LM-B/Space Tug

[Archibald]

It's complicated... colonization is not within NASA charter - only exploration. So Apollo and Mars would qualify.

But NASA is doing it with robots, because it's cheaper and less risky.

As for manned spaceflight... it essentially boils between "NASA & exploration & taxpayer money"
versus
"private companies & colonization - but what business case then ?" Mars and Moon have no interesting resources to offer.

Musk seems to have decided to go to Mars nonetheless.

He can afford it: he has $200 billion in revenues, plus Tesla = cash cow, SpaceX = cash cow and Starlink = cash cow to feed his Mars program.

It is a bit "Great man theory" except applied to the space program rather than history.

Great man theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Byeman]

"private companies & colonization - but what business case then ?" Mars and Moon have no interesting resources to offer.

Yes, and hence no need for the gov't to do anything either.

 

[Byeman]

I mean no offense at this but this kind of mentality disturbs me. All the cynical realities being what they are, there is still something more than just sterile, spiritless intellectualism and there is still something more than a neutered populism that sees space programs as wasteful. There is something more to it than what bean counters make of it. More than just dollars and cents.

I am no saying space programs are wasteful. Just that gov'ts no longer have to take the lead. They can be a supporting role. Space science and robotic exploration are great roles for gov't. Exploitation of space is for industry and the marketplace.
Like I said no need for Apollo type Mars program, lunar bases or more ISS's. Industry can easily supply space stations. The gov't can tag along with Musk, Bezos, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman.

 

[publiusr]

I mean no offense at this but this kind of mentality disturbs me. All the cynical realities being what they are, there is still something more than just sterile, spiritless intellectualism and there is still something more than a neutered populism that sees space programs as wasteful. There is something more to it than what bean counters make of it. More than just dollars and cents.

Agreed.

Some would have been perfectly happy if all we did was launch an occasional Delta II here and there until the Sun went Red Giant.

 

[Byeman]

I mean no offense at this but this kind of mentality disturbs me. All the cynical realities being what they are, there is still something more than just sterile, spiritless intellectualism and there is still something more than a neutered populism that sees space programs as wasteful. There is something more to it than what bean counters make of it. More than just dollars and cents.

Agreed.

Some would have been perfectly happy if all we did was launch an occasional Delta II here and there until the Sun went Red Giant.

better than nothing

 

[RanulfC]

Still doesn't mean governments should do Apollo type Mars program, lunar bases or more ISS's

Actually ONLY the government could do the Apollo program or the ISS and it's likely only the government will do Lunar bases since there's about zero incentive for "private industry" to do them. Support and supply yes, even building the modules and vehicles, yet but establish and run them? Not really.

There's some incentive for a possible "private" space station but really only if they can get an government agency as an 'anchor' tena

I mean no offense at this but this kind of mentality disturbs me. All the cynical realities being what they are, there is still something more than just sterile, spiritless intellectualism and there is still something more than a neutered populism that sees space programs as wasteful. There is something more to it than what bean counters make of it. More than just dollars and cents.

There is some truth to this BUT in most ways that actually matter no it's actually all about the 'hard' support of dollars and votes. While you can use that as a basis to build a more encompassing and over-arching vision you still very much need that 'hard' core of dollars and sense to start with. You can't get around it, we've been 'trying' for almost 100 years to build a 'visionary' version of space flight and while that has generated a lot of concepts and ideas it's always ended up being actually driven by the "dollars-and-cents".

The problem it that if you look deep enough even the "dollars-and-votes" is quite a bit driven by the vision and spirit you say it lacking. It pretty much has to be to even get started but it has to be a balance in the end. Space IS "wasteful" in that we don't get as much back (directly) as we put in. That's the reality with someplace where there are none of the "usual" incentives or offerings that have driven every Earth based transportation system and expansion. There are no 'ready-made' or 'existing' destinations in space, no easy and cheaply accessible 'frontiers' for people to go to or resources to be exploited. Space is hard, very hard and anyplace we might go to live and work will require a lot of money and effort for very little direct return in any plausible time frame.

