A voice from the past
Keith Henson
remember I was one of the founders of the L-5 Society, and that after
that I was very active in cryonics.
Last few years I have been involved in something else (see below) but
a few days ago I reread Freeman Dyson's chapter on Pilgram, Saint and
Spacemen in Disturbing the Universe. Freeman permitted the L-5 Society
to print that chapter in the L5 News back in the late 70s.
I have noticed recently that people here have been talking about reduction
factors of ten in space transportation. This is a good start, but (read
the book) Freeman makes a case that the overall cost needs a reduction
factor (or an increase factor in wealth) of about 10,000 for it to be self
financed by those who go. A hundred fold reduction in cost and the
average person's income rising by a factor of 100 would do it.
I expect that to happen, but not soon.
In the mean time I have stayed busy. I learned enough surgery to open a
chest and put a person on cardiac bypass for one of the cryonics
organizations.
Since 1995 I have been deeply involved in the continuing war between
scientology and the net. This is from the request for cert submitted
recently to the Supreme Court in a case where scientology sued me over
copyright violation for exposing one of their criminal instruction manuals
on the net.
*********
From "Questions Presented"
(1) Was the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals so
violative of Petitioner's First Amendment right to freedom of speech that
this Court should exercise its power of supervision to (a) review and
correct the clearly erroneous fashion in which the statutory defense of
fair use to copyright infringement was interpreted and applied and (b)
vacate (or order vacated) on First Amendment grounds both the wrongful
injunction against Petitioner and the punitive imposition on Petitioner of
a large statutory damages award and a large legal fees award?
(2) In the alternative, if the Ninth Circuit correctly interpreted
and applied existing precedents, does the First Amendment require that
each of the four factors of the statutory fair use defense to copyright
infringement instead be applied liberally in favor of an alleged infringer
when the alleged infringer has engaged in political speech and social
commentary with no effort at financial gain and when the alleged infringer
can be threatened with a punitive award of statutory damages?
(30 pages, $75k, of good stuff left out)
>From the Conclusion:
The unprecedented judgment below of $75,000 for a single alleged act
of copyright infringement, for speech that was noncommercial, not intended
to supplant the market for the subject works, and purely for the purpose
of protest and criticism, conflicts with fundamental First Amendment
guarantees as defined by this Court. Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully
requests that this Petition for Writ of Certiorari be granted.
http://www.xmission.com/~mirele/keithcert.html
Keith Henson
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey
> It has been years since I posted into a space related group. Few may
> remember I was one of the founders of the L-5 Society, and that after
> that I was very active in cryonics.
And a significant player in persuading the U.S. government not to
ratify the Moon Treaty of 1999. And a prophet of nanotechnology. And
a heck of a storyteller.
--
___ O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/
/ / - ~ -~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
/__// \ (_) (_) / | \
| | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
\ / Bitnet: Sic transit gloria mundi
- - Internet: HIG...@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
~ SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
Rand Simberg
hig...@fnald.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>In article <7sb9tb$m...@dfw-ixnews16.ix.netcom.com>, Keith Henson <hkhe...@netcom8.netcom.com> writes:
>> It has been years since I posted into a space related group. Few may
>> remember I was one of the founders of the L-5 Society, and that after
>> that I was very active in cryonics.
>
>And a significant player in persuading the U.S. government not to
>ratify the Moon Treaty of 1999.
That's the Moon Treaty of 1979, unless they're up to some new
shenanigans this year of which I was previously unaware...
************************************************************************
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org
"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Replace first . with @ and throw out the "@trash." to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: postm...@fbi.gov
Thomas F. Radloff
> ratify the Moon Treaty of 1999.
Moon Treaty of 1999?
TFR
punder...@my-deja.com
Keith Henson <hkhe...@netcom8.netcom.com> wrote:
> It has been years since I posted into a space related group. Few may
> remember I was one of the founders of the L-5 Society, and that after
> that I was very active in cryonics.
>
I hope you kick their lyin' money-grubbin' butts.
I belonged to L-5. You were a legend. I also read about your stated
plan of meeting up with all your replicants at the other side of
galaxy. Save me a seat.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tom Neff
--
Tom Neff <tn...@bigfoot.com>
"My God, Thiokol, when do you
want me to launch, next April?"
Keith Henson
:> And a significant player in persuading the U.S. government not to
:> ratify the Moon Treaty of 1999.
: Moon Treaty of 1999?
Typo, 79-80. But if anyone would like to see something from this
historical event, I could post "Star Laws," an article I wrote for
*Reason* magazine in the early 80s.
Keith Henson
Tom Abbott
What do you mean were!! :)
> I also read about your stated
>plan of meeting up with all your replicants at the other side of
>galaxy. Save me a seat.
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
I'm an L-5 former member, myself. Sure did hate to see the merger;
I think we lost a lot because of it. The L-5 Society was special to
me.
TA
Keith Henson
: In article <7sb9tb$m...@dfw-ixnews16.ix.netcom.com>,
: Keith Henson <hkhe...@netcom8.netcom.com> wrote:
snip
:> http://www.xmission.com/~mirele/keithcert.html
:>
:> Keith Henson
: I hope you kick their lyin' money-grubbin' butts.
Working on it. Got *lots* of help.
: I belonged to L-5. You were a legend.
(blush)
I also read about your stated
: plan of meeting up with all your replicants at the other side of
: galaxy. Save me a seat.
Far edge party. Two things you can do to help claim your seat. Work on
any aspect of nanotech including computers, and if that does not come
through soon enough, have a backup plan, a cryonics suspension contract.
(Cost is modest).
If I can find a copy of the Far Edge Party proposal, I will post it.
Keith Henson
Keith Henson
: On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:15:08 GMT, punder...@my-deja.com wrote:
snip
:>I hope you kick their lyin' money-grubbin' butts.
:>
:>I belonged to L-5. You were a legend.
: What do you mean were!! :)
:> I also read about your stated
:>plan of meeting up with all your replicants at the other side of
:>galaxy. Save me a seat.
:>
:>
:>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
:>Before you buy.
: I'm an L-5 former member, myself. Sure did hate to see the merger;
: I think we lost a lot because of it. The L-5 Society was special to
: me.
I had mixed feelings about the merger myself. Problem was that the L-5
Society was taken (by the people who followed my former wife and myself)
in a direction where it was in the same niche as NSI. Ecological
considerations made it likely that one would fail or they would merge.
My opinion was asked. By that point it had already lost focus on the
migration into space factor which brought it into existence and there was
nothing on the horizon which looked like a "driver" to get space colonies
going. I had to say that it really didn't seem to make much difference--
sadly.
Since then I have not seen anything to change that opinion. Eventually,
with a 100 fold fall in the cost of going into space and a 100 fold
increase in average wealth, we can go on our own resources. Nanotech will
offer that much and more, but you have to 1) live or get your software to
that era, and 2) keep your dream of going into space (and staying in the
"real world" as opposed to the perhaps more attractive cyber environment).
As someone who has played too much Doom, I feel the second may be harder
than the first.
Keith Henson
wm...@my-deja.com
Keith Henson <hkhe...@netcom8.netcom.com> wrote:
> remember I was one of the founders of the L-5 Society, and that after
> that I was very active in cryonics.
>
> Last few years I have been involved in something else (see below) but
> a few days ago I reread Freeman Dyson's chapter on Pilgram, Saint and
> Spacemen in Disturbing the Universe. Freeman permitted the L-5
Society
> to print that chapter in the L5 News back in the late 70s.
>
> I have noticed recently that people here have been talking about
reduction
> factors of ten in space transportation. This is a good start, but
(read
> the book) Freeman makes a case that the overall cost needs a reduction
> factor (or an increase factor in wealth) of about 10,000 for it to be
self
> financed by those who go. A hundred fold reduction in cost and the
> average person's income rising by a factor of 100 would do it.
>
> I expect that to happen, but not soon.
Actually, if you assume an increasingly cost-effective means to impart
large momenta to objects without heating them, you obtain an ordered
increase in the economic utilization of space based assets.
I have stated this in detail elsewhere, and repeat it briefly here;
1. Suborbital transport of small payloads of high (negative) value:
Nuclear warfare utility. ALREADY IN PLACE.
2. Orbital transport of moderate payloads. Telecom utility.
WORKING - current state of art.
3. Orbital transport of large payloads. Solar Power utility.
10 to 100 fold reduction in launch costs. 10-30 years.
4. Very large orbiting payloads - Expand Solar power utility
to use efficient solar pumped lasers to drive laser powered
transport. Transport utility. 20-50 years
5. Very large interplanetary payloads - return asteroid fragments
to Earth orbit, and orbit remotely operated factories to
manufacture things on orbit. (100 to 1000 fold reduction
in launch costs) Manufacturing utility. 40-100 years.
6. Agriculture- expand manufacturing to include food fiber.
50-100 years.
7. Residential - use agri/biosphere variants to build self
sustaining residences on orbit. Use variant of
transport utility to populate residence.
75-150 years.
8. Interplanetary society - build residential spacehabs with
propulsive capability. (10,000 to 100,000 fold reduction)
100-200 years.
9. Interstellar exploration - 1 million fold reduction in launch
cost. (measured by momentum, i.e. regularly achieve large
fractions of light speed). 100-200 years.
Success in the earlier stages will support technical development that
will allow later stage development to take place.
[snip]
Keith Henson
: 3. Orbital transport of large payloads. Solar Power utility.
: 10 to 100 fold reduction in launch costs. 10-30 years.
snip
: 9. Interstellar exploration - 1 million fold reduction in launch
: cost. (measured by momentum, i.e. regularly achieve large
: fractions of light speed). 100-200 years.
You might be right. On the other hand, it could never happen, or happen
much faster. Super expotential growth in knowledge is an awesome thing.
In any case, if you want to go, you can get there, it just requires
giving up ideas such as the inevitibility of death.
Keith Henson
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
Yo, Keith! 8-)
In article <7spse6$m...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, Keith Henson
<hkhe...@netcom8.netcom.com> wrote:
> wm...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : 3. Orbital transport of large payloads. Solar Power utility.
> : 10 to 100 fold reduction in launch costs. 10-30 years.
>
> snip
>
> : 9. Interstellar exploration - 1 million fold reduction in launch
> : cost. (measured by momentum, i.e. regularly achieve large
> : fractions of light speed). 100-200 years.
>
> You might be right. On the other hand, it could never happen, or happen
> much faster. Super expotential growth in knowledge is an awesome thing.
Not just growth in knowledge, but growth in the number of and types
of channels that information is spread, and the "reduction of friction"
within those channels. If we have enough synthesists who can take
different information streams (e.g. biochemistry and information
processing) and produce new ways of looking at both (e.g. bioinformatics),
the results could truly be incredible.
Also, I'd take a bit of issue with the earier poster's timeline for
"expand[ing] manufacturing to include food fiber - 50-100 years."
I'll go out on a limb and predict custom food manufacture within
the next 15 years. We are already experimenting with making plants
and microbes manufacture custom chemicals, without knowing the
complete genomes of these organisms. Once we solve two big problems,
mapping the genomes (at heart merely a database problem) and predicting
how proteins fold (non-trivial, according to my buddy who's doing
his thesis on it), we'll have reduced cellular processes to data
processing problems. Let's say that in 20 years, "beefsteak tomatoes"
might be more descriptive than figurative! Either that, or our
grandkids will be singing the "Mississippi Blues." *
> In any case, if you want to go, you can get there, it just requires
> giving up ideas such as the inevitibility of death.
As long as we don't give up the idea of remaining human in the
process. Minsky et.al. aside, I have a problem with accepting
that a copy of my brain patterns fed into a sophisticated CPU
would really be "me" or even truly "human." I'd like to keep
*this* particular copy going, for as long as possible! 8-)
Cap.
* Auth: Kathleen Ann Goonan; Pub: Tor Books; ISBN: 0312868936
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.1
iQA/AwUBN/HjsbztfgpKlX7qEQLtoACgr+6e/X4O//Pc0bBDFRnjxZVtPmIAn38X
y94nN3lXwPNUk+hLu6nGisJ9
=Xu4U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
"By the taping of my glasses,
something geeky this way passes" Captain Nerd
cpt...@nerdwatch.com
http://www.nerdwatch.com
Keith Henson
would be to make it more people friendly.
[I was collecting a mess of stuff for Judge Whyte to review in camera
and one of the things the Scientologist wanted was material on my
publications (so they can confiscate the copyrights perhaps?). Though
dated, this is one of my best efforts. It was originally published in
*Reason* Magazine, Aug., 1982. As long as I was generating a copy for
Judge Whyte, I ran an extra one off and fed it through the scanner.
Enjoy --Keith]
STAR LAWS
[Editorial comment--It won't be long till people are living and
working in space, but existing space law makes short shrift of human
rights.]
by H. Keith Henson and Arel Lucas
With tears in his eyes, the commander of the US moon base spoke
to the woman begging for asylum.
"Sonya, my personal sympathies are with you. But I have my
authorities above me. I have to do what is required. You will have
to return to your base."
"Please!" pleaded Sonya. "They will kill me. I will not go
back."
The commander reluctantly left his office and admitted the
Russians. Dr. Gale Roberts, one of the civilian scientists at the
base, later recounted the incident to the press.
"We could here the woman's cries for help. She was on her
knees praying and crying, 'Oh God help me.' The Russians came in.
Sometimes I couldn't see her, but I could hear her screaming. Then
she ran to the upper deck. Her face was all bloody.
"She hid for a while, but three more Russians were let in.
They found her, beat her unconscious. Then they tied her in a blanket
and carried her out the airlock.
"We're not even sure they put a suit on her in the airlock,"
said Dr. Roberts. "Nobody was permitted to look.''
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Hypothetical overstatement? Not at all. Change "Sonya" to
"Simas," and moon base to Coast Guard Cutter *Vigilant*, and you have
an incident that occurred in November 1970. The US ship and a Russian
ship had met off Gays Head near Boston to discuss inspection
procedures called for by a recently signed fishing treaty. Simas
Kirdurka, a Lithuanian radio operator, who in 21 years in the Russian
merchant marine had never been allowed ashore at a foreign port, saw
his chance and jumped to the Coast Guard ship.
