3 ms·

Those old timers don't realize that space is about more than nationalistic grandstanding and sticking flags into moonscapes. If you want to see real activity i

by motters 17y ago

Those old timers don't realize that space is about more than nationalistic grandstanding and sticking flags into moonscapes. If you want to see real activity in space that means that getting stuff out of the Earth's atmosphere has to be significantly cheaper, and the only way that's going to happen is if space becomes a bigger industry than it is today - which means commercialization.

sliverstorm 17y ago
> Those old timers don't realize that space is about more than nationalistic grandstanding and sticking flags into moonscapes And military spending is about a lot of silly things too. But it drives development in the technological field, and we have reaped huge benefits because of all the funding the US poured into arms and space There's not just one way. Commercialization brings prices for the same goods down, but innovation and progress brings prices down too. The government is useful for a situation where something is still vastly unprofitable; they continue to attack the problem, and somewhere down the line it gets close enough to having business potential that companies start getting involved. 'putting a man on the moon' may not be the best goal, but that's a different discussion imho. (Although I already know planning for a Hubble 2 is something I could really get behind)
ericd 17y ago
Getting stuff out of the atmosphere with chemical rockets will always be extremely expensive. The only way it's going to get significantly cheaper is with alternative lifting methods, such as an electric powered space elevator.
- motters 17y ago
  One of the biggest expenses in current space operations is ground crew, which typically numbers in the thousands. Under the status quo there is simply no incentive to reduce this number, and there are often incentives to increase it to create new jobs. In the original space shuttle concept the ground crew was supposed to be no larger than a few hundred, but it didn't work out that way. Commercializing rocketry should mean that ground crew size and turnaround times can be minimized, since there is a direct financial incentive to control costs.
  - ericd 17y ago
    Fair, but even if it were extremely efficiently run, even the fuel costs of lifting large masses into orbit and the associated size of the vehicles required, as well as the resultant complexity of such a thing would be prohibitively expensive. Much cheaper, but still not where it needs to be. In order to do anything serious in space, it needs to become MUCH CHEAPER to put things into orbit. That is what a space elevator could accomplish. Not to say that we're ready technologically... we need to become a whole lot better at producing long carbon nanotubes.

by motters 17y ago

sliverstorm 17y ago

> Those old timers don't realize that space is about more than nationalistic grandstanding and sticking flags into moonscapes And military spending is about a lot of silly things too. But it drives development in the technological field, and we have reaped huge benefits because of all the funding the US poured into arms and space There's not just one way. Commercialization brings prices for the same goods down, but innovation and progress brings prices down too. The government is useful for a situation where something is still vastly unprofitable; they continue to attack the problem, and somewhere down the line it gets close enough to having business potential that companies start getting involved. 'putting a man on the moon' may not be the best goal, but that's a different discussion imho. (Although I already know planning for a Hubble 2 is something I could really get behind)

ericd 17y ago

Getting stuff out of the atmosphere with chemical rockets will always be extremely expensive. The only way it's going to get significantly cheaper is with alternative lifting methods, such as an electric powered space elevator.

motters 17y ago
One of the biggest expenses in current space operations is ground crew, which typically numbers in the thousands. Under the status quo there is simply no incentive to reduce this number, and there are often incentives to increase it to create new jobs. In the original space shuttle concept the ground crew was supposed to be no larger than a few hundred, but it didn't work out that way. Commercializing rocketry should mean that ground crew size and turnaround times can be minimized, since there is a direct financial incentive to control costs.
- ericd 17y ago
  Fair, but even if it were extremely efficiently run, even the fuel costs of lifting large masses into orbit and the associated size of the vehicles required, as well as the resultant complexity of such a thing would be prohibitively expensive. Much cheaper, but still not where it needs to be. In order to do anything serious in space, it needs to become MUCH CHEAPER to put things into orbit. That is what a space elevator could accomplish. Not to say that we're ready technologically... we need to become a whole lot better at producing long carbon nanotubes.