Game guru going into space

steve smyth lynn ma — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:00:49 GMT

the best thing about this is...someone who profited from turning the horizon inward is going to assist in returning things outward...GOOD!
be certain to take note of this...mention it to Owen...he'll know what I mean...it's important

Game guru going into space

Loren, SF Bay Area, CA — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:04:01 GMT

Second-generation astronauts. I guess it was only a matter of time. One wonders if, two hundred years from now, there will be "spacefaring families" in the same way that we have "seafaring families" on Earth, where each generation follows in the previous generation's footsteps.

Game guru going into space

Jon, Ygn., OH — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:29:33 GMT

This demonstrates the frivolous nature of human crewed spaceflight. What a complete waste of time and money.
Here we have another wealthy, and bored person, with too much money and time on his hands.
Meanwhile,real space exploration moves on. I speak of this week's launch of the Dawn probe. And let's not forget our Mars rovers. Still going strong after all these years.
So, the future of space exploration is with machines, not astronauts.

Game guru going into space

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:21:14 GMT

If Garriott makes money at some point from this, that's hardly trivial (not that he needs your permission or mine to do any legal thing he wishes with his bucks...and *someone* profits from getting him up there).

Nor is science the be-all and end-all reason for doing anything in space. (Are the only ships oceanographic vessels?)

And as long as we don't have real AI, and physics provides no means for communicating faster than light, humans *will* personally go into space to do science, just as they do field work down here.

Game guru going into space

xraydog — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:23:56 GMT

The human colonization of space is inevitable Jon. Keep that in mind. If we stay on Earth we are doomed.

Game guru going into space

J, San Francisco, CA — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:38:28 GMT

Do you think he will make all the way to Sosaria?

Game guru going into space

Jon, Ygn., OH — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:56:23 GMT

Crewed space flight costs money. It does not, and will not make money. This is an expensive hobby, nothing more.
Sorry xraydog, space colonization is a romantic delusion.

Game guru going into space

xraydog — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:35:27 GMT

If you're right than you can kiss humanity goodbye. Life on Earth is a dead end.

Game guru going into space

Aaron Oesterle, Mason, Mi — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 07:39:04 GMT

xraydog, and everyone else for that matter, don't bother Jon with facts - he's already made his mind up. Proof of this can be found at http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/05/79389.aspx

I have to say, thats kind of cool about the two 2nd-gen astronauts. But I am curious - there were various reports about Space Adventures moving closer and closer towards having someone signed up for a moon trip - any word on this Alan?

Game guru going into space

UK — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:00:50 GMT

If Richard Garriott wants to commercialise spaceflight, that is his choice.
Similarly, if he wants to spend $30 million on art that too is his perogative. Space travel is not just for science.

Game guru going into space

Jon, Ygn., OH — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:19:54 GMT

If you have any facts Arron I would like to read them.
Let me lay a few on you.
1) Launching any payload, even to low Earth orbit, is a multi-million Dollar proposition.
2)The cost of launching is increasing, not going down.
3) The private or commercial space program, (what ever it is being called these days), cannot survive without massive government subsidies.
4)Space is and always will be a unnatural environment for humans to live or work in.
5) There is no economic advantage to sending humans into space. This alone means business has no long term interest in human crewed spaceflight. It is simply a relic of the Cold War era.
There are many other's, but I think I've made my point.

Game guru going into space

Frank Glover Rochester, NY — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 18:03:44 GMT

"Crewed space flight costs money."

Whenever an unmanned launch (wether a research probe or a commercial satellite) fails, news reports almost make the cost of the payload its middle name: "The (fill in figure) million dollar communications satellite was lost today, when the second stage of its launch rocket failed to ignite..."

Do not imply that machines are cheap in an *absolute* sense. They most assuredly do cost money.

"It does not, and will not make money."

You're sure of that?

So...the 20million+ USD that the Russians get for every seat the Russians sell is an illusion? (I don't know if they actually break even on a launch because of that, but it clearly offsets the cost enough to satisfy them, or they'd not bother. The Russians *have* learned capitalism.)

And another capitalist, Richard Branson, seems reasonably certain that suborbital human flight *will* make money.

And do you then suggest that spaceflight technology will sit still, and never become more economical until the end if time, in the face of increasing technological change everywhere else? (That's what 'never' implies)

Or that human life-support issues are insolvable? (Indeed, much of that is a one-time solution. Once you have a completely [or sufficently nearly so] closed life-support system, and know how to maintain health in extended weightlessness, then it doesn't matter if you're doing it in low Earth orbit...or orbiting Pluto. You don't have to solve it all over again for some other part of the Universe, just as a nuclear submarine performs the same, no matter what ocean it's in.)

Indeed, if there's never a larger market than occasional space probes, there will never *be* an incentive to develop cheaper access to LEO and beyond.

But once you have systems that can put humans into space affordably and reliably...guess what? That means more flight opprotunites for unmanned devices, too. (Launch costs and reliability are still an issue for robots, and a signifigant part of those mission costs, too.) Would you be opposed to such an outcome?

"This is an expensive hobby, nothing more."

