SF in cynical times.
how...@brazee.net
what it will do, and the other saying that they will be there - and thinking
that this latter strategy has been working when we live in cynical times.
We do not believe our politicians and get satisfied with fewer promises.
Hoping to not have a political debate from this observation. (If I am
wrong skip that preamble and go to the following):
SF used to be a medium of great expectations. Has it matured into realism,
or has the audience changed? Sure we still have space opera, but it isn't
predominant anymore.
lewy
<how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:PTDZc.921$N4...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I think "The Cold Equations" marked the beginning of the maturation process
for written SF, and that was over 50 years ago. As for mass media, has
anyone else been struck by the penetration of sf/fantasy into the
mainstream? Not only are the films popular, but a lot of them are actually
very good. LoTR is the obvious example (what could be more mainstream than
winning the Oscar for beset picture), but also consider movies like "The
X-Men" and "Spider Man". I caught "Spider Man 2" the other day and was
surprised by how good it was. It's a movie that actually feels like it's
about something.
Also, was it just me or did anyone else catch a weird 9/11 vibe in the
movie?
anxious triffid
news:PTDZc.921$N4...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> SF used to be a medium of great expectations. Has it matured into
> realism, or has the audience changed? Sure we still have space
> opera, but it isn't predominant anymore.
Have a look at Star Wars and Star Trek, and then tell me that Space Opera
isn't still predominant.
Ross TenEyck
>I think "The Cold Equations" marked the beginning of the maturation process
>for written SF, and that was over 50 years ago. As for mass media, has
>anyone else been struck by the penetration of sf/fantasy into the
>mainstream? Not only are the films popular, but a lot of them are actually
>very good. LoTR is the obvious example (what could be more mainstream than
>winning the Oscar for beset picture), but also consider movies like "The
>X-Men" and "Spider Man". I caught "Spider Man 2" the other day and was
>surprised by how good it was. It's a movie that actually feels like it's
>about something.
I was struck once, while watching _Futurama,_ at how many science
fiction concepts they felt were common enough knowledge that they
didn't have to explain them.
(Now, granted, _Futurama_ was more than happy to make up science,
or Science!, whenever they felt like it; but I usually got the
impression that they at least knew they were doing it. Unlike,
for instance, Star Trek: <choose your flavor>.)
--
================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ==================
Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen;
ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal
Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.
James Nicoll
Ross TenEyck <ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote:
>"lewy" <le...@dim.com> writes:
>
>>I think "The Cold Equations" marked the beginning of the maturation process
>>for written SF, and that was over 50 years ago. As for mass media, has
>>anyone else been struck by the penetration of sf/fantasy into the
>>mainstream? Not only are the films popular, but a lot of them are actually
>>very good. LoTR is the obvious example (what could be more mainstream than
>>winning the Oscar for beset picture), but also consider movies like "The
>>X-Men" and "Spider Man". I caught "Spider Man 2" the other day and was
>>surprised by how good it was. It's a movie that actually feels like it's
>>about something.
>
>I was struck once, while watching _Futurama,_ at how many science
>fiction concepts they felt were common enough knowledge that they
>didn't have to explain them.
>
>(Now, granted, _Futurama_ was more than happy to make up science,
>or Science!, whenever they felt like it; but I usually got the
>impression that they at least knew they were doing it. Unlike,
>for instance, Star Trek: <choose your flavor>.)
Futurama had a surprising number of people with PhDs in the
sciences on staff. A local chain had Season One for 20 bucks, so
picked it up. The commentary for the lunar episode mentioned that
they'd agonised over the phase Earth was in, until they realised
getting it right would make the scene not work.
And one of them, I forget who, was still bothered by the
'gators in bubble helmets that turn up in one scene.
--
"I mean, you don't seem like a bad guy to me..."
"I don't? I got a death touch, an army of killer robots and a skull
drawn on my chest and I don't look like a bad guy to you? I think
you could be in the wrong business."
Brion K. Lienhart
news:ch83f5$l4g$1...@naig.caltech.edu...
> "lewy" <le...@dim.com> writes:
> I was struck once, while watching _Futurama,_ at how many science
> fiction concepts they felt were common enough knowledge that they
> didn't have to explain them.
>
> (Now, granted, _Futurama_ was more than happy to make up science,
> or Science!, whenever they felt like it; but I usually got the
> impression that they at least knew they were doing it. Unlike,
> for instance, Star Trek: <choose your flavor>.)
That's because several of the staff are PhDs in various hard sciences. If
they don't know something, they know how to look it up. Like in the episode,
"Where the Bugalo Roam"; "We own the entire western hemisphere four point
(something) billion acres." Which if you take a couple minutes to calculate
turns out to be correct
Michael S. Schiffer
news:ch84cq$bka$1...@panix2.panix.com:
>...
> Futurama had a surprising number of people with PhDs in the
> sciences on staff. A local chain had Season One for 20 bucks, so
> picked it up. The commentary for the lunar episode mentioned
> that they'd agonised over the phase Earth was in, until they
> realised getting it right would make the scene not work.
I do dearly love the "Lander Returned to this site by the Historical
Sticklers Society" plate inside the LM at Tranquility Base, to
explain why the ascent stage was there (rather than scattered across
whatever small crater it made after delivering Armstrong and Aldrin
back to the CSM).
