PDA

View Full Version : ECONOMICS of Space Travel



Gorn
2014-Jul-21, 09:29 PM
Hello. Just would like to know. Do people know that 'Money' ...paper 'Money' ...is something that people are or (can) be given to them in exchange for work that they do?

Funny part about that is its also an arbitrarily agreed upon amount.

When someone says (assuming of course) that the basic resources are 'free' ...that something costs a lot of money...what they really mean is that a lot of paper money has
to be traded because a lot of work has to be done by human beings.

So..for arguments sake will say that an organization has no money...but they wish to accomplish a certain project..and or get a lot of work done to bring it to fruition but they
cannot compensate those who are doing the work.

Sounds like a 'volunteer' project to me. Or one that is basically a volunteer project..where the organization has to figure out how to 'compensate' those who are doing the work.

Question: is such a thing possible? Is there a resolution to such a conundrum?

Any and all responses welcome
Bye
SC

Ara Pacis
2014-Jul-21, 10:20 PM
Well, if you can't swing slave labor, try offering deferred compensation, such as a unit of production after they've been produced. If you want to built a space rocket, offer the people who work on it a seat after it's completed. Sometimes this is called, or is similar to, "sweat equity". Also, think back to Barn Raising. Everyone pitches together to build a barn for one family. Then, they all pitch in to build the next barn. Ever the long run, everyone works and everyone's barn gets raised. Or offer compensation other than monetary, such as credit in a college course, awards and medals, certifications, membership into a special group or club.

Noclevername
2014-Jul-21, 10:43 PM
Hello. Just would like to know. Do people know that 'Money' ...paper 'Money' ...is something that people are or (can) be given to them in exchange for work that they do?

Funny part about that is its also an arbitrarily agreed upon amount.

When someone says (assuming of course) that the basic resources are 'free' ...that something costs a lot of money...what they really mean is that a lot of paper money has
to be traded because a lot of work has to be done by human beings.

So..for arguments sake will say that an organization has no money...but they wish to accomplish a certain project..and or get a lot of work done to bring it to fruition but they
cannot compensate those who are doing the work.

Sounds like a 'volunteer' project to me. Or one that is basically a volunteer project..where the organization has to figure out how to 'compensate' those who are doing the work.

Question: is such a thing possible? Is there a resolution to such a conundrum?

Any and all responses welcome
Bye
SC

So... What does this have to do with space travel?

As I interpret your post, you seem to be implying that someone somewhere expects space travel to be free. Is that what you're saying?

Jens
2014-Jul-21, 11:03 PM
I don't think it's a very hypothetical question, and the traditional answer is: investment. When people wanted to build railroads, they got money from investors and then repaid them eventually with the profits...

Hlafordlaes
2014-Jul-22, 09:53 AM
Nowadays, crowdsourcing.

NEOWatcher
2014-Jul-22, 05:13 PM
So... What does this have to do with space travel?
Ditto.
Gorn; I think I see how you can relate it, but I'd like to hear your words.

Also; are we talking about a project with no direct payback to the ones initiating the project?
If that's true, then yes. It's a volunteer project/charity/etc.

Or is it a case of a project that will benefit others instead of one's self?
In that case, there is incentive for investments and donations, and even a potential for some return from the recipients.

Otherwise it's speculative and up to the normal way of investing in start ups.

Hoof Hearted
2014-Jul-22, 09:14 PM
Well then, how to persuade people to part with their hard-earned pieces of paper to fund this sort of activity? That is indeed a tough nut to crack. A few possible approaches are as follows.

(a) Explain that the public and private benefits of your project are so numerous and so obvious to even the most casual observer, that you're not going to insult the listener's intelligence by mentioning what any of those benefits are.

(b) Describe how all technological innovation, including that which occurred in the 1700s or earlier, is a direct result of space travel, and without your project, not only would all further technological progress cease, but all past technological progress would be reversed, and humanity would revert to a hunter-gatherer existence.

(c) Point out that failure to support the project indicates that the non-supporter is short-sighted, stupid, and anti-scientific, and is probably also a creationist who believes in bigfoot.

(d) Mention that expenditure on space travel, uniquely among all forms of expenditure, creates jobs, and that space travel is the ultimate make-work programme.

What all of these approaches have in common, besides the fact that one may find examples by browsing this board, is that they are not very convincing.

One could also present a detailed and quantitative analysis of the benefits likely to flow from a proposed project, but that's just crazy talk, isn't it.

Noclevername
2014-Jul-22, 09:24 PM
Well then, how to persuade people to part with their hard-earned pieces of paper to fund this sort of activity? That is indeed a tough nut to crack. A few possible approaches are as follows.

(a) Explain that the public and private benefits of your project are so numerous and so obvious to even the most casual observer, that you're not going to insult the listener's intelligence by mentioning what any of those benefits are.

(b) Describe how all technological innovation, including that which occurred in the 1700s or earlier, is a direct result of space travel, and without your project, not only would all further technological progress cease, but all past technological progress would be reversed, and humanity would revert to a hunter-gatherer existence.

(c) Point out that failure to support the project indicates that the non-supporter is short-sighted, stupid, and anti-scientific, and is probably also a creationist who believes in bigfoot.

