shouldn't assume it WON'T work, either. I say, we've tried
> the communal-property approach for five decades now, and it hasn't
> worked. Let's give the private-property approach a try.
>
> Best,
> - Joe
>

joe@strout.net
> wrote:
On 4/12/14 4:10 PM,

sailorbarsoom@...

> The reason we don't have business booming on the Moon is because getting
> stuff and people to the Moon is difficult, dangerous, and expensive.
Well, that's certainly part of it. But I don't think it's the whole

story. Half the things SpaceX has done (and more of what it's currently

working on -- like soft-landing a booster) were said to be impossible

before they did it,
Im sure someone said it, but although SpaceX has done really great work, its hasnt been in the impossible range. They built a low cost launcher using modern manufacturing techniques in a centralized setting, designing the system to get economies of scale (using many identical engines, for example) and put their prices on the web. They were able to reduce launch costs by about 30% for comsats (over Ariane). Very nice work, but not exactly like saying well put a man on the Moon back in 61.
BTW: the first soft landing of a booster happened in the early 80s and was done over 100 times the space shuttle orbiter which included the main engines (although not the fuel tank). Weve known for many years that one can soft land rockets (Apollo lunar lander and DCX). Again, SpaceX is doing fabulous work but I dont know anyone who, 5-10 years ago, would have considered soft landing a first stage impossible. Difficult, sure.
but they've done it anyway, mostly on the basis of

Elon Musk's fortune (earned elsewhere) and very personal desire to

develop space.
But the number of space-minded billionaire angels is low... sure they'll

get us there eventually, but we'd get there faster if there were clear

business cases to entice ordinary investment.
We shouldn't act like it's easy-peasy and if only The Market were allowed
> to do Its thing we'd all have Lunar chateaus by now.
No, but we shouldn't assume it WON'T work, either. I say, we've tried

the communal-property approach for five decades now, and it hasn't

worked. Let's give the private-property approach a try.
Best,
- Joe