NASA has been doing a form of economic stimulus by supporting the commercial crew and cargo program but that is a mere pittance of the monies gushing out of other agencies toward other goals. It is not like aerospace is irrelevant to the nation as today our aerospace products are our second highest value export behind computer equipment, beating agriculture in 2010 by $15 billion dollars with a total value of $81 billion dollars.
While the source didn’t appear to break it out, I’ll wager that the overwhelming majority of those $81 billion in aerospace exports were aero (e.g. airplanes like airliners and corporate jets), not space. What with ITAR restrictions and all, how much space equipment gets exported? I suppose if we sell a comsat or provide launch services to someone, that would count. That may be no more than 10-20% of the export amount each year.
Companies like SpaceX offer the opportunity for cheaper access to space. If their launch manifest is any indication, there’s a market for that. Money is what’s necessary to make space relevant, especially in tough economic times. If a reusable space tug (refueled from a depot, perhaps) further lowers the cost of launching satellites and space probes, that would also make space more relevant.
I do agree with the author on this point with emphasis added on the essential point:
We must be unapologetic, and we must be forceful, and we must demand that the economic development of the solar system is the purpose and goal. This includes Human settlement of the Moon, Mars, and free space. The robotic missions of the past 30 years makes the resource potential clear and recent missions to the Moon have provided the validation of the speculations regarding off planet water and other resources first investigated by Apollo.
The development of the techniques and processes necessary to accomplish these goals can and will feed back into our terrestrial economy. Advanced robotics, resources extraction and utilization techniques, and the development of compact, powerful energy sources not based on hydrocarbons all have direct applications on the Earth. The construction of large systems in Earth orbit, derived from lunar materials will most effectively optimize the limited and valuable resource of geosynchronous orbit.
Technology that’s of use both in space and on Earth is important, “flags and footprints”, not so much. Taxpayers should have some reasonable expectation of ROI, not just gainful employment for some engineers and scientists.
When I hear the words “make space relevant”, I think “profit-making businesses in space”. Dennis speaks near if not on my wavelength with his discussion of “economic interests”. My view is that the US government just isn’t trying aside from half-hearted attempts like the COTS program.
I have modest personal experience in this area. A couple weekends ago, I helped launch an airship which, in the course of its mission, broke the altitude record for airships. We did it with the work of volunteers over a number of years and about $30 thousand, most of which was paid for by advertisers over that time (Bill White, long an advocate of paying for space activities with advertising, will no doubt be amused).
There have been several government funded efforts over this time (mostly to develop balloon-based recon capability), but they haven’t yet reached this altitude nor demonstrated any ability to maneuver at this altitude. Our primary goal here was to demonstrate that we could control maneuvering systems at this altitude, which we achieved. Beating the world record was happy coincidence. But we achieved this goal for what I understand is orders of magnitude less funding than the big league spent.
NASA is notorious for these sorts of expenditures, particularly in manned space flight. How are space stations and reusable launch vehicles which cost tens of billions of dollars economically relevant? They’re poor as example of technology demonstration since they cost so much (showing that one can build a Space Shuttle for ten or so billion dollars isn’t useful to private enterprise which can’t find an application which would justify that expense.
Unmanned space activities tend to be more relevant, but they still frequently have this problem. An $8 billion space telescope (the James Webb Space Telescope) isn’t something that the private world can do much with.
IMHO, the ways that NASA can make itself relevant is to do risk retirement (such as demonstrating a rover on Mars or aerocapture for the first time) and surveying at costs that aren’t out of reach of private industry. If you can drive a rover on Mars for $10 million total cost (rather than say $600 million which is the cost of one Mars Exploration Rover, plus development costs), then that’s something that a private group can achieve. If you can find gold on the Moon for a few million dollars, then that improves somewhat the business case for space mining.
But the current feats of NASA just aren’t realistic. I doubt there is a business case for any realistic scenario involving a $10 billion Space Shuttle or a $100 billion space station.
Are you guys gunna fly some humans before I die?