State Department bureaucrats who didn't want to take chances
with "delicate negotiations," and Coast Guard officials on shore who
disliked one of "their" ships being used for a defection, gave orders
that Simas be returned to his ship. A considerable amount of violence
on the US ship was required to accomplish the task. It was some time
before it was known whether Simas was alive or dead. (See *Time* or
*Newsweek,* Dec.14, 1970, if you want more details.)
The story leaked to the press over a period of weeks.
President Nixon was furious when he heard about it, fuming that the
image of the country as a haven for defectors would be ruined. The
ensuing uproar forced the two shore-based Coast Guard officials
involved to resign in disgrace and left a black mark on the record of
the captain of the *Vigilant* for allowing the violent abduction to
take place on his ship. Besides broken bones and kidney damage from
his beatings, Simas was convicted of treason and sent to a Siberian
prison camp. The news services pointed out that, in giving him back,
the US government had violated not only its tradition of giving
sanctuary but also Article 33 of the Geneva Convention, which states:
"No contracting state shall expel or return a refugee in any manner
whatsoever . . . where his life or freedom would be threatened."
There are no treaties requiring the return of defectors on the
high seas. Three years before the incident on the *Vigilant,*
however, the US government signed the first of several treaties that
some will interpret as *requiring* the return of defectors who try it
in space.
Should anyone care? You should if you would like to live out
there someday. Being able to leave your country and be taken in by
another is one of the strongest checks on governments against abuse of
civil rights. Even countries with very good records, like the United
States and Sweden, have driven people to leave. Examples are the
Hutterites who were imprisoned for refusing to fight in World War I
(most of them afterwards left the States for Canada) and Ingmar
Bergman, who chose to leave Sweden a few years ago because he was
being taxed at more than 100 percent of his income.
The people who make up governments, whether or not the society
is a "free" one, don't like the idea of those whom they control being
able to escape. Space dwellers are going to have a rough time with
civil rights if they are subject to repressive agreements between
faraway governments to keep them under control. The Soviet Union is
especially concerned about this, and so far, the Western governments
have gone along with them in a series of "agreements."
The treaty provisions that concern us are: Article VIII of the
1967 Space Treaty, which reads, "A State . . . shall retain
jurisdiction and control over such object [spacecraft] and over any
personnel thereof"; Article IV of the Rescue Agreement, which enjoins
signers to return personnel, willing or not, to the launching
authority; and Article XII of the Moon Treaty (not signed by the US
government), which declares, "States . . . shall retain jurisdiction
and control over their personnel."
These space treaty provisions stand in stark contrast to a
truly landmark document, the United Nations Declaration of Human
Rights (1948). In Article 14, Section 1, it states, "Everyone has the
right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."
Article 15, Section 2, declares, "No one shall be . . . denied the
right to change his nationality."
If someone were to ask for asylum in space or on the moon, the
president might ignore or rule inapplicable these fairly clear treaty
provisions--provided, of course, the president found out in time.
Obviously, this cannot be counted on. It was more than a week before
the president found out about the Simas Kirdurka incident, and then
only through the newspapers. The president is the only authority who
could decide some thing as drastic as suspending a treaty provision.
Even then, what would happen if SALT XXXIV were in a critical
stage? Bureaucratic functionaries threw Simas to the wolves in the
absence of a return of sailors on the high seas treaty. They also got
badly burned in the incident.
The future bureaucrats faced with a Kirdurka incident in space
will have an easier time handing back an asylum seeker. Customary
legal practice is that if two laws (and treaties are laws) are in
conflict, the more recent law shall be enforced. If the Moon Treaty
were signed by the US government, there would he *three* UN space
treaties applicable to a Kirdurka-type incident, all postdating the
Declaration of Human Rights (which was only a General Assembly
resolution and considered by some to be nonbinding anyway.)
This isn't the only loophole for the violation of human rights
to be found in space treaties. Nothing so characterizes the lack of
human rights in a totalitarian police state as the midnight knock on
the door by storm troopers who do not need to justify a search and
obtain a warrant from a judge. Fresh memories of Nazi Germany may
have inspired Article 12 of the Declaration of Human Rights: "No one
shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family,
home . . . . Everyone has the right to protection of the law against
such interference." Contrast this with the Moon Treaty, Article XV:
"all . . . installations on the Moon shall be open to other States."
Article XV does require advance notice of the "visit" and
"consultations" for safety, but, if you don't like strangers poking
around your home, you're out of luck, because under these treaties,
there will be no "protection of the law" out there to defend you.
How did these UN-sanctioned human right wind up being given
such short shrift over the last 20 years of space law negotiations?
Perhaps the most important factor is the change in the UN voting
balance due to the increased membership of small, non-Western states
in the United Nations. The General Assembly is quite a different
organization today from that of 1948. According to Prof. John P.
Humphrey, an expert in international protection of human rights, the
new majority is less interested in the traditional civil and political
rights than in questions of national self-determination and economic
equality between states.
The new member's emphasis on intercountry economic equality is
clearly expressed in Article XI of the Moon Treaty. A key phrase
there is *common heritage*, a concept given meaning by many years of
debate in the context of the Law of the Seas (LOS) negotiations. Most
countries in the world consider "common heritage" to be equivalent to
"common property," not to be touched (economically developed) without
everyone's permission.
Implementing this idea for seabed mining leads to an
"international regime" with unlimited power to administer the "common
property." In the final LOS Treaty draft, the "Seabed Authority" is
given the power to authorize and limit extraction from the seabed, to
tax profits and production without limits, to force the transfer of
mining technology to itself, and finally to shut down all other
entities mining the seabed.
Under these conditions, it is no wonder that most of the
interest in seabed mining has vanished. Extending, or even
threatening to extend such confiscatory terms to the moon and
asteroids would be a disaster to the human race. Without that most
reliable of human drives (self-interest), the space resources of
low-cost energy and materials needed to avert stark poverty for most
of the human race seem unlikely to be developed. A "common heritage"
we would have indeed: common poverty for all. US space treaty
negotiators went to great effort to disclaim the "common property"
definition of "common heritage," but if the LOS negotiations are any
indication, the views of the majority will eventually be accepted.
One casualty of the "common property" concept is private
ownership of real property. Not having any place to call one's own is
psychologically degrading to humans, who are basically territorial
creatures. The authors of the Declaration of Human Rights recognized
this in Article 17, Section 1, which reads, "Everyone has the right to
own property alone as well as in association with others."
This ban on land ownership is only one of many ways space law
departs from earth laws. Though it drew some of its concepts from sea
law, airspace law, and Antarctic treaties, space law, as we now have
it, was developed only to serve the needs of states. The result could
have been anticipated: unprecedented expansion of the powers of states
at the expense of people and those legal persons known as
corporations.
One example: if an airliner crashes outside of its country of
ownership, the company that owns the airliner is liable for specific,
and limited, damages under international law (the Warsaw Convention).
However, if a satellite owned by a communications company crashes, the
*launching state* bears unlimited liability. This provision is used
by governments of otherwise free-enterprise countries to justify tight
control over companies doing business in space. An example is Comsat,
chartered by the US government and required to have government
appointed members on its board of directors.
Human rights in space probably took such a beating simply
because nobody was watching. "The price of liberty is eternal
vigilance" is as true today as it was when Wendell Phillips put it in
an antislavery speech before the Civil War. No opposition to the
provisions of the space treaties with their potential for abuses of
human rights surfaced until those who are looking forward to living
out there started looking into the consequences. In spite of their
working for NASA, the negotiators do not seem to think people will
ever make their homes out there. Missions by rigidly controlled
military personnel? Yes. Settlements by ordinary people? Officially
precluded by the 1978 US Civil Space Policy.
Setting up repressive conditions for future space settlers
thus becomes unimportant in comparison to more immediate benefits to
our government such as obtaining resources from despotic countries and
securing markets for our products. Believe it or not, this argument
was actually made in public as a reason to support the Moon Treaty.
One thing is clear, however: these "agreements between states" cannot
stand up to scrutiny by concerned free citizens. The future rights of
space-dwelling humankind are being thrown away to appease countries
where human rights are tragically bad joke.
Simas Kirdurka's story, thanks to the efforts of many people,
had a happy ending. The Lithuanian community in the United States
began to lobby for his release the day after he was handed back to the
Russians. Someone discovered that his mother had been born in
Brooklyn. They even found her baptismal certificate at St. Mary of
the Angels Catholic Church in Brooklyn. Yes, all along Simas was
legally an American citizen. After months of delay, in July of 1974,
Congress officially confirmed Kirdurka's US citizenship. Six weeks
later, in response to belated pressure on the Soviets by the State
Department, he and his family boarded a plane to New York.
And what happened to Sonya? We hope they put a space suit on
her in the airlock. But wouldn't it be better not to have to depend
on the good will of distant authorities? There is no excuse for human
rights to be compromised as they have been in the space treaties to
date. While the treaties may have been negotiated with the best of
intentions to regulate the activities of states out there, they are
clearly not a basis for laws under which free people could live.
The latest of these "agreements," the Moon Treaty, was
accepted by the US negotiators at the United Nations in the summer of
1979. Several groups, most of the science fiction magazines, and many
concerned individuals objected strenuously. As a result, the treaty
was not signed by then President Carter nor submitted to the Senate
for ratification. If pushed, the Reagan administration might formally
reject the Moon Treaty as it finally did with the Law of the Sea
Treaty. They might even withdraw the US from the earlier space
treaties or negotiate strong human-rights and free-enterprise
additions to them.
There may never be a better time to try. The rights you save
may be your own.
********************
H. Keith Henson was a founder and the first president of the L-5
Society, an organization formed to foster space development. He is
currently working as a systems analyst. Arel Lucas is the former
editor of L-5 News and one of the founders of a computer firm for
which she is now working.
[Update 16 years later, 1998. The US has not ratified the Moon Treaty
to this day, though every few years it gets lip service by US
international diplomats.]
Atlan1
world," -- "Outer space, ..., is not subject to national appropriation by claim
of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means," -- "The
activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, ..., shall require
authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the
Treaty," -- "organization of the world and every person in it," -- "nations are
obsolete," and all the like words and phrases, send totalitarians into absolute
orgasms of pure delight. These are their words, the most certain means to
absolute power and the rule of one, the rule of one nobility. Commonism (sic),
mediocracy (sic), collectivism, centralism (centerism), Big Tent, consensus of
all or most, total quality management, total quality organization, these are
all reduction to oneness, reduction to the rule of one. But power corrupts,
and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Tyranny's measure is anarchy, and the
greater the tyranny, the greater the measure of anarchy. There is no greater
tyranny than an iron curtain, a great wall, surrounding and enclosing an entire
world of people off from any possible mindsets for and means to mass exodus to
the vast wilds of the space frontier and freedom. Anarchy, The Lord of the
Flies, Animalism, Statism, the total confusion of language, science, meaning
and comprehension -- none of it freedom, law, or order, none of it anything
like freedom, law, or order, will dog that world, this world, with insanities,
disorders, consequences, and growing costs.
General L. Bradford, Jr.
David Anderman
back on a belief in the afterlife as the only means of achieving the goal.
I would rather work to accomplish the goal in my lifetime than to work on
developing a means of acheiving an afterlife, and then waiting around for
someone else to get us into space.
PS: the standard NASA supporter takes another approach to dealing with
NASA's failure to open the space frontier: "Someday *our children* will go
into space..."
Keith Henson <hkhe...@netcom8.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:7spse6$m...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com...
Bill Bonde
James A Davis wrote:
>
> David Anderman wrote:
>
> > In 1920, the vast majority of people who flew in airplanes were either
> > military pilots or barnstormers. In 1930, the vast majority of people who
> > flew in airplanes were *passengers*.
> >
> > In 1950, the vast majority of people who flew in jets were pilots. In 1960,
> > the vast majority of people who flew in jets were passengers.
> >
> > If one steps back and looks at the task of sending passengers into space,
> > it's not that difficult a technical or economic challenge. The problem is
> > cultural and political - the need to convince investors to put their hard
> > earned bucks into space transportation, and for the government to allow this
> > to happen. It's not that different from 1492 in Spain, where the keys to
> > opening the New World were similarly cultural and political.
>
> This analogy doesn't even make it to first base. In the case of air
> travel the product was travel between two preexisting points on the
> surface of the Earth faster than any other means. Air travel could shave
> days and weeks off journeys by surface travel. Space travel promises to
> shave off only a few hours for greatly increased cost. No economic case
> for space travel can be made as a point A to point B transportation
> system.
>
I was going to say that.
> A better analogy would be to speculate how rapidly aeronautical
> technology would have progressed if the fares charged to joyriders had
> to subsidize development.
>
Sure but isn't this really an argument for making a destination that
tourists can go to? The obvious answer is ISS. NASA might need some rear
kicking but the Russians would sell their area cheap. The only stumbling
block is getting NASA to use the obviously excess crew capacity in the
Shuttles as they go to ISS for paying tourists. The agreement would be
that as soon as any reasonable alternative private method of getting to
ISS is made available, NASA would exit that business. This erases the
catch 22 or at least eases it.
John Beaderstadt
> I would rather work to accomplish the goal in my lifetime than to work on
> developing a means of acheiving an afterlife, and then waiting around for
> someone else to get us into space.
>
> PS: the standard NASA supporter takes another approach to dealing with
> NASA's failure to open the space frontier: "Someday *our children* will go
> into space..."
Realistically, even if this generation did accomplish all you want it to, you,
personally, will not enter space. Instead of saying "my children will enter
space," you want to be able to say "my neighbor will enter space."
Substantively, I don't see any difference between the two statements although,
personally, I prefer the former to the latter.
--
"I tried to imagine the easiest way God could have done it."
--Albert Einstein
Rand Simberg
Beaderstadt <be...@together.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>Realistically, even if this generation did accomplish all you want it to, you,
>personally, will not enter space.
Why is that?
>Instead of saying "my children will enter
>space," you want to be able to say "my neighbor will enter space."
No, I think that he wants to say, as I do, that *I* will be able to
enter space.
