Comments on: The Catch-22 of Space Development http://blog.nss.org/?p=763 Blogging for the creation of a spacefaring civilization Fri, 24 May 2013 12:17:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Bill http://blog.nss.org/?p=763&cpage=1#comment-1021 Bill Mon, 27 Apr 2009 04:01:45 +0000 http://blog.nss.org/?p=763#comment-1021 <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3REZZWeWcU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3REZZWeWcU</a> do it the Zubrin way Famous quote from Robert Zubrin "Grow or die" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3REZZWeWcU
do it the Zubrin way
Famous quote from Robert Zubrin "Grow or die"

]]> By: Martha Adams http://blog.nss.org/?p=763&cpage=1#comment-1011 Martha Adams Sun, 26 Apr 2009 02:34:27 +0000 http://blog.nss.org/?p=763#comment-1011 I think some of the problem here is a failure to correctly apprehend reality. It's easy to think of space as a place where you go to do things, without attending to inconvenient detail. The inconvenient detail I have in mind is Terra's gravity well. It's a bottleneck between Terra surface here, and doing things in space. As long as we think of doing things Out There only through that bottleneck, we're going to have to face the costs. The solution to the bottleneck problem, is to limit the kinds of things shipped through it. Radio and laser are easy. So how about *settlements* and a human culture developing on the other side of that bottleneck, doing it the Zubrin way of using local materials? Then the bottleneck effect is greatly reduced since not so much is shipped through it. I think since that bottleneck is not going away, let's think how we can most effectively live with it. Namely, simply live on both sides of it and communicate through it without trying to ships people and tons of freight through it. Titeotwawki -- Martha Adams [2009 Apr 25] I think some of the problem here is a failure to correctly apprehend reality. It's easy to think of space as a place where you go to do things, without attending to inconvenient detail. The inconvenient detail I have in mind is Terra's gravity well. It's a bottleneck between Terra surface here, and doing things in space. As long as we think of doing things Out There only through that bottleneck, we're going to have to face the costs.

The solution to the bottleneck problem, is to limit the kinds of things shipped through it. Radio and laser are easy. So how about *settlements* and a human culture developing on the other side of that bottleneck, doing it the Zubrin way of using local materials? Then the bottleneck effect is greatly reduced since not so much is shipped through it.

I think since that bottleneck is not going away, let's think how we can most effectively live with it. Namely, simply live on both sides of it and communicate through it without trying to ships people and tons of freight through it.

Titeotwawki — Martha Adams [2009 Apr 25]

]]> By: Jim DiGriz http://blog.nss.org/?p=763&cpage=1#comment-969 Jim DiGriz Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:55:23 +0000 http://blog.nss.org/?p=763#comment-969 The solution, is what business has always known, "demand creation". The jobs do not need to go away, if, using more efficient technologies and processes the same number of people can both produce a lot more and find a market for all that lift capacity and space hardware. Currently there is not a lot of investment in the space industry because the perceived demand is not there. But the perceived demand is not there because people don't generally make demands for items or services that do not exist yet. The demand for iPods in 1985 was 0, because computers were not large or powerful enough to store MP3 files.and yet Apple sells tens of millions of them in the Oughts. In order to generate demand, we, the space enthusiast community, need to put on our marketing hats and create a massive PR campaign about how space solar power can both create significant numbers of well-paying jobs and solve the energy crisis and reduce air pollution which leads to health problems and climate change. The average American has no idea that electrical power can be transmitted wirelessly via microwaves. A successful PR campaign would generate significant public interest and political action, stoking demand and thus providing the incentive for space companies to operate more efficiently to capture these markets. The solution, is what business has always known, “demand creation”. The jobs do not need to go away, if, using more efficient technologies and processes the same number of people can both produce a lot more and find a market for all that lift capacity and space hardware. Currently there is not a lot of investment in the space industry because the perceived demand is not there. But the perceived demand is not there because people don’t generally make demands for items or services that do not exist yet. The demand for iPods in 1985 was 0, because computers were not large or powerful enough to store MP3 files.and yet Apple sells tens of millions of them in the Oughts. In order to generate demand, we, the space enthusiast community, need to put on our marketing hats and create a massive PR campaign about how space solar power can both create significant numbers of well-paying jobs and solve the energy crisis and reduce air pollution which leads to health problems and climate change. The average American has no idea that electrical power can be transmitted wirelessly via microwaves. A successful PR campaign would generate significant public interest and political action, stoking demand and thus providing the incentive for space companies to operate more efficiently to capture these markets.

