What do you hate that space agencies are not doing, which is possible?

[Emperor of the Titan Squid]

Developing usful exploration technologies that are more useful than the ones they are developing now.

[PB666]

3 hours ago, tater said:

It was political to suggest that space agencies could create an economy where none exists. There is either a market for something, or there isn't. A false economy of servicing an agency isn't a real economy.

No specifically that the only thing a givernment can do with an economy is screw it up, let me show you some of the screw ups as you claim. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Gate_Bridge#/media/File%3AGolden_Gate_Bridge_Dec_15_2015_by_D_Ramey_Logan.jpg

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Gate_Bridge#Finance

Note that private funding was un able to do it. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

It just amazes me that in modrn times people can say such ignorant things. Sure governments screw things up, but their successes,behen they have them are collosal,mand the catastrophic failures they sometimes prevent,also collosal.

Remember thallidamide,mgrew out of private networks of doctors in Europe with a lax regulatory policy. 

"The U.S. FDA refused to approve thalidomide for marketing and distribution. However, the drug was distributed in large quantities for testing purposes, after the American distributor and manufacturer Richardson-Merrell had applied for its approval in September 1960.^{[citation needed]} The official in charge of the FDA review, Frances Oldham Kelsey, did not rely on information from the company, which did not include any test results. Richardson-Merrell was called on to perform tests and report the results. The company refused and demanded approval six times, and was refused each time. Nevertheless, a total of 17 children with thalidomide-induced malformations were born in the U.S.^{[45]" Wikipedia. Thaliamide.}

^{Think about it.} 

 

 

[tater]

A bridge is hardly an example of the government creating an economy where none existed. Before governments took over lighthouses (the typical (wrong) example of an economic "public good") there were actually more (privately built) lighthouses---even though a shipping company in building one aided their competitors. So the government ended up decreasing the number of lighthouses. Does't matter, neither create an economy from nothing, which is what a Moon based economy would be. It's either a real economy, or it isn't, it's either worth doing economically, or it isn't. If you were a ferry operator, the Golden Gate didn't help your business at all.

GPS? It was not built to create an economy, it was built as part of the Cold War. There would still be a private market for it... so no, GPS did;t create an economy from whole cloth.

FDA? The bottom line is that the market would act, particularly in a litigious country like the US. Government regulation is not about creating an economy, it can merely put the brakes on a free market. In the case of therapeutic drugs, we can decide that those brakes are right to be placed, because we will hold lives to be more valuable than they are "actuarily." That's not the government creating an economy, it's the government getting in the way---just in a way that most people agree with.

Edited May 29, 2016 by tater

[peadar1987]

The economy is an incredibly complex system, and it's oversimplistic and facile to say that governments can only mess it up. While the magnitude of the multiplier effect is up for debate, it is far from settled what the actual effects of government stimulus are, which alone should be enough to show that an emphatic blanket statement like that doesn't hold. Most qualified economists agree that under current economic conditions, the Keynesian multiplier is more often than not greater than 1, meaning each dollar spent by the government grows the economy by more than one dollar (usually between about 0.9 and 2, depending on the particulars of the situation)

[autumnalequinox]

On 5/28/2016 at 11:36 AM, fredinno said:

You already know the answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Transportation_System

Thissssssss.  If only.  I always inevitably create my own STS system in KSP.  Heck I'm doing it now.  

Yes, it's not as "exciting" to standardize everything and build what amounts to an Interstate Highway System in space.  But damn, we were just sooo close.

That and Project Orion.  I always wish instead of all the exo-atmospheric nuclear testing we had just launched a pair of Orion ships.  It would have produced the same fallout and they could still be up there today (or helped expand our knowledge to crazy levels).  

But I am a firm believer that private spaceflight will soon step up (as it already is) and bring the force of the market to get us into space in a way governments cannot.  Once we make it profitable to be up there and can create a real economy in space (as in, extract resources to be used out of our gravity well) we will finally be in the future.  There was no way politicians would ever be able to pull this off.  We (as in regular people, aka the market) are what's needed.

[RenegadeRad]

That awkward moment when OP made a post where everyone gets involved in an interesting conversation but forget the OP...        

