No. Having the government contract for the services it needs is not industrial policy. I’m not suggesting the government should start subsidizing private space research or anything like that. But there are lots of things it CAN do. For example, it can offer a tender that says, “We need to get six astronauts to the ISS. We will pay $50 million dollars for each flight to ISS that meets the following requirements:”
Then it can let private industry sort out how to do that. This is not industrial policy, any more than having the government tender bids for building a road.
There are other things government can do, such as reviewing the regulatory regime to see if there is an unfair burden being put on private space research. For example, the moon treaty might limit private research if it prevents personal property rights on the moon. Or FAA regulations suitable for airplanes may not make much sense for spacecraft, and that could be holding the industry back. In fact, just such a review was done a few years back, without which Rutan wouldn’t have been able to launch his space plane, as I recall.
Sorry going off the main topic, but after reading some of these posts I really have to say this:
Seriously, Sam Stone, your arguments would be heard a THOUSAND times louder if you didn’t throw so much “I hate Obama” smear into everything. It completely obscures all of your possibly important points. Try, just try, to formulate arguments without sounding a like Rush Limb./RNC talking point for a change and just bring facts and leave the blatant bias to the side. Its refreshing to hear an argument for more gov spending on the exploration of space, which most of us, including myself, supports without the foul odor of the far right.
Back to the main topic:
Any ideas on what the impact of the Kepler mission may have on the future of NASA. From what I read and seem on various TV shows, the SETI people are going to be using data from Kepler (newly discovered Earth-like planets) to “focus” their aims and possibly send transmissions to these specific solar systems.
The limiting factor there, obviously, is that private industry (unlike government) will do nothing unless it sees a way of making a profit from it, and in the short run – and you can’t build the High Frontier on “space tourism” alone. What else is potentially out there, or can potentially be done out there, that would entice Rutan to do something beyond that bare-minimum level of investment? Where is the short-term profit in an O’Neill colony or a Lunar mass-driver?
What do you mean by “short run”? Plenty of megacorporations are perfectly willing to invest a billion dollars in R&D if there’s a good chance of $10 billion in profits.
There is untapped mineral wealth on the Moon. So? There is untapped mineral wealth in Antarctica. It remains untapped because nobody has found a way to conduct mining operations profitably in an environment where you have to dig through a mile of ice before you can even scratch the dirt, and where anything you dig up has to be moved from the mine to a shipping-port with no roads or railroads, and where the workers will demand double or triple pay just for having to work and live there, even on a seasonal basis. But all those problems are trivial compared to those facing a Lunar mining project.
As for energy – the only obvious form is solar, and it’s hard enough to make solar power profitable here on the surface, isn’t it?
It’s simple to point to lage sums of money being invested in instruments that don’t pay off for 30 years - look at the standard 30-year treasury bond. If there were really a money-making opportunity in them thar Moon-hills, investors would be throwing money at it.
Solar in space is valuable because of WHERE its at.
In space you either use solar (or nuclear) or SHIP it in from earth (which cost a metric butt load squared).
Solar in space also has the advantage of being very regular and predictable.
If I have a smelter on an asteroid, its either solar (or nuke) or gigabucks worth of “fuel” rocketed in.
Its a no brainer which one to choose.
And wish people would get of this mining on the moon baloney. Plenty of asteroids to go to which probably are way more mineral rich and not baked bone ass dry like the moon has been. Probably easier and safer to get and from as well.
People/corporations might invest in outer space resources if the Outer Space Treaty didn’t list space resources as res communis and so not available for private exploitation.
But, the same objections given above still apply: It’s much easier and cheaper to mine the Antarctic (or Greenland, or even the ocean beds) than to mine the asteroids.
Who said anything about the moon? Asteroids, me boy. Asteroids. Pure metal, some of 'em. And the good stuff, too.
And, you know, we only use, at best what, three degrees of arc of the sun’s light? We could, in theory, capture all of the rest of it. You see, solar works great if there’s plenty of space to put it up in… and in space, there’s nothing but room for the panels.
Ah, but once you start mining, BG, it’s cheaper. The hard part is that first step. Once you get out of the pull of Earth and set up a tent, it’s all gravy and buttons. Just need a smelter and some place to chuck the good stuff to.
No, you use the stuff mined in space to DO stuff in space, making doing stuff in space much cheaper, because the big assed expense in doing stuff in space is just getting mass into orbit.
Just getting fuel to be used in space from space and maybe just rocks/crap to use as radiation sheilding would drastically reduce the cost of doing manned stuff in space.
Yeah, mining in space to drop it down to earth is probably not cost effective for a long time, if ever. Except perhaps if space activity became significantly cheaper (see above) some stuff like gold, platinum and a few other precious/rare metals might be cost effective.
Yeah, but what? What that’s going to make somebody back on Earth money in the short run? Something like that has to happen to bring space industry into existence before space industry can have its own self-servicing economy.
With the current state of technology, it is almost as much trouble to get something from space to Earth (intact) as vice-versa, and (short of a space elevator) I don’t see what could change that.