Even if true, your point? Somebody makes money building, say, yachts and high-performance power and sailboats which could be described the same way. That money increases the tax base, and pays partly for every government-funded spacecraft ever launched. Manned...or not. Science has to feed from that trough. What's wrong with enlarging it?

Again, the Universe does not belong only to scientists, any more than the ocean does. (Have you a problem with cruise ships?) If 'expensive hobbies' (which *do* make money for someone by providing a service) are one of the things that help us get out there, more power to 'em.

Remember, another Game Guy, John Carmack, is well at work on that part, too. (And with the expectation of eventually profiting from it. Do not confuse 'hobbies' with 'personally funded research and development.')

Game guru going into space

Jon Ygn, OH — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 03:15:01 GMT

Frank, cruise ships? Are you serious? Sir Richard Branson is selling his airline business, nothing more. I do not believe he intends to send anyone into space. It looks more and more like a publicity stunt.
Please stop making these bogus historical comparisons to space flight. Space is not going to ever be economical for anyone.
Talk about the early pioneers of aviation and lewis and Clark are not valid models for the twenty-first century.
The fact remains, business has showed little interest in space. Except for communication satellites that is. These little start-up space firms have zero chance of succeeding.
They are beginning to show signs of failure already. The point is they never really stood a chance.
Space travel is, and will remain for the foreseeable future the province of governments.
Perhaps Mr. Garriott should give thirty million dollars to diabetes or cancer research. This would be more helpful to mankind than spending money on fantasy wish fulfillment.

Game guru going into space

Aaron Oesterle, Mason, Mi — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 03:47:21 GMT

Jon, Frank does an excellent job laying out the facts. However, thats not the real point. The real point is, when you were presented with facts, in the story I cited, it was you who wasn't interested in debated. You only wanted to pontificate. I porvided facts, studies, and actual reports and numbers. You provided nothing.

And in fact, what you stated here aren't facts, but opinions (mostly opinions). That being the case, I see no reason trying to debate you, and feel that anyone who considers trying to debate you see exactly what and where your coming from.

Game guru going into space

Wayne, TN — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:48:22 GMT

It might be best to look at Jon as a Devil's Advocate, while he appears rather closed minded on the subject at least he stimulates discussion and you guys are spurred to provide links and opinions which add to the overall understanding on the subject.

Personally I find many of the popular theories of future spaceflight to be unworkable in the real world, the Space Elevator for example. That might work on a low G airless planetoid but I seriously believe it can never be feasible on Earth.

Privately owned and operated spacecraft on the other hand are already here. Theres no leap ahead in technology, and no Unobtainium required, just the money to make it real and there are a lot of multi millionaires out there these days.

Game guru going into space

Todd, Billerica, MA — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:53:04 GMT

2008 may be the year we find out if space travel can indeed be economically feasible. Spaceship 2 should be entering it's test phase and two falcon 1 and three falcon 9 rockets are scheduled for launch. If the falcon rockets are successful they could easily reduce the launch costs by possibly 10 times it's present cost.

Game guru going into space

steve smyth lynn ma — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:23:33 GMT

I just want to remind you all that calling vehicles which enter, and return from near space are a far cry from 'spaceships'...more like skiffs, at best...skiffs can be rowed/sailed around the world, if one is crazy enough to try...spaceskiffs can do no more than the above...no matter how crtazed the adventurer may be...it's still an enclosed capsule, traversing the lowest acceptable arc, in a 100% inhospitable atmosphere...SPACESHIPS, eh?
I say...pshaww!
click the name for a peek at my new website...where the future of Human expansion beyond this planet lives...

Game guru going into space

Aaron Oesterle, Mason, Mi — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:19:55 GMT

Todd,

I would hold off on saying that 2008 will be the bellwether year. I do think that what will happen in the next 5 years will be curcial, but to put it all on 2008, well, I think that may be a mistake. A schedule may slip a year, and then people will right it off as a great big 0, only to be surprised the next year.

However, I do think there is enough that things will come to a head in the next 5 years. If we aren't much more further along in the next 5 years, then I would be forced to agree that this crop of space enthusiasts and space entrepreneurs have been failures.

That said, I think its rather unlikely for a variety of reasons, the principle one being that we have seen hardware, and significant hardware at that, actually being operated.

Game guru going into space

Z, St. Louis, MO — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:39:06 GMT

Jon,

Remember, automobiles were once a plaything of the
rich too, as were airplanes and other airships.Now they are something anyone can use. These fledgling
private firms are making tremendous strides in
making this work. The government space programs
are looking at large capital projects like space
stations and moon bases and at basic research building
and using them as leap off point.

The small private firms are looking at more practial uses. Would it not be a great thing to take off in New Mexico to sub-orbit and land in, Tokyo or London in a fraction of the travel time of a conventional plane? With that a wonderful view and the feel of low gravity to go with it.It may be the 2000's Concorde.

The multitudes of inventions and pure research and engineering knowledge gained just by trying is worth the effort and money. We know we can make robotic exploration work.Thats not a challenege anymore. The new effort is to put ourselves back in the equation and advance technology for human expansion outward. The challenge yields the rewards, not sitting on the ground looking up at the sky and waiting for some magical ghost to come along and make it all better.

