10-Year Plan

Arthur P. Smith wrote:

>Right now, if you live in the US, NASA spends about $50 a year of your
>tax money. Except for the moronic anti-government types, that's an
>incredible deal. Why not push to double it, over, say, 5 years? The
>science community has successfully pushed several times to double the
>funding for the National Science Foundation. Health researchers get huge
>increases for the National Institutes for Health. What's wrong with
>space advocates that they can't advocate for space spending?
>
NASA is not the same as 'space spending'. NASA is a tiny fraction of space, and getting smaller all the time. Governmental operations grow at only the same rate as the population grow. Commercial operations tend to grow exponentially. NASA's spending is already a small minority. Perhaps rightfully. Still NASA does good research IMHO.

>If you really want it to be private, that means, instead of the $50
>going to NASA from every person in the country, only those actually
>interested in space (or whatever is being marketed) will have to
>contribute proportionally more. Say we manage to get 100,000 people (the
>approximate size of the space advocacy community) enthusiastic enough to
>contribute to a major space push. If it's to be at all effective it's
>going to have to spend on a NASA scale - for a $10 billion/year project
>that means each person will have to contribute $100,000/year!!!
>
The question isn't what you spend. It's what you launch. I've seen
figures that suggest that the true cost of launching a man, even with
low tech expendables can be as low as $100,000 per person. And that's
low tech. NASA might theoretically achieve 40x this with the space
shuttle, which is 'high tech'.

>Ok, here's a test, to see who's truly committed to commercial space
>development. You can't do $100,000/year, I understand that. Can you do a
>one-time $16.95 contribution? That's all TransOrbital (the first truly
>commercial deep space mission) is asking:
>
>https://www.transorbital.net/catalog/index.html
>
>and you get your message included in a lunar time capsule as well. So,
>how many of you have purchased one of these? I happened to get the
>deluxe package...
>
>Anybody who hasn't done at least this is, de facto, an advocate for
>letting the government do all the spending on space.
>
The world is not either-or.

>A change in attitude among the population in general, and among the
>space advocacy community in particular, to put their money where their
>dreams are. Barring that, laws to provide monopoly grants to major
>corporations...
>
You should not assume that America or it's law are the world.

>Unless a miraculous change in attitude toward space development happens
>to some huge number of people (including all the so-called space
>advocates),
>
No. That will not happen, or atleast not without visible and
cost-effective improvements in space access.

> government involvement seems to be the only option. It
>doesn't have to be massive involvement,
>
No. That will not happen. Space is already mostly commercial. Manned
space isn't of course. We need that to change.

> however; all that's needed are a
>few well-regulated monopolies...
>
No that must not occur. Monopolies are nearly always inefficient.