OT: Governmental Space Agencies or Private

[dogscoff]

The money for space exploitation in today's global economic climate can only ever really come from the private sector. Governments- even rich ones- are only prepared to put a very small amount of their cash in to such projects.

However, they MUST be tightly regulated in terms of safety, and in such a way that they can't just avoid the regs by moving their launches to some other part of the world. It's all very well cutting a few corners to return an extra few $$$$ to the shareholders, but something falling out of orbit can do a LOT of damage.

'Pollution' in space must also be looked at very carefully. Sure, space is ridiculously big, but Earth orbit isn't, and the planet's resources are also finite. We need to get off on the right foot and get ppl in the right habits from the start.

As for putting advertising on the moon- it would be the biggest PR botch any company could ever make.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by bearclaw:
The key differance between space travel and ocean travel is that there were obvious financial benifits to traveling to the New World and Asia. Trade, gold, land, exotic plants/animals, etc. Without some sort of financial reason to go to space, all this could be moot.

Actually we know the resources are there that would make the trip worthwhile. It's only a matter of getting the costs down to a level where it makes economic sense to go to space to get them. Tourism is the idea that gets everybody excited in the short term, and if that helps drive the technology the more's the better. But eventually it will be a minor part of the picture as industry starts to move to space for finding raw materials and manufacturing. Not in our lifetime likely on a large scale, but it will happen eventually.

[dogscoff]

I reckon the cost of developping and building a small orbital craft could be offset by using it to shoot the first ever zero-G pr0n flick. With the right marketting/ hype/ controversy it could make millions=-)

it would also create enormous demand for space tourism as couples suddenly find a reason to go into space...

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
I reckon the cost of developping and building a small orbital craft could be offset by using it to shoot the first ever zero-G pr0n flick. With the right marketting/ hype/ controversy it could make millions=-)

it would also create enormous demand for space tourism as couples suddenly find a reason to go into space...

Do a google for "space hotel" (include the quotes) there are both plans for utrning the mir into one, or building one with private funds. They have already sold reservations
SpaceFuture is a fun link
http://www.spacefuture.com/

[ June 01, 2004, 15:07: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[Narrew]

After reading a few books on space exploration, I tend to think that NASA has been a restricting force, intentionally or un-intentionally.

Robert Zubrin, you might have seen him on discovery type programs, he has written books on colonizing Mars ect...In one of the books of his I read, he gripes about the tunnel vision that NASA and space engine manufacturers have. Main thing there are ideas on the board that could turn one-time engines into reusable engines. Plus the lack of heavy lift engines.

Another author, Marshall Savage wrote "The Millennial Project". Discusses many ways for us to move out into space that have been on the books since the 60-70's.

Both seem to imply that we have went backwards space technology wise since we been to the moon. If we chart on a graph and projected where we would be today (based on conservative increase) from the moon mission days, we probably should have been on Mars sometime in the mid 80s *shrug*.

I doubt that NASA will be the leaders in the next wave of space exploration. It should be the private individuals. NASA is just too large, another bloated government agency. So my bet is on the private individuals.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
'Pollution' in space must also be looked at very carefully. Sure, space is ridiculously big, but Earth orbit isn't, and the planet's resources are also finite. We need to get off on the right foot and get ppl in the right habits from the start.

You mean like dumping it in a designated crater on the far side of the moon? Gravity will hold much of it in (may need containers for some things to prevent them from boiling off and landing in Earth's atmosphere); the whole thing's uninhabited (at the moment), so it won't disturb any current resident's view (and the dump could be made to pre-date any immigrants); there is no native life that can be threatened by anything that manages to escape the containers in a spill; it's a lot easier to put something in a crater on the moon than it is to drop it into the sun or send it out of the solar system; if push comes to shove, it can be retrieved (barring an unlucky impact); and if it fills up, well, there are lots & lots of craters on that side of the moon....

[PvK]

There's already a large amount of debris in low Earth orbit from all the human space activity so far. Dead satellites, and bits and pieces of various devices, floating around at orbital (read: very high) speed, providing obstacles for anything else that wants to operate in low Earth orbit.

Sending such stuff "to the Moon" isn't a practical or useful task at present.

PvK