[PB666]

3 hours ago, RenegadeRad said:

That awkward moment when OP made a post where everyone gets involved in an interesting conversation but forget the OP...        

Terrible title, thats why. 

[RenegadeRad]

4 hours ago, PB666 said:

Terrible title, thats why. 

[fredinno]

16 hours ago, autumnalequinox said:

Thissssssss.  If only.  I always inevitably create my own STS system in KSP.  Heck I'm doing it now.  

Yes, it's not as "exciting" to standardize everything and build what amounts to an Interstate Highway System in space.  But damn, we were just sooo close.

That and Project Orion.  I always wish instead of all the exo-atmospheric nuclear testing we had just launched a pair of Orion ships.  It would have produced the same fallout and they could still be up there today (or helped expand our knowledge to crazy levels).  

But I am a firm believer that private spaceflight will soon step up (as it already is) and bring the force of the market to get us into space in a way governments cannot.  Once we make it profitable to be up there and can create a real economy in space (as in, extract resources to be used out of our gravity well) we will finally be in the future.  There was no way politicians would ever be able to pull this off.  We (as in regular people, aka the market) are what's needed.

We weren't close to building IPP/STS when it was proposed. We're arguably closer now than ever- 

F9/ rocket reuse : Aka space shuttle 2.0.

6 man space station(ISS): Large space stations were the core focus of the STS (minus reuasble space travel)

And aspects that we are closer to implementing than ever:

SLS/Orion: Lunar Missions

SLS: Saturn V

ION Drives/VASMIR space tugs: NTR space tugs

IVF/ACES: H2 reusable space tugs

ViviSat: Space repair

 

That exo-atmospheric nuclear testing would have been very useful for project Orion- otherwise we'd be launching a rocket without a clue on how nukes act in space/upper atmosphere. Also, the exo-atmospheric nuclear testing would have been a LOT less concentrated, so the net environmental effects are lower.

 

Also, the problem with Private Companies is that Space isn't economical because all the "markets" are either too small or a red herring. And we can't attract more investment into risky space projects and get people to go to space unless we reduce prices even more (the current 20% has been shown to have little effect on space demand).

ie, chicken and the egg problem.

A Space Agency funded at Apollo levels could kickstart it by investing into tech, building space infrastructure, and increasing demand, but can't offer a permanent space economy.

Edited May 31, 2016 by fredinno

[fredinno]

On 5/29/2016 at 2:32 PM, peadar1987 said:

The economy is an incredibly complex system, and it's oversimplistic and facile to say that governments can only mess it up. While the magnitude of the multiplier effect is up for debate, it is far from settled what the actual effects of government stimulus are, which alone should be enough to show that an emphatic blanket statement like that doesn't hold. Most qualified economists agree that under current economic conditions, the Keynesian multiplier is more often than not greater than 1, meaning each dollar spent by the government grows the economy by more than one dollar (usually between about 0.9 and 2, depending on the particulars of the situation)

But I think we can all agree the less government intervention into an economy, the better it is off generally (there are exceptions)- ie classical capitalist economics.

On 5/28/2016 at 9:20 AM, CptRichardson said:

I hate that they're still funding the SLS when they should be performing the 'shower them with money' gif all over SpaceX.

 

On 5/28/2016 at 10:08 AM, KerikBalm said:

Well, from the limited information I have... it seems that SpaceX would handily win an open competition against other launch capability providers.

* a Europa/Enceledus lander rather than this BS of manned lunar flights again

* A robotic mars mission to the "Martian Geysers" which may conceivably provide a habitable zone

* A robotic mars mission to a martian cave to look at the conditions away from the surface (radiation shielding makes it more likely that biological signatures may remain.. though perchlorates could still be a major problem

*A mission to Hellas Planitia... it gets above the tripple point of water there.

* A mission to one of the major river channels on Mars, it would be so awesome to find fossil biofilms, but so far, nothing has turned up.... viking 1 and viking 2 couldn't go roving, and landed where the ocean used to be fairly deep, and wouldn't have been shallow until the seas were disappearing and becoming a lot less hospitable (possibly freezing long before that and sublimating away)

Gale crater, where curiosity is... its unclear how long it had water

* Nuclear-Electric propulsion (ie nuclear powered Ion drives, rather than the wimpy solar powered ones)

 

On 5/28/2016 at 10:19 AM, tater said:

Real international cooperation would require countries other than the US actually spending meaningful amounts of money, which they don't.