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Wayne Throop
: Futurama had a surprising number of people with PhDs in the sciences
: on staff. A local chain had Season One for 20 bucks, so picked it up.
: The commentary for the lunar episode mentioned that they'd agonised
: over the phase Earth was in, until they realised getting it right
: would make the scene not work.
:
: And one of them, I forget who, was still bothered by the 'gators in
: bubble helmets that turn up in one scene.
But that sort of thing is what makes it soooooo cool!
As in funny. Take a cliche that any normal run of hollywierdroid
would just throw in, and show the absurdity of it.
I mean... robot mafia shooting from the runningboards...
but the rounds have meticulous trajectories with proper perspective.
LOLerific.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Ian
> I do dearly love the "Lander Returned to this site by the Historical
> Sticklers Society" plate inside the LM at Tranquility Base, to
> explain why the ascent stage was there (rather than scattered across
> whatever small crater it made after delivering Armstrong and Aldrin
> back to the CSM).
Cigarette-Smoking Man? Perhaps it WAS all a hoax...
Jerry Brown
I still want to know how it can be midnight on 31st December 1999 all
round the world simultaneously.
IIRC, they actually said in one of the commentaries that they were
going to address that, but I guess I'll have to wait for the fifth
season <sniff>.
Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
David M. Palmer
<bri...@comcast.net> wrote:
There's a reason why Bender's serial number is 1729.
Eventually, Star Trek transporters got Heisenberg compensators, but
when Professor Farnsworth says things like "No fair! You changed the
outcome of the race by measuring it!" you know that the writers didn't
learn all of their science by watching old episodes of Roger Ramjet.
http://www.mathsci.appstate.edu/~sjg/simpsonsmath//futuramamath/
http://frontwheeldrive.com/david_x_cohen.html
--
David M. Palmer dmpa...@email.com (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)
Mark Atwood
> That's because several of the staff are PhDs in various hard sciences. If
> they don't know something, they know how to look it up. Like in the episode,
> "Where the Bugalo Roam"; "We own the entire western hemisphere four point
> (something) billion acres." Which if you take a couple minutes to calculate
> turns out to be correct
In the song "Wakko's Universe" there are lots of numbers given, and
they are actually in the correct order of magnitude.
| Everybody lives on a street in a city
| Or a village or a town for what it's worth.
| And they're all inside a country which is part of a continent
| That sits upon a planet known as Earth.
| And the Earth is a ball full of oceans and some mountains
| Which is out there spinning silently in space.
| And living on that Earth are the plants and the animals
| And also the entire human race.
|
| It's a great big universe
| And we're all really puny
| We're just tiny little specks
| About the size of Mickey Rooney.
| It's big and black and inky
| And we are small and dinky
| It's a big universe and we're not.
|
| And we're part of a vast interplanetary system
| Stretching seven hundred billion miles long.
| With nine planets and a sun; we think the Earth's the only one
| That has life on it, although we could be wrong.
| Across the interstellar voids are a billion asteroids
| Including meteors and Halley's Comet too.
| And there's over fifty moons floating out there like balloons
| In a panoramic trillion-mile view.
|
| And still it's all a speck amid a hundred billion stars
| In a galaxy we call the Milky Way.
| It's sixty thousand trillion miles from one end to the other
| And still that's just a fraction of the way.
| 'Cause there's a hundred billion galaxies that stretch across the sky
| Filled with constellations, planets, moons and stars.
| And still the universe extends to a place that never ends
| Which is maybe just inside a little jar!
|
| It's a great big universe
| And we're all really puny
| We're just tiny little specks
| About the size of Mickey Rooney.
| Though we don't know how it got here
| We're an important part here
| It's a big universe and it's ours!
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right, people won't be sure
m...@pobox.com | you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra | http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus
Jerry Brown
I can't speak for the accuracy of the figures, but so far this sounds
awfully similar to The Galaxy Song from 'Monty Python's Meaning of
Life'.
>| It's a great big universe
>| And we're all really puny
>| We're just tiny little specks
>| About the size of Mickey Rooney.
>| Though we don't know how it got here
>| We're an important part here
>| It's a big universe and it's ours!
OK, so the last verse of TGS has a rather different point of view...
"So whenever you are feeling very small and insecure,
Remember how amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And there may be intelligent life somewhere out in space,
But there's bugger all down here on Earth."
Robert Carnegie
>, how...@brazee.net writes
>I was thinking about the U.S. election, with one party making promises
>about
>what it will do, and the other saying that they will be there - and thinking
>that this latter strategy has been working when we live in cynical times.
>We do not believe our politicians and get satisfied with fewer promises.
From outside the U.S., I am not sure which of the parties you
describe is which. I will take a guess that Mr. Kerry offers to
address the nation's problems with new ideas, and Mr. Bush
offers to do it with the same ideas as the last 3.5 years, and you
can decide which you prefer - e.g., if you figure the last 3.5 years
didn't go so good. Of course, this is to oversimplify. Dot-com was
built on Clinton's watch, and fell over because - well, this isn't
what you wanted to talk about, anyway.
