-Z- wrote:
I hope that just taking the next step farther out doesn't continue to be the
benchmark for success or leadership as a "space power" going forward.
Very well said, as usual. I agree with where you are going, but
reality isn't so promising.
like measuring success or leadership as a "nuclear power" by exploding the
greatest megatonnage or measuring success or leadership as a "economic power" by
acquiring the greatest per-capita wealth.
Actually average people indeed use these simplistic terms to measure
power. Who stockpiles/exploded the most tonnage? Who has the
greatest GDP? Who's #1 nuke/economic power? One and the same.
So far at least, space policy is driven by "military logic" in the
first place and dazzling stunts in the second place.
Until a space program actually provides some tangible and direct return on
investment, not just a few indirect technological spin-offs, it'll continue to
be a stunt, whose only real value is the aforementioned "bragging rights" that
bolster national pride and its associated propaganda mill.
There are many programs that fit the bill now, even excluding military
programs. All the telecoms, satellite TV, radio are generating
profits. Galileo will be a non-military GPS that's public-funded but
presumed to be a sound investment. Many science/astronmy/Earth
observation and some planetary exploration programs produce excellent
science at minimal cost.
But in all these areas, US doesn't hold a big lead (or even any lead)
over the rest of world any more. Worse, other then a vague promise on
human mission to Mars and weaponization of space, there's no announced
plan on how US will take a lead in the next few decades. Actually no
one has any plan to take a big lead over anyone else. Everybody who's
anybody (esp. non-government entities) will have a functional unmanned
program and a demonstrative manned program.
These things have something in common: the values you get out of a
working satellite is _information_ (TV signals, images) not
_materials_ (manufactured products). Using solar power, shooting
information around is almost free. But sending stuffs up and down
costs at least US$10k per kg.
Now let's look at your suggestions: energy, manufacturing and tourism.
Only tourism (if you can bring a trip's cost down to $100-500k) looks
promising. Perhaps Russia will buy out a chunk of the ISS in 10 yr's
time and turn it into a hotel. For energy/manufacturing, I don't know
what goods (even large diamonds) or energy would give you the return
on investment to justify producing in orbit.
To change that situation, you need either to cut 99% off the cost of
sending stuff up and down, i.e. space elevator. Or you bypass
sending-up raw materials and equipment, i.e. take/make them out of
Moon/Mars/asteroids. Either way it's a mega-project that is almost
guaranteed to turn into another white elephant before it gets off the
ground.
--
Dr. Core
--------------------------------------------------
The Gundam Mailing List MK-II [email protected]
Archives: http://www.gundam.com/gml
Help: Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this in
the BODY: help list