 

On 5/28/2016 at 1:37 PM, ValleyTwo said:

I would like to see NASA working on the Rotary Rocket idea for delivering cargo and people into LEO.

 

On 5/28/2016 at 2:15 PM, Streetwind said:

I wouldn't call it "hate" or something similarly melodramatic, but I am disappointed that nobody has genuinely tried studying artificial gravity through centrifugal force. You know, with actual hardware in space and stuff.

There was a Mars Society cubesat mission to test it out. No idea what happened to it tho.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempo3

But, you'd wonder why a BIOS-M or similar spacecraft was never made to spin with its 2nd stage in LEO- or a DragonLab. Is it THAT low-priority?

Maybe an Orion mission (like EM-2) can do artif. gravity experiments on the way to the Moon by tethering to the EUS?

On 5/29/2016 at 8:57 AM, tater said:

It was political to suggest that space agencies could create an economy where none exists. There is either a market for something, or there isn't. A false economy of servicing an agency isn't a real economy.

It can kickstart a economy via investment, however.

On 5/29/2016 at 8:59 AM, radonek said:

There was a Voskhod mission prepared for that, but it got canceled in favor of N1-L3 and 7K-OK (later Soyuz) projects. 
 

What mission was that?

On 5/29/2016 at 10:47 AM, Emperor of the Titan Squid said:

Developing usful exploration technologies that are more useful than the ones they are developing now.

What do you mean? They are developing ISRU, ION, inflatable heat shields...

[fredinno]

On 5/29/2016 at 10:47 AM, Emperor of the Titan Squid said:

Developing usful exploration technologies that are more useful than the ones they are developing now.

What do you mean? They are developing ISRU, ION, inflatable heat shields...

[PB666]

2 minutes ago, fredinno said:

What do you mean? They are developing ISRU, ION, inflatable heat shields...

It means that if wishes were horses beggars would ride.

[tater]

@fredinno, sorta. It comes down to there actually being a need to be filled, though. Servicing a remote military base is a sort of economy, but it would always remain tethered to the needs of that one customer. Unless there is a "real" market, I'm not seeing it. Perhaps rare earths might be a thing at some point (mined from stuff dragged to Lagrange points), but either that;s a real market, or it isn't.

[PB666]

2 minutes ago, tater said:

@fredinno, sorta. It comes down to there actually being a need to be filled, though. Servicing a remote military base is a sort of economy, but it would always remain tethered to the needs of that one customer. Unless there is a "real" market, I'm not seeing it. Perhaps rare earths might be a thing at some point (mined from stuff dragged to Lagrange points), but either that;s a real market, or it isn't.

This type of thinking would kill most basic research. We explore because there is the unexplored, not because we think there is a commercial need in the exploration. People don't climb mount everest because their is an economic need to. The key motivation of most scientist is not money, a technician with 2 year experience can make 100,000$ a year compared to a 30,000$ year post-doc salary after 4 more years of post-graduate training (i.e. enslavement).  Science is not strictly a knowledge based enterprise, it creates the knowledge-base for enterprise. Art is what expands the boundaries of art, the prosperity of most artist is not in their lifetime. Science is the same thing, it is what expands, prosperity is a sustenance feature, that's about it.   Either the powers that be want to expand their base and be competitive or they want to stick their head in the mud and lie to the public to make them think society is progressing. You really need to spend more time studying science philosophy, its about the question not the answer.

[fredinno]

12 minutes ago, tater said:

@fredinno, sorta. It comes down to there actually being a need to be filled, though. Servicing a remote military base is a sort of economy, but it would always remain tethered to the needs of that one customer. Unless there is a "real" market, I'm not seeing it. Perhaps rare earths might be a thing at some point (mined from stuff dragged to Lagrange points), but either that;s a real market, or it isn't.

The idea is that things like space tourism would be a lot easier with the huge amount of investment into tech and infrastructure.