>Hoping to not have a political debate from this observation. (If I am
>wrong skip that preamble and go to the following):
>
>SF used to be a medium of great expectations. Has it matured
>into realism, or has the audience changed? Sure we still have
>space opera, but it isn't predominant anymore.
Space travel specifically is not only dangerous but astronomically
expensive, and really is not at all likely to cease to be
astronomically expensive any time soon - say we cut the price in
half at a stroke, it doesn't help much. It's probably fair to say that
science fiction's thoughtful readers and respected writers, i.e. not
the Star Trek fantasists (I enjoy Trek, but I know it's fantasy) have
noticed this, and are more interested in scenarios that are more
real. Due to this single factor, 99.99% of the Galaxy - at a
conservative estimate - just became unavailable for "credible"
works of science fiction that were previously possible.
I think we also have seen more social changes in the real world,
more recently, than in the golden and silver ages of science fiction
- both successes (Women's Lib, gay rights) and failures
(Communism) and somewhere in between (counter-culture) - so
on the one hand, we may have trouble thinking of credible ways to
make the world even /better/, and, on the other, we see how hard it
was and is to make stick the social improvements that we've /got/
- and to keep them from being undone by people who prefer how
things used to be. Which I guess comes back to discussing the
election...
And, heck, each year we have new computers twice as whizzy as
the year before - or whatever the statistic is - and it doesn't /feel/
like the world is being turned upside down all the time. It's a
paradox; rapid technological advance in some areas, no
astounding progress to speak of in others - nothing much really
changes, either way.
Although.... I just re-read Greg Egan's _Quarantine_. In that future,
you don't buy music tracks on albums or CDs - you buy software
that generates new music, different every time. I think that means
that you only ever need to buy one CD in your life, and the RIAA
starve to death. (The book's set in Australia, anyway.)
Robert Carnegie at home, rja.ca...@excite.com at large
--
I am fully aware I may regret this in the morning.
Robert Carnegie
>"lewy" <le...@dim.com> writes:
>
>I was struck once, while watching _Futurama,_ at how many science
>fiction concepts they felt were common enough knowledge that they
>didn't have to explain them.
>
>(Now, granted, _Futurama_ was more than happy to make up science,
>or Science!, whenever they felt like it; but I usually got the
>impression that they at least knew they were doing it. Unlike,
>for instance, Star Trek: <choose your flavor>.)
We all saw most of _Futurama_'s SF concepts in _Star Trek_.
Several times, in re-runs. That's also where the sound effects
came from. (Which is kind of cool.)
Johnny1A
>
> >Hoping to not have a political debate from this observation. (If I am
> >wrong skip that preamble and go to the following):
> >
> >SF used to be a medium of great expectations. Has it matured
> >into realism, or has the audience changed? Sure we still have
> >space opera, but it isn't predominant anymore.
>
> Space travel specifically is not only dangerous but astronomically
> expensive, and really is not at all likely to cease to be
> astronomically expensive any time soon
As with all economic predictions, probabilities become meaningless
more than a few years in the future.
Shermanlee
Paul F. Dietz
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message news:<3gi2k7Bk...@redjac.demon.co.uk>...
>>Space travel specifically is not only dangerous but astronomically
>>expensive, and really is not at all likely to cease to be
>>astronomically expensive any time soon
>
> As with all economic predictions, probabilities become meaningless
> more than a few years in the future.
However, experience with space has been that the predictions of
the rate of progress have been grossly optimistic. There's
a mechanism behind this: when proponents of an idea really want
it to go, wishful thinking will tend to make their predictions sit
just this side of the ragged edge of absurdity. Reality will
almost always be less kind.
Paul
Robert Carnegie
Brown <je...@jwbrown.co.uk.RemoveThisBitToReply> writes
8.5 out of 10 for accuracy. I suggest taking a concensus of
different online versions. And wasn't it The Universe Song, then?
Oh, well.
Johnny1A
> Johnny1A wrote:
> > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message news:<3gi2k7Bk...@redjac.demon.co.uk>...
>
> >>Space travel specifically is not only dangerous but astronomically
> >>expensive, and really is not at all likely to cease to be
> >>astronomically expensive any time soon
> >
> > As with all economic predictions, probabilities become meaningless
> > more than a few years in the future.
>
> However, experience with space has been that the predictions of
> the rate of progress have been grossly optimistic.
Actually, experience shows both. One can find serious examples of
predictions of manned space flight no sooner than the 21st century,
and predictions made after the Apollo landings that were radically
over-optimistic.
The reason for the latter is that they mistook the anomalous
conditions of Apollo years (in the course of under a decade, progress
was so fast that the 'escape tower rocket' atop the Saturn V was
larger and more powerful than the Redstones that carried the first
Mercury astronauts, IIRC).
But as I said, the 60s were anomalous because of political and social
conditions that led to titanic money and resources being poured into a
space project. Apollo topped off the period that also saw America
build interstate highways, create the jumbo jets, lay the foundations
of the later IT revolution, etc. The optimistic predictions tended to
overlook that all this wasn't sustainable.
