From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Sun Jul 14 2002 - 00:48:02 MDT
Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Adrian Tymes wrote:
>> Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>>> Can our resident rocket scientists point out some concrete reason that
>>> we could not go to the moon using combined U.S. and Russian resources
>>> within a couple of years?
>>
>> Money, and behind that, motivation. Why do we wish to return to Luna?
>> Despite their overtures to big buisness, the administration is deaf to
>> even the wildest possibilities of profit ('cause, keep in mind, it's
>> profit *to them* that they're worried about, and there's no guarantee
>> that any corporation formed with government money would become a big
>> donator to that which created them - and there does not seem to be the
>> same kind of political capital to win re-election, as there is with,
>> say, environmentalism or security).
>
> I think the motivation will occur when China proves it is serious about
> building a base on the moon. We are not so asleep that we will allow
> the "high ground" to slip out of our grasp. Of course first we will
> perform the sickening maneuver of attempting to forbid anyone from
> acheiving such bases forever. It has already begun.
So long as China does not actively attack US interests - which it has
done a good job of so far (despite its constant threats against Taiwan)
- there is no pretext to attack Chinese assets in space. Without such a
pretext, and with the current set of international treaties, the US
government knows that to attack in that manner is to risk counterattack
by nothing less than the entire rest of the world - Europe and Canada
included - for the crime of being the ultimate rogue nation. We are not
(yet) such a superpower that the entire rest of the world, banded
together, could not take us down...though it would be messy.
>> Now, if you could get enough private money invested, you could do it
>> on private resources...but, again, why would those who can contribute
>> the $millions necessary for such an effort want to donate such a large
>> chunk of their fortune? Again, they do not seem to see much profit
>> opportunity, and most of those who got lots of money got it by caring
>> first and foremost about getting lots of money.
>
> How much money will the first group to successfully exploit a metal rich
> reasonably sized near-earth asteroid pull in? Yeah, its a big gamble.
> But the payoff is HUGE.
Unknown. I know of at least one group that has boasted it could
probably set up sub-$1K/lb. launch services to LEO for $10 million.
Getting to the closest asteroids, or the Moon, would probably cost more
than that.
>> That said...some people are trying. People without *lots* of money, but
>> just enough to get some results by being frugal. If one could direct
>> lots of money to the right such effort, one could quite possibly buy
>> (and have fulfilled) a ticket to the Moon within a few years.
>
> I don't want a ticket to the moon. I want a ticket to exploiting space
> resources in a way that is as quickly as possible highly profitable and
> capable of sustainable growth. Just going to the moon doesn't look to me
> like the best way to do that right now.
That was an example. The nearest of the near Earth asteroids you speak
of are approximately similar delta-v to reach...and the Moon is always
there; you don't have to wait for its approach then launch at just the
right time. Besides, there are a number of ways one could exploit lunar
resources for profit (many involving building structures, using lunar
material, that would sit on the Moon while in use).
>>> Hard to say. I suspect the people would rise to the challenge if
>>> one had the leadership. In any case its going to get interesting
>>> later in this decade since it looks like the Chinese seem pretty
>>> serious about going there.
>>
>> Again, motivation. For all the rhetoric, there is far less perceived
>> danger of war with China among the voting public than there was with the
>> USSR. Sure, China makes all kinds of bolsterous public threats - but
>
> That isn't the point is it? If there is massive wealth to be had, much
> less large strategic advantages, the US and Europe cannot be caught
> napping while China gets first dibs. As long as no country or
> organization is making a credible bid on space we have little pressure
> to ante up.
Ah, ah. Note I was very careful to distinguish the US *government* in
the above. The US is far from a single, monolithic entity, and Europe
likewise. The massive wealth will go to the exploiters; if the US
government does not itself exploit, but leaves that to the private
sector, then the benefit is not that different than if the private
sector of a different, but allied, country did so - but that other
country's government covered the costs.
Oh, and minor nit: "can" is an ability statement. It is most definitely
physically possible for the US and Europe to be caught napping. And
sometimes, when one thinks something is impossible, the physical
possibility is all that Murphy needs to make it happen anyway...
>> then they turn around and try to get special trade status, and try to
>> compete economically instead of militarily. That kind of thing gets
>> noticed. And with *that* as the Big Enemy, who cares if they get a moon
>> base? From this point of view, that might even be a good thing, because
>> at least our ally will have done it even if we didn't.
>
> They are *not* our ally. It is a real mistake to think they are. To
> them, we are temporarily more powerful barbarians. They would be more
> than happy to rectify that situation.
Didn't say it wasn't a mistake; just said that's my impression of what a
lot of people think. The masses can be wrong, but US government often
tends to respond to what they believe anyway.
>>>> The old system doesn't work and won't be repeated or revived.
>>>
>>> That is hard to predict Harvey. If the Chinese are successful
>>> in establishing a lunar colony it is difficult to predict how
>>> American, Russian, Japanese, or Indian "pride" would respond.
>
> We would have a major space race. Hurrah!
One can wish.
>> Japanese, India: they don't have a self-launched manned space program
>> yet. Kinda hard to effectively respond without one.
>
> That won't take long. Not when the basics are all known and we have so
> little in heavy lift abilities also.
The Japanese government, at least, could really use the boost to
national pride today from a manned space program, given the current
status of Japan. So why haven't they started one? There's a reason
"rocket science" has its stigma. (Though, granted, a large part of it
has to do with unnecessary complexity loaded on by governments not too
concerned with stuff like being able to launch more than once.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:25 MST