(d) Mention that expenditure on space travel, uniquely among all forms of expenditure, creates jobs, and that space travel is the ultimate make-work programme.

What all of these approaches have in common, besides the fact that one may find examples by browsing this board, is that they are not very convincing.

One could also present a detailed and quantitative analysis of the benefits likely to flow from a proposed project, but that's just crazy talk, isn't it.

Wow. WOW.

You certainly have built up an army of strawmen, haven't you? Now how are you going to get them to march?

Gorn
2014-Jul-22, 10:23 PM
Hello. When I have the time I will get to this. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

Bye
SC

Noclevername
2014-Jul-24, 03:06 PM
The economics of commercial space travel will work just like any other transportation industry; the early models will be very expensive, and as the technology improves the cost will go down. Right now private space companies are working on re-usable spacecraft stages and heavy lift vehicles. Eventually these technologies will mature and the cost of manned or large cargo spaceflight to LEO will become accessible to moderately sized companies and NGOs.

Ara Pacis
2014-Jul-24, 10:37 PM
The economics of commercial space travel will work just like any other transportation industry; the early models will be very expensive, and as the technology improves the cost will go down. Right now private space companies are working on re-usable spacecraft stages and heavy lift vehicles. Eventually these technologies will mature and the cost of manned or large cargo spaceflight to LEO will become accessible to moderately sized companies and NGOs.

I recall Heinlein doing that calculation and concluding that by now we'd have FTL for pennies. On the other hand, Twain's calculations suggest that a trip down the Mississippi will take longer in the future. :)

Noclevername
2014-Jul-24, 10:46 PM
I recall Heinlein doing that calculation and concluding that by now we'd have FTL for pennies.

I'm basing it strictly on what technology is in development right now. Beyond that, I'm not going to say for sure, but assembling modular vehicles in LEO is an established capability already.

Ara Pacis
2014-Jul-24, 10:58 PM
I'm basing it strictly on what technology is in development right now. Beyond that, I'm not going to say for sure, but assembling modular vehicles in LEO is an established capability already.

That's the easy part. Getting from the surface to orbit will always be the most problematic and expensive proposition.

Noclevername
2014-Jul-24, 11:28 PM
That's the easy part. Getting from the surface to orbit will always be the most problematic and expensive proposition.

But it's one we already have much experience with. The rocketry is already a half-solved problem, and plenty of R&D has already gone into making it safer and more affordable. What comes after we get up there is still an open question requiring a lot of future engineering and artistry. Long term human life support will be more complex and difficult, IMO. Right now the most advanced manned space craft in existence is still reliant on regular supply rockets, which ups the cost of actually doing anything in space. And we have no experience yet in fueling deep space vessels in LEO, which is another necessary big step towards opening BEO travel.

Ara Pacis
2014-Jul-24, 11:34 PM
But it's one we already have much experience with. The rocketry is already a half-solved problem...

Yes, the design is half solved, not sure the economics is, which is the point of the OP.

Noclevername
2014-Jul-25, 12:17 AM
Yes, the design is half solved, not sure the economics is, which is the point of the OP.

What do you think needs to be solved economically?

Swift
2014-Jul-25, 02:08 AM
Gorn,

It might be nice if you came back and explained what all this was about. If you intended a serious discussion on the economics of space travel, you should have put it in Space Exploration.

Note that I've typed this post in non-Administrator mode; that wasn't an official request. But if your thread gets completely derailed, because you put it in Babbling... so be it.

Gorn
2014-Jul-25, 03:36 AM
Hello. (This is my sense of things at this time). For arguments sake (it's good) as well...let's not look to the 'government' for money. Plus they do not 'want' to or can pay the $50 billion dollars required to..say send 4 people to Mars as a goal..and provide for their needs for the rest of their lives there.

There are a lot of people out there who can and (would) contribute say 3 hours a day of volunteer time (under the right) circumstances to put a least a 'dent' in the work required to 'launch' such
an activity in the world. I think for sure what is required is that something big...outside of the usual actors related to this could bring about a space fairing future in the 'present' generation.

Why volunteer? Because it's easier to 'give up' one's time and 'work' ...instead of 'extracting' the 'billions' required out of present day sectors of the economy that 'need' that money as well.
Basically, outside of the 'usual'..what could be had...is a large free lift. Once that 'lift' is there...than 'governments' say...could 'pay' the difference and launch the mission.

Bye
SC

starcanuck64
2014-Jul-25, 05:08 AM
Hello. (This is my sense of things at this time). For arguments sake (it's good) as well...let's not look to the 'government' for money. Plus they do not 'want' to or can pay the $50 billion dollars required to..say send 4 people to Mars as a goal..and provide for their needs for the rest of their lives there.

There are a lot of people out there who can and (would) contribute say 3 hours a day of volunteer time (under the right) circumstances to put a least a 'dent' in the work required to 'launch' such
an activity in the world. I think for sure what is required is that something big...outside of the usual actors related to this could bring about a space fairing future in the 'present' generation.

Why volunteer? Because it's easier to 'give up' one's time and 'work' ...instead of 'extracting' the 'billions' required out of present day sectors of the economy that 'need' that money as well.
Basically, outside of the 'usual'..what could be had...is a large free lift. Once that 'lift' is there...than 'governments' say...could 'pay' the difference and launch the mission.