The pessimist view, popular today, is no more solidly founded than the
optimist view post-Apollo. Conditions from about 1970 on have been
unusually negative for all large-scale activities, not just space
travel. Today, it's a political and social struggle just to maintain
large-scale infrastructure, massive new projects are almost
unthinkable. If the 50s and 60s were the age of "Where there's a
will, there's a way,", today is the age of BANANA (Build Absolutely
Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone/Anything).
This too will pass.
Shermanlee
Paul F. Dietz
> The pessimist view, popular today, is no more solidly founded than the
> optimist view post-Apollo. Conditions from about 1970 on have been
> unusually negative for all large-scale activities, not just space
> travel. Today, it's a political and social struggle just to maintain
> large-scale infrastructure, massive new projects are almost
> unthinkable. If the 50s and 60s were the age of "Where there's a
> will, there's a way,", today is the age of BANANA (Build Absolutely
> Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone/Anything).
Manned space to LEO or beyond didn't really go anywhere because there
wasn't a market for it. This hasn't changed, and doesn't look like it
will change substantially anytime soon. (I view the tourism projections
as another example of the just-this-side-of-absurdity phenomenon.)
Paul
Johnny1A
> Johnny1A wrote:
>
> > The pessimist view, popular today, is no more solidly founded than the
> > optimist view post-Apollo. Conditions from about 1970 on have been
> > unusually negative for all large-scale activities, not just space
> > travel. Today, it's a political and social struggle just to maintain
> > large-scale infrastructure, massive new projects are almost
> > unthinkable. If the 50s and 60s were the age of "Where there's a
> > will, there's a way,", today is the age of BANANA (Build Absolutely
> > Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone/Anything).
>
> Manned space to LEO or beyond didn't really go anywhere because there
> wasn't a market for it. This hasn't changed, and doesn't look like it
> will change substantially anytime soon.
Which goes back to my initial point. Since economic projections
depend on so many other factors, technological, social, political, and
evne religious, any economic projection such as 'doesn't look like it
will change substantially anytime soon' is necessarily provisional.
Past a few year ahead, such projections are basically guesswork.
Shermanlee
Paul F. Dietz
> Which goes back to my initial point. Since economic projections
> depend on so many other factors, technological, social, political, and
> evne religious, any economic projection such as 'doesn't look like it
> will change substantially anytime soon' is necessarily provisional.
> Past a few year ahead, such projections are basically guesswork.
Well, for a sufficiently weasely definition of 'few', I guess.
Manned spaceflight to LEO and beyond is not just slightly beyond
economically rational now, it's far beyond it. There's been desperate
effort to find markets, with little success and much wishful thinking.
It's not at all clear what's going to change this situation
in the next few decades.
Paul
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
> In article <98ednefGitd...@comcast.com>, Brion K. Lienhart
> <bri...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > "Ross TenEyck" <ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> > news:ch83f5$l4g$1...@naig.caltech.edu...
> > > "lewy" <le...@dim.com> writes:
> > > I was struck once, while watching _Futurama,_ at how many science
> > > fiction concepts they felt were common enough knowledge that they
> > > didn't have to explain them.
> > >
> There's a reason why Bender's serial number is 1729.
Which is odd given that Bender doesn't seem to be made
of cubes at all.
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
Danny Sichel
>>>>I was struck once, while watching _Futurama,_ at how many science
>>>>fiction concepts they felt were common enough knowledge that they
>>>>didn't have to explain them.
>>There's a reason why Bender's serial number is 1729.
> Which is odd given that Bender doesn't seem to be made
> of cubes at all.
Well, he was, but they got bent.
Damien R. Sullivan
>It's not at all clear what's going to change this situation
>in the next few decades.
People decide to seriously cut back on fossil fuel use, while continuing to
forswear fission-based power, and fusion continues to be out of reach, so
solar power satellites, and asteroid colonies to build them with, start to
seem economical?
More advanced automation and manufacturing -- robots, but also rapid
prototyping mills, and printable circuits -- would help make small space
populations more useful.
So, spaceplanes get launch costs down to $1000 or $500 a pound instead of
$10,000, some people and a beautiful machine shop get pushed to near-earth
asteroids, another group sails off to one of the more metallic asteroids, and
they start trading and building.
-xx- Damien X-)
Paul F. Dietz
> "Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net> wrote:
>
>
>>It's not at all clear what's going to change this situation
>>in the next few decades.
>
>
> People decide to seriously cut back on fossil fuel use, while continuing to
> forswear fission-based power, and fusion continues to be out of reach, so
> solar power satellites, and asteroid colonies to build them with, start to
> seem economical?
No, that's not at all plausible. Way too many new technologies would have
to be developed and perfected.
> More advanced automation and manufacturing -- robots, but also rapid
> prototyping mills, and printable circuits -- would help make small space
> populations more useful.
We have a lot of that. It doesn't help. The problem is that manufacturing
infrastructure is too interconnected. It also doesn't answer the question
of what all these people in space will do to pay back the investment. They
can't sell things to each other.
> So, spaceplanes get launch costs down to $1000 or $500 a pound instead of
> $10,000, some people and a beautiful machine shop get pushed to near-earth
> asteroids, another group sails off to one of the more metallic asteroids, and
> they start trading and building.