Game guru going into space

Frank Glover, rochester, NY — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:27:12 GMT

"Frank, cruise ships? Are you serious?"

Very. Cruise ships arguably constitute ocean-going 'frivolous activities by the wealthy and bored.' If you have a problem with people going into space for those reasons, I have to think you may have a similar problem with ocean-going vessels that carry out a similar activity and aren't conducting research instead. If not, please explain where they differ in principle.

Oh, and there seems to be quite a bit of money to be made in providing that service:

http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2004/12/13/daily41.html

Again, I submit that the Russians would not similarly sell a seat, were it not worth it to them. This only proves there’s a market for orbital tourism (Mr Garriott seems to have more than that planned, but it really doesn't matter.) even at over 20 million USD. Do you suggest that the less well-off would not also do this, if it could be provided at a lower cost?

http://www.space.com/news/061003_tourism_survey.html
http://www.personalspaceflight.info/category/extraorbital/
http://www.futron.com/resource_center/space_tourism/space_tourism.htm

"Sir Richard Branson is selling his airline business, nothing more."

He appears to be selling several things, for several reasons. Your point?

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/10/2Y7I.html

"I do not believe he intends to send anyone into space. It looks more and more like a publicity stunt."

Scaled Composites, which does nothing without expectation of eventual profit, seems to believe him. And they have much more riding on it than you or I. There are easier ways to get publicity.

"Please stop making these bogus historical comparisons to space flight."

Where does the supposed 'bogosity' come in? It's true that previous transportation advances had the advantages of servicing destinations people had already demonstrated a need to go to This is how commercial jets decimated transatlantic passenger travel by ship almost overnight...and now, most passenger ships, rather than operating a point-to-point service, take people to exotic locations then generally back to their point of departure (check the Miami harbor some time). Cruise ships. Just like orbital/suborbital tourism.

Currently, ISS is the only ‘place to go’ in LEO, and I will be the first to say that a government research facility should not have to serve this role, but others are well on their way to providing alternatives, with two functional prototypes, not on paper, but orbiting hardware, at this moment. Indeed, Bigelow Aerospace seems to be, if anything, getting too far ahead of the ability to get people to its hardware:

http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=4624

Of course, there was a time when some thought that commercial manned orbital space flight would grow out of higher-performance solutions to world-wide air travel, in the form of hypersonic airliners, or intercontinental suborbital rockets (Phillip Bono and Kenneth Gatland rote extensively on the latter in the 60's and 70's *). Things have not turned out that way, but the interest is there. The technology is finally, in a gradual chicken-egg manner, being applied.

* http://www.amazon.com/Frontiers-Pocket-encyclopaedia-spaceflight-colour/dp/071373504X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Bono
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/history_of_the_phoenix_vtol_ssto_and_recent_developments_in_single_stage_launch_systems.shtml

"Space is not going to ever be economical for anyone."

Why? Again, you speak in absolutes, not a safe thing to do where technology is involved. Nor can you specifically say why. Even satcom customers want more reliable launchers. But by themselves, they're not enough of a market to develop re-usable human-rated launchers (nor are the needs of the science community, though they can and will ride the commercial coattails when it happens).

It’s true that ‘If you build it, they will come.’ Is not a good business plan in itself, but it’s also been said that “When you design a bridge, you don’t base its capacity on the number of people already swimming the river.” Satcom operators are the swimmers. Their need to get their payloads into geostationary orbit is so great, that they’ll live with even current launch costs (and still make money, if it gets there intact) Many others can think of things they *could* do in space, but don’t seriously consider it because of the same costs.

Drive it down with re-useable launchers developed partly to serve a tourist market, and everyone benefits. (No one in the 1970’s explicitl;y said; “Hey, let’s have this world-wide computer network, and do all sorts of commercial personal and social things on it...” That was not an obvious market. But once PCs were common, and the Internet became available to the public, that’s what happened. And many people are employed (and some, quite wealthy) because of it. Let us see if improved space access will do similar things.)

"Talk about the early pioneers of aviation and lewis and Clark are not valid models for the twenty-first century."

Again, why not?

"The fact remains, business has showed little interest in space. Except for communication satellites that is."

That’s only because sufficiently reliable and economical means of doing so, don't yet exist. There is no obvious technological reason why it cannot. Definitely there’s nothing in physical law that says it cannot. Very often, people don't know what they want or need, until it actually exists...

"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said 'faster horses.'"
- Henry Ford

“These little start-up space firms have zero chance of succeeding.
They are beginning to show signs of failure already. The point is they never really stood a chance.”

You still can’t seem to be specific. But I will tell you here and now, that there *will* be failures, because *most* new businesses fail. There are a number of aircraft, automobile and computer manufacturers that you can’t buy anything from, because they no longer exist (or left the market for other pursuits). But those products still do. There’s nothing new there.

Why are you opposed to trying? (especially when they do it on their own dime)

"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt man doing it."
- Chinese Proverb

“Space travel is, and will remain for the foreseeable future the province of governments.”