[tater]

44 minutes ago, PB666 said:

This type of thinking would kill most basic research. We explore because there is the unexplored, not because we think there is a commercial need in the exploration. People don't climb mount everest because their is an economic need to. The key motivation of most scientist is not money, a technician with 2 year experience can make 100,000$ a year compared to a 30,000$ year post-doc salary after 4 more years of post-graduate training (i.e. enslavement).  Science is not strictly a knowledge based enterprise, it creates the knowledge-base for enterprise. Art is what expands the boundaries of art, the prosperity of most artist is not in their lifetime. Science is the same thing, it is what expands, prosperity is a sustenance feature, that's about it.   Either the powers that be want to expand their base and be competitive or they want to stick their head in the mud and lie to the public to make them think society is progressing. You really need to spend more time studying science philosophy, its about the question not the answer.

The discussion is about a market, not exploration/science. Science/exploration will be done as they always have, with the money being spent "just because."

Markets require the economics to work. The (meh) thread title is about what "space programs" haven't done. Right now, that means NASA/ESA, etc. They are not in the "business" of space, they are in the business of exploration/science. Markets are not their role, and I'm not arguing that it should be, in fact I'm arguing exactly the opposite. Private "space programs" either need huge amounts of walking around money to be burnt basically as a hobby *cough*Bezos*cough*, or they need to actually provide a meaningful return on investment. 

Edited May 31, 2016 by tater

[PB666]

12 minutes ago, tater said:

The discussion is about a market, not exploration/science. Science/exploration will be done as they always have, with the money being spent "just because."

Markets require the economics to work. The (meh) thread title is about what "space programs" haven't done. Right now, that means NASA/ESA, etc. They are not in the "business" of space, they are in the business of exploration/science. Markets are not their role, and I'm not arguing that it should be, in fact I'm arguing exactly the opposite. Private "space programs" either need huge amounts of walking around money to be burnt basically as a hobby *cough*Bezos*cough*, or they need to actually provide a meaningful return on investment. 

Uh not just Bezos, Musk original intention was to build a mars capable vessel, when the Russians gave him an inferiorty complex he decided to build a rocket company, I don't think exploration is off the plate, and it looks like they are experimenting with motors and reland schemes. As I said science is not strictly a knowledge enterprise, is a question creating enterprise, but in answerig questions it creates new knowledge based enterprises. The upstarts will carve new markets out of the science they create. 

If i remember the topic correctly why aren't we tryning to figure out better ways to exploit space than what we are doing. OK thats a question, one aspect is the attempting, the other aspect is the problem solving. You can either go out into space and bring back tons of asteroid fragments kept in vacuum and test experimental proceedures, or build an space worthy fabrication laboratory (i.e. a factory) go into space and starts seeing what can be done. This basically means taking some tools and making other tools in-situ. 

For all the other caga in this thread this is the only point of meaning, all the other devices people think we should do or places we should go, no le hace. unless you are sampling with an eye on return of significant quantities of raw starting materials, there is no meaning for men in space outside of LEO. The reason is quite clear, unless you've done the material science any trips humans are otherwise hogtied. Im willing to entertaine manned missions within reason anywhere, don't really care if the men come back, the important thing are the samples. And if they decide to send robots instead or Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, doesn't really matter. (ok maybe kepp Elon here, he has better future IQ that the overwhelming majority of businessmen).

I think they should create a prize, the first person to return rocks (100 kilos) each from Mars, Phobos, Diemos, A asteroid belt deived asteroid, a kuiper belt derived comet (frozen colloid) gets 50 billion dollars.  Another 50 billion if the can return 100 kilos of surface from mercury along with Ice and gas samples from the poles. 

[Sanic]

Stop sending every freaking spacecraft fo Mars and go to Uranus

[fredinno]

18 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Uh not just Bezos, Musk original intention was to build a mars capable vessel, when the Russians gave him an inferiorty complex he decided to build a rocket company, I don't think exploration is off the plate, and it looks like they are experimenting with motors and reland schemes. As I said science is not strictly a knowledge enterprise, is a question creating enterprise, but in answerig questions it creates new knowledge based enterprises. The upstarts will carve new markets out of the science they create. 