Did you know that launch vehicle procurement was only a few percent of the
NASA budget during the Apollo program, even with that era's expensive expendable
rockets?
Paul
Johnny1A
>
> > So, spaceplanes get launch costs down to $1000 or $500 a pound instead of
> > $10,000, some people and a beautiful machine shop get pushed to near-earth
> > asteroids, another group sails off to one of the more metallic asteroids, and
> > they start trading and building.
>
> Did you know that launch vehicle procurement was only a few percent of the
> NASA budget during the Apollo program, even with that era's expensive expendable
> rockets?
>
> Paul
Not that that proves a lot. NASA's way of doing things isn't
necessary the only way or the best way.
Shermanlee
John Schilling
>Johnny1A wrote:
>> Which goes back to my initial point. Since economic projections
>> depend on so many other factors, technological, social, political, and
>> evne religious, any economic projection such as 'doesn't look like it
>> will change substantially anytime soon' is necessarily provisional.
>> Past a few year ahead, such projections are basically guesswork.
>Well, for a sufficiently weasely definition of 'few', I guess.
>Manned spaceflight to LEO and beyond is not just slightly beyond
>economically rational now, it's far beyond it. There's been desperate
>effort to find markets, with little success and much wishful thinking.
Do you consider the NASA/Industry Commercial Space Transportation Study
of 1994 to be a reasonable assessment of the expected market for space
travel as a function of price? If not, what corrections would you
make and why?
<http://www.hq.nasa.gov/webaccess/CommSpaceTrans/>
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Paul F. Dietz
> Not that that proves a lot. NASA's way of doing things isn't
> necessary the only way or the best way.
Would you care to describe the evidence that would dissuade
you, or is your opinion an unfalsifiable article of faith?
The excuse you have just given could be applied to *any*
negative experience.
Paul
Paul F. Dietz
>>Manned spaceflight to LEO and beyond is not just slightly beyond
>>economically rational now, it's far beyond it. There's been desperate
>>effort to find markets, with little success and much wishful thinking.
>
> Do you consider the NASA/Industry Commercial Space Transportation Study
> of 1994 to be a reasonable assessment of the expected market for space
> travel as a function of price? If not, what corrections would you
> make and why?
>
> <http://www.hq.nasa.gov/webaccess/CommSpaceTrans/>
First, I'd observe that I said *manned spaceflight to LEO and beyond*.
The study you point to has a large component of unmanned satellites.
Second, the study was, in retrospect, much too optimistic about (for
example) Big LEO comsats. Even their 'high probability' scenario
turned out to be too optimistic. *All* the LEO efforts failed commercially.
Iridium's market was too small by a factor of 100!
Third, even with that overoptimism, I'll note that the study says:
We have not been able to prove the commercial space market elastic
enough to enable the revenues per flight to be greater than
the combined payback and operations costs per flight for a completely
commercially developed system. To attract commercial investment
it appears that some level of government participation will be necessary.
Paul
John Schilling
>John Schilling wrote:
>>>Manned spaceflight to LEO and beyond is not just slightly beyond
>>>economically rational now, it's far beyond it. There's been desperate
>>>effort to find markets, with little success and much wishful thinking.
>> Do you consider the NASA/Industry Commercial Space Transportation Study
>> of 1994 to be a reasonable assessment of the expected market for space
>> travel as a function of price? If not, what corrections would you
>> make and why?
>> <http://www.hq.nasa.gov/webaccess/CommSpaceTrans/>
>First, I'd observe that I said *manned spaceflight to LEO and beyond*.
>The study you point to has a large component of unmanned satellites.
Yes, it does. It has a mix of manned and unmanned missions, mostly
identified as such, and so is useful if you want to look at the market
for manned missions, or at the market for unmanned missions, or at the
market for all missions combined.
>Second, the study was, in retrospect, much too optimistic about (for
>example) Big LEO comsats. Even their 'high probability' scenario
>turned out to be too optimistic. *All* the LEO efforts failed commercially.
>Iridium's market was too small by a factor of 100!
OK, where are you reading any of this?
The CSTS 'high probability' scenario was that three of the LEO systems
would *survive*. Specifically, Iridium, Globalstar, and Orbcomm.
The high-probability scenario said *nothing* about the size of the
market for their services, or the commercial success of their
operators.
Iridium, Globalstar, and Orbcomm, survived. They are a market for
space transportation services, which is all the CSTS ever claimed
for them in the high-probability scenario.
Specifically, the high-probability scenario predicted a long-term
market for 29,000 pounds per year launched to LEO in support of
the LEO constellations, assuming no change in launch prices. Over
the past ten years, the three LEO constellations have averaged
19,000 pounds per year to LEO, the discrepancy mostly due to
reductions in the unit mass of the Globalstar and Orbcomm birds.
So, off by a third, not off by a factor of a hundred.
>Third, even with that overoptimism, I'll note that the study says:
> We have not been able to prove the commercial space market elastic
> enough to enable the revenues per flight to be greater than
> the combined payback and operations costs per flight for a completely
> commercially developed system. To attract commercial investment
> it appears that some level of government participation will be
> necessary.
Guven the participants, that should hardly come as a surprise.
