Space Travel for the Rich
Mark Whittington
prospect of a space tourism industry has not, it seems, been
universaly shared. Indeed, the political barriers to a space tourism
industry may be just as difficult as the technical ones.
This piece was written a day or so before the collapse of HR 3752.
Rand Simberg
mwhit...@sprynet.com (Mark Whittington) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
"Just as difficult"?
The technical issues have always been the easy part.
Tkalbfus1
Its a common fantasy among leftish sorts to believe that the poor do not dream
of being rich themselves, but rather they dream of making the rich as poor as
themselves and maybe their own poverty won't bite as much.
But what if it does?
If everybody is poor, or only you are poor, you are still poor.
You have trouble feeding your family or finding a place to live. These troubles
don't disappear if you bring down others who are living better than yourself.
Now picture a politician who visits a poor neighborhood. The poor people there
want to know how the politician is going to help lift them out of poverty, but
instead they hear how he intends to stop rich people from joyriding into space.
And those terrible "Fox hunts" such snobbery! He'll put a stop to those, that's
darn sure, but to solve the problems of poverty, he has not a clue. All he can
do is make the lives of the rich harder and limit the opportunities of the rich
to become richer, and also of the poor from becoming richer. If you want
equality, its easier to make everyone poorer than to make everyone richer.
Leftists always concentrate on making people poorer so that there is less
income differential between the rich and poor. That is why that editorial comes
down so screaming hard on people who want to provide services for the rich.
Pioneering sevices such as private space travel are considered especially
vulnerable and so draw much of their fire.
I am not particulaly well off. I struggle to support my family and I work 12
hour days, 6 days a week, and these leftist sort of people who want to bring
down the rich to my level do very little for me.
Tom
jacob navia
>
> Its a common fantasy among leftish sorts to believe that the poor do not dream
> of being rich themselves,
Sorry but getting rich was never an objective for me. And I have
done exactly what I wanted: I am not rich.
> but rather they dream of making the rich as poor as
> themselves and maybe their own poverty won't bite as much.
>
I do not want the rich to become poor. I want a better world for sure,
but nothing like the parasitic display of the rich.
[snip]
> I am not particulaly well off. I struggle to support my family and I work 12
> hour days, 6 days a week,
Like me
Being poor doesn't mean that I do not care about space exploration,
astronomy, the sciences. Like you by the way. You do not have a penny
but you do find the time to discuss space.
Tkalbfus1
>
>Being poor doesn't mean that I do not care about space exploration,
>astronomy, the sciences. Like you by the way. You do not have a penny
>but you do find the time to discuss space.
>
I make the time. My current work is not what I wanted to do with my life, but
the needs to support my family are the primary consideration. Still, I do not
live to work, but I work to live. Part of living is doing what I want to do
when I'm not working. My free time is not substantial, but I use it to pursue
my intellectual interests which are entirely unrelated to my work. When I was
young, I was hoping that by this time, space travel would be commonplace, and
its not.
I do not mind rich people paying their way to go into space as that is like the
tip of a wedge to get more and more people into space. Space tourism creates a
dynamic and an incentive to make space travel cheaper. Those few rich people
make it possible to make money by launching people into space. Once they are in
that business, they will realize, that by finding ways to make space travel
cheaper, they will make more money. Competition will increase as more space
carriers get into the market due to the profits that are made there. Increased
competition will drive prices down, and new cheaper ways of getting into space
will have to be found. This cycle of increased efficiency and more competition
will drive down prices and put space travel within the financial reach of more
and more people until eventually it will be as common as air travel is today.
I do not care if the rich enjoy themselves by spending a few minutes travel in
space; they are doing us a favor by creating a market that will eventually lead
to cheaper space access prices for all.
If they are willing to plunk $200,000 for a 4 minute ride in space, that
doesn't bother me a bit. Without the super rich with money to burn, there would
be no market for private space travel, there would be no companies earning
their living from it and thus no incentive to make it cheaper and thus expand
their business. NASA can continue its missions of exploration and a manned
return to the Moon, and the money spent by these rich thrill ride seekers might
even help.
Government contractors, who provide the launch services for NASA and the
Defense Department have little incentive to make space travel cheaper. The
government is willing to spend a certain amount of money and the contractors
will receive that money. If the contractors find a way to make it cost less
money for each launch, they will receive less money from the government and the
government will use the savings for health care, or possible defense. The
contractors have no reason to make space travel cheap, the government can
afford their services as they are and no one else can. The gap between what the
US government can afford and what the very rich can is huge.