If i remember the topic correctly why aren't we tryning to figure out better ways to exploit space than what we are doing. OK thats a question, one aspect is the attempting, the other aspect is the problem solving. You can either go out into space and bring back tons of asteroid fragments kept in vacuum and test experimental proceedures, or build an space worthy fabrication laboratory (i.e. a factory) go into space and starts seeing what can be done. This basically means taking some tools and making other tools in-situ. 

For all the other caga in this thread this is the only point of meaning, all the other devices people think we should do or places we should go, no le hace. unless you are sampling with an eye on return of significant quantities of raw starting materials, there is no meaning for men in space outside of LEO. The reason is quite clear, unless you've done the material science any trips humans are otherwise hogtied. Im willing to entertaine manned missions within reason anywhere, don't really care if the men come back, the important thing are the samples. And if they decide to send robots instead or Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, doesn't really matter. (ok maybe kepp Elon here, he has better future IQ that the overwhelming majority of businessmen).

I think they should create a prize, the first person to return rocks (100 kilos) each from Mars, Phobos, Diemos, A asteroid belt deived asteroid, a kuiper belt derived comet (frozen colloid) gets 50 billion dollars.  Another 50 billion if the can return 100 kilos of surface from mercury along with Ice and gas samples from the poles. 

The problem is that Space Programs are concerned more about science than applications, so it's difficult to actually get them to do things like that.

I would start on making bulk sample return probes (ie ARM)

NASA is honestly selling ARM wrong. If they concentrated on its robotic mission (moving the SLS missions to the Gateway station), and on the asteroid mining aspect, it would be a LOT easier for Congress to support it. Alas, so far, politics prevent it, and ARM is constantly on the brink of political cancellation.

A prize structure is not going to work- even the much simpler goal of landing a probe on the moon and roving it 500m has been shown to be incredibly difficult to actually get the competitors to complete. 

9 minutes ago, Sanic said:

Stop sending every freaking spacecraft fo Mars and go to Uranus

Even if the next flagship probe is to be Mars Sample Return, the next discovery probes for Mars would likely be a life-finder, or a Geyser Hopper, and Mars 2020 has ISRU experiments and a min-heli?

[tater]

I'm fine with a prize, heck, I might be fine with that as a mechanism for all manned flight, frankly---"We have 20 Billion in escrow for the first company to provide us with an installation we can then rent for X million per month on the Moon. We guarantee to rent at least 6 months a year for 5 years." The taxpayer than does't spend a penny until the first astronaut can arrive at the base (transportation included from the provider). There would be certain minimal standards set for safety, obviously.

[fredinno]

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

On ‎5‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 9:20 AM, CptRichardson said:

I hate that they're still funding the SLS when they should be performing the 'shower them with money' gif all over SpaceX.

If they actually showered money on SpaceX tomorrow:

1. Congress would defund them.

2. LockMart and Boeing would sue NASA for not informing them of the cancellation beforehand.

3. SpaceX would likely pocket most of the money.

4. SpaceX would get an uncompetitive advantage, and make the US launch industry more monopolistic, since now they have more than enough money to "convince" the govn't to stop giving ULA launches (and defund potential competitors funded on the RD-180 replacement program), and to absorb enough losses to easily undercut its global competitors.

5. It would be worse off for everyone. There's a reason you never dump money at one place at one time.

On ‎5‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 10:08 AM, KerikBalm said:

Well, from the limited information I have... it seems that SpaceX would handily win an open competition against other launch capability providers.

* a Europa/Enceledus lander rather than this BS of manned lunar flights again

* A robotic mars mission to the "Martian Geysers" which may conceivably provide a habitable zone

* A robotic mars mission to a martian cave to look at the conditions away from the surface (radiation shielding makes it more likely that biological signatures may remain.. though perchlorates could still be a major problem

*A mission to Hellas Planitia... it gets above the tripple point of water there.