Bye
SC

Why should people who've gone to the expense of getting the kind of education necessary to work in the Aerospace industry give their time away to make space travel possible?

Models like SpaceX are probably going to be the future and corporations with the right approach will attract the most qualified people and contracts needed to succeed.

As for the benefit, it's impossible to calculate what the advances in medicine, material science, electronics, agriculture, etc are going to be worth. People will eventually be living and working in extreme environments that will require steady advances in technology to make them safe and then comfortable, that is guaranteed to have spinoffs that will benefit everyone.

No one understood the potential of the World Wide Web until someone actually built it and now we can't imagine life without it, space travel is probably going to be many times that in value. The amount of valuable minerals available alone is staggering.

Then there's the psychological effect of having a new horizon to explore, how do you put a value on that.

Jens
2014-Jul-25, 06:45 AM
No one understood the potential of the World Wide Web until someone actually built it and now we can't imagine life without it, space travel is probably going to be many times that in value. The amount of valuable minerals available alone is staggering.


This is just a hypothetical question, but one that I find interesting in this context. Suppose that there were a world hidden behind a gateway, that is full of gold and precious metals. The only problem is that once you go there, you can't come back through the gateway. It's basically a one-way trip. In fact, nothing can come back through. In that case, how would you calculate the economic worth of that new world?

Ara Pacis
2014-Jul-25, 08:10 AM
What do you think needs to be solved economically?

Cost of launch vehicles. Maybe if someone tried to crack the chicken and egg with Rocket-a-Day, they'll figure it out, but no one's doing it right now and you're " basing it strictly on what technology is in development right now". More to the point, you were referring to "assembling modular vehicles in LEO", and I'm not sure how that relates to surface to orbit craft.

Ara Pacis
2014-Jul-25, 08:13 AM
Hello. (This is my sense of things at this time). For arguments sake (it's good) as well...let's not look to the 'government' for money. Plus they do not 'want' to or can pay the $50 billion dollars required to..say send 4 people to Mars as a goal..and provide for their needs for the rest of their lives there.

There are a lot of people out there who can and (would) contribute say 3 hours a day of volunteer time (under the right) circumstances to put a least a 'dent' in the work required to 'launch' such
an activity in the world. I think for sure what is required is that something big...outside of the usual actors related to this could bring about a space fairing future in the 'present' generation.

Why volunteer? Because it's easier to 'give up' one's time and 'work' ...instead of 'extracting' the 'billions' required out of present day sectors of the economy that 'need' that money as well.
Basically, outside of the 'usual'..what could be had...is a large free lift. Once that 'lift' is there...than 'governments' say...could 'pay' the difference and launch the mission.

Bye
SC

One of the problems with every enthusiast offering to donate a few hours (aside from coordination issues) is that most people don't have the skills to work on the project.

Noclevername
2014-Jul-25, 08:25 AM
Cost of launch vehicles. Maybe if someone tried to crack the chicken and egg with Rocket-a-Day, they'll figure it out, but no one's doing it right now and you're " basing it strictly on what technology is in development right now".

SpaceX Grasshopper, and the landing of the Falcon 9 stage, are successful present day proof of concept for reusable stages. Reusable LV is cheaper than one-shot. We'll probably never get to "rocket-a-day".

Skylon is also looking successful thus far, but I'm less than convinced it will lead to SSTO.


More to the point, you were referring to "assembling modular vehicles in LEO", and I'm not sure how that relates to surface to orbit craft.

That's the next stepping stone in human expansion into the Solar system beyond LEO. Launch modules and fuel from surface to LEO, assemble, then LEO to anywhere.

Heid the Ba'
2014-Jul-25, 09:48 AM
This is just a hypothetical question, but one that I find interesting in this context. Suppose that there were a world hidden behind a gateway, that is full of gold and precious metals. The only problem is that once you go there, you can't come back through the gateway. It's basically a one-way trip. In fact, nothing can come back through. In that case, how would you calculate the economic worth of that new world?

Exactly, there are plenty of minerals on Earth, the problem is that they can't be mined economically. The coal mines that have closed in the UK still have coal, it simply can't be extracted at a cost that makes economic sense.

Gorn, are you suggesting that many people give up a little work for space exploration or that they give up a little money?

Gorn
2014-Jul-25, 12:44 PM
Work. So any money that they have..simply goes into the economy.

Bye
SC

Heid the Ba'
2014-Jul-25, 01:06 PM
That is certainly an interesting business model.

starcanuck64
2014-Jul-25, 02:04 PM
This is just a hypothetical question, but one that I find interesting in this context. Suppose that there were a world hidden behind a gateway, that is full of gold and precious metals. The only problem is that once you go there, you can't come back through the gateway. It's basically a one-way trip. In fact, nothing can come back through. In that case, how would you calculate the economic worth of that new world?

How is that analogous to space travel, at the very least information is going to come back and a great deal of the wealth created in the last century at least has its foundation in the development of new ideas. So even if there wasn't a great deal of trade between the Earth and spaced based colonies, the real value will be in the information, much of the material wealth produced in space colonies may stay there, but the advances in science and technology this will allow will translate back to Earth.