It should be remembered that there’s also a subset of the public that isn’t especially interested in *unmanned* spaceflight, either...

“Perhaps Mr. Garriott should give thirty million dollars to diabetes or cancer research. This would be more helpful to mankind than spending money on fantasy wish fulfillment.”

...And would say the same thing about their tax money being spent on planetary probes. Anything that would help decrease the cost of that research should be welcomed.

And, how do you know how philanthropic Mr. Garriott already is or is not? Everyone knows about the Gates Foundation, and what Bill does with part of his personal fortune. If *he* were interested in going to ISS, would he have not already (assuming one even has to) have ‘paid his dues’ in your eyes?

And understand that he can do that, because he and others saw that there was money in selling operating systems and software (whatever you think of Microsoft’s business practices) for desktop computers, something else that was once regarded as ‘toys’ and ‘glorified video games’ (How much money did Halo 3 just rake in? What slice of it will go to philanthropy? How much might a successful space entrepreneur donate? [Aside from the non-optional tax bracket he or she would then be in?])

Is not our tax money already being spent (via the NIH, and other agencies) on medical research? If you think it’s inadequate, take it up with your senator and representative. Let people of whatever means entertain themselves (may I go to the amusement park across town, please?) in whatever legal way they will (AND pay some salaries, which are ALSO taxed, in the process.)

Game guru going into space

Wayne, Alamogordo, NM — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:30:55 GMT

Human space flight will never be cheap. That's why taxpayer's dollars should not be used for space exploration except for developing technology that will protect the earth from killer asteroids. Outside of that, the costs far outweigh the benefits for man to be exploring space just because it's there. Space will be conquered by those who can make money from their ventures. Space tourism will grow if there's money to be made. Space mining will take place if there's money to be made.

Man going back to the Moon. What a waste! Unless we figure out a way to be self-sufficient on the Moon, or maybe Mars, what's the point? I do support limited taxpayer money being used for unmanned missions to the planets and asteroids of our solar system because I feel we do need a better understanding of space and our closest neighbors. But it's high time we pool our money with that of other nations so that we all aren't duplicating efforts. All those in favor of an international space agency where all interested countries work together, both technically and financially, to explore space say AYE!

Game guru going into space

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 20:14:39 GMT

Wayne of Tennessee doubts that the Space Elevator idea would apply to Earth in our efforts to get into space. If he does some research into current developments and our progress in related subjects like carbon nanotubes, lasers and other things, I'm sure he will find that the Space Elevator is becoming more feasible all the time.

Part of the problem may be in the name itself, since 'elevator' implies a vehicle that moves up from A to B and then down from B to A. The Space Elevator involves a base on Earth, A, a geosynchronous 'platform,' B, and a third part beyond that to stabilize and balance out the Earth side of the Elevator. Cargo is carried up the 'ribbon' from A to B by a crawler powered by laser beams. The best part of the whole thing is that we have already have working models in competition with each other. developed by numerous universities.

Game guru going into space

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:58:50 GMT

"Human space flight will never be cheap."

'Cheap' is relative. It doesn't have to be the cost of bus fare, just at least one order of magnitude (but preferably greater) cheaper than today.

"That's why taxpayer's dollars should not be used for space exploration except for developing technology that will protect the earth from killer asteroids."

I have no problem with my tax money being spent doing other kinds of basic science in space (though not the whole US population might agree)...but I want access improved so that non-government entities can do more of it, too. (thus keeping its costs as much under the public radar as, say, government funded Antarctic or oceanographic research)

"Outside of that, the costs far outweigh the benefits for man to be exploring space just because it's there. Space will be conquered by those who can make money from their ventures. Space tourism will grow if there's money to be made. Space mining will take place if there's money to be made."

Ab-so-lutely. But...

"Man going back to the Moon. What a waste! Unless we figure out a way to be self-sufficient on the Moon, or maybe Mars, what's the point?"

So...how do you demonstrate that you have self-sufficency, unless you go back to the Moon? And has nothing been learned about life-support from space station operations and ground-based Mars spacecraft life-support simulators?

*These* kinds of things are what we need:

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/6/TNA06-Simberg.pdf

http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2006/08/technologies-necessary-for-spacefaring.html

http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2006/08/more-thoughts-on-technologies-for.html