But the question was the accuracy and relevance of the CSTS as a
*market study*. Not a business plan. Issues like "combined
payback and operations cost per flight" are on the supply side
of the equation, and outside the scope of a market study.
A business plan needs to consider both sides of that equation,
and LockMart and BoeDonnel and NASA of course have their preferred
ideas about what such a business plan should look like.
But the same market demand curve, is available to be served by
*all* business plans. A potential customer of space transportation
services cares nothing about the internal business plan, source
of financing, cost of operations, or ultimate profitability of
the space transportation provider, only about the cost of the
ticket.
The CSTS, purports to be a family of predictions of the number of
tickets that will be bought, by various market segments, at various
prices. The question is, are they reasonable predictions?
Not, will the people buying the tickets file for bankruptcy, or will
the people selling the tickets hit up the government for a subsidy.
Just, will the tickets be bought and sold? Because if they are,
that's spaceships and cargoes and people, in LEO and beyond, period.
Paul F. Dietz
>>Second, the study was, in retrospect, much too optimistic about (for
>>example) Big LEO comsats. Even their 'high probability' scenario
>>turned out to be too optimistic. *All* the LEO efforts failed commercially.
>>Iridium's market was too small by a factor of 100!
>
>
> OK, where are you reading any of this?
>
> The CSTS 'high probability' scenario was that three of the LEO systems
> would *survive*. Specifically, Iridium, Globalstar, and Orbcomm.
> The high-probability scenario said *nothing* about the size of the
> market for their services, or the commercial success of their
> operators.
>
> Iridium, Globalstar, and Orbcomm, survived. They are a market for
> space transportation services, which is all the CSTS ever claimed
> for them in the high-probability scenario.
>
> Specifically, the high-probability scenario predicted a long-term
> market for 29,000 pounds per year launched to LEO in support of
> the LEO constellations, assuming no change in launch prices. Over
> the past ten years, the three LEO constellations have averaged
> 19,000 pounds per year to LEO, the discrepancy mostly due to
> reductions in the unit mass of the Globalstar and Orbcomm birds.
>
> So, off by a third, not off by a factor of a hundred.
No. In a commercial sense, none of the LEO constellations 'survived'.
They are still being *operated*, but none are making enough money
to justify their construction cost, or (more importantly) their replacement
cost. All will gradually degrade and eventually cease operation.
They are being operated now to make back a few percent of their construction
costs.
The constellations have certainly not validated the launch rate
projections of figure 3.1.5.3-1, even of the 'high probability'
scenario.
> The CSTS, purports to be a family of predictions of the number of
> tickets that will be bought, by various market segments, at various
> prices. The question is, are they reasonable predictions?
In the case of LEO comsats, clearly not.
Paul
Keith Morrison
>No. In a commercial sense, none of the LEO constellations 'survived'.
>
>They are still being *operated*, but none are making enough money
>to justify their construction cost, or (more importantly) their replacement
>cost. All will gradually degrade and eventually cease operation.
>They are being operated now to make back a few percent of their construction
>costs.
They'll be replaced. Right now their use is becoming critical in a
good-sized chunk of the world, including their use by large
corporations with much cash.
--
Keith
Paul F. Dietz
> They'll be replaced. Right now their use is becoming critical in a
> good-sized chunk of the world, including their use by large
> corporations with much cash.
No, they won't, unless the cost of replacing them can be drastically
reduced. No one is going to lend anyone the money that the original
systems required to be built, because the market big enough to earn
enough money to pay back those loans simply doesn't exist.
Iridium cost $5 B, and sold at bankruptcy for something
like $27 M -- half a penny on the dollar.
Paul
Ken from Chicago
how...@brazee.net says...
> I was thinking about the U.S. election, with one party making promises about
> what it will do, and the other saying that they will be there - and thinking
> that this latter strategy has been working when we live in cynical times.
> We do not believe our politicians and get satisfied with fewer promises.
>
> wrong skip that preamble and go to the following):
>
> SF used to be a medium of great expectations. Has it matured into realism,
> or has the audience changed? Sure we still have space opera, but it isn't
> predominant anymore.
>
BABYLON 5
It had the great epic overarching battle between good and evil, kinda,
as well as the dirty realism of politics and warfare.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Iridium died because the internet bubble burst.
However as communication needs or wants increase with increasing
wireless communication of voice and video and data on phones,
televisions and computers the demand will make increased satellites
profitable. Fiber optic wiring can only be strung up so much. Already
companies are discussing mobile cellular tv.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
says...
> "Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net> wrote:
>
> >It's not at all clear what's going to change this situation
> >in the next few decades.
>
> People decide to seriously cut back on fossil fuel use, while continuing to
Would this be the same people who ride around in SUV, pickup trucks,
humvees, limos, personalized tour buses and private jets?
> forswear fission-based power, and fusion continues to be out of reach, so
California is the most liberal state in America and while the population
has grown ten times over during the 90s and not a single new nuclear
power plant was built (which is partly to blame for the energy crisis in
2000, along with power companies just happening to shut down plants for
maintenance and companies selling energy outside of the state for a
profit and those outside companies selling it back for even higher
pries)--not one nuclear plant has been closed.