All I can say is that we do have plans for that, but funding is a primary constraint for us and probably will always be.
If you’re on board, it might be right before…
Good question. Here is an answer. If I could get 10000 people willing to put up $100 per month for three years, we could transform commercial space. What is it worth to help support space?
Is there any particular reason that you can’t get a loan for that amount? Walt Anderson has bankrolled space ventures for comparable amounts. Are no other angel investors or VCs willing to take the risk? Why are you reduced to passing the hat?
A possible way of sneaking some money out of government to get something useful done in space is to emphasis the “return-to-earth” aspects. Apart from novel alloys and ultrapure biochemicals, the obvious thing to return to earth is energy – probably in the form of microwaves.
IIRC one of the major problems with setting up military units in remote areas is that they need heavy generating equipment, and even heavier fuel, to run the multitude of electrical gadgets that a modern military needs. I seem to remember a rather tentative project to explore the use of SPS and rectennas for power delivery to military deployments.
Sure, the military will control it. But does it really matter who’s out there, at the beginning, as long as someone is?
I’m a Brit, so I have nothing to do with American politics. But IMHO if the Republicans set out a plan to do really major work on space expansion – which would perforce mean expansion of high-tech and heavy industry, and a major shift towards “hard”subjects such as sciences and engineering – then they might well have a better chance of winning the next election – and also winning the future for America and the West.
Surely there is a Right-wing SF film-maker out there who could help? Get the film rights for “The Outward Urge” or maybe “A Step Further Out”. Hell, Mr. Pournelle might well do someone a very good deal on the latter. Or similar rights for some other near-future hard SF set in space.
The film would make serious money – just about guaranteed. And just as Star Trek did all those years ago, it would increase public interest in space. Give us back the Dream.
When the United States stakes claim to territory in outer space and throws open title to the frontier–first come, first serve–then the country will have made space relevant.
Prez, the whole point about space is that claiming terrority is of limited relevance. All you need is a smallish asteroid, and you can give the lie to that old chestnut about land being a good investment because “they ain’t making any more of it”.
NASA has been doing a form of economic stimulus by supporting the commercial crew and cargo program but that is a mere pittance of the monies gushing out of other agencies toward other goals. It is not like aerospace is irrelevant to the nation as today our aerospace products are our second highest value export behind computer equipment, beating agriculture in 2010 by $15 billion dollars with a total value of $81 billion dollars.
While the source didn’t appear to break it out, I’ll wager that the overwhelming majority of those $81 billion in aerospace exports were aero (e.g. airplanes like airliners and corporate jets), not space. What with ITAR restrictions and all, how much space equipment gets exported? I suppose if we sell a comsat or provide launch services to someone, that would count. That may be no more than 10-20% of the export amount each year.
Companies like SpaceX offer the opportunity for cheaper access to space. If their launch manifest is any indication, there’s a market for that. Money is what’s necessary to make space relevant, especially in tough economic times. If a reusable space tug (refueled from a depot, perhaps) further lowers the cost of launching satellites and space probes, that would also make space more relevant.
I do agree with the author on this point with emphasis added on the essential point:
We must be unapologetic, and we must be forceful, and we must demand that the economic development of the solar system is the purpose and goal. This includes Human settlement of the Moon, Mars, and free space. The robotic missions of the past 30 years makes the resource potential clear and recent missions to the Moon have provided the validation of the speculations regarding off planet water and other resources first investigated by Apollo.
The development of the techniques and processes necessary to accomplish these goals can and will feed back into our terrestrial economy. Advanced robotics, resources extraction and utilization techniques, and the development of compact, powerful energy sources not based on hydrocarbons all have direct applications on the Earth. The construction of large systems in Earth orbit, derived from lunar materials will most effectively optimize the limited and valuable resource of geosynchronous orbit.
Technology that’s of use both in space and on Earth is important, “flags and footprints”, not so much. Taxpayers should have some reasonable expectation of ROI, not just gainful employment for some engineers and scientists.