Michael K. Heney
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, John Beaderstadt wrote:
> David Anderman wrote:
>
> > I would rather work to accomplish the goal in my lifetime than to work on
> > developing a means of acheiving an afterlife, and then waiting around for
> > someone else to get us into space.
> >
> > PS: the standard NASA supporter takes another approach to dealing with
> > NASA's failure to open the space frontier: "Someday *our children* will go
> > into space..."
>
> Realistically, even if this generation did accomplish all you want it to, you,
> personally, will not enter space. Instead of saying "my children will enter
> space," you want to be able to say "my neighbor will enter space."
> Substantively, I don't see any difference between the two statements although,
> personally, I prefer the former to the latter.
Screw that!! I'm not working my tail off for my neighbor, or my children,
or my colleagues. Realistically, I expect to get to orbit PERSONALLY
by 2006 (or sooner), and I've got hopes for the Moon by 2016 (my 60th
Birthday).
The best way for me to make sure my children, neighbors, etc. can get to
space is for me to get there myself, because if *I* can go, anyone can.
I have maintained since I joined up that the Space Frontier Foundation
exists to get *me* into space. (I think they took me seriously, and
decided to make me pay for that ...) If we don't PERSONALIZE our
advocacy, and work for "enlightened self-interest", we'll never get there.
I may be wrong - I may never get to space personally. But it's sure as
hell not going to be for lack of trying.
----
Michael K. Heney
President/CEO, Mach 25 Technologies
Chairman/WebMaster/Advocates Coordinator, Space Frontier Foundation
Conference Chair, Space Frontier Conference 9 (19-22 Oct 2000)
4-time ProSpace march Storm Veteran
Member, National Space Society
Member, The Planetary Society
<among other things>
David Anderman
military pilots or barnstormers. In 1930, the vast majority of people who
flew in airplanes were *passengers*.
In 1950, the vast majority of people who flew in jets were pilots. In 1960,
the vast majority of people who flew in jets were passengers.
If one steps back and looks at the task of sending passengers into space,
it's not that difficult a technical or economic challenge. The problem is
cultural and political - the need to convince investors to put their hard
earned bucks into space transportation, and for the government to allow this
to happen. It's not that different from 1492 in Spain, where the keys to
opening the New World were similarly cultural and political.
John Beaderstadt <be...@together.net> wrote in message
news:3816E870...@together.net...
John Beaderstadt
> >Realistically, even if this generation did accomplish all you want it to, you,
> >personally, will not enter space.
>
> Why is that?
[sigh] Tell you what: Instead of our getting into an argument over it, send me a
postcard when you get there and I'll admit I was wrong.
> >Instead of saying "my children will enter
> >space," you want to be able to say "my neighbor will enter space."
>
> No, I think that he wants to say, as I do, that *I* will be able to
> enter space.
There's a substantive difference between doing something and being able to do it.
Just as there's a substantive difference between wanting to say something and
actually saying it. If the original poster (or you) merely aspires to the ability
rather than to the deed, he should clarify the distinction.
John Beaderstadt
> Screw that!! I'm not working my tail off for my neighbor, or my children,
> or my colleagues. Realistically, I expect to get to orbit PERSONALLY
> by 2006 (or sooner), and I've got hopes for the Moon by 2016 (my 60th
> Birthday).
Then I can only pity you for your final disappointment, and be thankful that my own
belief system allows me to participate in events for which I cannot be physically
present. If it's true, as some people believe, that we are the present purpose of
our ancestor's lives, I wonder at how your own ancestors are viewing your attitude
toward your (and their subsequent) descendants.
> The best way for me to make sure my children, neighbors, etc. can get to
> space is for me to get there myself, because if *I* can go, anyone can.
Very few people have the gift of making humility sound so arrogant.
> If we don't PERSONALIZE our
> advocacy, and work for "enlightened self-interest", we'll never get there.
So, we should all be astronauts so we can all go into space? How far will we get
when that happens, and there are no engineers, pad crew, launch team, taxpayers...?
> I may be wrong - I may never get to space personally. But it's sure as
> hell not going to be for lack of trying.
So, how far along are you on your training program? You don't intend to leave it to
the last moment, do you?
Rand Simberg
Beaderstadt <be...@together.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>Then I can only pity you for your final disappointment, and be thankful that my own
>belief system allows me to participate in events for which I cannot be physically
>present. If it's true, as some people believe, that we are the present purpose of
>our ancestor's lives, I wonder at how your own ancestors are viewing your attitude
>toward your (and their subsequent) descendants.
The two things are not mutually exclusive. One can do things both for
posterity and for oneself. There's no reason to believe that anyone
in good health today will not have an opportunity to go.
>> The best way for me to make sure my children, neighbors, etc. can get to
>> space is for me to get there myself, because if *I* can go, anyone can.
>
>Very few people have the gift of making humility sound so arrogant.
I found his comment neither humble nor arrogant--just a statement of
fact.
>> If we don't PERSONALIZE our
>> advocacy, and work for "enlightened self-interest", we'll never get there.
>
>So, we should all be astronauts so we can all go into space?
Well, only if you define astronaut as someone who goes into space
(which is a literal definition. But I think that by "astronaut," you
mean a NASA employee. Of course, that is not necessary to go.
>How far will we get
>when that happens, and there are no engineers, pad crew, launch team, taxpayers...?
Gee, is it possible that we might be able to take turns? We don't
have to all go at the same time? Or do you think that because anyone
can buy an airline ticket, this means that there are no air traffic
controllers, aircraft ground crew, ticket agents, etc.?
>> I may be wrong - I may never get to space personally. But it's sure as
>> hell not going to be for lack of trying.
>
>So, how far along are you on your training program? You don't intend to leave it to
>the last moment, do you?
A training program for a visit to space wouldn't take more than a day
or two. There's certainly no point in doing it before the vehicle
that one flies on has even been developed...
Rand Simberg
Beaderstadt <be...@together.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>> >Realistically, even if this generation did accomplish all you want it to, you,
>> >personally, will not enter space.
>>
>> Why is that?
>
>[sigh] Tell you what: Instead of our getting into an argument over it, send me a
>postcard when you get there and I'll admit I was wrong.
Well, it really wouldn't be worth the postage...
But I really am curious as to why you think that I, personally will
not enter space, since 1) I want to, 2) I expect that it will be
possible to do so within the decade, and 3) I expect to live for at
least another four decades or so.
>> No, I think that he wants to say, as I do, that *I* will be able to
>> enter space.
>
>There's a substantive difference between doing something and being able to do it.
>Just as there's a substantive difference between wanting to say something and
>actually saying it. If the original poster (or you) merely aspires to the ability
>rather than to the deed, he should clarify the distinction.
While there is a technical difference between the two, I think that it
can be safely assumed that when someone here says they want to be able
to go into space, they mean that they want to actually go--not just
have some theoretical capability. That's certainly the case for me.
I don't really understand your point.
John Beaderstadt
> In 1920, the vast majority of people who flew in airplanes were either
> military pilots or barnstormers. In 1930, the vast majority of people who
> flew in airplanes were *passengers*.
A false analogy, since the number of people who fly are vastly outnumbered by
the people who travel by other means, and/or who travel between points not
served by air. In point of fact, throughout history, the number of people who
"travel" has always been vastly overwhelmed by those who stayed home (i.e.
within a day's journey of their abode). Also, it's only been in recent times
that traveling has evolved to the point where you stand a decent chance of
surviving the experience.
It may well be that the average spacefarer in 20 years will be non-flight crew;
however, the average traveler will be a non-spacefarer, and the average person
will still be a non-traveler.
David Anderman
the world is too poor to even consider this), but *you* get to fly in
airplanes. So what?
My point is that often times it seems impossible for make that
technical/cultural/economic breakthrough, even just a few years before it
happens.
John Beaderstadt <be...@together.net> wrote in message
news:38173AC6...@together.net...
Rand Simberg
Beaderstadt <be...@together.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>David Anderman wrote:
>
>> In 1920, the vast majority of people who flew in airplanes were either
>> military pilots or barnstormers. In 1930, the vast majority of people who
>> flew in airplanes were *passengers*.
>
>A false analogy, since the number of people who fly are vastly outnumbered by
>the people who travel by other means, and/or who travel between points not
>served by air.
So? How does this make his analogy false? He didn't say that the
number of people who go into space will outnumber the number of people
who don't. All he said was that in the future, the bulk of people who
go into space will be passengers--not crew.
>In point of fact, throughout history, the number of people who
>"travel" has always been vastly overwhelmed by those who stayed home (i.e.
>within a day's journey of their abode). Also, it's only been in recent times
>that traveling has evolved to the point where you stand a decent chance of
>surviving the experience.
True, but what's your point?
>It may well be that the average spacefarer in 20 years will be non-flight crew;
>however, the average traveler will be a non-spacefarer, and the average person
>will still be a non-traveler.
True, but again, what's your point?
Nothing you've said in any way precludes the prediction that most
people in space passengers in the future will be passengers.
Rand Simberg
simberg.i...@trash.org (Rand Simberg) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>Nothing you've said in any way precludes the prediction that most
>people in space passengers in the future will be passengers.
Whoops! Should have read "people in space vehicles in the future will
Thomas F. Radloff
David Anderman <dav...@cwo.com> wrote in message
news:C8qR3.6611$nq3....@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
> I would rather work to accomplish the goal in my lifetime than to work on
> developing a means of acheiving an afterlife, and then waiting around for
> someone else to get us into space.
I know you'll just _love_ this line of argument but... :-)
Achieving an afterlife would probably be a lot tougher than avoiding dying
in the first place.
The longer anybody lives, the better medical care they will have access to.
Within a mere few decades, we are likely to see medical care that can
profoundly lengthen our lives. And if push comes to shove, we can always do
some head-freezin' a la www.alcor.com (After squirming through my recent
root canal, I'm sure I'll just _love_ getting my head cut off!)
Meanwhile, we have powerful software coming our way. When I have a box of
1000 or so experts on my desk (in a mere few decades,) I'll have all the
rocket science, engineering, political, financial, and legal talent at my
fingertips, that I can stand. (If they don't secede from my control.) I'm
not talking about elusive "AI," but the lesser problem of software that's
just darn good in its domain. At that point, anything I can _imagine_, I'll
be able to make designs for.
Next, build some hardware. As more sectors of the economy get sucked into
the computer hardware model of ever increasing bang-4-buck, we'll eventually
see several order of magnitude cost reductions. When current chip making
tech maxes out in about 10-20 years, then what? Is the entire human
intellectual jugernaut just gonna stop? I think not! So, throw in nanotech
and personal desktop manufacturing, to complete the speculation.
So, unless I'm killed prematurely, I for one, expect to go! Yippie!
TFR
punder...@my-deja.com
John Beaderstadt <be...@together.net> wrote:
> "Michael K. Heney" wrote:
>
> > Screw that!! I'm not working my tail off for my neighbor, or my
children,
> > or my colleagues. Realistically, I expect to get to orbit
PERSONALLY
> > by 2006 (or sooner), and I've got hopes for the Moon by 2016 (my
60th
> > Birthday).
>
thankful that my own
> belief system allows me to participate in events for which I cannot
be physically
> present. If it's true, as some people believe, that we are the
present purpose of
> our ancestor's lives, I wonder at how your own ancestors are viewing
your attitude
> toward your (and their subsequent) descendants.
>
get to
> > space is for me to get there myself, because if *I* can go, anyone
can.
>
> Very few people have the gift of making humility sound so arrogant.
>
> > advocacy, and work for "enlightened self-interest", we'll never get
there.
>
will we get
> when that happens, and there are no engineers, pad crew, launch team,
taxpayers...?
>
sure as
> > hell not going to be for lack of trying.
>
> So, how far along are you on your training program? You don't intend
to leave it to
> the last moment, do you?
Mr. Beaderstadt, you have a serious problem. Frankly this is one of
the dumbest things I've seen posted on this newsgroup.
patrick
punder...@my-deja.com
Hmmm, I guess that wasn't very nice of me...
You can't apply a random statistical prediction to a sample that isn't
random.
If I look at the general population, I can say that the chances of any
random person becoming a professional football player are very small.
However, if I look only at the people who play football in high school,
the odds per person improve considerably. If I look only at college
All-Americans, the odds start to look pretty good.
Apply this to spaceflight. You can rightly predict that each member of
the human race has a very small chance of flying into space within the
next 40 years. But if you narrow the sample to people who are actively
working to do so, then you must adjust the odds. Mr. Heney obviously
has a far greater chance of flying in space than the average human.
You also misunderstood the reference to enlightened self-interest.
But my main problem with your posts isn't your faulty reasoning, it's
your mean spirit. You imply that Mr. Heney is arrogant. I find vastly
more arrogance in your vapid dismissal of his aspirations.
Michael P. Walsh
Rand Simberg wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 13:47:51 -0400, in a place far, far away, John
> Beaderstadt <be...@together.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
> in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >David Anderman wrote:
> >
> >> In 1920, the vast majority of people who flew in airplanes were either
> >> military pilots or barnstormers. In 1930, the vast majority of people who
> >> flew in airplanes were *passengers*.
> >
> >A false analogy, since the number of people who fly are vastly outnumbered by
> >the people who travel by other means, and/or who travel between points not
> >served by air.
>
> So? How does this make his analogy false? He didn't say that the
> number of people who go into space will outnumber the number of people
> who don't. All he said was that in the future, the bulk of people who
> go into space will be passengers--not crew.
>
> >In point of fact, throughout history, the number of people who
> >"travel" has always been vastly overwhelmed by those who stayed home (i.e.
> >within a day's journey of their abode). Also, it's only been in recent times
> >that traveling has evolved to the point where you stand a decent chance of
> >surviving the experience.
>
> True, but what's your point?
>
> >It may well be that the average spacefarer in 20 years will be non-flight crew;
> >however, the average traveler will be a non-spacefarer, and the average person
> >will still be a non-traveler.
>
> True, but again, what's your point?
>
> Nothing you've said in any way precludes the prediction that most
> people in space passengers in the future will be passengers.
------
---
Time for some old cliches.
Predictions are difficult. Especially about the future.
The entire discussion seems based on different views of
what is going to happen in the future.