Game guru going into space

Jon Ygn., OH — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:35:28 GMT

So much has been written here, that it is hard to decide where to begin.
First, let me say I respect everyone who has posted here. I realize now that the subject of spaceflight is quite important to some people.It is also important me as well.
But, the spaceflight I am thinking of is far different than what most of the writers of this blog have in mind.
Artificial satellites are very important to our civilization. We all enjoy great benefits from this technology. Be it weather satellites, communication satellites, GPS navigation, or military reconnaissance. No doubt there are many other useful purposes I have not mentioned.
The point being is, that none of these require a human presence in space.
The entire manned spaceflight effort was based largely on Cold War era paranoia. Our rockets are better than their rockets. And we can place a man into orbit too. I know this is simplified view, but I believe it to be correct.
The Apollo Project had very little to do with science or exploration. And in the end it could not be sustained, even by a nation as wealthy as the United States.
We have now confined are manned activity's in space to low Earth orbit. The question is, why? Part of the reason may seem pedestrian. Cost. This is a subject that space enthusiast's want to brush aside. Oh, don't give me that money argument. Is their battle cry. Followed by some eye-rolling etc. As if it (cost) was just a detail. It is not just a small problem, it is a major constraint. Oh, not to worry though, private enterprise will come to the rescue. So they think. Private space entrepreneurs will solve all the problems with the enormous cost of launching hardware, (let alone humans) into space. For the past fifty years NASA has tried this, to no avail.Do you remember a program called the Space Shuttle? Remember it too was going to lower launch cost.The results have been less than spectacular.
So now, we are being told that Space X or some other small start-up company will come along and reverse the immutable laws of physics. I am a little skeptical, if you don't mind me saying.
I also would like to say something about this bizarre notion that outer space is or should be a natural habitat for humans. Human beings evolved very slowly over millions of years. We are finely tuned for life on earth. Forty six years of manned flight has taught us something indeed. Space is no place for humans to be.
The harsh environment in space is something else the space enthusiast try to ignore. The micro gravity environment of space is harmful over the long term. Why do we never see the astronauts emerge from a landed shuttle? It is always done inside a closed up people mover. Could it be NASA does not want its astronauts to be seen staggering, vomiting etc?
Another problem with deep space missions is radiation exposure. Solar radiation as well as cosmic background radiation coming from the rest of the galaxy is a major problem. In fact I believe it will be the show-stopper. Shielding could be added. But this would raise launch cost. Again, there is no easy solution. Perhaps, no solution at all.
As for space colonization. The future is hard to predict. But here too I remain a skeptic. Build a colony on the Moon, Mars. Tell me, for what purpose?
Space enthusiasts are forever making these strange historical comparisons to fifteenth and sixteenth century explorers. Columbus, Magellan, the Portuguese, the Spanish, so forth, These comparisons are simply not valid in our twenty-first century. Why? Because you must look at the reason's these explorer's went forth around the world. In short, they went out to secure new lands for the mother country. They did this by raping and exploiting the lands they came upon.
What riches are there in space? None, that I know of. If the surface of the Moon was covered with gold bars, it would not pay to go get it. A colony that does not produce anything is not going to be financed by anyone in their right mind.
I know I stand little chance of changing minds here. (true believers seldom respond to logic) , but perhaps I might cause some of you to pause and think about this subject again.
Again, in closing, I find that space enthusiasts are caught up in the romance and glamour of piloted space flight and tend to ignore its harsh reality.

Game guru going into space

Aaron Oesterle, Ann Arbor, Mi — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 05:45:28 GMT

Jon - I stand by my eariler statement - you don't want to debate, you want to pontificate. You have not provided ANY new comments, when I compare your most recent post to your eariler post, nor even to the post I cited http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/05/79389.aspx

Normally, I wouldn't respond, and I probably won't again, for a while at least, but just this once, I'll do it.

I'll skip a large portion of your first few points, except to say that, 1. There was science done during Project Apollo, and 2. Exploration isn't just about doing science. That said, I do agree that that wasn't the primary reason for doing Apollo, but don't act like those to didn't happen. The current theory of the moon creation came as a direct result of what we learned during Apollo.

Second - in point of fact, if you talk to most supporters of manned spaceflight, you'll find that we aren't ignoring cost. I have cited more than one person on this, and have provided you with Jon Carmacks numbers. I am sure we could find others (like the Unreasonable Rocket team), but you've ignored these.

Furthermore, Nasa hasn't really been trying to lower the launch costs, for the past fifty years. Nasa really gave it a shot with shuttle, and anyone who is honest agrees that the results have not been good. But, the shuttle is 1 data point. All of the other major attempts, like NASP, and X-33, never got to the point of flying hardware, so, to be perfectly frank, I don't think we can consider them as real attempts (except possibly the Delta Clipper project, although that never got beyond a sub-scale prototype). And that is key, you have to have actual flying hardware - the distance between vaporware, and true hardware, is vast.

So, turning to the private enterprize groups - Again, I make the point about flying hardware here. But furthermore, you say "some start-up company will come along and reverse the immutable laws of physics." Forgive me, this may sound dense, but what particular physics law are you refering to? Clark Lindsey expresses this a lot more clearly than I can, at http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=4550 . Yes, right now, the laws of physics, as we know it, make FTL and Time Travel impossible (although I wouldn't right them off yet), but there are actual notable problems that arise in physics if you attempt FTL, or Time Travel. Please, I want the physics law that proves that you can't have cheap space travel.

The one thing we can say about spaceflight is that it does have an upfront high entrance fee, and will probably continue to do so for the foreseable future - but that doesn't mean that it can't be made to work (after all, entrence into the cable news market is high, and yet Fox is launching a new business channel)

As for being finely tuned for being on earth - again, I've stated this before - go up to Barrow Alaska, and attempt to survive without technology - I know I wouldn't last up there, and I suspect you wouldn't either. The truth is, humanity evolved to be in a certain part of Africa, not spread around the world. Our technology makes that possible. And that will hold true when we go off planet.