]]> By: Arthur Smith http://blog.nss.org/?p=763&cpage=1#comment-946 Arthur Smith Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:10:12 +0000 http://blog.nss.org/?p=763#comment-946 oh, sorry, on the jobs argument - the point is, costs will go down only as total scale increases; as long as that total scale increases faster than the reduction in costs, employment continues to rise, not drop. But treating the space program as a jobs program is wrong from the start - if people's lives are being wasted when the work could be done cheaper, better, by fewer people, then you're not "creating" jobs at all, you're spending money to negative net effect. Maximize the usefulness of what people are doing, and there will be plenty of jobs for all. oh, sorry, on the jobs argument - the point is, costs will go down only as total scale increases; as long as that total scale increases faster than the reduction in costs, employment continues to rise, not drop.

But treating the space program as a jobs program is wrong from the start - if people’s lives are being wasted when the work could be done cheaper, better, by fewer people, then you’re not “creating” jobs at all, you’re spending money to negative net effect. Maximize the usefulness of what people are doing, and there will be plenty of jobs for all.

]]> By: Arthur Smith http://blog.nss.org/?p=763&cpage=1#comment-944 Arthur Smith Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:07:10 +0000 http://blog.nss.org/?p=763#comment-944 Henson's right - the only way around this (and many other such "catch-22's") is to throw enough money at the problem in a competitive fashion to get over the economic barrier. But there's some encouraging progress on this - SpaceX's work in particular seems to be at the right level to (a) succeed and (b) provide the next step in economic scale for launch technology. NASA has taken steps to acknowledge this with the ISS resupply contracts to SpaceX and Orbital; now if we can boost that few billion dollars by a factor of 10 or so and allow a few other serious competitors to join in, we could have real progress relatively quickly. Henson’s right - the only way around this (and many other such “catch-22’s”) is to throw enough money at the problem in a competitive fashion to get over the economic barrier.

But there’s some encouraging progress on this - SpaceX’s work in particular seems to be at the right level to (a) succeed and (b) provide the next step in economic scale for launch technology.

NASA has taken steps to acknowledge this with the ISS resupply contracts to SpaceX and Orbital; now if we can boost that few billion dollars by a factor of 10 or so and allow a few other serious competitors to join in, we could have real progress relatively quickly.

]]> By: Keith Henson http://blog.nss.org/?p=763&cpage=1#comment-889 Keith Henson Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:05:23 +0000 http://blog.nss.org/?p=763#comment-889 There is no solution. And even if there was, the best case would be a few clowns bouncing around on the moon--again. I think ignoring NASA and working on a huge power satellite project (from the ground) is the best way to get people into space. True, a thousand construction workers in GEO putting a GW/day of power sats together with parts lifted from the ground at $100/kg isn't a space colony. But it does cut the cost of transport so far that the US could get the lift for a moon and/or Mars mission practically for free. Keith Henson www.htyp.org/dtc There is no solution.

And even if there was, the best case would be a few clowns bouncing around on the moon–again.

I think ignoring NASA and working on a huge power satellite project (from the ground) is the best way to get people into space. True, a thousand construction workers in GEO putting a GW/day of power sats together with parts lifted from the ground at $100/kg isn’t a space colony.

But it does cut the cost of transport so far that the US could get the lift for a moon and/or Mars mission practically for free.

Keith Henson
http://www.htyp.org/dtc

]]> By: Link List - 9th April 2009 | Astronomy Link List http://blog.nss.org/?p=763&cpage=1#comment-838 Link List - 9th April 2009 | Astronomy Link List Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:17:54 +0000 http://blog.nss.org/?p=763#comment-838 [...] The Catch-22 of Space Development - National Space Society Blog Catch-22 is a fantastic book which really makes you think about life. On this post they liken the catch-22 from the book to funding issues for NASA. [...] [...] The Catch-22 of Space Development - National Space Society Blog Catch-22 is a fantastic book which really makes you think about life. On this post they liken the catch-22 from the book to funding issues for NASA. [...]

]]>