I hope Rand Simberg's predictions are correct, but fear that
John Beaderstadt's might come true.
Time for another bromide:
The optimist believes this is the best of all possible worlds.
The pessimist fears the optimist is correct.
This thread deserves a reasonably good summing up and
termination, but my comments don't really do that.
Mike Walsh
Rand Simberg
P. Walsh" <mp_w...@pacbell.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>The entire discussion seems based on different views of
>what is going to happen in the future.
>
>I hope Rand Simberg's predictions are correct, but fear that
>John Beaderstadt's might come true.
While I disagree with John's predictions, there is legitimate room for
disagreement there. I am much more puzzled by the faulty logic
presented, which almost render his posts total non-sequitors.
Also, he seems to think that no one will ever go into space except
NASA astronauts, and assumes that we believe the same thing. Our
assumption base seems to be so different that it is difficult to have
a useful conversation.
James A Davis
> In 1920, the vast majority of people who flew in airplanes were either
> military pilots or barnstormers. In 1930, the vast majority of people who
> flew in airplanes were *passengers*.
>
> the vast majority of people who flew in jets were passengers.
>
> If one steps back and looks at the task of sending passengers into space,
> it's not that difficult a technical or economic challenge. The problem is
> cultural and political - the need to convince investors to put their hard
> earned bucks into space transportation, and for the government to allow this
> to happen. It's not that different from 1492 in Spain, where the keys to
> opening the New World were similarly cultural and political.
This analogy doesn't even make it to first base. In the case of air
travel the product was travel between two preexisting points on the
surface of the Earth faster than any other means. Air travel could shave
days and weeks off journeys by surface travel. Space travel promises to
shave off only a few hours for greatly increased cost. No economic case
for space travel can be made as a point A to point B transportation
system.
A better analogy would be to speculate how rapidly aeronautical
technology would have progressed if the fares charged to joyriders had
to subsidize development.
Jim Davis
Greg Moore (Strider)
>
> This analogy doesn't even make it to first base. In the case of air
> travel the product was travel between two preexisting points on the
> surface of the Earth faster than any other means. Air travel could shave
> days and weeks off journeys by surface travel. Space travel promises to
> shave off only a few hours for greatly increased cost. No economic case
> for space travel can be made as a point A to point B transportation
> system.
>
How about another tortured analogy.
Cruise ships. How many are operating on any particular day. They
don't GO anyplace in particular (if they make a port of call it is for
entertainment, not as a particular destination.)
Don't assume the only reason to go into space is to get from Point A to
Point B, unless you assume Point B is space itself.
> A better analogy would be to speculate how rapidly aeronautical
> technology would have progressed if the fares charged to joyriders had
> to subsidize development.
>
Huh, not entirely sure what you mean here. If I understand it
correctly, the answer would be, "look at history". Especially today,
development has to be born by the civilian side of the industry which
means airlines making enough money to pay Boeing or Airbus for the
latest developments.
> Jim Davis
--
Greg D. Moore President moo...@greenms.com
Green Mountain Software http://www.greenms.com/
518-283-4083 MCSE
Greg Moore (Strider)
> > The best way for me to make sure my children, neighbors, etc. can get to
> > space is for me to get there myself, because if *I* can go, anyone can.
>
> Very few people have the gift of making humility sound so arrogant.
>
> > If we don't PERSONALIZE our
> > advocacy, and work for "enlightened self-interest", we'll never get there.
>
> So, we should all be astronauts so we can all go into space? How far will we get
> when that happens, and there are no engineers, pad crew, launch team, taxpayers...?
>
Umm, why do you think there would be no engineers, pad crew, launch
team, taxpayers?
Just because I can hop on a jet and fly to San Diego, doesn't mean that
there aren't "engineers, pad crew, launch team, taxpayers"
> > I may be wrong - I may never get to space personally. But it's sure as
> > hell not going to be for lack of trying.
>
> So, how far along are you on your training program? You don't intend to leave it to
> the last moment, do you?
I personally spend about as much time training to go into space as I do
training to fly to Florida on vacation or Chicago on business.
>
> --
> "I tried to imagine the easiest way God could have done it."
> --Albert Einstein
And the easiest way I can think of to get into space is to buy a
ticket. I'm just waiting for the seller to get their act together.
In case you haven't figured it out, just because NASA has been one of
the only games in town doesn't mean they will continue to be.
John Beaderstadt
> But I really am curious as to why you think that I, personally will
> not enter space, since 1) I want to, 2) I expect that it will be
> possible to do so within the decade, and 3) I expect to live for at
> least another four decades or so.
Because the odds are grossly against it, and I'm playing the percentages. Your
argument, above, pretty well describes my own situation about visiting the Titanic and
Bismarck, yet I have very serious doubts about it happening.
> While there is a technical difference between the two, I think that it
> can be safely assumed that when someone here says they want to be able
> to go into space, they mean that they want to actually go...
On the internet, one of the standard argumentative tactics is to seize the high ground
of word and phrase definitions. Thus, the dictionary is out of date when a definition
conflicts with what someone wants a word to mean; the encyclopedia is incomplete or
flat-out wrong when it conflicts with the person's version of the facts, and third
parties mean something other than what they actually said when someone wants to use
them to make a point.
If I mean to say something, I use the words I mean to use, and I mean what I say;
since I don't know anyone on the net well enough to interpret their thoughts, I can
only assume that they also say what they mean and mean what they say. Now, a direct
question: Do you have personal knowledge of the original poster that allows you to
interpret his words to mean something other than what they say on their face?
James A Davis
> How about another tortured analogy.
>
> Cruise ships. How many are operating on any particular day. They
> don't GO anyplace in particular (if they make a port of call it is for
> entertainment, not as a particular destination.)
>
> Don't assume the only reason to go into space is to get from Point A to
> Point B, unless you assume Point B is space itself.
You're missing my point. Certainly many people travel by air and sea
just for the pure fun of it but they can do so only because the
technology was already developed by large scale military and commercial
(passenger for air and cargo for sea) users. Commercial airliners are
used for aerial tours of Antarctica but their development could never
have been funded from the revenues generated by such tours. They're
piggybacking off the really large scale industry (passenger transport)
which *can* fund their development.
I expect space to develop much the same way. Once a profitable
application that uses space flight on a large scale is developed I
expect other industries (tourism) to piggyback off the resultant
technological developments. I really doubt that tourism is enough to
drive development by itself.
But I would like to be proven wrong.
Jim Davis
John Beaderstadt
> But I think that by "astronaut," you
> mean a NASA employee.
No, I meant "astronaut." Please see my other reply to you about imposing your own
interpretation on someone else's words. Not only do you insist on explaining to me how
other people mean something other than what they said, now you're explaining to me why
*I* meant something other than what I said. Are you the only person here whose
understanding of language allows a coherent conversation?
John Beaderstadt
> But my main problem with your posts isn't your faulty reasoning, it's
> your mean spirit. You imply that Mr. Heney is arrogant. I find vastly
> more arrogance in your vapid dismissal of his aspirations.
You are entitled to your opinions.
Personally, while I would dearly love to enter space, myself, I have serious
doubts that it will happen. Given that, I prefer to channel whatever
contribution I might have it within my province to make, into improving the
chances of humanity as a whole. My aspirations are for more than myself and,
whether American, Russian or Chinese, I don't care; whoever goes to Mars or
back to the moon, I will celebrate the accomplishment. If that is vapid and
arrogant, I plead guilty.
Mind you, if I thought I had a realistic chance of entering space as an
individual, then I would probably channel my energy into that particular
effort. Even so, I hope I would find it in myself to simultaneously aid
someone else in the endeavor. I find Mr. Heney's "Me First and to hell with
the rest of you" attitude, to which you seem so sympathetic, to be less than
admirable.
John Beaderstadt
> Our
> assumption base seems to be so different that it is difficult to have
> a useful conversation.
I don't see why you say that, since you claim to know better than I do, what
I *really* mean when I say something.
James A Davis
> >They're
> >piggybacking off the really large scale industry (passenger transport)
> >which *can* fund their development.
> >
> >I expect space to develop much the same way.
>
> Here's where your expectation is probably incorrect.
Let's hope so.
> >Once a profitable
> >application that uses space flight on a large scale is developed I
> >expect other industries (tourism) to piggyback off the resultant
> >technological developments.
>
> What industry would that be?
If I only knew.
> >I really doubt that tourism is enough to drive development by itself.
>
> Well, as I said in the other post, you have to take into account the
> increasing levels of discretionary income in the world, and the
> proportion of them that are devoted to tourism. This is without
> precedent in history.
A fair point but unfortunately the cost of technological progress has
more than kept pace with the rise in discretionary income. When Orville
Wright toured a DC-6 shortly before his death what really amazed him was
not the size or performance but the cost (between half a million and a
million bucks in the post-war period). Orville and Wilbur invented the
airplane from the profits of their day job. Gary and Bevin are going to
need a little extra to invent a real honest-to-God spacecraft.
> >But I would like to be proven wrong.
>
> And I hope to prove you wrong. If not, then we won't open up space,
> at least in the near term, because I see no other application that
> offers sufficient demand to drive down the costs of space
> transportation.
That is my fear, and yours also, I suspect.
Jim Davis
rk
> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:37:34 -0400, in a place far, far away, John
> Beaderstadt <be...@together.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
> in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >> Our assumption base seems to be so different that it is difficult to have
> >> a useful conversation.
> >
> >I don't see why you say that, since you claim to know better than I do, what
> >I *really* mean when I say something.
>
> I made no claims to knowledge of what you meant--I only stated what I
> had to assume what you meant by "astronauts," since the simple
> definition of "space traveler" wouldn't require the type of training
> that you condescendingly asked Mr. Heney if he had started.
just for kicks, here's what the dictionary says:
Main Entry: as·tro·naut
Pronunciation: 'as-tr&-"not, -"nät
Function: noun
Etymology: astr- + -naut (as in aeronaut)
Date: 1929
: a person who travels beyond the earth's atmosphere; also : a trainee for
spaceflight
good night,
rk
Rand Simberg
Davis <jimd...@primary.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> If one steps back and looks at the task of sending passengers into space,
>> it's not that difficult a technical or economic challenge. The problem is
>> cultural and political - the need to convince investors to put their hard
>> earned bucks into space transportation, and for the government to allow this
>> to happen. It's not that different from 1492 in Spain, where the keys to
>> opening the New World were similarly cultural and political.
>
>This analogy doesn't even make it to first base. In the case of air
>travel the product was travel between two preexisting points on the
>surface of the Earth faster than any other means. Air travel could shave
>days and weeks off journeys by surface travel. Space travel promises to
>shave off only a few hours for greatly increased cost. No economic case
>for space travel can be made as a point A to point B transportation
>system.
I agree with this. Space is not about transportation on earth.
>A better analogy would be to speculate how rapidly aeronautical
>technology would have progressed if the fares charged to joyriders had
>to subsidize development.
Yes, but one also has to take into account the large and growing
percentage of the gross world product that is devoted to tourism and
experience seeking, so comparing the situation of today to that of the
1920's and 1930's might be misleading.
Rand Simberg
Beaderstadt <be...@together.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>> But I really am curious as to why you think that I, personally will
>> not enter space, since 1) I want to, 2) I expect that it will be
>> possible to do so within the decade, and 3) I expect to live for at
>> least another four decades or so.
>
>Because the odds are grossly against it, and I'm playing the percentages.
Well, this is an opinion, and you're entitled to it (though there's no
good basis for it), but I strongly disagree.
>Your argument, above, pretty well describes my own situation about visiting the Titanic and
>Bismarck, yet I have very serious doubts about it happening.
If you wanted to visit the Titanic, you certainly could--all you have
to do is save or borrow the money. If you haven't, it's because you
don't really want to (i.e., haven't made it a priority in your life),
or you are destitute with no skills or ability to earn a reasonable
amount of money. Even with some of the flaws in logic shown in your
posts in these threads, I doubt that's the case.
>> While there is a technical difference between the two, I think that it
>> can be safely assumed that when someone here says they want to be able
>> to go into space, they mean that they want to actually go...
>
>On the internet, one of the standard argumentative tactics is to seize the high ground
>of word and phrase definitions. Thus, the dictionary is out of date when a definition
>conflicts with what someone wants a word to mean; the encyclopedia is incomplete or
>flat-out wrong when it conflicts with the person's version of the facts, and third
>parties mean something other than what they actually said when someone wants to use
>them to make a point.
While that might be true occasionally, why in this case would someone
say that they want to be able to go into space when they don't
actually want to go?
>If I mean to say something, I use the words I mean to use, and I mean what I say;
>since I don't know anyone on the net well enough to interpret their thoughts, I can
>only assume that they also say what they mean and mean what they say. Now, a direct
>question: Do you have personal knowledge of the original poster that allows you to
>interpret his words to mean something other than what they say on their face?
Saying that someone wants to be able to go into space does not
preclude them from actually wanting to go into space. If they say
that they want to be able to go, I think that it would be a reasonable
assumption that they also want to do the latter, and a ridiculous
assumption (in that it would make no sense) to assume otherwise.
But then, many of your posts on this subject to date have made no
sense...
Rand Simberg
Beaderstadt <be...@together.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>Rand Simberg wrote:
>
>> But I think that by "astronaut," you
>> mean a NASA employee.
>
>No, I meant "astronaut." Please see my other reply to you about imposing your own
>interpretation on someone else's words. Not only do you insist on explaining to me how
>other people mean something other than what they said,
No, as I said, just because someone wants to be able to go into space
doesn't mean that they *only* want to be able to go into space, and
don't want to actually go, as you implied.
>now you're explaining to me why
>*I* meant something other than what I said. Are you the only person here whose
>understanding of language allows a coherent conversation?
No, but you've made some comments from which any reasonable person
would infer that by "astronaut," you mean someone who requires
extensive training. If you meant otherwise, then please define
"astronaut" in some way that your posts will make sense.
Rand Simberg
Davis <jimd...@primary.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>You're missing my point. Certainly many people travel by air and sea
>just for the pure fun of it but they can do so only because the
>technology was already developed by large scale military and commercial
>(passenger for air and cargo for sea) users. Commercial airliners are
>used for aerial tours of Antarctica but their development could never
>have been funded from the revenues generated by such tours. They're
>piggybacking off the really large scale industry (passenger transport)
>which *can* fund their development.