You bring up the point about weightlessness - the simple answer then is that, until we have full understanding of weightlessness, and how to cope with changing gravity enviroments, I suggest we utlize rotating stations - this has been tested actually, during a Gemini flight (don't remember which, but they did get a minor bit of artificial gravity by tethering an Agena booster with the capsule, and then spinning it).

And then you discuss the issue of radiation - I've personally written about it http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/4/20342/09392

And then you claim there isn't any resources in space. That, frankly, is perhaps your most ludicrous claim (espcially "If the surface of the Moon was covered with gold bars, it would not pay to go get it." - that takes the cake). I could point to Space based solar power, platinum asteroids, He3 on the moon, or Spacehab's manufacturing plans (they want to use space for protein crystal growth, and sell the crystals back on earth - they are in the process of moving forward on this). The problem with all of these is, as I admit, its a few years down the road to see a return on your investment, and the intial up-front costs are high. But that doesn't mean they can't happen - it just means that whoever decides to really pursue these will need to be someone who has a fair amount of access to capital, and vision to see it through, which means it will probably be someone who is pretty extrodinary who pulls it off.

Do me a favor - hell, do us all a favor, including yourself - stop using physics to try and make economics arguments. And as for your final comments, about true believers - your the true believer here - those comments wreak of passive aggressiveness, which was true of your eariler posts.

In short, I am forced to stand by what I said in my eariler discussion with you - you're not interested in debate, you want to simply pontificate, and have everyone accept what you say as the gospel truth.

Game guru going into space

Jon Ygn., OH — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:59:17 GMT

I see I am as welcome here as a skunk the wanders into a cookout. The message I take from all of this is, skeptic's are not wanted.
But I should have expected that. Zealot's of all stripes seldom welcome even mild criticism.
How dare you attack my faith. This being their usual battle cry. Why do I mention faith? Simple. This is what the pro-space movement has become. I would not characterize it as a organized religion as such. But more of a New-Age cult. Cult's in general are quite irrational. You see this in their casual dismissal of sound scientific and financial arguments. They say things like: Oh don't give me that cost argument! In the future it's going to be different. Exactly how this reality is going to change is never fully explained. Many of the Space Cadet's /cultist, remind one of believers in urban legends. You know the story,the one about the guy who invents the 300mpg carburetor. Then the evil oil companies swoop down and buy it up, to keep it off the market. Or the inventor who comes up with a car that runs on water. And similar nonsense.
Physics is central to this discussion. It is not something that can be ignored. I see the quest for the cheap space booster as the search for the Holy Grail, of the 21st century. And, it stands about as much chance of succeeding.
The denial of financial realities, when it comes to space travel Is another example of the irrational nature of the pro-space movement. We are told time and time again, that in just a few short years things will be different.This same argument has been going on for at least thirty years now. One of the signs of pseudoscience is, lack of any real progress in the field of study. As I have said before the pro-space movement is more about faith and belief, rather then science and sound engineering and fiscal analysis. We can conquer the solar system the Space Cadet's tell us.It only takes Will to do it. But I'm afraid it will take much more than that.
My argument concerning so-called resources in space has been ridiculed. Again by a person who apparently does not know, or refuses to see the realty of the situation. Or simply knows little economics.Again if the Moon was covered in gold bars, or if it was in low Earth orbit, the cost of transportation would make it pointless to go and get it.This is the hard reality of the situation. And this will not be changed by Musk,or Bigelow,Carmack, or anyone else.
Oh, and another thing. The reference to passive aggression, is really absurd. What I have detected is a subtle ad hominem attack. If you don't like the message, attack the messenger. If someone disagrees suggest that they have a psychological disorder.Pretty darned silly I think.
But none of this really matters. I only need sit back and watch it all unfold. Perhaps many years from now I will have been proved wrong. But I don't think I will be.

Game guru going into space

Darrell Judd, Colorado Springs, CO — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:34:33 GMT

Jon is right! Give up your idle dreams! You people with your dreaming and trying and risking. What have you ever done for mankind?? Give up now! Let yourself float complacently on the ocean of superiour knowledge, and facts, and wisdom.... Let's not continue to do impossible, expensive, and risky nonsense!

The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera. It is absurd to go on seeking it... Knife and pain are two words in surgery that must forever be associated in the consciousness of the patient.
- Dr. Alfred Velpeau (1839), French surgeon

Men might as well project a voyage to the Moon as attempt to employ steam navigation against the stormy North Atlantic Ocean.
- Dr. Dionysus Lardner (1793-1859), Professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy at University College, London.

I. A Voyage to Asia would require three years.
II. The western Ocean is infinite and perhaps unnavigable.
III. If he reached the Antipodes he could not get back.
IV There are no Antipodes because the greater part of the globe is covered with water, and because St. Augustine said so.
V. Of the five zones, only three are habitable.
VI. So many centuries after the Creation, it is unlikely that anyone could find hitherto unknown lands of any value.
- Report of the committee organized in 1486 by King
Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain to study Columbus' plans to find a shorter route to India.