Gorn
2014-Jul-25, 05:04 PM
Hello. I really believe that 'life' might actually not be that simple. It's nice to think for a specific activity that technology will simple 'improve'..but that's not the case. It could or could not improve..depends...

SC

Re: This is for NoClevername

Gorn
2014-Jul-25, 05:11 PM
One of the problems with every enthusiast offering to donate a few hours (aside from coordination issues) is that most people don't have the skills to work on the project.
Course..what they could do instead is say start a business...put in a huge number of work hours..and work like heck..and say make lots of money..to then be able to train or hire the people to do
the job.

Noclevername
2014-Jul-25, 05:30 PM
Hello. I really believe that 'life' might actually not be that simple. It's nice to think for a specific activity that technology will simple 'improve'..but that's not the case. It could or could not improve..depends...


Nothing ever "just" improves. I am going by the fact that the technology is actively being improved right now by space travel companies sinking research and development dollars into doing so. I listed a couple of specific examples of how it is being improved.

Noclevername
2014-Jul-25, 05:46 PM
It's in the companies' best economic interests to expand their customer base to more than just fickle governments and unreliable billionaires.

Ara Pacis
2014-Jul-25, 09:06 PM
Course..what they could do instead is say start a business...put in a huge number of work hours..and work like heck..and say make lots of money..to then be able to train or hire the people to do
the job.

So it's like taxes or non-profit/charity. Those models already exist and I thought you discounted them, or else why the thread?

Gorn
2014-Jul-26, 11:40 PM
Hello. I am disagreeing with basically all you are saying here. I am not talking about people in the Aerospace industry. I am talking about constructing a large 'volunteer' organization..whatever their
skill set is at the present time..and putting them to work on this program. Its also, a one time project. Afterwords the organization could be turned into a business or charity.

And for those who say its not possible..I can say..that during WWII 'regular people' like tin smiths, locksmiths, store keepers etc. in some instances had 'little' training..and went on to help
destroy NAZI Germany. I'm just using this as an example to bring out a sense of determination.
Bye
SC

danscope
2014-Jul-27, 01:58 AM
But.... going to mars is not a cottage industry. It takes hundreds of billions of dollars to integrate that many highly specialized engineers and technicians to simply reach the moon for a few hours, never mind a "boots on the ground"
moment for a one time splash for cold gravel. Net loss.... hundreds of billions of dollars. That is a peculiar set of economics.

Jens
2014-Jul-27, 05:54 AM
. I am talking about constructing a large 'volunteer' organization..whatever their
skill set is at the present time..and putting them to work on this program.
SC

What are you going to put these volunteers at work doing?

Ara Pacis
2014-Jul-27, 10:13 AM
What are you going to put these volunteers at work doing?

If you can frost a cake, maybe you can apply foam insulation to a rocket body?

Jens
2014-Jul-27, 11:07 AM
If you can frost a cake, maybe you can apply foam insulation to a rocket body?

Sure, and if you're a plumber you can connect the fuel lines, heck, i use a computer at work so maybe I could write the launch sequence program...

Gorn
2014-Jul-27, 04:16 PM
Hello. Like the reserve armed forces who support the regular armed forces in a country..maybe a limited amount of training could be had by those who want to do the work?

Thx
G

Noclevername
2014-Jul-27, 07:23 PM
?? I don't understand why building rockets requires a volunteer effort when there are already companies that build rockets.

danscope
2014-Jul-28, 04:03 AM
Yes, and they do it for charity...... not. People won't work on your car without a major credit card. It's a tough world,
and a financial reality. Really.

Jens
2014-Jul-28, 04:30 AM
How is that analogous to space travel, at the very least information is going to come back and a great deal of the wealth created in the last century at least has its foundation in the development of new ideas. So even if there wasn't a great deal of trade between the Earth and spaced based colonies, the real value will be in the information, much of the material wealth produced in space colonies may stay there, but the advances in science and technology this will allow will translate back to Earth.

Sorry, I just realized I never go around to answering this. I didn't mean to say it was exactly analogous, but simply that there is an issue like that. You said that the amount of minerals is staggering, but I wonder how this should be discounted to account for the fact that a lot of it will not be used on earth. In a sense it's the same for every similar act, but I think for space it's more pronounced. For example, any investment made into another star system will never have any economic effect on earth. I sort of understand your point about ideas, but I wonder how realistic it is to think that some idea will come from space exploration that will have an economic effect on earth.

Jens
2014-Jul-28, 04:32 AM
Yes, and they do it for charity...... not. People won't work on your car without a major credit card. It's a tough world,
and a financial reality. Really.

I don't think that is necessarily true. If I have a skill like that, I can think of a number of situations in which I would offer my work as a volunteer.

Noclevername
2014-Jul-28, 08:07 AM
Yes, and they do it for charity...... not. People won't work on your car without a major credit card. It's a tough world,
and a financial reality. Really.


Again, why the assumption that no one will actually just pay money?

As I pointed out above, it's a transportation industry.

Noclevername
2014-Jul-28, 09:35 AM
So who are the people who expect "free" space travel as "charity"? Perhaps they are trapped on the planet Straw.