>
>I expect space to develop much the same way.
Here's where your expectation is probably incorrect.
>Once a profitable
>application that uses space flight on a large scale is developed I
>expect other industries (tourism) to piggyback off the resultant
>technological developments.
What industry would that be?
>I really doubt that tourism is enough to drive development by itself.
Well, as I said in the other post, you have to take into account the
increasing levels of discretionary income in the world, and the
proportion of them that are devoted to tourism. This is without
precedent in history.
>But I would like to be proven wrong.
And I hope to prove you wrong. If not, then we won't open up space,
at least in the near term, because I see no other application that
offers sufficient demand to drive down the costs of space
transportation.
Rand Simberg
Beaderstadt <be...@together.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>> Our assumption base seems to be so different that it is difficult to have
>> a useful conversation.
>
>I don't see why you say that, since you claim to know better than I do, what
>I *really* mean when I say something.
I made no claims to knowledge of what you meant--I only stated what I
had to assume what you meant by "astronauts," since the simple
definition of "space traveler" wouldn't require the type of training
that you condescendingly asked Mr. Heney if he had started.
************************************************************************
Rand Simberg
Beaderstadt <be...@together.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>Personally, while I would dearly love to enter space, myself, I have serious
>doubts that it will happen. Given that, I prefer to channel whatever
>contribution I might have it within my province to make, into improving the
>chances of humanity as a whole. My aspirations are for more than myself and,
>whether American, Russian or Chinese, I don't care; whoever goes to Mars or
>back to the moon, I will celebrate the accomplishment. If that is vapid and
>arrogant, I plead guilty.
No, that's a legitimate position. What's vapid and arrogant is
assuming that your assessment of the odds is the only correct one, and
that anyone who disagrees with them and (also) wants to go themselves
is self centered.
>Mind you, if I thought I had a realistic chance of entering space as an
>individual, then I would probably channel my energy into that particular
>effort. Even so, I hope I would find it in myself to simultaneously aid
>someone else in the endeavor. I find Mr. Heney's "Me First and to hell with
>the rest of you" attitude, to which you seem so sympathetic, to be less than
>admirable.
That is *not* Mr. Heney's attitude (even if you choose to
mischaracterize it by forging a quote to make it seem so. If I were
him, I'd be outraged). Though he's perfectly capable of speaking for
himself, and no doubt will when he logs into the group again, his
attitude is that he wants to go, and is working to make it possible
for *anyone* to go, so that he can as well. That is certainly not a
"to hell with the rest of you" attitude. It seems like doing good by
doing well to me, which is a well-honored tradition in western and
capitalistic society. I think that you're the one who needs an
attitude adjustment.
Rand Simberg
Davis <jimd...@primary.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> Well, as I said in the other post, you have to take into account the
>> increasing levels of discretionary income in the world, and the
>> proportion of them that are devoted to tourism. This is without
>> precedent in history.
>
>A fair point but unfortunately the cost of technological progress has
>more than kept pace with the rise in discretionary income. When Orville
>Wright toured a DC-6 shortly before his death what really amazed him was
>not the size or performance but the cost (between half a million and a
>million bucks in the post-war period). Orville and Wilbur invented the
>airplane from the profits of their day job. Gary and Bevin are going to
>need a little extra to invent a real honest-to-God spacecraft.
The fact that a spacecraft cannot be developed in a bicycle shop will
not preclude it from being developed. Tourism is a multi*trillion*
dollar industry in the world, and if we can tap even a miniscule
fraction of that revenue stream, it will be more than sufficient to
develop systems to satisfy it, if not in the US, then somewhere.
>> >But I would like to be proven wrong.
>>
>> And I hope to prove you wrong. If not, then we won't open up space,
>> at least in the near term, because I see no other application that
>> offers sufficient demand to drive down the costs of space
>> transportation.
>
>That is my fear, and yours also, I suspect.
It is my fear, but I also suspect that I am less fearful than you (in
that regard), else I'd find something else to do with my life...
John Beaderstadt
> Even with some of the flaws in logic shown in your
> posts in these threads, I doubt that's the case.
I'm getting tired of these personal comments. Disagreement is one thing, and is a major
ingredient in human interaction. But an exchange of ideas and thoughts isn't enough for you, is
it? What is it that forces you to comment on your correspondent's intelligence? That you
disagree is fair enough, it's the reason Usenet exists; however, I don't recall coupling my own
arguments with personal comments, and I have no real idea why you insist upon it.
I'm withdrawing from this exchange. If you want to claim some sort of personal victory, I wish
you joy of it. Please be aware, though, that it was your tactics and not your reasoning that
convinced me to do so.
Jim Kingdon
> crew capacity in the Shuttles as they go to ISS for paying
> tourists. The agreement would be that as soon as any reasonable
> alternative private method of getting to ISS is made available, NASA
> would exit that business.
Yeah, Buzz Aldrin (if memory serves) was also promoting this (or some
variation thereof).
What do we (there is no we) think of it? I think I like it - the
screams will come, on the theory that this will prolong the shuttle's
life and hurt competition or something, but I guess I just don't see
the shuttle as being competitive enough to be a serious threat to any
serious tourism vehicle, if one comes along or is being planned.
Rand Simberg
Beaderstadt <be...@together.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>> Even with some of the flaws in logic shown in your
>> posts in these threads, I doubt that's the case.
>
>I'm getting tired of these personal comments.
That was not a personal comment--as anyone can see from the above
quote, I said nothing about you personally--in fact to the degree that
you took it out of context (in which I implied that I thought you were
intelligent, and capable of earning enough money to visit the Titanic)
you've *really* mischaracterized my remark. For all I know, you are
the most brilliant, logical person alive, and are simply trolling. I
was simply commenting on the quality of your posts. Are you saying
that pointing out flaws in logic is not a legitimate issue of
discussion? You did it to David Anderman when you (mistakenly)
accused him of using a false analogy.
>Disagreement is one thing, and is a major
>ingredient in human interaction. But an exchange of ideas and thoughts isn't enough for you, is
>it? What is it that forces you to comment on your correspondent's intelligence?
Again, please point out a post in which I did that (at least in a
negative way). I have made no negative comments about you
personally--only about your comments. OTOH, you certainly haven't
hesitated to comment about and criticize Mike Heney's "to hell with
the rest of you attitude," which you also chose to mischaracterize.
>That you
>disagree is fair enough, it's the reason Usenet exists; however, I don't recall coupling my own
>arguments with personal comments, and I have no real idea why you insist upon it.
Once again, please point out any negative personal comments. If I
can't discuss and characterize what you say, then there is no point in
discussion.
Let me point out the difference, so that you'll stop repeating this.
Discussion: "this post is illogical for reasons a, b, c."
Personal: "John Beaderstadt is incapable of constructing a logical
post."
My comments were of the former nature, not the latter. I really have
stated no opinion (or at least not a negative one) as to your
intellectual ability here, and will continue to refrain from doing so.
>I'm withdrawing from this exchange. If you want to claim some sort of personal victory, I wish
>you joy of it. Please be aware, though, that it was your tactics and not your reasoning that
>convinced me to do so.
Well, my response when someone tells me that one of my statements
doesn't make sense is to go back and look at it again, and either
concede, or to explain why they are wrong--not to take personal
umbrage and pick up my marbles and go home.
But if you don't want to play anymore, feel free to use whatever
excuse you want--that's the nice thing about Usenet..
punder...@my-deja.com
rk <stel...@NOSPAM.erols.com> wrote:
> Rand Simberg wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:37:34 -0400, in a place far, far away, John
> > Beaderstadt <be...@together.net> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow
> > in such a way as to indicate that:
> >
difficult to have
> > >> a useful conversation.
> > >
> > >I don't see why you say that, since you claim to know better than
I do, what
> > >I *really* mean when I say something.
> >
> > I made no claims to knowledge of what you meant--I only stated what
I
> > had to assume what you meant by "astronauts," since the simple
> > definition of "space traveler" wouldn't require the type of training
> > that you condescendingly asked Mr. Heney if he had started.
>
>
> Main Entry: as·tro·naut
> Pronunciation: 'as-tr&-"not, -"nät
> Function: noun
> Etymology: astr- + -naut (as in aeronaut)
> Date: 1929
> : a person who travels beyond the earth's atmosphere; also : a
trainee for
> spaceflight
>
> good night,
>
> rk
The last time I was in an airport, I do not recall hearing phrases such
as "will aeronauts in rows A through F please board at this time."
Thomas F. Radloff
news:C8qR3.6611$nq3....@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
> I would rather work to accomplish the goal in my lifetime than to work on
> developing a means of acheiving an afterlife, and then waiting around for
> someone else to get us into space.
I know you'll just _love_ this line of argument but... :-)
Achieving an afterlife would probably be a lot tougher than avoiding dying
in the first place.
The longer anybody lives, the better medical care they will have access to.
Within a mere few decades, we are likely to see medical care that can
profoundly lengthen our lives. And if push comes to shove, we can always do
some head-freezin' a la www.alcor.com (After squirming through my recent
root canal, I'm sure I'll just _love_ getting my head cut off!)
Meanwhile, we have powerful software coming our way. When I have a box of
1000 or so experts on my desk (in a mere few decades,) I'll have all the
rocket science, engineering, political, financial, and legal talent at my
fingertips, that I can stand. (If they don't secede from my control.) I'm
not talking about elusive "AI," but the lesser problem of software that's
just darn good in its domain. At that point, anything I can _imagine_, I'll
be able to make designs for.
Next, build some hardware. As more sectors of the economy get sucked into
the computer hardware model of ever increasing bang-4-buck, we'll eventually
see several order of magnitude cost reductions. When current chip making
tech maxes out in about 10-20 years, then what? Is the entire human
intellectual jugernaut just gonna stop? I think not! So, throw in nanotech
and personal desktop manufacturing, to complete the speculation.
So, unless I'm killed prematurely, I for one, expect to go! Yippie!
TFR
punder...@my-deja.com
John Beaderstadt <be...@together.net> wrote:
> punder...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > But my main problem with your posts isn't your faulty reasoning,
it's
> > your mean spirit. You imply that Mr. Heney is arrogant. I find
vastly
> > more arrogance in your vapid dismissal of his aspirations.
>
> You are entitled to your opinions.
Thanks. But you don't have an answer to my critique of your use of
statistics, do you?
> Personally, while I would dearly love to enter space, myself, I have
serious
> doubts that it will happen. Given that, I prefer to channel whatever
> contribution I might have it within my province to make, into
improving the
> chances of humanity as a whole. My aspirations are for more than
myself and,
> whether American, Russian or Chinese, I don't care; whoever goes to
Mars or
> back to the moon, I will celebrate the accomplishment. If that is
vapid and
> arrogant, I plead guilty.
All of us who fully intend to go to space appreciate your efforts on
our behalf. Keep up the good work. <g>
You're not separate from humanity. If you are working for the good of
all, then you are improving your own chances as well. Logically, if
you are working to promote human spaceflight, you are doing exactly the
same thing as Mr. Heney. Although I bet he's having a lot more fun.
> Mind you, if I thought I had a realistic chance of entering space as
an
> individual, then I would probably channel my energy into that
particular
> effort. Even so, I hope I would find it in myself to simultaneously
aid
> someone else in the endeavor. I find Mr. Heney's "Me First and to
hell with
> the rest of you" attitude, to which you seem so sympathetic, to be
less than
> admirable.
You completely misunderstand Mr. Heney's remark. How could he fly in
space without benefit of a pre-existing space tourism industry? He is
actively working to promote and build such an industry, so he can
someday fly in space. That means he's working on your behalf, and
everyone else's. Why can't you understand this?
You also put words in his mouth, a practice which YOU have so loudly
condemned elsewhere in this thread.
rk
> David Anderman <dav...@cwo.com> wrote in message
> news:C8qR3.6611$nq3....@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
> > I would rather work to accomplish the goal in my lifetime than to work on
> > developing a means of acheiving an afterlife, and then waiting around for
> > someone else to get us into space.
>
> I know you'll just _love_ this line of argument but... :-)
>
> Achieving an afterlife would probably be a lot tougher than avoiding dying
> in the first place.
>
> The longer anybody lives, the better medical care they will have access to.
> Within a mere few decades, we are likely to see medical care that can
> profoundly lengthen our lives. And if push comes to shove, we can always do
> some head-freezin' a la www.alcor.com (After squirming through my recent
> root canal, I'm sure I'll just _love_ getting my head cut off!)
don't forget the "trial balloons" that were floated by a possible to-be-senator
from noo yawk about just cutting off health care to the geezers ... they found
that when you got old, sort of near or approaching the end, it took a lot of
money to keep the body ticking and in reasonable repair ... and well, paying
into the health care plans for DECADES and then just sort of like using some of
it when you needed it just wasn't fair to the young ones who had so much more
life ahead of them. of course, if you worked hard, and actually saved your own
money and wished to pay a doctor on your own, that was to become, literally, a
crime.
so,
perhaps one day the government will not like you getting that better medical
care; it's just so much cheaper to let you croak. unless it's a relative of one
of the elite.
i like you're argument,
but there are those who will be against you,
rk
p.s. get a new dentist - my last root canal was no problem. of course, the guy
treated my head like it was a 2x4 (oops, english units and he was a russian
dentist who did speak a little english) but he was nice to me, wimp american,
and let me have some novacaine. but seriously, get a good dentist, shouldn't be
a problem.
p.s.s. ex-hockey player, i've had a number of root canals.
Thomas F. Radloff
to-be-senator
> from noo yawk about just cutting off health care to the geezers ... they
found
> that when you got old, sort of near or approaching the end, it took a lot
of
> money to keep the body ticking and in reasonable repair ... and well,
paying
> into the health care plans for DECADES and then just sort of like using
some of
> it when you needed it just wasn't fair to the young ones who had so much
more
> life ahead of them. of course, if you worked hard, and actually saved
your own
> money and wished to pay a doctor on your own, that was to become,
literally, a
> crime.