A new market for the very rich had to be created so they can afford to go into
space. Maybe some poorer people are jealous of this conspicuous consumption,
but there are people waiting in the wings who are not as rich as the very rich,
but who would go into space if the price were brought down to something they
could afford.
There is a continuum of wealth that stretches from the very rich to the very
poor, this means that everytime the price of space access is lowered, the
number of people who are willing to buy these tickets increases, and the
companies that sell them make more profits. There are no gaps between the very
rich, merely rich, the upper middle class, and the middle class. There are no
gaps, every level of wealth is represented, and every decrease in ticket price
produces more customers as a result of this.
There is however a huge gap between the US government and the very rich. There
are no trillionares for instance. Any marginal reduction in space costs at this
level would simply reduce profits as the number of customers would still be
only one.
If the very rich were to make use of launch services they could afford, the US
government would also find those launch services to be available, and suddenly
a return to manned Moon and Mars missions becomes alot cheaper. The American
people can then decide on whether they want a bigger space program as a result
of this, or they can spend the savings on healthcare. That is the benefit to
society of private space travel.
Tom
Dan DeLong
> >
> >Being poor doesn't mean that I do not care about space exploration,
> >astronomy, the sciences. Like you by the way. You do not have a penny
> >but you do find the time to discuss space.
> >
> I make the time. My current work is not what I wanted to do with my life, but
> the needs to support my family are the primary consideration. Still, I do not
> live to work, but I work to live. Part of living is doing what I want to do
> when I'm not working. My free time is not substantial, but I use it to pursue
> my intellectual interests which are entirely unrelated to my work. When I was
> young, I was hoping that by this time, space travel would be commonplace, and
> its not.
>
> space. Maybe some poorer people are jealous of this conspicuous consumption,
> but there are people waiting in the wings who are not as rich as the very rich, but who would go into space if the price were brought down to something they could afford.
> There is a continuum of wealth that stretches from the very rich to the very
> poor, this means that everytime the price of space access is lowered, the
> number of people who are willing to buy these tickets increases, and the
> companies that sell them make more profits. There are no gaps between the very
> rich, merely rich, the upper middle class, and the middle class. There are no
> gaps, every level of wealth is represented, and every decrease in ticket price
> produces more customers as a result of this.
>
Just when I was going to give up on sci.space because of the trolls
and pie-throwing contests, along comes.....this. 10 years ago I
considered myself well-off working for a NASA contractor. I had a nice
house in the country with my own hangar and taxiway connected to a
private airport. I had an airplane and 3 cars. Now that's all gone...I
chose to leave that world, and now most of my net worth is in a
startup company trying to bring spaceflight to people like you and me.
Sometimes I wonder why I am working 70 hour weeks for less than
minimum wage.
Thanks for reminding me.
Dan DeLong
P.S. I expect the ticket price for 120 km suborbital hops to be under
$50K in 6 years.
Len
...snip....good post.
> > Tom
>
> Just when I was going to give up on sci.space because of the trolls
> and pie-throwing contests, along comes.....this. 10 years ago I
> considered myself well-off working for a NASA contractor. I had a nice
> house in the country with my own hangar and taxiway connected to a
> private airport. I had an airplane and 3 cars. Now that's all gone...I
> chose to leave that world, and now most of my net worth is in a
> startup company trying to bring spaceflight to people like you and me.
> Sometimes I wonder why I am working 70 hour weeks for less than
> minimum wage.
>
> Thanks for reminding me.
> Dan DeLong
>
> P.S. I expect the ticket price for 120 km suborbital hops to be under
> $50K in 6 years.
P.S.S. Also a good post, Dan. I expect the ticket price
for 130 km, half-day, 60-degree orbital hops to be about
$125,000 in 6 years. The price to a 450-km facility should
be about $200,000.
BTW, I hear you on the lack of compensation for most of the
work that entrepreneurs do quite happily.
Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
x...@tour2space.com (change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com
Steve VanSickle
> Sometimes I wonder why I am working 70 hour weeks for less than
> minimum wage.
>
> Thanks for reminding me.
And thank *you* for fighting the good fight. I hope to be one of your
customers one day soon.
sjv
redneckj
"Len" <l...@tour2space.com> wrote in message
news:36dabe8a.04101...@posting.google.com...
are rich. Inventors too, just one good idea and you're set for
life.
Pete Lynn
news:AZkad.20445$zY6....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> What are you two going on about, I heard that all entrepreneurs
> are rich. Inventors too, just one good idea and you're set for
> life.
