what we really need to go into space

> I have to pop into the argument and disagree here.
> There are many successful space-based business. Look
> at companies like Orbital, Spacehab, Space Imaging, XM
> Radio just to name a few. There are many more than
> that even. The thing that all these companies have in
> common who are successful are two things: 1) they have
> a product/service that people will for, 2) They make a
> profit and are attractive to wall street.

Good point. However, all of these serve a specific niche and
realistically have no plans for space settlement (SpaceDev being
somewhat the exception). Their stockholders (and perhaps the SEC) would
not permit it. That is the problem with the model of expecting some
small company to eventually finance space settlement. Any move in that
direction (other than a tiny R&D effort under the shareholder's radar)
will be stopped. The SpaceDev people have had enough trouble as it is in
the past IIRC around 1998 being investigated by the SEC who couldn't
believe the general claims (asteroid mining) were feasible (they
obviously defended themselves succesfully from this). But in practice,
SpaceDev, the closest possible match to this plan that I know of, is
really small potatoes as far as the hundreds of billions of dollars that
would need to go into space settlement to make it happen.

> I have no idea why you lumped GPS in there, personally
> I think its one of the greatest public projects ever
> done by the DoD. It is predicted that by Futron that
> within 5 years, there will be a several billion market
> of goods and services that will be built around using
> GPS.

The GeoStar and LAWN companies as I understand it were started by Gerry
O'Neill and others with the hope of using their profits to fund SSI and
thus space settlement (via SPS). GeoStar was supposed to be a GPS-like
system that also supplied messages. The LAWN company (can't recall it's
true name if that wasn't it) was supposed to be like 801.11b wireless
ethernet. So yes, these are big areas -- but the startups with a goal of
making profits to spend on space settlement got stomped in the end. My
point is one of focus -- the most profitable companies manage to lock
onto a niche, focus on it, rewrite the laws to support their monopoly
(including gaining tax subsidies, creating a high cost of entry,
preferential establishing preferential government vendor relations,
etc.) By the time you are through doing all that SUCCESSFULLY, the
idealistic impulses for doing something bigger like space settlement are
pretty much long gone. So, I think it more reasonable to approach those
who have resources (money or free time) and just get them to spend their
money directly on space settlement R&D -- either as a hobby or perhaps
even out of a quasi-religious panspermia or saving humanity or the
biosphere sort of ideal. Obviously, there could be other motivating
factors -- competition etc. -- like the drive to win the Americas cup,
as is perhaps a little behind the X-prize.

> Val and Tango may be in the finance world, but I am in
> the aerospace manufacturing world and I can agree with
> them on this point. Where money can be made, people
> will invest their hard earned dollars and put in the
> extra effort.

If you are talking investment then we are talking issues of risk,
reward, and time of return. There are far more profitable short term
investments (currency speculation against the dollar anyone?) than space
settlement. Realistically, that sort of investment will not happen
except for idealistic goals -- the complete opposite of hard head
investing, which if you want something risky but still technosexy is
more likely going involve investing in something like these electric cars
http://www.acpropulsion.com/
with hybrid trailers for long distance runs (where the trailer and/or
car can also be used for home backup power [I'm waiting for them to get
the idea to integrate cogeneration on the trailer for home use]).
http://www.acpropulsion.com/Products/Range_extending_trailers.htm
A minivan or station wagon version of this with such a
cogeneration-compatible trailer would fit my lifestyle well (once the
$50K Lithium Ion battery cost drops by a factor of two or so). I work at
home and rarely drive more than 120 mile trips more than a few times a year.

> There is a very fine line here that needs to be walked
> IMHO when talking on this subject. First, I am a huge
> supporter of the open source initiative. However, I
> also believe that this stuff just lays the foundation
> upon which to build on to make a profit. This is why
> companies like sun and ibm contribute alot to the open
> source community.

But, regardless of whether people make a profit, open source free
software like GNU/Linux is happening. Obviously RedHat and IBM are
helping accelerate this in various ways - but neither would exist if it
weren't for the dedication and cooperation of many people who went
before -- like Richard Stallman or Linus Torvalds. And, frankly, I run
Debian. :-)

--Paul Fernhout