Gorn
2014-Jul-28, 01:33 PM
Hello. No. What I am thinking of is a large 'one time' project. Once the project is done or the goal is accomplished ( 4 people landed on Mars..and support for a large time period) ...the volunteers
can simply go back to their own lives. The last time I checked I do not have 10,..50..100 billion dollars in the bank to fund this activity. And neither do governments. Governments can not or
will not finance an activity like this. Nor devote the human resources to it either...the only time a country would do something like this is if it was at war for example.
There might be people landed on Mars say 40,..50, 100 years from now. I suppose that's okay. But my idea launches the future earlier. Do I think such a project is doable? At this time not sure...need to go about taking the necessary steps and acquiring the right information. But I think the first group of people or country that does this...launches or gets to the future..before others.

Thanks for all your responses by the way. It affirms a lot of what I already know.
Bye
G.

Swift
2014-Jul-28, 01:53 PM
Hello. No. What I am thinking of is a large 'one time' project. Once the project is done or the goal is accomplished ( 4 people landed on Mars..and support for a large time period) ...the volunteers
can simply go back to their own lives.
As others have said, I don't think this is the kind of project that a bunch of untrained volunteers are (1), going to have the skill sets for, and (2), I don't think a lack of untrained labor is the thing that is keeping us from putting people on Mars. I think you are creating the wrong solution to the problem.

But there is a third thing, and the example is right here on CQ. The Citizen Science programs seem to struggle to get enough volunteer help. Here is a space-related project (astronomy) that a large number of untrained volunteers can be quickly trained to assist in a one-time project. Yet people don't for the most part. If they aren't interested in mapping Mercury or Vesta, for example, why would then be interested in doing this?

Ara Pacis
2014-Jul-28, 02:28 PM
Again, why the assumption that no one will actually just pay money?

As I pointed out above, it's a transportation industry.

Building what is apparently a bridge to nowhere.

Gorn
2014-Jul-28, 05:02 PM
Hello. Sorry about the examples I am going to use (should not really use it at all but I have limited time) there is a huge difference between it and what I am taking about. I am going to use one just to stimulate thought 1. During WWII the Nazi's used prisoners as labor to help them build V2 rockets. I don't believe all of them really had degrees in rocket engineering. Yet they were used to help build them.

In some kind of 'support' role...or in the manufacturing area..I am somewhat sure they can be used in some fashion.
As far as the 'space' related project you mentioned...a lot of potential volunteers can be too busy in their own lives...and or need to be properly incentivised to give up their time..like..
being petitioned for example by mail to come to say...an open comfortable computer lab..where they will be driven to and from the facility for free where they could also enjoy maybe like free food
and coffee. When they are there they also will get some free training and or instruction.

Course a lot might believe that the organization is getting all the help they need already..or the project is not important enough for them to participate in. Therefore people busy themselves with other concerns.

P.S. Also, once this project is done...the aerospace industry afterwords just's picks up the baton and goes with it.

Just a few friendly ideas
Bye
G.

NEOWatcher
2014-Jul-28, 05:29 PM
And for those who say its not possible..I can say..that during WWII 'regular people' like tin smiths, locksmiths, store keepers etc. in some instances had 'little' training..and went on to help
destroy NAZI Germany. I'm just using this as an example to bring out a sense of determination.


Hello. Like the reserve armed forces who support the regular armed forces in a country..

Volunteer does not necessarily mean "free". In both examples, the volunteers were compensated. In context of military, volunteer means that they weren't forced into it.


I am going to use one just to stimulate thought 1. During WWII the Nazi's used prisoners as labor to help them build V2 rockets. I don't believe all of them really had degrees in rocket engineering. Yet they were used to help build them.
But that really wasn't a space program, or anything of the sort. These people were used as a means of mass production.

How many unskilled people do you think would work for Ford if the goal was to build a half a dozen cars, and try to drive them around and do research around the world?

starcanuck64
2014-Jul-28, 05:29 PM
Hello. Sorry about the examples I am going to use (should not really use it at all but I have limited time) there is a huge difference between it and what I am taking about. I am going to use one just to stimulate thought 1. During WWII the Nazi's used prisoners as labor to help them build V2 rockets. I don't believe all of them really had degrees in rocket engineering. Yet they were used to help build them.

In some kind of 'support' role...or in the manufacturing area..I am somewhat sure they can be used in some fashion.
As far as the 'space' related project you mentioned...a lot of potential volunteers can be too busy in their own lives...and or need to be properly incentivised to give up their time..like..
being petitioned for example by mail to come to say...an open comfortable computer lab..where they will be driven to and from the facility for free where they could also enjoy maybe like free food
and coffee. When they are there they also will get some free training and or instruction.

Course a lot might believe that the organization is getting all the help they need already..or the project is not important enough for them to participate in. Therefore people busy themselves with other concerns.

Just a few friendly ideas
Bye
G.

Nazi slave laborers weren't casual volunteers, that was their sole "occupation" often until they died. Any incompetence or deliberate sabotage was treated with the harshest punishment.

And modern man rated rockets are far more complex than the relatively simple weapons the Nazis created in the thousands during WW II, they require a level of quality that is hard to achieve even with highly skilled designers and builders.