I assume you are joking, society does not particularly like change, it
has even less inclination to spend money on it. Innovators work for the
future, not the present, hence their undervaluing and relative poverty.
Rarely does it pay off directly, though the world is usually a better
place for it, and that is the real reward that keeps innovators trying.
Pete.
Earl Colby Pottinger
> I do not mind rich people paying their way to go into space as that is like
> the tip of a wedge to get more and more people into space. Space
> tourism creates a dynamic and an incentive to make space travel cheaper.
Execpt for trains which work best for moving bulk goods I think this has been
true for every major transportation device created in the last two hundred
years. Only if a poorer person built it themselves could they afford one of
the early models.
The first bikes were rich men's toys.
The first cars required you had lots of money just to maintain them.
The cruise ships did carry poor people as stowage, but keep them away from
most of the ship, it was the rich customers that got the cruise ships built.
The first commerial jet planes tied directly into the jet setting crowd.
And the same for the first private jet planes.
Segways are not for the poor, neither are GoldWings.
The rich pay the development costs, the mass market supplies the big buck
profits.
Earl Colby Pottinger
--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp
Earl Colby Pottinger
> What are you two going on about, I heard that all entrepreneurs
> are rich. Inventors too, just one good idea and you're set for
> life.
But like 'belling the cat' first you have to catch that good idea.
Christopher M. Jones
Are you crazy or just ignorant?
The ranks of the super-rich are typically jam-packed
with those who have made vast fortunes from
innovating.
G EddieA95
>
>Execpt for trains which work best for moving bulk goods I think this has been
>true for every major transportation device created in the last two hundred
>years.
Trains too. One forgets that it was the "iron horse" that made long-haul
overland travelling practical.
Joe Strout
"Christopher M. Jones" <christoph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The ranks of the super-rich are typically jam-packed
> with those who have made vast fortunes from
> innovating.
Of course, the ranks of the super-poor are jam-packed with those who
have lost vast fortunes from innovating, too.
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| j...@strout.net http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
Pete Lynn
news:_sOdnU7LMbe...@comcast.com...
> Pete Lynn wrote:
> > "redneckj" <redn...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:AZkad.20445$zY6....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> >>What are you two going on about, I heard that all entrepreneurs
> >>are rich. Inventors too, just one good idea and you're set for
> >>life.
> >
> > I assume you are joking, society does not particularly like change,
> > it has even less inclination to spend money on it. Innovators work
> > for the future, not the present, hence their undervaluing and
relative
> > poverty. Rarely does it pay off directly, though the world is
usually
> > a better place for it, and that is the real reward that keeps
> > innovators trying.
>
> Are you crazy or just ignorant?
To be honest I would like to think I know more about such things than
most. I have devoted many years to trying to understand this process so
that I might learn how to win. :-)
> The ranks of the super-rich are typically jam-packed
> with those who have made vast fortunes from
> innovating.
True, though for everyone that succeeds there are more that fail, and
most who do succeed do so more by hard work than by innovation.
Take the X-Prize for example. One team won $10 million, I am guessing
the sum total opportunity costs, (not direct costs), for those who
competed might have been in excess of $100 million. Now perhaps this
time round that money will actually be recouped by some groups moving on
to bigger and better things, or maybe not. Think of all the earlier
attempts, Rotary, Kistler, Beal, etc., I do not expect those
expenditures to be recouped anytime soon, and definitely not by the
majority of those who invested.
Usually in such circumstances the first groups spend a lot of money, go
bust, have their useful technology bought at a small fraction of the
costs by the next group who takes it a bit further. This sunk cost
process continues until someone makes a go of it, or the entire concept
is abandoned. Xcor is I think an example of the second iteration,
hopefully two iterations will be enough. Most out there niche
industries follow this procedure, I can give many other examples.
Yes some innovators make it big, to be the best, the richest, you have
to innovate, you have to win the game, innovate or die. However my
original point was that society directly rewards R&D poorly, at below
opportunity cost. Generally speaking those involved in R&D, especially
at the bleeding edge, could on average earn more elsewhere. However,
without anyone doing R&D, the economy would soon collapse.
R&D does not tend to be reimbursed for the society wide benefits it
produces to the extent that other industries are. The reason for this
is partly that these benefits are hard to quantify, and partly because
the losers in the R&D game suffer while the society as a whole benefits
and a form of protectionism arises which is not easily resisted.
I hope this is a little clearer.
