9 thoughts on “Space Isn’t A Jobs Program”

  1. Yeah Ken, if only it could be stated as simply as that.. unfortunately people don’t even know what wealth means anymore. Perhaps we need to describe what wealth is first..

  2. what wealth is

    One good definition is ‘the control of an abundance of assets.’

    I wonder where [looking up at the night sky] we could find an abundance of assets?

  3. “space industry that generates actual wealth”

    This is the point they don’t understand or believe.

    Well of course — after all, wealth is a national resource. It’s just there until some greedy moneygrubbing capitalist steals it right out from under the noses of its rightful owners (the government).

  4. So true McGehee, which means…

    We’ve got to figure out a way to profit in space while keeping the government thinking it’s all a waste. The first step then is to get rid of all the government jobs because regardless of what actually happens in space those jobs alone are justification for continue spending (and eventually they might just discover something to tax.)

  5. We’ve got to figure out a way to profit in space while keeping the government thinking it’s all a waste.

    Solar Power. There’s two tricky parts for a Brayton-cycle type device. Dumping heat and getting power back to earth.

    It’s actually much more feasible if you didn’t plan to bring the power back to earth in the first place, but were instead planning on using elsewhere. (Smelting, electrolysis, whatever.)

  6. We’ve had tech allowing solar power satellites for the last 40 years, assuming a cost no object Apollo style program. Building the system cheap enough to compete with conventional energy is a tougher nut to crack.

  7. I think we’re looking in the wrong places. Power from space makes sense in space. We have lot’s of cheap ways to produce power on the ground taking out the cost of lawyers.

    I we ever get serious about growing the economy we will grow into the solar system with colonies. The cost to get them started is high but not excessive. The return over time is more than anybody can imagine today.

    I would argue that a one way survive or die strategy gives us the best long term return on investment.

Comments are closed.