All it's really going to take is a level playing field for people like Elon Musk and his competitors to literally get their ventures off the ground.

Swift
2014-Jul-28, 06:49 PM
But that really wasn't a space program, or anything of the sort. These people were used as a means of mass production.

How many unskilled people do you think would work for Ford if the goal was to build a half a dozen cars, and try to drive them around and do research around the world?
I think that is the critical problem.

As I said, what is keeping us from going to Mars is not a lack of labor, particularly brute force labor, it is a lack of technology. We don't have the technology nor know exactly how to design the technology, for a journey to Mars. Secondly, we don't have the money to do a journey to Mars (or at least no one is willing to spend it yet), and throwing a lot of free labor at the problem won't significantly decrease the amount of money it will take.

As NEOWatcher said, the Nazi used slave labor to mass produce rockets, based on a design they had developed. They didn't use it to design the rocket, which is what we need for Mars.

Swift
2014-Jul-28, 06:52 PM
To pick a silly analogy.... let's say I need brain surgery. Brain surgery is very expensive. So, instead of getting a brain surgeon, I get 15 of my best friends to volunteer to do the surgery for me. I suspect it will be cheaper, but I won't get the outcome I desire.

PetersCreek
2014-Jul-28, 07:27 PM
And we certainly don't want our Mars mission to become a 21st century version of the old joke, "The operation was a success but the patient died."

DonM435
2014-Jul-28, 07:41 PM
To pick a silly analogy.... let's say I need brain surgery. Brain surgery is very expensive. So, instead of getting a brain surgeon, I get 15 of my best friends to volunteer to do the surgery for me. I suspect it will be cheaper, but I won't get the outcome I desire.

Hey, brain surgery isn't exactly rocket science, you know!

Swift
2014-Jul-28, 07:47 PM
Hey, brain surgery isn't exactly rocket science, you know!
:lol:

You know, I believe the set of all things that are exactly rocket science has one member, and that is rocket science. The set of things that aren't exactly rocket science is everything else. http://www.h2g2.com/h2g2/skins/Alabaster/images/Smilies/f_tekcor.gif

Noclevername
2014-Jul-28, 08:04 PM
Building what is apparently a bridge to nowhere.
Apparently my sense of the apparent is stunted, because to me, improving affordable access to orbit is the first step on a bridge to a human
future in space.

danscope
2014-Jul-28, 09:11 PM
Access to space has been and always will be expensive. Each mission must be based on it's own merits , which means that
it must be worth doing this in the most tangible respects . A weather satelite is very good example of a mission which benefits all, in so many ways. Concorde is an example of an expensive areospace mission which benefited only a very few
and at exhorbitant costs which could never be justified beyond an esoteric exersize in welfare for the jet set.
The more we experience the history of space access, the more we must needs consider the practical use and considerable,
extraordinary and most often exhorbitant costs.

Jens
2014-Jul-28, 10:37 PM
To pick a silly analogy.... let's say I need brain surgery. Brain surgery is very expensive. So, instead of getting a brain surgeon, I get 15 of my best friends to volunteer to do the surgery for me. I suspect it will be cheaper, but I won't get the outcome I desire.

I think it's a very valid analogy, and goes back to the question I asked earlier: what exactly are these volunteers going to do? The only fairly reasonable I can think of is: recruit more volunteers or do fundraising. Is that the idea?

starcanuck64
2014-Jul-28, 11:52 PM
Access to space has been and always will be expensive. Each mission must be based on it's own merits , which means that
it must be worth doing this in the most tangible respects . A weather satelite is very good example of a mission which benefits all, in so many ways. Concorde is an example of an expensive areospace mission which benefited only a very few
and at exhorbitant costs which could never be justified beyond an esoteric exersize in welfare for the jet set.
The more we experience the history of space access, the more we must needs consider the practical use and considerable,
extraordinary and most often exhorbitant costs.

There was an alternative to supersonic air travel that the Concorde couldn't effectively compete with, which is why it always remained something only a few could afford.

Space offers many benefits and the spinoffs alone from the many different projects is immense. Not going into space on a large scale would likely cost far more in the long term in the pursuit of "saving" a few dollars in the short term.

http://spinoff.nasa.gov/

Gorn
2014-Jul-29, 01:59 AM
Hello. Just a few crazy ideas or points. #1. I know military reserves are a paid workforce but that does not mean you could not create a 'force' that is not. Like an aerospace 'reserve' workforce....
Also, I have not touched on all kinds of things so I think I may for fun. There are some professions say that have both journeyman and apprentices. Apprentices can get a lot of
valuable work done...where the most sophisticated stuff is left to the journeyman. And in the process build a house..say..for a rocket engineer!
#2. Suppose a rocket company needs some new computers for the office. So they just go out to a store and 'buy' them. Hmm..suppose you get a group of volunteers together who know how to make computers...even from 'scratch'. So...they put in a set number of hours...scheme and plot...and come up with a bunch of computers which they then give to the company for 'free'.
Bye
G.

Re: for Jens

Noclevername
2014-Jul-29, 02:28 AM
Access to space has been and always will be expensive.
If you can forsee the financial future, why aren't you rich?