Pete.
redneckj
"Pete Lynn" <pe...@peterlynnkites.com> wrote in message
news:10974691...@kyle.snap.net.nz...
and more than a bit of an inventor. The mention of 70 hour weeks at
less than minimum wage hit a little too close to home.
> Pete.
>
>
redneckj
"Earl Colby Pottinger" <ear...@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:k_qdnUaZUId...@look.ca...
> "redneckj" <redn...@tampabay.rr.com> :
>
> > What are you two going on about, I heard that all entrepreneurs
> > are rich. Inventors too, just one good idea and you're set for
> > life.
>
> But like 'belling the cat' first you have to catch that good idea.
>
I can use myself. Using these gadjets on the job, I am constantly
advised to get a patent. And being told in all seriousness the line
I posted orriginally. I've read that Mark Twain went broke backing
the typewriter, and that Thomas Edison was nearly broke when
he died. The inventor of the rimfire cartrige licensed the rights to
Smith and Wesson just before the civil war. A line in the contract
required him to defend the patent from his royalties. The defence
costs exceded his royalties. And so on.
Not a personal shot Earl, just one of my hot buttons.
One good idea is a fantasy without an overwhelming
supply of good luck.
Pete Lynn
>
> I was joking. Len and Dan know that I am a bit of an entrepreneur
> and more than a bit of an inventor. The mention of 70 hour weeks at
> less than minimum wage hit a little too close to home.
Tell me about it. :-)
Pete.
Alan Erskine
plonk you fuck wit
im aka alaner...@bigpond.com and im a firefighter in Doveton vic 3788,
give me a time and place to meet. I'll even buy you a beer and then we
can look for niggers in and burn then like i did with my mom. and i like
to trap kids in the restroom in the park and strip them take pics. of
them then i let the kids go so they can run in the park nude.
--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge
Alante...@bigpond.com
quasarstrider
I think that is mostly an US problem. The subculture around automobiles and
suburbia, brought along by cheap gas plus a large public highway system mixed
with certain cultural traits caused trains to lose most of their place in the
human transportation market.
In other parts of the world where there has been investment in better railway
systems (e.g. Japan and Europe) or where people cannot afford personal
transportation (e.g. India) trains are still much in use by people.
Earl Colby Pottinger
I know that, but were trains really a service for the rich and upper classes
first?
quasarstrider
> I know that, but were trains really a service for the rich and upper classes
> first?
Probably not for short range travel. Personal transportation was likely more
convenient. But for the long distance lines, the Orient Express, etc, I would
say yes. The fact is railroad was more convenient and faster, at a time the
alternatives were horses on bumpy roads or slow steam boats using longer routes,
in some cases there was no boat alternative at all. Plus you have to remember
there were exquisitely furnitured first class cars, with restaurant service and
beds.
Earl Colby Pottinger
Right, as soon as I read your message, i remembered much nicer for the rich
long distance train travel would be compared all other modes available in the
19'th century.
Eric Chomko
: >The joy most people greeted the triumph of SpaceShipOne and the
: >prospect of a space tourism industry has not, it seems, been
: >universaly shared. Indeed, the political barriers to a space tourism
: >industry may be just as difficult as the technical ones.
: >
: >This piece was written a day or so before the collapse of HR 3752.
: >
: >
: >http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_10268.shtml
: Its a common fantasy among leftish sorts to believe that the poor do not dream
: of being rich themselves, but rather they dream of making the rich as poor as
: themselves and maybe their own poverty won't bite as much.
It is more at simply having the experience so the rich can see and feel it
first hand. (Think about the film "Trading Places"). I don't think any
poor person wishes poverty on anyone. But I bet they want others to feel
as they do, just so that those others know.
I know empathy and sympathy are words that don't exist for righties...
: But what if it does?
: If everybody is poor, or only you are poor, you are still poor.
Profound! You cite another tautology, you logician, you.
: You have trouble feeding your family or finding a place to live. These troubles
: don't disappear if you bring down others who are living better than yourself.
Well misery loves company was stated by somebody.
: Now picture a politician who visits a poor neighborhood. The poor people there
: want to know how the politician is going to help lift them out of poverty, but
: instead they hear how he intends to stop rich people from joyriding into space.
: And those terrible "Fox hunts" such snobbery! He'll put a stop to those, that's
: darn sure, but to solve the problems of poverty, he has not a clue. All he can
: do is make the lives of the rich harder and limit the opportunities of the rich
: to become richer, and also of the poor from becoming richer. If you want
: equality, its easier to make everyone poorer than to make everyone richer.