When the Paris Exhibition closes electric light will close with it and no more be heard of.
- Erasmus Wilson (1878) Professor at Oxford University

What use could this company make of an electrical toy?
- Western Union president William Orton, responding to an offer from Alexander Graham Bell to sell his telephone company to Western Union for $100,000.

Radio has no future.
- Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), British mathematician and physicist, ca. 1897.

Well informed people know it is impossible to transmit the voice over wires and that were it possible to do so, the thing would be of no practical value.
- Editorial in the Boston Post (1865)

While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially I consider it an impossibility, a development of which we need waste little time dreaming.
- Lee DeForest, 1926 (American radio pioneer and inventor of the vacuum tube.)

A new source of power... called gasoline has been produced by a Boston engineer. Instead of burning the fuel under a boiler, it is exploded inside the cylinder of an engine.
The dangers are obvious. Stores of gasoline in the hands of people interested primarily in profit would constitute a fire and explosive hazard of the first rank. Horseless carriages propelled by gasoline might attain speeds of 14 or even 20 miles per hour. The menace to our people of vehicles of this type hurtling through our streets and along our roads and poisoning the atmosphere would call for prompt legislative action even if the military and economic implications were not so overwhelming... [T]he cost of producing [gasoline] is far beyond the financial capacity of private industry... In addition the development of this new power may displace the use of horses, which would wreck our agriculture.
- U. S. Congressional Record, 1875.

That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is suggested by the fact that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced.
- Scientific American, Jan. 2, 1909.

There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom. The glib supposition of utilizing atomic energy when our coal has run out is a completely unscientific Utopian dream, a childish bug-a-boo. Nature has introduced a few fool-proof devices into the great majority of elements that constitute the bulk of the world, and they have no energy to give up in the process of disintegration.
- Robert A. Millikan (1863-1953) [1928 speech to the Chemists' Club (New York)]

That is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives.
- Admiral William Leahy. [Advice to President Truman, when asked his opinion of the atomic bomb project.]

It would fill the world with innumerable immoralities and give such occasion for intrigues as people can not meet with. You would have a couple of lovers make a midnight assignation upon the top of the monument and see the cupola of St. Paul's covered with both sexes like the outside of a pigeon house. Nothing would be more frequent than to see a beau flying in at a garret window or a gallant giving chase to his mistress like a hawk after a lark.
- Joseph Addison. [Concerns about where manned flight might lead (1713)]

Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
- Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), ca. 1895, British mathematician and physicist

...no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery, and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which man shall fly long distances through the air...
- Simon Newcomb (1835-1909), astronomer, head of the U. S. Naval Observatory.

There is not in sight any source of energy that would be a fair start toward that which would be necessary to get us beyond the gravitative control of the earth.
- Forest Ray Moulton (1872-1952), astronomer, 1935.

This foolish idea of shooting at the moon is an example of the absurd length to which vicious specialization will carry scientists working in thought-tight compartments. Let us critically examine the proposal. For a projectile entirely to escape the gravitation of earth, it needs a velocity of 7 miles a second. The thermal energy of a gramme at this speed is 15,180 calories... The energy of our most violent explosive--nitroglycerine--is less than 1,500 calories per gramme. Consequently, even had the explosive nothing to carry, it has only one-tenth of the energy necessary to escape the earth... Hence the proposition appears to be basically impossible.
- W. A. Bickerton, Professor of Physics and Chemistry at Canterbury College (Christchurch, New Zealand), 1926.

There has been a great deal said about a 3000 miles high angle rocket. In my opinion such a thing is impossible for many years. The people who have been writing these things that annoy me have been talking about a 3000 mile high-angle rocket shot from one continent to another, carrying an atomic bomb and so directed as to be a precise weapon which would land exactly on a certain target, such as a city.
I say, technically, I don't think anyone in the world knows how to do such a thing, and I feel confident that it will not be done for a very long period of time to come... I think we can leave that out of our thinking. I wish the American public would leave that out of their thinking.
- Vanevar Bush, director of our Office of Scientific Research and Development during World War II.

Computers in the future may...perhaps only weigh 1.5 tons.
- Popular Mechanics, 1949.

There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home.
- Kenneth Olsen, president and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.

If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done.
- Peter Ustinov

It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow.
- Robert Goddard (1882-1945)

Surest way to fail is to not try....

Pax

Game guru going into space

Jon, Ygn, OH — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:32:35 GMT

Nice try Darrell. But I stand by my arguments.
All of your examples except one have nothing to do with the "new" space movement. they are nothing more than a attempt to make me look foolish.
As I have written many time before, I am not anti technology. So let's stop with the pointless historical examples.
One again, spaceflight is the most difficult and dangerous activity humans have ever attempted. Comparisons with the early days of seafaring and aviation simply don't fit.
To achieve even low Earth orbit, requires a speed of nearly 17,500 mph. This in turn requires an engine which burns fuel. The fuel is burned to produce thrust. Fuel is expensive. Fuel in turn translates into Dollars.(or Eur o, Yen, pick your currency),
Now, since physical law is not about to be overturned,(not even by the whiz kid's at Space X)I believe it is safe to say, launching any payload to orbit is going to be rather costly for the foreseeable future.
There are other reasons these space schemes are going to fail. But the cost of energy is a major reason.
These requirements are not going to change in the future.
So, if some people view this as pontificating, then so be it.
If you want adventure in your life, then read adventure stories.If you want romance, read romance novel's.
In the end, you will realize, that we are prisoners of the Earth and Sun. Bound here by gravity for all time.