Bullseye. That's the fundamental problem with letting the govt take over
health care. Imagine the political possibility of throwing the oldest 5% of
the population to the dogs, and diverting the money thereby saved, into the
pockets of more numerous constituents. I'm not gonna be 100 years old until,
hell, at least sometimes after next month. If the people swallow 5%, they'll
go for 6% ...
> i like you're argument,
Thanks.
> but there are those who will be against you,
Imagine my surprise. :-)
> p.s. get a new dentist - my last root canal was no problem. of course,
the guy
> treated my head like it was a 2x4 (oops, english units and he was a
russian
> dentist who did speak a little english) but he was nice to me, wimp
american,
> and let me have some novacaine. but seriously, get a good dentist,
shouldn't be
> a problem.
It didn't actually _hurt_ cuz they _did_ use some anesthetic. But it _was_
unpleasant, nonetheless. I kept thinking "this oughta hurt!"
TFR
Allen Thomson
Rand Simberg <simberg.i...@trash.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 17:58:56 GMT, in a place far, far away,
>simberg.i...@trash.org (Rand Simberg) made the phosphor on my
>monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>>people in space passengers in the future will be passengers.
>
>Whoops! Should have read "people in space vehicles in the future will
>be passengers."
But -- and given the current lamentable state of my ISP I perhaps
missed this -- isn't the question of "Why?" still appropriate?
Passengers in airplanes, ships, cars, etc. are generally there
for 2 1/2 reasons: 1) They're using the travel as a means of
achieving some other goal (tourism, business, scientific research
requiring personal presence); 2) They find the experience of being in
the vehicle rewarding (pleasure cruises, auto racing, balloon rides,
sorta sky-diving); 2.5) They're forced to go (government, military).
I count 1) and 2) as directly understandable in an economic analysis
(people wanna do it because they believe it will make them, personally,
richer or happier) and 2.5 as somewhat the same, but routed through
the mechanism of government.
So how does space differ? If it doesn't, whence come the drivers that
provide sufficent resources for 1), 2) or 2.5)?
Rand Simberg
thom...@netcom.com (Allen Thomson) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>Nothing you've said in any way precludes the prediction that most
>>>people in space passengers in the future will be passengers.
>>
>>Whoops! Should have read "people in space vehicles in the future will
>>be passengers."
>
>But -- and given the current lamentable state of my ISP I perhaps
>missed this -- isn't the question of "Why?" still appropriate?
>
>Passengers in airplanes, ships, cars, etc. are generally there
>for 2 1/2 reasons: 1) They're using the travel as a means of
>achieving some other goal (tourism, business, scientific research
>requiring personal presence); 2) They find the experience of being in
>the vehicle rewarding (pleasure cruises, auto racing, balloon rides,
>sorta sky-diving); 2.5) They're forced to go (government, military).
>
>I count 1) and 2) as directly understandable in an economic analysis
>(people wanna do it because they believe it will make them, personally,
>richer or happier) and 2.5 as somewhat the same, but routed through
>the mechanism of government.
>
>So how does space differ? If it doesn't, whence come the drivers that
>provide sufficent resources for 1), 2) or 2.5)?
I'm not sure I understand the question. I don't believe that space
does differ, except for the fact that we haven't yet developed the
infrastructure (note that I didn't say technology) that will allow
people to carry out their business in space. Given a multi-trillion
dollar economy for tourism and entertainment (which exists today, and
is growing, both absolutely and as a fraction of the gross world
product), it certainly doesn't beggar my imagination that we could
skim off a percent or two of it to fund space-related tourism and
entertainment, given that the costs are attractive. But it does
remain a chicken-egg problem--we need the demand to justify the
infrastructure, and we need the infrastructure to allow the demand to
flower.
John Beaderstadt
> Thanks. But you don't have an answer to my critique of your use of
> statistics, do you?
Refresh my memory, what statistics? I just went back and read the last few
messages, and can't find what you're referring to.
> All of us who fully intend to go to space appreciate your efforts on
> our behalf. Keep up the good work. <g>
I'll try, but it's rather difficult. I seem to be the only one pedaling
while the rest of you want to ride on the handlebars, and we're reaching a
horsepower vs weight crisis.
> You're not separate from humanity. If you are working for the good of
> all, then you are improving your own chances as well.
Not bloody likely. I'm middle-aged, in less than good health, without much
money. I'm not going to make it and that's that; the only thing left is to
do whatever I can to help someone else.
> Logically, if
> you are working to promote human spaceflight, you are doing exactly the
> same thing as Mr. Heney. Although I bet he's having a lot more fun.
The self-absorbed usually do have more fun; there's less to distract them.
Myself, I try to find satisfaction in the accomplishments of the group.
> You completely misunderstand Mr. Heney's remark.
I quote: "Screw that!! I'm not working my tail off for my neighbor, or my
children,
or my colleagues." Seems fairly straightforward to me.
> How could he fly in
> space without benefit of a pre-existing space tourism industry?
I believe that's part of *my* point. Every astronaut I've heard speak on
the subject gives full credit to the thousands of people it took to get him
a mission. And how many of those people are, as individuals, going to enter
space?
> He is
> actively working to promote and build such an industry, so he can
> someday fly in space. That means he's working on your behalf, and
> everyone else's. Why can't you understand this?
He is working on his own behalf; see the above quote.
> You also put words in his mouth, a practice which YOU have so loudly
> condemned elsewhere in this thread.
Again, see the above quote. I did not write that, nor have I altered it in
any way, nor am I attempting to "translate" it (i.e. 'what he really means
is...'). He made a statement and I am basing my reply ('retort,' if you
will) upon the actual words that he used. Is it your contention that I put
those words into his mouth before he even wrote them? I suppose, though,
that you're going to come back with something on the order of "...what he
meant to say was..." And then you're going to tell me that *that* isn't
putting words in someone's mouth.
Michael K. Heney
> while the rest of you want to ride on the handlebars, and we're reaching a
> horsepower vs weight crisis.
>
>
> > You're not separate from humanity. If you are working for the good of
> > all, then you are improving your own chances as well.
>
> Not bloody likely. I'm middle-aged, in less than good health, without much
> money. I'm not going to make it and that's that; the only thing left is to
> do whatever I can to help someone else.
>
>
> > Logically, if
> > you are working to promote human spaceflight, you are doing exactly the
> > same thing as Mr. Heney. Although I bet he's having a lot more fun.
>
> The self-absorbed usually do have more fun; there's less to distract them.
> Myself, I try to find satisfaction in the accomplishments of the group.
>
> > You completely misunderstand Mr. Heney's remark.
>
> I quote: "Screw that!! I'm not working my tail off for my neighbor, or my
> children, or my colleagues." Seems fairly straightforward to me.
It would be nice if you provided my remarks in context. I was responding
to your assertion that we are not going to go in our lifetimes, and all
that is left to do is work for our children's benefits.
I'm sorry that you're middle-aged and not in good health. I don't know if
you'd call me middle-aged - I'm on the brink of 43; I'm in great health
and moderately good physical condition, and I'm far from wealthy -
although I have hopes of changing that.
I take issue with your defeatist attitude. The surest way not to get
something accomplished is to say "we can't do it". I don't buy that,
and will say so vigorously.
My grandfather's generation sent my father's generation to the moon. My
father's generation proceeded to drop the ball. You do not advance by
handing things off to your children on a platter. You advance by working
hard for what YOU *PERSONALLY* want.
I have no doubt that my efforts will benefit my neighbors, my children,
and my colleagues. If I fail, they can build on the work I and my friends
have done - or learn from our mistakes and try something new. But as I
said (awhich you neglected to quote) - the best way I can make sure
others can get into space is to make it possible for me to go there
myself. I would have to be a passenger. That's pretty generic.
That means I have to work to build a space tourism industry. Develop
spaceports. Launch vehicles. Regulatory infrastructures. Space hotels.
Some of this I'm working on directly myself. Other pieces, I know the
folks working on them. I'm optimistic. The right things seem to be
getting done.
I find it especially motivating to be working for myself. That's common
among entrepreneurs. I also find that enthusiasm is contagious - as is
lethargy.
I ran into a similar situation at the Awards Banquet at our Space Frontier
Conference 8 last month in los Angeles. Our emcee - a film industry
person the same age as I am - told our crowd that we had missed our dream;
that Hollywood and the entertainment industry could provide a better space
experience than we could, and we should be satisfied with the passive
experience, because we weren't going to be going personally. He then
introduced me so I could present an award to our Advocate of the Year and
induct new Advocates into our organization. Ironic, no?
I called him out on his statement. I told him that I planned to go
personally, and i suspected almost everyone in the room did as well. The
room, several hundred strong, agreed. Enthusiastically.
Look at the Space Enterprise Symposium we're putting on in Seattle in two
weeks. We're looking at a fantastic turnout from the area's investment
community. Investors tend to look for a fairly timely return on
investment - they don't generally want to wait until their children
collect. They're putting their dollars on sooner rather than later.
I have no desire to make you a convert to my point of view. If living
vicariously through your children and others is what works for you, enjoy
it. But don't try to tell me that that's how I should live my life.
Don't tell me what I can or can't accomplish. The fact that you choose
to be content with leaving the frontier to your children probably means
that your children will be riding in Mr. Hudson's rockets to Mr. Lauer's
hotel and leaving from my spaceport high on a hill. And if those aren't
the right names, it'll be people a lot like us.
punder...@my-deja.com
John Beaderstadt <be...@together.net> wrote:
> punder...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Thanks. But you don't have an answer to my critique of your use of
> > statistics, do you?
>
> Refresh my memory, what statistics? I just went back and read the
last few
> messages, and can't find what you're referring to.
>
> > All of us who fully intend to go to space appreciate your efforts on
> > our behalf. Keep up the good work. <g>
>
Rather than filter back through a bunch of posts, I'll refer to one:
Mr. Heney's. I'll assume he's truthful.
> President/CEO, Mach 25 Technologies
> Chairman/WebMaster/Advocates Coordinator, Space Frontier Foundation
> Conference Chair, Space Frontier Conference 9 (19-22 Oct 2000)
> 4-time ProSpace march Storm Veteran
> Member, National Space Society
> Member, The Planetary Society
> <among other things>
Wow, that's a pretty impressive list. In addition to running what is
apparently a space technology business, it appears he is pumping quite
a bit of time, effort, and personal expense into three different
national space advocacy organizations. I haven't found "Put Mr. Heney
into space" on the charters of any of these organizations, but if his
membership dues and volunteered personal services help those
organizations achieve political and technological goals leading to
widespread human spaceflight, then both his _and your_ chances of
getting into space improve materially.
And yet here you are, calling him self-absorbed, and touting your own
relative saintliness. Let's see _your_ list.
Rand Simberg
Beaderstadt <be...@together.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>> All of us who fully intend to go to space appreciate your efforts on
>> our behalf. Keep up the good work. <g>
>
>I'll try, but it's rather difficult. I seem to be the only one pedaling
>while the rest of you want to ride on the handlebars, and we're reaching a
>horsepower vs weight crisis.
How can you justify this statement? Just what is it that you are
doing to get us into space, and what makes you think that the rest of
us are doing nothing? Talk about arrogance...
>> You're not separate from humanity. If you are working for the good of
>> all, then you are improving your own chances as well.
>
>Not bloody likely. I'm middle-aged, in less than good health, without much
>money. I'm not going to make it and that's that; the only thing left is to
>do whatever I can to help someone else.
Well, given the pace of medical advance, unless you expect to die
within the next decade or so, it's quite conceivable that you'll live
quite a long time, and perhaps in better health than you are now.
>The self-absorbed usually do have more fun; there's less to distract them.
>Myself, I try to find satisfaction in the accomplishments of the group.
I suspect that Mike does find satisfaction in the accomplishments of
the group, or he wouldn't spend so much time and energy on the Space
Frontier Foundation. That doesn't mean that he shouldn't want to go
into space himself.
>> You completely misunderstand Mr. Heney's remark.
>
>I quote: "Screw that!! I'm not working my tail off for my neighbor, or my
>children,
>or my colleagues." Seems fairly straightforward to me.
Yes, if you totally ignore the rest of what he said. You seem to be
conveniently selective in your quotes.
>> How could he fly in
>> space without benefit of a pre-existing space tourism industry?
>
>I believe that's part of *my* point. Every astronaut I've heard speak on
>the subject gives full credit to the thousands of people it took to get him
>a mission. And how many of those people are, as individuals, going to enter
>space?
Most or all of them, if they choose to. Why would they not? To
repeat, are airline employees not allowed to fly?
>
>> He is
>> actively working to promote and build such an industry, so he can
>> someday fly in space. That means he's working on your behalf, and
>> everyone else's. Why can't you understand this?
>
>He is working on his own behalf; see the above quote.
He is working on everyone's behalf, including his own, see the rest of
what he said.
>> You also put words in his mouth, a practice which YOU have so loudly
>> condemned elsewhere in this thread.
>
>Again, see the above quote. I did not write that, nor have I altered it in
>any way, nor am I attempting to "translate" it (i.e. 'what he really means
>is...'). He made a statement and I am basing my reply ('retort,' if you
>will) upon the actual words that he used. Is it your contention that I put
>those words into his mouth before he even wrote them? I suppose, though,
>that you're going to come back with something on the order of "...what he
>meant to say was..." And then you're going to tell me that *that* isn't
>putting words in someone's mouth.
No, we're coming back to the point that you focused on one (perhaps
unfortunate) comment, and ignored everything else that he said. Here
is the rest of the quote, since you didn't seem to read it.
"...Realistically, I expect to get to orbit PERSONALLY by 2006 (or
sooner), and I've got hopes for the Moon by 2016 (my 60th Birthday).
The best way for me to make sure my children, neighbors, etc. can get
to space is for me to get there myself, because if *I* can go, anyone
can."
It seems pretty clear to me that he is working for *everyone* to go,
but his primary motivation comes from wanting to go himself. I find
nothing wrong with that.
Kwr...@rockisland.com
>My grandfather's generation sent my father's generation to the moon. My
>father's generation proceeded to drop the ball.
If you are 43 you must have been 13 in 1969. Your father's generation
sent your father's generation to the moon. And which generation
droppd the ball ?