How do you know that for a fact? Back up your premise!
: Leftists always concentrate on making people poorer so that there is less
: income differential between the rich and poor. That is why that editorial comes
: down so screaming hard on people who want to provide services for the rich.
: Pioneering sevices such as private space travel are considered especially
: vulnerable and so draw much of their fire.
Leftists want to make people poor? I thought rightists wanted to do that
by becoming rich?!
: I am not particulaly well off. I struggle to support my family and I work 12
: hour days, 6 days a week, and these leftist sort of people who want to bring
: down the rich to my level do very little for me.
Yeah, you struggle and vote for the rich. The term "dupe" comes to mind.
Forget about rich and poor WRT weatlh and money and think about it terms
of character and smarts. Are you just as poor?
The day that you think of wealth in pure monetary terms and think of the
alternative as socialism, is the day you lost yourself.
Eric
: Tom
Eric Chomko
But for every success there are 10 failures. It is just like the number of
street lights on Broadway for all the actors and actresses that didn't
make it.
My hat is off to all those that try, though. All too often all we hear
about are the successes.
Eric
Eric Chomko
: "Christopher M. Jones" <christoph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
: news:_sOdnU7LMbe...@comcast.com...
: > Pete Lynn wrote:
: > > "redneckj" <redn...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
: > > news:AZkad.20445$zY6....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
: > >
: > >>What are you two going on about, I heard that all entrepreneurs
: > >>are rich. Inventors too, just one good idea and you're set for
: > >>life.
: > >
: > > I assume you are joking, society does not particularly like change,
: > > it has even less inclination to spend money on it. Innovators work
: > > for the future, not the present, hence their undervaluing and
: relative
: > > poverty. Rarely does it pay off directly, though the world is
: usually
: > > a better place for it, and that is the real reward that keeps
: > > innovators trying.
: >
: > Are you crazy or just ignorant?
: To be honest I would like to think I know more about such things than
: most. I have devoted many years to trying to understand this process so
: that I might learn how to win. :-)
: > The ranks of the super-rich are typically jam-packed
: > with those who have made vast fortunes from
: > innovating.
: True, though for everyone that succeeds there are more that fail, and
: most who do succeed do so more by hard work than by innovation.
Far more that fail.
: Take the X-Prize for example. One team won $10 million, I am guessing
: the sum total opportunity costs, (not direct costs), for those who
: competed might have been in excess of $100 million. Now perhaps this
: time round that money will actually be recouped by some groups moving on
: to bigger and better things, or maybe not. Think of all the earlier
: attempts, Rotary, Kistler, Beal, etc., I do not expect those
: expenditures to be recouped anytime soon, and definitely not by the
: majority of those who invested.
: Usually in such circumstances the first groups spend a lot of money, go
: bust, have their useful technology bought at a small fraction of the
: costs by the next group who takes it a bit further. This sunk cost
: process continues until someone makes a go of it, or the entire concept
: is abandoned. Xcor is I think an example of the second iteration,
: hopefully two iterations will be enough. Most out there niche
: industries follow this procedure, I can give many other examples.
: Yes some innovators make it big, to be the best, the richest, you have
: to innovate, you have to win the game, innovate or die. However my
: original point was that society directly rewards R&D poorly, at below
: opportunity cost. Generally speaking those involved in R&D, especially
: at the bleeding edge, could on average earn more elsewhere. However,
: without anyone doing R&D, the economy would soon collapse.
Well said.
: R&D does not tend to be reimbursed for the society wide benefits it
: produces to the extent that other industries are. The reason for this
: is partly that these benefits are hard to quantify, and partly because
: the losers in the R&D game suffer while the society as a whole benefits
: and a form of protectionism arises which is not easily resisted.
: I hope this is a little clearer.
Much.
Eric
: Pete.
Earl Colby Pottinger
rich that long distance travel by train would be compared all other modes
dave schneider
> Right, as soon as I read your message, I remembered how much nicer for the
> rich that long distance travel by train would be compared all other modes
> available in the 19'th century.
Not just the Rich. Compare NYC to Fargo ND, 3 days in an immigrant
car (a *very* basic coach, some of which might have once been boxcars)
versus a week in a wagon train, *if* you could buy the wagon and some
oxen to pull it, and *buy* the place in the wagon train, and you could
get from NYC to St Louis (most likely a wagon and some oxen to get to
the Ohio River, and then a raft down the Ohio).
Some of the immigrant car fares were paid by the railroad itself, as a
way of having customers for freight in Fargo ND.
/dps