Vanessa @ Future of Commercial Space Travel - Predictions, Companies, Technologies

The space programme has paid for itself many times over, even at the outrageous cost NASA produce.

Without it we wouldn’t have telecommunication satellites & thus world markets, a world internet or worldwide news pictures. We would still have weather reports that were largely guesswork without satellite pictures which means that hurricanes would still be mass killers. We also wouldn’t have these beautiful pictures of Earth in space that the “environmentalist” movement have used so profitably.

The Chinese & Russians both understand this & are opposed to the Luddism so much of our own political class wallows in.

Actually NASA use lots of private contractors, little is state owned.

A more pressing question might be why do countries like China and India launch space missions, prestige more than science. They want to be ahead of the USA, when the USA is not the model modern country it once seemed.

However if they were getting rather closer to the $1,600 million NASA gets annually rather than the one off X-prize of $10 million the effect would be spectacular. I don’t think Ariane can be held up as an example of “commercial success” since the budget for ESA is 3 billion Euros (1/4 NASA’s & if one also includes the “independent” French & German space programmes it would be 1/2), & there is no prospect of them declaring a dividend. They have yet to achieve even Virgin’s level of progress in getting a man into space.

ESA is a bureaucratic monstrosity , even worse than NASA & the money spent on it could be used, as I have described, so very much better.

See, for example http://www.physorg.com/news125598958.html
in which they are threatening to cut the high profile Mars Rover, nominally to save $4 million, out of a budget of $16,000 million but actually as a form of bureaucratic ploy any politician will be familiar with, to extort more money to their budget. This is a sign of how much hardening of the arteries NASA has fallen to.

If America can afford that every year we could easily afford to promise half as much, once, to fund X-Prizes, particularly since they would only be paid if they achieved far more than NASA has in the last 30 years, indeed over a decade it would only match what we currently spend on ESA for little visible achievement.

It is worth mentioning that the Virgin Galactic design owes its existence to Burt Rutan launching Spaceship One, which in turn happened only because private individuals put up an X-Prize of $10 million for the first private launch. If $10 million can accomplish that vastly more is clearly possible.

Jon

The EU Galileo GPS navigation system. It ticks all the boxes…

1. It is utterly futile, largly replicating existing US GPS system.

2. It is hugely expensive and growing ever more so.

3. It is really only a politicians ego trip.

4. It has got to the stage where politicians have invested so much money and personal prestige in the project, it absolutely must be seen to succeed.

5. There is really no new or original technology in the project. Given that it has all been developed by the US for GPS.

6. The public will be forced to use and pay for it (twice - once in taxes, second time in fees for access) if even if they don’t wish to or there is a cheaper alternative i.e. the US GPS system.

The cost of most government IT projects has to be orders of magnitude more than what is really necessary. They always insist on reinventing the wheel.

The way to do it is by government putting up X-Prizes. This is Dr Jerry Pournelle on the subject:

“I can solve the space access problem with a few sentences.

Be it enacted by the Congress of the United States:

The Treasurer of the United States is directed to pay to the first American owned company (if corporate at least 60% of the shares must be held by American citizens) the following sums for the following accomplishments. No monies shall be paid until the goals specified are accomplished and certified by suitable experts from the National Science Foundation or the National Academy of Science:

1. The sum of $2 billion to be paid for construction of 3 operational spacecraft which have achieved low earth orbit, returned to earth, and flown to orbit again three times in a period of three weeks.

2. The sum of $5 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a space station which has been continuously in orbit with at least 5 Americans aboard for a period of not less than three years and one day. The crew need not be the same persons for the entire time, but at no time shall the station be unoccupied…..”

This is a relatively small amount even by UK government standards, particularly since it doesn’t cost a penny until success has been achieved.

I have blogged previously on how to adapt this to Britain & to produce a British spaceport & I hope you don’t mind if I push it here:

http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-britain-should-develop-space.html

http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2007/11/location-location-ascension-island.html

Space has a potential for a boom that will make dot.com look small but the first step, as parachutists say, is a big one & this is a point where government support, as with most historic voyages of exploration, is justified.

Tha ASI have also said similar things & since the US aren’t doing anything outside NASA & the Chinese aren’t yet doing much the UK could make use of this magnificent opportunity.