Michael K. Heney
> dropped the ball ?
The decision makers, the policy makers, the corporate leaders, who took
America to the moon were my grandfather's generation. JFK was young for
the position he was in - and he was born 10 years before my father.
James Webb was born in 1906. LBJ was born in 1908. Eisenhower was born
in 1890.
I'll stand by my statement - my grandfather's generation sent my father's
generation to the moon.
When my father's generation moved into leadership, we went on hiatus in
space. In their most influential years - the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s -
we stalled.
They're retiring now. My generation is coming to a point where we can
significantly affect the world. We grew up with the Moon in our future,
and saw that future disappear before our eyes. We didn't drop the ball -
we're picking it back up and starting to run with it.
John Beaderstadt
> It would be nice if you provided my remarks in context. I was responding
> to your assertion that we are not going to go in our lifetimes, and all
> that is left to do is work for our children's benefits.
Well, again, here's your quote: "Screw that!! I'm not working my tail off for
my neighbor, or my children, or my colleagues." It sounds to me like a pretty
definite and self-contained sentiment. If you now wish to add qualifications,
feel free. Please note, though, that you included quite a few people other than
just your children; not just the following generation, but everyone in your own,
other than yourself.
BTW, speaking of context, from other remarks you have made you are about the
same age as my children. Please consider that when you say you're not working
for the next generation.
> I take issue with your defeatist attitude.
Defeatist? Heh heh. Your own outlook allows a greater chance of defeat than does
mine. The way I see it, I may not make it there as an individual, but I will get
there. You only have two decades left, while I have considerably more.
> The surest way not to get
> something accomplished is to say "we can't do it". I don't buy that,
> and will say so vigorously.
I never said that. I still have hopes of seeing humans on Mars, but, whether I'm
still alive or not, we will go. It's the rosy timeline that you seem to insist
upon that I quarrel with.
> You do not advance by
> handing things off to your children on a platter. You advance by working
> hard for what YOU *PERSONALLY* want.
A matter of philosophy. My own is that any truly decent father wants his
children to be both better and better-off than he is, himself.
> But as I
> said (awhich you neglected to quote) - the best way I can make sure
> others can get into space is to make it possible for me to go there
> myself. I would have to be a passenger. That's pretty generic.
I really doubt that the trench crew in Mission Control were doing their best to
get Apollo to the moon because they felt they were improving their chances for a
seat on some future flight.
> I'm optimistic. The right things seem to be
> getting done.
I'm glad to hear that, and I wish you the best. I suggest, though, that you are
overly optimistic about the schedule.
> I find it especially motivating to be working for myself. That's common
> among entrepreneurs. I also find that enthusiasm is contagious - as is
> lethargy.
I couldn't care less about working for myself. I can, however, be downright
passionate in someone else's behalf.
> Look at the Space Enterprise Symposium we're putting on in Seattle in two
> weeks. We're looking at a fantastic turnout from the area's investment
> community. Investors tend to look for a fairly timely return on
> investment - they don't generally want to wait until their children
> collect. They're putting their dollars on sooner rather than later.
Again, glad to hear it. OTOH, I'm also aware that 90%+ of all business ventures
don't make it through their initial six months. I *also* remember (not
personally) the fate of *all* the various commercial ventures designed to settle
the trans-Appalachian territory both before and after the Revolution. Please,
before you tell me there's no relationship, read up on them a little -- for
every Hudson Bay Company, there were 20 "Transylvanias", et al, and every
single one of them had plenty of investors.
> ... your children will be riding in Mr. Hudson's rockets to Mr. Lauer's
> hotel and leaving from my spaceport high on a hill.
In much the same way as they now ride in Mr. Ford's cars, climb buildings in Mr.
Otis' elevators, sleep on Mr. Sealy's mattresses and read Mr. Hearst's
newspapers. You're going to have to do a lot more talking to convince me that
they'll be spiritually destitute because it's not their monograms on the company
letterhead.
> And if those aren't the right names, it'll be people a lot like us.
Actually, I suspect it will be people a lot more like Bill Gates and Ted Turner.
John Beaderstadt
> Wow, that's a pretty impressive list.
Thank you; I have belonged to a couple of those, myself (I trust you are
equally impressed). I dropped them when I tired of hearing about how
everyone could sign up for a sub-orbital flight "next year."
> And yet here you are, calling him self-absorbed, and touting your own
> relative saintliness.
Saintliness? Hardly! And I'll bet you would be hard-pressed to prove your
claim.
> Let's see _your_ list.
And precisely what would be gained by a round of "Dueling Credentials"? For
one thing, as I said, I can claim membership in a couple of the same
organizations. Besides, would *you* be convinced if I came up with a longer
list? I somehow doubt it.
Rand Simberg
Beaderstadt <be...@together.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>And precisely what would be gained by a round of "Dueling Credentials"?
Nothing, except to substantiate your absurd and outrageous implication
that no one but you is doing anything to get us into space, or that it
is somehow ignoble to want to go yourself.
Rand Simberg
Beaderstadt <be...@together.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>"Michael K. Heney" wrote:
>
>> It would be nice if you provided my remarks in context. I was responding
>> to your assertion that we are not going to go in our lifetimes, and all
>> that is left to do is work for our children's benefits.
>
>Well, again, here's your quote: "Screw that!! I'm not working my tail off for
>my neighbor, or my children, or my colleagues."
We've already pointed out, multiple times, that you took that out of
context and ignored the rest of it. No matter how many times you
repeat it, the whole post is there for anyone to see.
>> I take issue with your defeatist attitude.
>
>Defeatist? Heh heh. Your own outlook allows a greater chance of defeat than does
>mine. The way I see it, I may not make it there as an individual, but I will get
>there. You only have two decades left, while I have considerably more.
Yes, take no risks, and choose small goals, and you'll avoid any
disappointment. Of course, that's not how great achievements occur.
>> But as I
>> said (awhich you neglected to quote) - the best way I can make sure
>> others can get into space is to make it possible for me to go there
>> myself. I would have to be a passenger. That's pretty generic.
>
>I really doubt that the trench crew in Mission Control were doing their best to
>get Apollo to the moon because they felt they were improving their chances for a
>seat on some future flight.
So? Just because they had other motives to do so doesn't mean that
they didn't, or shouldn't have, wanted to go. For them it was not
possible. For us it is.
>> I find it especially motivating to be working for myself. That's common
>> among entrepreneurs. I also find that enthusiasm is contagious - as is
>> lethargy.
>
>I couldn't care less about working for myself. I can, however, be downright
>passionate in someone else's behalf.
Well, you are unusual. There's nothing wrong with altruism, except
when you expect it of everybody.
>> ... your children will be riding in Mr. Hudson's rockets to Mr. Lauer's
>> hotel and leaving from my spaceport high on a hill.
>
>In much the same way as they now ride in Mr. Ford's cars, climb buildings in Mr.
>Otis' elevators, sleep on Mr. Sealy's mattresses and read Mr. Hearst's
>newspapers. You're going to have to do a lot more talking to convince me that
>they'll be spiritually destitute because it's not their monograms on the company
>letterhead.
Who said anything about monograms on letterhead? I and (I suspect)
Mike don't care who gets the credit. We just want to go. Why do you
keep changing the subject and throwing out red herrings?
Kwr...@rockisland.com
>> "Michael K. Heney" <mhe...@mach-25.com> wrote:
>>
>> >My grandfather's generation sent my father's generation to the moon. My
>> >father's generation proceeded to drop the ball.
>>
>> If you are 43 you must have been 13 in 1969. Your father's generation
>> sent your father's generation to the moon. And which generation
>> dropped the ball ?
>The decision makers, the policy makers, the corporate leaders, who took
>America to the moon were my grandfather's generation. JFK was young for
>the position he was in - and he was born 10 years before my father.
>James Webb was born in 1906. LBJ was born in 1908. Eisenhower was born
>in 1890.
I hate to belabor an off topic point, but this slogan might work for
someone who is twenty something, it does not work for you. If you are
saying that it is the national leadership that got us there and then
let us down, JFK, Reagan and Bush were all the same generation.
>I'll stand by my statement - my grandfather's generation sent my father's
>generation to the moon.
>When my father's generation moved into leadership, we went on hiatus in
>space. In their most influential years - the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s -
>we stalled.
By the 1980s, your generation had already moved into important
positions of leadership.
The generation thing really does not work, Quayle, Clinton, Gore, none
of them are old enough to be your father.
>They're retiring now.
> My generation is coming to a point where we can
>significantly affect the world. We grew up with the Moon in our future,
>and saw that future disappear before our eyes. We didn't drop the ball -
>we're picking it back up and starting to run with it.
What do you consider your generation exactly ? People born in the 50s?
punder...@my-deja.com
John Beaderstadt <be...@together.net> wrote:
> punder...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Wow, that's a pretty impressive list.
>
> Thank you; I have belonged to a couple of those, myself (I trust you
are
> equally impressed). I dropped them when I tired of hearing about how
> everyone could sign up for a sub-orbital flight "next year."
>
> > And yet here you are, calling him self-absorbed, and touting your
own
> > relative saintliness.
>
> Saintliness? Hardly! And I'll bet you would be hard-pressed to prove
your
> claim.
Which claim? You lost me.
> > Let's see _your_ list.
>
> And precisely what would be gained by a round of "Dueling
Credentials"? For
> one thing, as I said, I can claim membership in a couple of the same
> organizations. Besides, would *you* be convinced if I came up with a
longer
> list? I somehow doubt it.
Convinced of what?
I'm simply trying to show that you were unfair and mistaken in your
characterization of another poster, but by now it's beating a dead
horse. Your arguments and assertions are nonsensical. Not gonna waste
any more of my time on this one.
David Anderman
space development, I could not disagree. The premium placed on virtual
accomplishments rather than work in the Real World that is a hallmark of our
generation has manifested itself in space development, where today NASA
viewgraphs seems to weight more than NASA space hardware (the same can be
said for the private sector, too).
<Kwr...@rockisland.com> wrote in message
news:2xjS3.3634$LX2.1...@brie.direct.ca...
> If you are 43 you must have been 13 in 1969. Your father's generation
> sent your father's generation to the moon. And which generation
> droppd the ball ?
Mark Reiff
>
> Yes, but one also has to take into account the large and growing
> percentage of the gross world product that is devoted to tourism and
> experience seeking, so comparing the situation of today to that of the
> 1920's and 1930's might be misleading.
It could be argued that the tourism and more specifically the
"experience seeking" industries are "bubble economies" inherently
unstable and not the best models to base a space infrastructure on. Not
that this won't be a significant part of the growth of commercial space
travel, but it is wise to not understand the real economic mechanisms at
work. Even though tourism is a multi-billion dollar industry, it has
large swings from year to year (even seasonally) and local shifts can be
devastating if miscalculated. Even a close analysis of the airline
industry shows that it is susceptible to swings in fuel prices, regional
economic troubles and labor actions.
Space tourism will come about, sooner rather than later, but we should
not be surprised if it has growing pains. The marketplace punishes
complacency and slow learners - quite unlike how the government rewards
such traits. :)
--
Mark Reiff
e-mail: mark...@earthlink.net http://www.space-space.com
Yahoo Commercial Space Place forum
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/commercialspaceplace
Barnes & Noble Books
http://bn.bfast.com/booklink/click?sourceid=8060261&categoryid=h
Mark Reiff
>
> >I really doubt that tourism is enough to drive development by itself.
>
> Well, as I said in the other post, you have to take into account the
> increasing levels of discretionary income in the world, and the
> proportion of them that are devoted to tourism. This is without
> precedent in history.
And because of this lack of precedence, relying too much on this income
source might prove risky in economic assessments. It is worth assessing
and probably will fuel spaceflight, but close attention should be paid
to the economic trends of terrestrial tourism to avoid hazardous
temporary downturns.
> And I hope to prove you wrong. If not, then we won't open up space,
> at least in the near term, because I see no other application that
> offers sufficient demand to drive down the costs of space transportation.
Just because we can't see those other space enterprises doesn't mean
they won't be developed. But if we don't have larger numbers of people
trying various commercial businesses in space, then it reduces the
chances that some will flourish. Allowing only government and
government sponsored efforts to participate in spaceflight guarantees
stagnation.
Mark Reiff
> I personally spend about as much time training to go into space as I do
> training to fly to Florida on vacation or Chicago on business.
> And the easiest way I can think of to get into space is to buy a
> ticket. I'm just waiting for the seller to get their act together.
>
> In case you haven't figured it out, just because NASA has been one of
> the only games in town doesn't mean they will continue to be.
Well said, Greg.
Bill Bonde
gbaikie wrote:
>
> Cruise ships are floating hotels, so if point B was a hotel in orbit
> then tourism might make sense. You go the the hotel, you are pandered,
> get a wonderful view of Earth while eating lunch,
>
Which you promptly throw up.
> and most important
> you can meet interesting people. It's the place to be- it's screaming
> in your ear that you are someone important. There are a lots of people
> with too much money, which will use it to gain status. A Shuttle type
> flight would be desirable, but not enough by itself. If you want a
> considerable mass in orbit (hotel) you will need to get the material
> from NEO or Moon.
>
Don't start with that. Privately owned inflatable transhab for tourists
attached to ISS. It would be ironic if the Russians are the only ones
who would let this happen.
> First thing you should mine in space is water (rocket fuel) and if
> there was already a market for rocket fuel (water) in orbit, then it's
> much easier to get to NEOs/Moon to establish water mining and you have
> a market to sell to. If you had LH&LOX selling for around $2000 per
> pound in orbit, sending adventure tourist to the Moon might occur at
> the same time as hotels in orbit were being constructed.
> So the best way to get this started is to have a gas station in orbit.
>
Of course ISS isn't really at a good location to be a gas station.
mlin...@my-deja.com
mark...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Rand Simberg wrote:
> >
> > >I really doubt that tourism is enough to drive development by
itself.
> >
> > Well, as I said in the other post, you have to take into account the
> > increasing levels of discretionary income in the world, and the
> > proportion of them that are devoted to tourism. This is without
> > precedent in history.
>
> And because of this lack of precedence, relying too much on this
income
> source might prove risky in economic assessments.
Does anyone know if there are huge annual "swings" in the demand for
MiG-25 joyrides and zero-G flights? Perhaps the biggest risk, as I see
it, is that somebody gets killed. The direct and indirect costs of an
accident could be extremely high if your only source of revenue is space
tourism.
> > And I hope to prove you wrong. If not, then we won't open up space,
> > at least in the near term, because I see no other application that
> > offers sufficient demand to drive down the costs of space
transportation.
>
> Just because we can't see those other space enterprises doesn't mean
> they won't be developed. But if we don't have larger numbers of
people
> trying various commercial businesses in space, then it reduces the
> chances that some will flourish. Allowing only government and
> government sponsored efforts to participate in spaceflight guarantees
> stagnation.
Wise words, but I don't think there is a risk of "allowing only
government and government sponsored efforts to participate" as long as
somebody is willing to pursue suborbital space tourism. I believe the
space tourism problem could be approached in two ways. We could
start from the "top" by renting payload space on existing vehicles that
were developed for other purposes, e.g. launching satellites. Or we
could could start at the "bottom" by building a small suborbital vehicle
that is optimized for carrying passengers to 100km altitude. Both
approaches seem to have unique merits and drawbacks, but I don't think
they have to be mutually exclusive. Someone like Bigelow could buy a few
seats on the Space Shuttle (or one of the proposed fully reusable
satellite launchers) and offer them to the public, while VelaTech and
Bristol Spaceplanes are building less expensive suborbital vehicles.
There may not be that much direct competition, if suborbital space
tourism operators can provide higher flight rates and lower ticket
prices.
MARCU$
mlin...@my-deja.com
jimd...@primary.net wrote:
> Certainly many people travel by air and sea
> just for the pure fun of it but they can do so only because the
> technology was already developed by large scale military and
commercial
> (passenger for air and cargo for sea) users. Commercial airliners are
> used for aerial tours of Antarctica but their development could never
> have been funded from the revenues generated by such tours. They're
> piggybacking off the really large scale industry (passenger transport)
> which *can* fund their development.
Yeah. That's what I was telling Rand a few days ago. Would somebody have
developed a Mach 2-3 aircraft (e.g. the MiG-25) just to fly tourists on
sightseeing trips to 25km altitude? Would somebody have bothered to
develop a mass market (relatively speaking, that is) vehicle such as the
Concorde -- i.e. something that could transport 150,000 "tourists" a
year @ $5000/ticket -- if the *only* customers were tourists?? Clearly,
the "first" vehicle entirely dedicated to space tourism cannot be
allowed to cost billions if private industry is expected to pay for it.
---
Will somebody receive enough funds to build a Mach 4 aerospace-plane
just to launch space tourists to 100km altitude? We don't know, but
there *are* some encouraging precedents. Jim Bede's supersonic BD-10 for
example. I'd imagine most owners only use their BD-10 as a very
expensive toy. If enough people are willing to buy the product at the
price we realistically have to charge to make a profit, it will happen.
mlin...@my-deja.com
> > percentage of the gross world product that is devoted to tourism and
> > experience seeking, so comparing the situation of today to that of
the
> > 1920's and 1930's might be misleading.
>
> It could be argued that the tourism and more specifically the
> "experience seeking" industries are "bubble economies" inherently
> unstable and not the best models to base a space infrastructure on.
Not
> that this won't be a significant part of the growth of commercial
space
> travel, but it is wise to not understand the real economic mechanisms
at
> work. Even though tourism is a multi-billion dollar industry, it has
> large swings from year to year (even seasonally) and local shifts can
be
> devastating if miscalculated. Even a close analysis of the airline
> industry shows that it is susceptible to swings in fuel prices,
regional
> economic troubles and labor actions.
Incidentally, the LEO communications satellite market seems to have
similar problems. The demand for launches probably will vary greatly on
a year-to-year basis, with lots of launch demand every time a new
constellation is deployed but not a lot of traffic in between. Teledesic
would cause a huge "spike" when they deploy their constellation in
~2003-05, but there could be a number of lean years before that. In
contrast, the GEO market is fairly constant.
John Beaderstadt
> > > And yet here you are, calling him self-absorbed, and touting your
> own
> > > relative saintliness.
> >
> > Saintliness? Hardly! And I'll bet you would be hard-pressed to prove
> your
> > claim.
>
> Which claim? You lost me.
The claim that *I* am claiming sainthood, either relative or absolute. The
idea of putting someone else's welfare or achievement ahead of your own is
simple good manners, and I don't understand why you should think it
remarkable. Perhaps that says something about one, or both, of us.
> > Besides, would *you* be convinced if I came up with a
> longer
> > list? I somehow doubt it.
>
> Convinced of what?
Wrong word, sorry. "Converted," might have been better. Would you be
converted to my point of view if I came up with an equal or longer list of
credentials? Probably not; you agree with someone else, so their
credentials reinforce your opinion; you disagree with me so my own list, no
matter how long, similar or comprehensive, would be irrelevant.
> I'm simply trying to show that you were unfair and mistaken in your
> characterization of another poster, but by now it's beating a dead
> horse. Your arguments and assertions are nonsensical. Not gonna waste
> any more of my time on this one.
Thank you.
gbaikie
then tourism might make sense. You go the the hotel, you are pandered,
you can meet interesting people. It's the place to be- it's screaming
in your ear that you are someone important. There are a lots of people
with too much money, which will use it to gain status. A Shuttle type
flight would be desirable, but not enough by itself. If you want a
considerable mass in orbit (hotel) you will need to get the material
from NEO or Moon.
there was already a market for rocket fuel (water) in orbit, then it's
much easier to get to NEOs/Moon to establish water mining and you have
a market to sell to. If you had LH&LOX selling for around $2000 per
pound in orbit, sending adventure tourist to the Moon might occur at
the same time as hotels in orbit were being constructed.
So the best way to get this started is to have a gas station in orbit.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
sna...@nospamhotmail.com
> would cause a huge "spike" when they deploy their constellation in
> ~2003-05, but there could be a number of lean years before that. In
> contrast, the GEO market is fairly constant.
Marcus
I'm not sure if Teledesic will ever be launched. Motorola, here in
Phoenix, which was slated to be the primary contractor for this project,
just pulled out. The word is that Motorola is not interested in
pursuing this any further. Additionally, it seems that Mr. McGaw is
having serious doubts in investing large sums of money in this project
as well.
Hence, Teledesic needs to search for another company to build its
consellations. I believe the next candidate is going to be the fourth
company that they have contracted with in the past two years. First it
was Hughes (if I'm not mistaking), then Boeing and finally Motorola.
Bruce Hoult
> Jim Bede's supersonic BD-10 for example. I'd imagine most owners
> only use their BD-10 as a very expensive toy.
I must be out of date. Last I heard of it the BD-10 had never flown
supersonic, probably never would. and no kits had been sold.
Henry will know :-)
-- Bruce
Jim Benson
was forced by men in trench coats to say:
>In 1920, the vast majority of people who flew in airplanes were either
>military pilots or barnstormers. In 1930, the vast majority of people who
>flew in airplanes were *passengers*.
>
>In 1950, the vast majority of people who flew in jets were pilots. In 1960,
>the vast majority of people who flew in jets were passengers.
>
>If one steps back and looks at the task of sending passengers into space,
>it's not that difficult a technical or economic challenge. The problem is
>cultural and political - the need to convince investors to put their hard
>earned bucks into space transportation, and for the government to allow this
>to happen. It's not that different from 1492 in Spain, where the keys to
>opening the New World were similarly cultural and political.
I try to be positive and have been encouraging space entrepreneurs for
the last three years to come up with practical ideas and jump in, but
I have to disagree with the statement that the problem is cultural and
political.
It IS a difficult technical challenge. If it were not difficult, it
would have been done by now. It IS a difficult economic challenge, or
the money would be flowing.
The sad fact is that NO ONE has come up with a believable resuable
launch design that also makes economic sense. This is why there are no
investors - they are not stupid, or at least most of them are not.
Those who are make a small fortune in space, by starting with a large
fortune.
When people come up with technically AND economically feasible
programs and corresponding professional business plans, money will be
available to them. If not, not.
Jim B
>John Beaderstadt <be...@together.net> wrote in message
>news:3816E870...@together.net...
>> Realistically, even if this generation did accomplish all you want it to,
>you,
>> personally, will not enter space. Instead of saying "my children will
>enter
>> space," you want to be able to say "my neighbor will enter space."
>> Substantively, I don't see any difference between the two statements
>although,
>> personally, I prefer the former to the latter.
Atlan1
or it would naturally begin to close. This was not done. This is not being
done. Making a breach is the costliest part of the work. Having to make the
breach over and over again just multiplies the cost of beginning over and over
again. The costs aren't just measured in the money being directly spent to do
the job. It is measured in the moral and will of the whole population behind
in back of the effort, not just the front line. That line thins without the
van behind, and that costs more.
We haven't been widening breachs. There is a natural law against state
monopolies doing that. It can do the initial wedging, but cannot follow up
with widening.
I never figured that I personally would ever make it to the space frontier,
as most here have hoped. I would benefit in the expanding widening of breach,
though, or so I've thought for more than forty years, which just never
happened. Nothing could be so inefficient and costly to this country and the
world as to have to breach and gain, lose, rebreach and regain, and lose again,
the same space in the space frontier over and over again, time and time again.
Instead of Man expanding in space, even a dozen at a time, to a hundred and a
thousand a time, expanding and growing in numbers, space, depth and diversity,
there is not a human in space today. Not one. That is terrible cost, terrible
cost to the effort of opening, terrible cost to this world. Napoleon said
something to the effect, "I will give you anything but time."
General L. Bradford, Jr.
Thomas F. Radloff
> consellations. I believe the next candidate is going to be the fourth
> company that they have contracted with in the past two years. First it
> was Hughes (if I'm not mistaking), then Boeing and finally Motorola.
Why all the contractor turnover?
TFR
rk
> In article <3817C389...@NOSPAM.erols.com>,
> rk <stel...@NOSPAM.erols.com> wrote:
> > Rand Simberg wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:37:34 -0400, in a place far, far away, John
> > > Beaderstadt <be...@together.net> made the phosphor on my monitor
> glow
> > > in such a way as to indicate that:
> > >
> > > >> Our assumption base seems to be so different that it is
> difficult to have
> > > >> a useful conversation.
> > > >
> > > >I don't see why you say that, since you claim to know better than
> I do, what
> > > >I *really* mean when I say something.
> > >
> > > I made no claims to knowledge of what you meant--I only stated what
> I
> > > had to assume what you meant by "astronauts," since the simple
> > > definition of "space traveler" wouldn't require the type of training
> > > that you condescendingly asked Mr. Heney if he had started.
> >
> > just for kicks, here's what the dictionary says:
> >
> > Main Entry: as·tro·naut
> > Pronunciation: 'as-tr&-"not, -"nät
> > Function: noun
> > Etymology: astr- + -naut (as in aeronaut)
> > Date: 1929
> > : a person who travels beyond the earth's atmosphere; also : a
> trainee for
> > spaceflight
> >
> > good night,
> >
> > rk
>
> The last time I was in an airport, I do not recall hearing phrases such
> as "will aeronauts in rows A through F please board at this time."
???
btw, what is the price of eggs?
rk
Ron Paul Hunter
Atlan1 wrote:
> "Common heritage," -- "province of all mankind," -- "globalism," -- "one
> world," -- "Outer space, ..., is not subject to national appropriation by claim
> of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means," -- "The
> activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, ..., shall require
> authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the
> Treaty," -- "organization of the world and every person in it," -- "nations are
> obsolete," and all the like words and phrases, send totalitarians into absolute
> orgasms of pure delight. These are their words, the most certain means to
> absolute power and the rule of one, the rule of one nobility. Commonism (sic),
> mediocracy (sic), collectivism, centralism (centerism), Big Tent, consensus of
> all or most, total quality management, total quality organization, these are
> all reduction to oneness, reduction to the rule of one. But power corrupts,
> and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Tyranny's measure is anarchy, and the
> greater the tyranny, the greater the measure of anarchy. There is no greater
> tyranny than an iron curtain, a great wall, surrounding and enclosing an entire
> world of people off from any possible mindsets for and means to mass exodus to
> the vast wilds of the space frontier and freedom. Anarchy, The Lord of the
> Flies, Animalism, Statism, the total confusion of language, science, meaning
> and comprehension -- none of it freedom, law, or order, none of it anything
> like freedom, law, or order, will dog that world, this world, with insanities,
> disorders, consequences, and growing costs.
>
> General L. Bradford, Jr.
--
"The truth is not optional! If I game things out perfectly in my mind,
Then the rest of life is just waiting for reality to catch up with me"[Ron Hunter
1999]
If you have a dream about the an impact of an asteroid from space call
1[919]858-8416
The apocalypse footlocker
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/r/rphunter/www/index.html
Mark Reiff
>
> are you a real general , as in the us military?
>
> Atlan1 wrote:
>
> > "Common heritage," -- "province of all mankind," -- "globalism," -- "one
> > world," -- "Outer space, ...,
If you have to ask, you all ready know the answer. :)
General L. Bradford, Jr.
the third generation of four with the name "General," in direct line that
is. Indirectly, (through my grandfather's uncle or near cousin to his
father--I can't tell yet,) I've just traced the name back five generations
including me, for a total so far of six generations altogether with the
first name "General." And yes, I had a good career in the military from
which I am now retired, but not as an officer. And yes, I've had a great
many difficulties in my life that were directly attributable to my name. I
still do.
Brad
"Mark Reiff" <mark...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:38A70A3C...@earthlink.net...
Matthew Montchalin
|I have to answer this question every so often, too often in my life. I'm
|the third generation of four with the name "General," in direct line that
|is. Indirectly, (through my grandfather's uncle or near cousin to his
|father--I can't tell yet,) I've just traced the name back five generations
|including me, for a total so far of six generations altogether with the
|first name "General." And yes, I had a good career in the military from
|which I am now retired, but not as an officer. And yes, I've had a great
|many difficulties in my life that were directly attributable to my name. I
|still do.
|
|Brad
Shades of Catch 22!