Game guru going into space

Aaron Oesterle, Mason, Mi — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 16:31:30 GMT

Actually, Jon, fuel is cheap. fuel is one of the least expensive parts of the rocket. I've read rocket grade kerosene is $1.90 per gallon (although that may be dated by a few years - no more then 5 though), and I've also read that liquid oxygen is cheap.

Now, if you want to talk about something really exotic, that is a little different. Or if you want to talk about Solid rockets, that I would imagine is a little pricy - but standard rocket fuels? Not all that expensive. I'll try and get a source for fuel costs either today or tomorrow.

I really hadn't intended to respond again, but you comment about the cost of fuel was so ridiculous that I felt I had to respond

Game guru going into space

Jon, Ygn, OH — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:38:45 GMT

Fuel is cheap? Depends on your point of view. Of course the cost of fuel is only a fraction of the launch cost.
Tell me then. Why does a shuttle mission cost at least one billion dollars? Last time I checked it did not use any exotic fuels. Unless you consider hydrogen and oxygen exotic.
Again, reaching orbital velocity is not now, and most likely will never be inexpensive.
Stop buying into the propaganda of the Alt. Space crowd. Stop with this pretense.

Game guru going into space

Aaron Oesterle, Ann Arbor, MI — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 03:26:03 GMT

The price for operating a vehicle, any vehicle (doesn't matter whether its an exotic rocket, or your average car), is more than just the price of gas. Consider - I drive a fairly beat up 2000 Impalla (your basic GM car) - Now consider someone driving, say, a Ferrari. Now, its true, the ferrari probably does use premium gas, which can range from 10-20 cents more per gallon. But that doesn't mean that the cost to own and operate a ferrari is merely 10-20 cent more per gallon. The car itself is manufactured very differently, and vastly different capablities. In addition, insurence for my car will be fairly tolerable, while the insurence for a ferrari for one year is probably more (quite possibly much more) than my car is totally worth.

Fuel is only 1 thing that adds the the price of flying a vehicle.

Game guru going into space

Jon, Ygn, OH — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:41:11 GMT

Pretty cool car Aaron. Not as cool as my '96 Mercury Sable. :-)
I see we can continue back and forth here, until the end of time. I think as gentlemen, we will have to agree to disagree for now.
Let me leave you with a short suggested reading list. You might find it useful, or at least a little thought provoking.
1)"Voodoo Science" The Road from Foolishness to Fraud, by Robert Park. (ISBN 0-19-514710-3) Chapter Four: The Virtual Astronaut, In Which People Dream of Artificial Worlds. I found it to be a level headed discussion of some of the issues we discussed in here.
2)"Beyond Star Trek" Physics from Alien Invasions to the End of Time By Lawrence M. Krauss (ISBN 0-465-000637-X) Chapter Three, To Boldly Go...If We Can Afford It In this chapter Dr. Krauss explains the difficulties and expense of space flight, far better than I can.
And, let me recommend a web site; www.SpaceCynic.Wordpress.com Lot's of information about Alt.space, from a more reasonable point of view. They won't drink the Kool-Aid. :-)
There are other sources of info about this subject, I'm sure. But these should be a good starting point.
Best regards, Jon

Game guru going into space

Aaron Oesterle, Mason, Mi — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 06:36:59 GMT

Jon,
I am impressed - for the first time in a long time, (perhaps ever) you actually cite something. However, I would point out that the Space Cynic, that although he has a critical view of newspace, he doesn't have a critical view of space colonization. And thats a difference.

However, I would counter point with the new book by Michael Belfiore, The Rocketeers (of course, you'll say he's drinking the kool-aid)

Finally, I actually have a very good grasp as to the difficulty of going into space, and dealing with the space enviroment. I am currently studying to be a rocket scientist. But just because something is difficult, doesn't mean its impossible. Alternatively, I could cite the comment about any advanced technology and magic.

The point is, as I've said, you don't want to debate - you want to pontificate. And so I probably won't respond to you directly again for a while - I'll just continue to do what I've been doing.

Game guru going into space

Andy Bolton — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:24:46 GMT

So a guy whose background stems from Space Invaders is going into Space - well isn't that something different, Maybe ET should stop trying to phone Home and maybe try to reach out. However, it will be a long time before the signals from his games reach outer space. The first broadcasts of the olympics that was used as a demonstration of this in the film contact showed that these signals have barely gone to our local space neighbours.

Hopefully ET will pick up one of this guys video game transmission but we shall be long gone and maybe even humans gone completely by then.