Commentary on our loss of vision

Curmudgeon · 06-09-2012, 07:21 PM

Richard C. Schmidt

Tony Curcio · 07-05-2012, 09:24 PM

I was sorry to see that no one had anything to say about this. It either means most disagree, or just don't give a crap.

But as far as NASA is concerned, I think they needed to step back and focus on developing launch vehicles that can get a payload into space for a lot less money than it costs today. When the Saturn V rocket was developed, they paid military contractors on a cost-plus basis, which is necessary to induce a private company to build something that has never been built before, and has no private market. But it also incentivizes them to make the costs higher, because their profit allowance grows in direct proportion to the cost. The space shuttle was built the same way.

And it appears some steps have been made in the direction of cost reduction. The Space-X company successfully docked an unmanned cargo vessel with the International Space Station about a month ago. Space-X has stated their goal is to put payloads into low-gravity orbit for one tenth the current cost. Space-X has at least two competitors in the US, and more in other countries. Japan is said to be working on the so-called "space elevator". China has recently joined the exclusive group of nations to have launched manned vessels.

Once a payload is in low-gravity, it is relatively cheap and easy to launch whatever equipment and machinery you want to destinations within the solar system. When, not if, this becomes reality, you will see private industry launching mining equipment to the moon and the asteroids, to scoop up the titanium ore that is abundant, the helium 3 that is inside the rocks, the lithium on some asteroids, and maybe some will go after the traditional precious metals, like gold and silver, while they still have some of their imaginary value left.

The precious metals are free for the taking. It's the shipping costs that kill ya. When that problem is overcome, governments won't be able to stop the commercialization and/or colonization of near space, but that's a topic for someone else to wrestle with.

06-09-2012, 07:21 PM	#1
Curmudgeon Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Asheville,N.C. Posts: 54 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Commentary on our loss of vision Richard C. Schmidt

07-05-2012, 09:24 PM	#2
Tony Curcio Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: West Chester, PA Posts: 271 Likes: 1 Liked 4 Times in 1 Post	Re: Commentary on our loss of vision I was sorry to see that no one had anything to say about this. It either means most disagree, or just don't give a crap. But as far as NASA is concerned, I think they needed to step back and focus on developing launch vehicles that can get a payload into space for a lot less money than it costs today. When the Saturn V rocket was developed, they paid military contractors on a cost-plus basis, which is necessary to induce a private company to build something that has never been built before, and has no private market. But it also incentivizes them to make the costs higher, because their profit allowance grows in direct proportion to the cost. The space shuttle was built the same way. And it appears some steps have been made in the direction of cost reduction. The Space-X company successfully docked an unmanned cargo vessel with the International Space Station about a month ago. Space-X has stated their goal is to put payloads into low-gravity orbit for one tenth the current cost. Space-X has at least two competitors in the US, and more in other countries. Japan is said to be working on the so-called "space elevator". China has recently joined the exclusive group of nations to have launched manned vessels. Once a payload is in low-gravity, it is relatively cheap and easy to launch whatever equipment and machinery you want to destinations within the solar system. When, not if, this becomes reality, you will see private industry launching mining equipment to the moon and the asteroids, to scoop up the titanium ore that is abundant, the helium 3 that is inside the rocks, the lithium on some asteroids, and maybe some will go after the traditional precious metals, like gold and silver, while they still have some of their imaginary value left. The precious metals are free for the taking. It's the shipping costs that kill ya. When that problem is overcome, governments won't be able to stop the commercialization and/or colonization of near space, but that's a topic for someone else to wrestle with. __________________ Tony Curcio 1860 STK