Space News Letter to Editor

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Al Globus wrote:

> That's another letter, but here goes:
>
> 1. Suborbital tourism
> 2. Superior orbital vehicle with NASA money and private work (as
> outlined in my letter)
> 3. Orbital sports facility paid for by TV advertising

Can you flesh this out more? What kind of sports? Team or
individual?

Will the players live in orbit or will we shuttle them there for the
game and then being them back?

Will they be full time astronauts and in their free time go the to
sports facility to be part time 0-G athletes whose games are
televised?

Will it be a new game specific to 0-G or a transplanted Earth game?

What will the advertising pay for? The launch of the facility, or
the launching of the players? If the latter, who pays for the
facility and associated costs?

Doesn't this step presuppose an LEO station?

> 4. Orbital tourism

I picture sub-orbital tourism to be a ride to the edge of space in
order to experience 0-G and the view.

How is orbital tourism different other than going higher? If that's
all it is, why do you consider it to be a significant milestone?

> 5. 0g retirement homes for wealthy folk who don't want to live in
wheel
> chairs

Doesn't this presuppose an existing station, or do you just put the
retired folk in plastic bubbles :) to float in space :)

> 6. Asteroidal or lunar mining

Shouldn't this come much earlier, or are you launching all of that
mass from Earth to build the abovementioned facilities.

> 7. First small habitats for folk that will have children
> 8. Colonize the solar system
> 9. Generation ships to the nearest stars
>
> 3 and 4 may reverse order
> 6 and 7 may reverse order
>

I realize that there isn't much glamour in building infrastructrure
in orbit, but I just can't see how these plans are realized without
existing infrastructure being in place.

IMHO, the best things NASA could do, would be to develop the housing
and transportation infrastructure in orbit and keep extending that
infrastructure outwards from the Earth.

Then subsidize private enterprise with lower than cost-recovery
rates, in whatever ventures the private interests wish to advance.
Same goes for the other National Space Agencies. But don't pick
winners and losers (or it'll be a Boeing/LockMart duopoly) And make
the participation criteria open to all and if scarcity develops,
then let the bidding (marketplace) raise the rates to such a point
that an equilibrium develops.

TangoMan