> solar power satellites, and asteroid colonies to build them with, start to
> seem economical?
No. Destabilize the Middle East and jack up the price of oil to $100 a
barrel and then solar power starts to look economic-hey, that's it! That
explains Bush's action in Iraq, Bush is trying to ween America and the
world off oil!
> More advanced automation and manufacturing -- robots, but also rapid
> prototyping mills, and printable circuits -- would help make small space
> populations more useful.
>
> So, spaceplanes get launch costs down to $1000 or $500 a pound instead of
> $10,000, some people and a beautiful machine shop get pushed to near-earth
> asteroids, another group sails off to one of the more metallic asteroids, and
> they start trading and building.
>
> -xx- Damien X-)
>
Make it a "status" thing. Celebrities and the ultra-rich spend as much
on multiple mansions around the world. What biggest status symbol than
to have one's on home in space--or at least a time share like some have
on G4 or G5 or other private jets.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Ultra-rich tourism / status symbol. Forget cliffside homes, beachside
homes, forget oceanviews, imagine an Earthview. That's right, you could
have a home in space that makes Bill Gates green with envy. One hour
from liftoff you could be relaxing in your home literally above it all.
That's less time it takes to fly from most jet flights. For the low low
price of $99,999,999.99 you can have a HOME IN SPAAAAAAACE!
Or for a low price of $19,999,999.99 you can have a timeshare of your
Cosmo Condo, for when you REALLY want to "get away from it all" for two
glorious weeks out of the year.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Price excludes tax, shipping and handling, and closing costs.
Paul F. Dietz
> Iridium died because the internet bubble burst.
No, Iridium died because the market for the service it provided
was far too small to support it.
> However as communication needs or wants increase with increasing
> wireless communication of voice and video and data on phones,
> televisions and computers the demand will make increased satellites
> profitable. Fiber optic wiring can only be strung up so much. Already
> companies are discussing mobile cellular tv.
Terrestrial broadband systems are proliferating. This is supposed
to help mobile satellite providers... how? The proliferation of GSM
around the world is one of the things that helped kill the big LEO
systems.
Paul
James Nicoll
Ken from Chicago <kwicker...@amertech.net> wrote:
>
>California is the most liberal state in America and while the population
>has grown ten times over during the 90s and not a single new nuclear
Huh. California' current population is about 33 million so in
1994 it would have had 3 million people, or about 1/3rd as many people
than then resided in Los Angeles, California? How'd they do that, exactly?
--
"I mean, you don't seem like a bad guy to me..."
"I don't? I got a death touch, an army of killer robots and a skull
drawn on my chest and I don't look like a bad guy to you? I think
you could be in the wrong business."
John Schilling
>>>Second, the study was, in retrospect, much too optimistic about (for
>>>example) Big LEO comsats. Even their 'high probability' scenario
>>>turned out to be too optimistic. *All* the LEO efforts failed commercially.
>>>Iridium's market was too small by a factor of 100!
>> OK, where are you reading any of this?
>> The CSTS 'high probability' scenario was that three of the LEO systems
>> would *survive*. Specifically, Iridium, Globalstar, and Orbcomm.
>> The high-probability scenario said *nothing* about the size of the
>> market for their services, or the commercial success of their
>> operators.
>> Iridium, Globalstar, and Orbcomm, survived. They are a market for
>> space transportation services, which is all the CSTS ever claimed
>> for them in the high-probability scenario.
>> Specifically, the high-probability scenario predicted a long-term
>> market for 29,000 pounds per year launched to LEO in support of
>> the LEO constellations, assuming no change in launch prices. Over
>> the past ten years, the three LEO constellations have averaged
>> 19,000 pounds per year to LEO, the discrepancy mostly due to
>> reductions in the unit mass of the Globalstar and Orbcomm birds.
>> So, off by a third, not off by a factor of a hundred.
>No. In a commercial sense, none of the LEO constellations 'survived'.
Define, "In a commercial sense". Then explain why an external vendor
*cares*.
If I'm running a passenger line shipping wannabe prospectors to
California or the Yukon or whatever during a Gold Rush, I *do not
care* that most of them are doomed to go broke. They are still
buying tickets on my ships, and there are lots more where they
came from. Plus all the ones buying tickets to come out and sell
shovels to gold miners, plus all the disillusioned gold miners
buying tickets home, plus the ones who find some unexpected market
that involves trade back east, and then there's the lucky ones
who don't go broke after all. The Gold Rush was a commercial
failure, but California was still settled.
Same thing for the space launch industry. It is the *material*
survival of the LEO constellations that matter. Survival in the
material sense means the satellites are launched and, as they reach
EOL, are replaced. That's a market for launch services. How the
customer pays for the launches, whether they make a profit from
them, how often they go into and out of bankruptcy, whether they
survive "in a commercial sense", is utterly irrelevant so long as
they survive in a material sense.
>They are still being *operated*, but none are making enough money
>to justify their construction cost, or (more importantly) their
>replacement cost.
You are aware that Iridium LLC has resumed launching replacement
satellites since the bankruptcy, right? Seems like they have managed
to come up with the money to *actually pay for* the replacement cost.
Whether or how they can "justify" that is, again, irrelevant.