As I pointed out, it may never be an "everyman" affordability, but going by existing research, it'll be far cheaper than now.



Each mission must be based on it's own merits , which means that
it must be worth doing this in the most tangible respects .

Define "tangible respects".




A weather satelite is very good example of a mission which benefits all, in so many ways.

A space colony is an example of a potential home for the human race if we blow ourselves off Earth, which strikes me as eminently practical.


Concorde is an example of an expensive areospace mission which benefited only a very few
and at exhorbitant costs which could never be justified beyond an esoteric exersize in welfare for the jet set.
The Pyramids of Giza are examples of the same, that were successfully accomplished several times.



The more we experience the history of space access, the more we must needs consider the practical use and considerable,
extraordinary and most often exhorbitant costs.

The practical uses have been reiterated many times on this forum.

The costs are only "exorbitant" to those who don't want to pay them. To those who do, it's well worth it.

And history is a very poor guide for the future of manned space travel, because private space corporations selling tickets on reusable craft are still a new thing compared to the one-shot throwaway government dinosaurs with thousand dollar toilet seats.

DonM435
2014-Jul-29, 02:39 AM
:lol:

You know, I believe the set of all things that are exactly rocket science has one member, and that is rocket science. The set of things that aren't exactly rocket science is everything else. http://www.h2g2.com/h2g2/skins/Alabaster/images/Smilies/f_tekcor.gif

Actually, I am a rocket scientist who has done brain surgery. But only on lab rabbits, when I did an internship in physiological psychology research. I don't like to think about that any more.

Jens
2014-Jul-29, 02:44 AM
Actually, I am a rocket scientist who has done brain surgery. But only on lab rabbits, when I did an internship in physiological psychology research. I don't like to think about that any more.

Yeah, neither do the rabbits.

Jens
2014-Jul-29, 02:47 AM
#2. Suppose a rocket company needs some new computers for the office. So they just go out to a store and 'buy' them. Hmm..suppose you get a group of volunteers together who know how to make computers...even from 'scratch'. So...they put in a set number of hours...scheme and plot...and come up with a bunch of computers which they then give to the company for 'free'.


You mean they go out and mine the silicon and copper and steel and all that, and then melt it down and purify it and then create plans to put it all together in chips? Wouldn't it be easier just to fine people who are willing to donate a computer?

DonM435
2014-Jul-29, 03:53 AM
Yeah, neither do the rabbits.

Well, I certainly didn't make it easy for them to remember it.

starcanuck64
2014-Jul-29, 05:05 AM
As we're a species that has always sought new frontiers, what would the be the overall psychological effect of deciding there would be no new frontier. Societies aren't at their best when they turn inward, they don't seem to last very long when they do that in fact.

Jens
2014-Jul-29, 05:15 AM
As we're a species that has always sought new frontiers, what would the be the overall psychological effect of deciding there would be no new frontier. Societies aren't at their best when they turn inward, they don't seem to last very long when they do that in fact.

I don't know. Tokugawa Japan was pretty inward looking, and they maintained the stance for about 500 years until they were forced to renounce the policy by a certain American commodore.

In any case, we have other frontiers if we need them. We still have all the ocean bottoms and almost the entire interior of the earth. We can start building underground cities and floating cities too if we want.

Ara Pacis
2014-Jul-29, 09:32 AM
Apparently my sense of the apparent is stunted, because to me, improving affordable access to orbit is the first step on a bridge to a human
future in space.

Ahh, the holy grail? We've already got one. Ees vera nice. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bKooUgk6N8)

You said "It's a transportation industry," but that's no guarantee. Look at all the other transportation industry failures. About the only thing that's doing well is freight trains and cargo ships, and I'm not too sure about them with the economy an all.

Noclevername
2014-Jul-29, 10:13 AM
You said "It's a transportation industry," but that's no guarantee. Look at all the other transportation industry failures. About the only thing that's doing well is freight trains and cargo ships, and I'm not too sure about them with the economy an all.

Nothing has a guarantee, and I never said there was one. I implied only that success in space is a goal that will be, and is currently being, aggressively pursued.

The airplane industry is necessary for modern society and isn't going anywhere, so I don't know how unsuccessful it can be considered. It may be experiencing a current upswing in cost but that's the market; it rises and falls. Individual airlines do poorly, or well, but people still fly. Cars are still bought and sold, despite rising fossil fuel prices (which are driving the development of replacement fuels) so that industry too must be considered successful. Individual car companies fail, but we still drive.

I predict that spaceflight will be successful, since many companies and nations are developing manned spaceflight.

NEOWatcher
2014-Jul-29, 01:30 PM
Hello. Just a few crazy ideas or points...
Something in those scales is just not going to happen.
People don't volunteer for things unless there is a short term outcome that they can feel good about participating in.
Nowadays, it's getting harder and harder to get volunteers for anything.

I have spent most of my life in various positions of a volunteer organization (teacher, director, president, various projects). I can say that if it doesn't preserve something, give results for people in need, or see some short term feedback, it's not going to happen.