* A mission to one of the major river channels on Mars, it would be so awesome to find fossil biofilms, but so far, nothing has turned up.... viking 1 and viking 2 couldn't go roving, and landed where the ocean used to be fairly deep, and wouldn't have been shallow until the seas were disappearing and becoming a lot less hospitable (possibly freezing long before that and sublimating away)

Gale crater, where curiosity is... its unclear how long it had water

* Nuclear-Electric propulsion (ie nuclear powered Ion drives, rather than the wimpy solar powered ones)

If you mean planetary probes, SpaceX generally would lose- its launch pads on the Cape are filled (and soon also at Vandenberg, due to Iridium, and DOD launches).

I agree with the rest, except that manned Lunar flights are BS. Why? We have a huge list of destinations on Luna to go to, even without an outpost, particularly the poles, Tycho Crater, Trosvoky Crater, and the far side, in general.

And do we know the location of a stable martian cave? It would still require some pretty darned fast rover, or insanely precise landing to actually get inside the cave in 1 year.

I thought we already sent/will send a lander/rover to a river delta on Mars? Any fossil biofilms are going to require a dedicated lander to detach due to almost certainly being just bacteria.

Also, good luck getting people to accept nuclear+ space

On ‎5‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 10:19 AM, tater said:

Real international cooperation would require countries other than the US actually spending meaningful amounts of money, which they don't.

I wonder why NASA's budget is so much higher?

On ‎5‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 1:37 PM, ValleyTwo said:

I would like to see NASA working on the Rotary Rocket idea for delivering cargo and people into LEO.

Rotary Rocket didn't work as well as anticipated. I doubt it would be revived soon.

 

[Emperor of the Titan Squid]

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

But I think we can all agree the less government intervention into an economy, the better it is off generally (there are exceptions)- ie classical capitalist economics.

 

 

 

 

There was a Mars Society cubesat mission to test it out. No idea what happened to it tho.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempo3

But, you'd wonder why a BIOS-M or similar spacecraft was never made to spin with its 2nd stage in LEO- or a DragonLab. Is it THAT low-priority?

Maybe an Orion mission (like EM-2) can do artif. gravity experiments on the way to the Moon by tethering to the EUS?

It can kickstart a economy via investment, however.

What mission was that?

What do you mean? They are developing ISRU, ION, inflatable heat shields...

NTR

 

[fredinno]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

I'm fine with a prize, heck, I might be fine with that as a mechanism for all manned flight, frankly---"We have 20 Billion in escrow for the first company to provide us with an installation we can then rent for X million per month on the Moon. We guarantee to rent at least 6 months a year for 5 years." The taxpayer than does't spend a penny until the first astronaut can arrive at the base (transportation included from the provider). There would be certain minimal standards set for safety, obviously.

An even easier and cheaper challenge would be to have a Lunar ISRU experiment challenge, or to a ARM 'asteroid'. The requirements would be a lot cheaper, and it might be accessible to smaller aerospace companies (but not private groups), and be about the cost of a Flagship if NASA did it. It should be robotic (along with the rest of the system) to reduce costs. In the finalist competition (leaving 2 final spacecraft, one backup of the other) there would be unfunded help provided by NASA. One system would be upscaled 200% for (oxidizer) production.

The same thing would be done for Space tugs, and the LV system to carry the propellant to Earth. Each would have prizes, and a small contract at the end to keep those systems operating in the weaker early years of operation.

NASA would buy out a scaled down version to do more difficult precious metal ISRU. It would likely not be economical to actually mine the stuff to send back to Earth though (for one, you'd need launch and operate a small shuttle system, like X-37B. 

 

The thing is though, NASA could do this if it wanted, but it doesn't.

 

Just now, Emperor of the Titan Squid said:

NTR

 

Ah, then that probably wouldn't happen ever in any case ever due to radiation.  

[tater]

NASA can't do what it wants. It does what Congress wants.

It's come up before, but I have no idea why Europe doesn't spend more when they mostly don't even pay their fair share of NATO. The funny thing is that there is a lot of overlap with contractors, so space spending tends to keep defense industries more robust (and space programs are more technical jobs programs than anything else).

[Darguel]

What about public funding? For example, some astronomers are kickstarting this project to study the KIC 8462852 star.

They have a goal of 100,000$, it's not a lot of money but space agencies are not backing it up. Do you guys think they will reach their goal?