But space has it's uses and we are exploiting the most direct ones pretty fully, but for the majority of the world population "space" has no direct benefit and therefore no real priority to them. That has to change for humanity to actually break out in a significant way and that's going to take more than just cheap and easy access. (If that's even possible and that is not certain or clear at this point) It's going to take a large segment of the population to feel there is some benefit and direct utility of a lot of people going into space, (specifically living and working there) to provide the support and encouragement needed to make such access a viable concern.
Arguably and more specifically there needs to be as little opposition as possible because "we" Space Cadets are and will remain a minority and we NEED the support and approval of the majority to keep going.

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

I mean no offense at this but this kind of mentality disturbs me. All the cynical realities being what they are, there is still something more than just sterile, spiritless intellectualism and there is still something more than a neutered populism that sees space programs as wasteful. There is something more to it than what bean counters make of it. More than just dollars and cents.

I am no saying space programs are wasteful. Just that gov'ts no longer have to take the lead. They can be a supporting role. Space science and robotic exploration are great roles for gov't. Exploitation of space is for industry and the marketplace.
Like I said no need for Apollo type Mars program, lunar bases or more ISS's. Industry can easily supply space stations. The gov't can tag along with Musk, Bezos, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman.

The problem is that in all those cases you mention the government PAID for most of that development and is paying for it's use. Even Musk is dependent on government contracts and monies to move forward and specifically the government is still pretty much running the show with the private sector building to suit rather than building something the government can just 'use' when needed. The government isn't going to 'tag-along' any more than they do in say Antarctica. They are going to continue to provide the framework and requirements that private industry is going to build and operate too.

Now in context you're correct that private industry is stepping up more in direct application of those frameworks and requirements but they are and will remain for a long time the main driver of the whole program. This is not a bad thing as we're not likely to see aberrations like the Apollo program and "the Moon in less than a decade" type "waste anything but time" government prestige programs again. On the converse side we're also looking at a likely very much more drawn out expansion as the private sector will have to find new ways and means to make 'space' pay and at some point reduce the overall government influence to a more practical level. But that will take a couple of decades more most likely.

Agreed.

Some would have been perfectly happy if all we did was launch an occasional Delta II here and there until the Sun went Red Giant.

The Delta II was literally a work-horse booster that brought a lot of commercial space investment and opportunity. The Falcon 9 is todays "Delta II" and will likely remain so given the highly questionable economics Starship is based on. There's noting wrong with the Delta II as it did exactly what a space launch vehicle is supposed to do: Provide economic access to space by meeting the majority of market and economic requirements.

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

"private companies & colonization - but what business case then ?" Mars and Moon have no interesting resources to offer.

Yes, and hence no need for the gov't to do anything either.

Exactly the opposite though, SINCE private industry has no incentive (or business case) to develop space bases or colonies then it falls to the government to provide that incentive by offering money and plans for private industry to build to. As we're all aware colonization is NOT on any government agenda then that's not going to likely happen in that context but once bases become large enough and there is enough traffic and infrastructure in place to allow private development the incentive will come.

Far to many people don't understand the massive effort that is going to need to proceed any 'colonization' effort and think just because the 'transport' might be there that's all that's needed to open the door. In fact transport is the least of the issues involved in beginning to build the infrastructure needed.

Randy

 

[uk 75]

The Space Shuttle was such a let-down after the neat spacecraft shown making airliner like flights in films like 2001 or the Gerry Anderson show UFO.

Not to the general public.

The spaceliner in 2001 is operated by Pan American so public if not general public. There is a private company operating on the moon in UFO. Granted by Space 1999 the Moon is not a public place.

 

[archipeppe]

There is a private company operating on the moon in UFO.

"The Dalotek Affair" aired during 1971....

In 2001's world the Space Station 5 is massively operated by privates, like Hilton hotel or Howard Johnson's restaurant or the Bell Systems/Western Electric Picturephone.

 

[Hood]

The spaceliner in 2001 is operated by Pan American so public if not general public.

True, but in the novel adaptation of 2001 by Arthur C. Clarke, Floyd feels some guilt at being at the sole passenger given the flight was so expensive and that the public would probably be peeved if they found out. So certainly Clarke did not feel that reusable space vehicles would become cheap to operate.
Of course like all sci-fi, it doesn't operate within economic models. Yes there is a lot of product placement in the film, but that doesn't mean anybody is making any profit and presumably the space station featuring both Western and Soviet use would be internationally funded.
We see a lot of exploration and research (plus the militarisation of space) but little commercial activity, presumably the Hilton is there for space tourists but we never see any. Clavius is massive base, presumably it has an industrial role beyond being purely scientific but that's never elaborated.