When I hear the words “make space relevant”, I think “profit-making businesses in space”. Dennis speaks near if not on my wavelength with his discussion of “economic interests”. My view is that the US government just isn’t trying aside from half-hearted attempts like the COTS program.
I have modest personal experience in this area. A couple weekends ago, I helped launch an airship which, in the course of its mission, broke the altitude record for airships. We did it with the work of volunteers over a number of years and about $30 thousand, most of which was paid for by advertisers over that time (Bill White, long an advocate of paying for space activities with advertising, will no doubt be amused).
There have been several government funded efforts over this time (mostly to develop balloon-based recon capability), but they haven’t yet reached this altitude nor demonstrated any ability to maneuver at this altitude. Our primary goal here was to demonstrate that we could control maneuvering systems at this altitude, which we achieved. Beating the world record was happy coincidence. But we achieved this goal for what I understand is orders of magnitude less funding than the big league spent.
NASA is notorious for these sorts of expenditures, particularly in manned space flight. How are space stations and reusable launch vehicles which cost tens of billions of dollars economically relevant? They’re poor as example of technology demonstration since they cost so much (showing that one can build a Space Shuttle for ten or so billion dollars isn’t useful to private enterprise which can’t find an application which would justify that expense.
Unmanned space activities tend to be more relevant, but they still frequently have this problem. An $8 billion space telescope (the James Webb Space Telescope) isn’t something that the private world can do much with.
IMHO, the ways that NASA can make itself relevant is to do risk retirement (such as demonstrating a rover on Mars or aerocapture for the first time) and surveying at costs that aren’t out of reach of private industry. If you can drive a rover on Mars for $10 million total cost (rather than say $600 million which is the cost of one Mars Exploration Rover, plus development costs), then that’s something that a private group can achieve. If you can find gold on the Moon for a few million dollars, then that improves somewhat the business case for space mining.
But the current feats of NASA just aren’t realistic. I doubt there is a business case for any realistic scenario involving a $10 billion Space Shuttle or a $100 billion space station.
Are you guys gunna fly some humans before I die?
All I can say is that we do have plans for that, but funding is a primary constraint for us and probably will always be.
If you’re on board, it might be right before…
Good question. Here is an answer. If I could get 10000 people willing to put up $100 per month for three years, we could transform commercial space. What is it worth to help support space?
Is there any particular reason that you can’t get a loan for that amount? Walt Anderson has bankrolled space ventures for comparable amounts. Are no other angel investors or VCs willing to take the risk? Why are you reduced to passing the hat?
A possible way of sneaking some money out of government to get something useful done in space is to emphasis the “return-to-earth” aspects. Apart from novel alloys and ultrapure biochemicals, the obvious thing to return to earth is energy – probably in the form of microwaves.
IIRC one of the major problems with setting up military units in remote areas is that they need heavy generating equipment, and even heavier fuel, to run the multitude of electrical gadgets that a modern military needs. I seem to remember a rather tentative project to explore the use of SPS and rectennas for power delivery to military deployments.
Sure, the military will control it. But does it really matter who’s out there, at the beginning, as long as someone is?
I’m a Brit, so I have nothing to do with American politics. But IMHO if the Republicans set out a plan to do really major work on space expansion – which would perforce mean expansion of high-tech and heavy industry, and a major shift towards “hard”subjects such as sciences and engineering – then they might well have a better chance of winning the next election – and also winning the future for America and the West.
Surely there is a Right-wing SF film-maker out there who could help? Get the film rights for “The Outward Urge” or maybe “A Step Further Out”. Hell, Mr. Pournelle might well do someone a very good deal on the latter. Or similar rights for some other near-future hard SF set in space.
The film would make serious money – just about guaranteed. And just as Star Trek did all those years ago, it would increase public interest in space. Give us back the Dream.
When the United States stakes claim to territory in outer space and throws open title to the frontier–first come, first serve–then the country will have made space relevant.
Prez, the whole point about space is that claiming terrority is of limited relevance. All you need is a smallish asteroid, and you can give the lie to that old chestnut about land being a good investment because “they ain’t making any more of it”.