Globalstar and Orbcomm have formally anounced their intent to start
replacement launches in 2005/2006, about when originally planned
IIRC. This has not happened yet, but I see no particular reason
to disbelieve the announcement.
>All will gradually degrade and eventually cease operation.
That is a prediction that the constellations will not materially
survive. Dealing as it does with material survival, it is at least
relevant in a way that commercial survival is not. But, it is still
a *prediction*, and an unsupported one at that. To date, all three
of the constellations *have* survived, and it is premature of you to
say that none of them have survived.
>They are being operated now to make back a few percent of their construction
>costs.
No, they are being operated now to make a profit for their current owners.
The construction costs are sunk, and the people who financed them have lost.
The current owners will continue to operate the systems, including launching
replacements as necessary, for as long as it is profitable to them and with
absolutely zero thought to the original construction costs.
>The constellations have certainly not validated the launch rate
>projections of figure 3.1.5.3-1, even of the 'high probability'
>scenario.
The constellations have demonstrably, over the 1994-2003 period where we
have both CSTS predictions and historical data, achieved 70-80% of the
high probability scenario's predicted launch rate per figure 3.1.5.3-1
You are predicting that this will not continue, which is fair enough,
but that is matching your prediction against the CSTS's prediction.
When the historical record is matched against the CSTS, the CSTS
high probability scenario (which, again, said nothing about the
commercial success of the constellation builders) doesn't look that
bad.
But you've made your position pretty clear as well, and while I don't
think you have adequately supported it, it is a testable prediction
and maybe in another ten years you'll get to come back and say, "I
told you so".
Paul F. Dietz
>>No. In a commercial sense, none of the LEO constellations 'survived'.
>
> Define, "In a commercial sense".
I believe that was clear from context.
To justify the launch rate projections (and, specifically, the launch
rate projections beyond now, which is needed to justify RLV
development) the systems must be commercially viable not just
as efforts to exploit otherwise useless constellations, but
as efforts yielding enough profits to justify continuing
replenishment.
I seriously doubt the constellations are viable in that second sense,
announcements notwithstanding. The systems sold at bankruptcy
for very small fractions of their cost, and the cost of building
and launching satellites has not decreased enormously since
that time.
> You are aware that Iridium LLC has resumed launching replacement
> satellites since the bankruptcy, right?
They bought a warehouse with spares for almost nothing as part of
the bankruptcy. I do not know, but would not be surprised if the
launches were also prepaid.
> Globalstar and Orbcomm have formally anounced their intent to start
> replacement launches in 2005/2006, about when originally planned
> IIRC. This has not happened yet, but I see no particular reason
> to disbelieve the announcement.
Lots of announcements got made in the LEO business. Remember Teledesic?
One reason to announce replacements is to keep existing customers from
defecting. This motivation applies even if the replacements don't
actually happen. In Globalstar's case, IIRC they've been having
reliability problems with some of the satellites.
>>They are being operated now to make back a few percent of their construction
>>costs.
>
> No, they are being operated now to make a profit for their current owners.
> The construction costs are sunk, and the people who financed them have lost.
> The current owners will continue to operate the systems, including launching
> replacements as necessary, for as long as it is profitable to them and with
> absolutely zero thought to the original construction costs.
However, if they are only making back a few percent of the construction
cost, how can they possibly justify rebuilding the constellations?
The money just won't be there.
>>The constellations have certainly not validated the launch rate
>>projections of figure 3.1.5.3-1, even of the 'high probability'
>>scenario.
>
> The constellations have demonstrably, over the 1994-2003 period where we
> have both CSTS predictions and historical data, achieved 70-80% of the
> high probability scenario's predicted launch rate per figure 3.1.5.3-1
The 'high probability' scenario had one Big LEO system. Two were actually
launched (Iridium and Globalstar), and those launches were front-loaded
in that time interval.
When it became clear that the market for Big LEO systems was much
smaller than had been hoped, the launch rate plummeted.
This does *not* validate the launch rate predictions in that graph,
which show continuing replenishment at quasi-steady launch rates.
Paul
William December Starr
Ken from Chicago <kwicker...@amertech.net> said:
> Ultra-rich tourism / status symbol. Forget cliffside
> homes, beachside homes, forget oceanviews, imagine an
> Earthview. That's right, you could have a home in
> space that makes Bill Gates green with envy.
Or possibly spacesickness.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Ken from Chicago
> In article <MPG.1bb1f96ef...@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
> Ken from Chicago <kwicker...@amertech.net> said:
>
> > Ultra-rich tourism / status symbol. Forget cliffside
> > homes, beachside homes, forget oceanviews, imagine an
> > Earthview. That's right, you could have a home in
> > space that makes Bill Gates green with envy.
>
> Or possibly spacesickness.
>
>
I'm sure your Friendly Pharmaceutical Factory has something that can
take care of that.
-- Ken from Chicago
phil hunt
>
>Ultra-rich tourism / status symbol. Forget cliffside homes, beachside
>homes, forget oceanviews, imagine an Earthview. That's right, you could
>have a home in space that makes Bill Gates green with envy.
And if it was all running on Free Software, it would piss off his
Billyshitness even more.
--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)