 

[archipeppe]

So certainly Clarke did not feel that reusable space vehicles would become cheap to operate.

This because since his novel "Prelude to Space" Clarke was tinkering about the idea of TSTO with horizontal launch (sled) and horizontal landing (glide), in such sense the Orion III spaceplane is truly the descendant of such idea.

This kind of approach, even viable, would be for sure not cheap.
The SpaceX crude and minimalist approach, if and when operational, will guarantee access at lest to LEO with cheaper price than anything else.

 

[Byeman]

"private companies & colonization - but what business case then ?" Mars and Moon have no interesting resources to offer.

Yes, and hence no need for the gov't to do anything either.

Exactly the opposite though, SINCE private industry has no incentive (or business case) to develop space bases or colonies then it falls to the government to provide that incentive by offering money and plans for private industry to build to. As we're all aware colonization is NOT on any government agenda then that's not going to likely happen in that context but once bases become large enough and there is enough traffic and infrastructure in place to allow private development the incentive will come.

Far to many people don't understand the massive effort that is going to need to proceed any 'colonization' effort and think just because the 'transport' might be there that's all that's needed to open the door. In fact transport is the least of the issues involved in beginning to build the infrastructure needed.

Randy

No, I am saying that the gov't doesn't need to get involve in any lunar base. It provides nothing for the gov't.

 

[RanulfC]

No, I am saying that the gov't doesn't need to get involve in any lunar base. It provides nothing for the gov't.

And I keep pointing out that private interests have even LESS incentive to 'get involved' or do anything so what you're saying, (not putting word into your mouth this is the logical end point of this train) therefore NO ONE has any reason to build a Lunar base. Which is exactly the opposite of the actual situation. Private interests will SUPPORT the government building a Moon base BECAUSE there is no incentive for them to build it on their own and (as usual) plenty of incentive to build it for the government.

A Moon base provides a lot to a government in both practical (science and research) and general (national prestige) sense which is exactly why the governments are making such plans. Private interests are not but they DO plan to tap into the government plans which is what they do best.

There is a private company operating on the moon in UFO.

"The Dalotek Affair" aired during 1971....

In 2001's world the Space Station 5 is massively operated by privates, like Hilton hotel or Howard Johnson's restaurant or the Bell Systems/Western Electric Picturephone.

Ah yes and in the episode it was mentioned that there wasn't much 'private' work on the Moon because it had been 'tapped out' in the previous decades. (Which even for humans is pretty damn fast... UFO takes place in 1980 and they managed to 'tap out' the Moon in under a decade? )

Space Station 5 had commercial tenants but I got the feeling it wasn't privately run or operated. It was literally a transport hub for Cis-Lunar space so I got the feeling it was essentially government run and likely mostly government funded. (Though more of an international effort given the background)

So certainly Clarke did not feel that reusable space vehicles would become cheap to operate.

This because since his novel "Prelude to Space" Clarke was tinkering about the idea of TSTO with horizontal launch (sled) and horizontal landing (glide), in such sense the Orion III spaceplane is truly the descendant of such idea.

Actually he, like a lot of early advocates (and modern ones for that matter) have pointe out that while the initial investment in such things as "launch assist systems" such as the ground accelerator are pretty high the actual savings over time would end up being a great advantage.

This kind of approach, even viable, would be for sure not cheap.
The SpaceX crude and minimalist approach, if and when operational, will guarantee access at lest to LEO with cheaper price than anything else.

NASA and other agencies and company studies disagree but the caveat is (as noted above) there's usually a pretty hefty up-front cost that has to be paid off but on the other hand the flight rate would likely be higher with more of the 'operations' costs being in the ground system rather than the flight system. Of course it all depends greatly on the nature and design of the ground system and for lower flight rates such as we're likely to see for the next couple of decades the "simple-brute-force' method works and is arguably cheaper.

Randy

 

[tea monster]

After working on some other projects for a while, I returned to this.

Does anyone know where there is a PDF of this title: