[Moonbase-discuss] Re: NASA & privateers / Moonbase-discuss digest, Vol 1 #6 - 1 msg

[Randall Clague]

At 10:08 PM 10/03/2001, JonAlexandr@aol.com wrote:

>Zack:  << Government is notoriously adverse to risk taking, but
>that is what is required for progress.  Private
>railways made this country accessible to the masses.
>Private airlines did the same for the globe. >>
>
>Jon:  I'm not up on the details, but it's my understanding that the railways
>and airlines couldn't have become economically successful without the help of
>government.

Details matter, but that's essentially correct.  For the railroads, the 
government flat gave the railroads their rights of way, and a mile or 
thereabouts on either side of the right of way.  Gee, when you don't have 
to buy the land, your up front costs go way down.  :-)

There was little direct subsidy of air travel at first.  Of course WW I 
helped the technology a lot, but after the Great War, the military, and the 
rest of the government, all but lost interest in the aeroplane.  The Post 
Office helped enormously in the 1920s with the advent of the Air 
Mail.  That wasn't a subsidy, but it was damn good contract.  Then there 
were the air races, and the Army Air Corps began to get serious when 
civilian airplanes could leave military airplanes in the dust, and the rest 
is history.

>I think it's the same for space transportation.  Government has
>provided the "proof of concept" and the initial funding.  Now it's up to
>private interests to show 'economy of concept.'

If that's possible.  Market uncertainty is a bear, and probably the major 
killer these days.  The government could help a lot by providing haulage 
contracts with minimum values.  This has been seriously proposed, but I 
don't know if the government takes it seriously.  I haven't studied the 
concept in detail myself.  I am not at the moment in favor of the 
government buying services it doesn't need, for the purpose of stimulating 
a market.  I wouldn't spend my money that way - fiscally unsound - so I 
won't spend yours that way either.

(My space friends will be recoiling at this heresy.  Oh well.  An Extropian 
friend once asked me what it would take for me to sign up for 
suspension.  "Revive a mammal."  You want my money, you have to 
_demonstrate_ value: extrapolation is insufficient.)

>Private interests should stop whining and just do
>the job -- if they think they can do it.

Um, I don't know of any private interests that are whining.  Bashing, yes.  :-)

>Convince the lenders with their
>vision of space for all, and profit for some.  I think some will.  Others
>will fall by the wayside.

That much is certain.

>Jon:  Maybe.  Probably.  And I share some of your impatience.  But I think it
>is technology that is the biggest drag on the process now, not government.

The people doing the work hold the opposite view.  The technology is not 
terribly difficult: at least one amateur rocketry group is capable of 
building a rocket that could reach 100 km (FAI definition of space).  They 
haven't bothered, because the FAA paperwork would cost a lot more than the 
rocket and launch operation sould.

>Nanotechnology -- molecular manufacturing -- I think will be a very effective
>'lubricant' to the process, and I'd expect space access to become much easier
>for all concerned when its manufacturing efficiencies become widely available.

Ah, nanotech.  I have many questions about nanotech.  Is Moonbase U going 
to have a nanotech session soon?  (Hint, hint)

One point I will make is that nanotech (if it has the capabilities its 
proponents claim) will make SSTO not only possible, but easy.  99% mass 
fraction may be achievable if you can grow your rocket from sapphire and 
diamond.

-R

--
Randall Clague                American
CA Mission Tour   FDNY Disaster Relief
November 2001      rclague@rclague.net