Swift
2014-Jul-29, 01:36 PM
Actually, I am a rocket scientist who has done brain surgery. But only on lab rabbits, when I did an internship in physiological psychology research. I don't like to think about that any more.
Wow. I'm a brain surgeon who has done rocketry on rabbits. "That's one small hop for a rabbit, one giant hop for Leporidae kind"

By the way, you got peanut butter in my chocolate.

:D

starcanuck64
2014-Jul-29, 02:42 PM
I don't know. Tokugawa Japan was pretty inward looking, and they maintained the stance for about 500 years until they were forced to renounce the policy by a certain American commodore.

In any case, we have other frontiers if we need them. We still have all the ocean bottoms and almost the entire interior of the earth. We can start building underground cities and floating cities too if we want.

The transition back into the modern world ended with most Japanese cities in ash.

One of the big issues already is the effects of human replacing the existing terrestrial ecologies with those we consider "normal", which aren't in biological terms. How about turning most of the Earth back into a more or less wild state and moving most of our technological base into space.

IsaacKuo
2014-Jul-29, 02:58 PM
In any case, we have other frontiers if we need them. We still have all the ocean bottoms and almost the entire interior of the earth. We can start building underground cities and floating cities too if we want.
Underground is difficult because it's really underground AND underwater...it's a nightmare compared to building upward.

Floating cities have to deal with the brutal ocean surface environment.

I think underground and the oceans may be more promising as unmanned extensions of our civilization. Underground aquaponics might be a good fit, and unmanned ocean floor "light farms" might boost seafood replenishment rates. Each "light farm" might be a simple string of LED lights powered by a turbine, deployed like crab traps.

danscope
2014-Jul-29, 06:12 PM
@ Noclevername: You said..." it may never be an "everyman" affordability, but going by existing research, it'll be far cheaper than now."
It will cost us ten times as much for a return moon mission than it did in the sixties , to bring back the same dust and rocks. That doesn't square with your concept of affordability.
It's like "Dr. Katz" , when Ben decided to raise pot bellied pigs. When his Dad finally presses him about the cost of the pig,
he stalls a little and says " 11................hundred dollars....... a piece, But .....you can buy in bulk ."
Frankly , I'd rather build and launch another Hubble ST, so more deserving astronomers can get some quality time with a good instrument.

IsaacKuo
2014-Jul-29, 06:35 PM
@ Noclevername: You said..." it may never be an "everyman" affordability, but going by existing research, it'll be far cheaper than now."
It will cost us ten times as much for a return moon mission than it did in the sixties , to bring back the same dust and rocks. That doesn't square with your concept of affordability.
That sounds completely wrong. The cost of the Apollo mission was somewhere around 25 billion dollars, or around 170 billion in 2005 dollars.

For comparison, NASA's budget in 2005 was only 15.6 billion dollars, and the Falcon 9 rocket was developed for around $300 million. Current development costs for the Falcon 9 AND Dragon capsule are still under $1 billion. Elon Musk claims SpaceX could develop a moon mission for less than $3 billion, and this seems plausible given their track record (that's a cost reduction of 2 orders of magnitude).

But even if we assume the widely criticized SLS and Orion is used, it's really hard to imagine how they could possibly spend $170 billion on it, much less $1,700 billion!

Ara Pacis
2014-Jul-29, 06:44 PM
Nothing has a guarantee, and I never said there was one. I implied only that success in space is a goal that will be, and is currently being, aggressively pursued. Just so you know, my statement was in context of the OP. If he and his volunteers build a bridge, it may be a bridge to no where because no one may use it. It had nothing to do with spaceflight in general.


The airplane industry is necessary for modern society and isn't going anywhere, so I don't know how unsuccessful it can be considered. It may be experiencing a current upswing in cost but that's the market; it rises and falls. Individual airlines do poorly, or well, but people still fly. Cars are still bought and sold, despite rising fossil fuel prices (which are driving the development of replacement fuels) so that industry too must be considered successful. Individual car companies fail, but we still drive.

I predict that spaceflight will be successful, since many companies and nations are developing manned spaceflight.

To reiterate, this volunteer effort failing would be exactly like one car company failing.

Jens
2014-Jul-29, 09:43 PM
The transition back into the modern world ended with most Japanese cities in ash.


I would be a bit careful about that because Japan is not the only country that was subjected to massive bombardment at that time. The US was relatively unscathed but large parts of Europe were devastated, even though they had not come out of a period of isolation.

Noclevername
2014-Jul-29, 10:47 PM
@ Noclevername: You said..." it may never be an "everyman" affordability, but going by existing research, it'll be far cheaper than now."
It will cost us ten times as much for a return moon mission than it did in the sixties , to bring back the same dust and rocks. That doesn't square with your concept of affordability.


Yet another unwarranted prediction you pulled out of nowhere. Where did you get that ludicrous number, and how soon can you give it back?

NEOWatcher
2014-Jul-30, 12:28 PM
But even if we assume the widely criticized SLS and Orion is used, it's really hard to imagine how they could possibly spend $170
billion on it, much less $1,700 billion!
Per wiki, the constellation program was estimated to be $230 billion, which included the hardware.
It was more than just boots on the moon, but with an average overrun of 40%* it probably balances toward the more money side.

*I know I have a link somewhere on this board to the GAO report, I just can't find it. But; since that's only an average, it certainly is open to going either way.