New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: This forum is accepting new registrations by emailing newmarsmember * gmail.com become a registered member. Read the Recruiting expertise for NewMars Forum topic in Meta New Mars for other information for this process.

#1 Re: Space Policy » NASA 2008 Budget » 2007-07-08 13:26:19

Apollo, Saturn V during the 60's into the early 70's volunteering spirit was still alive and it was not about money. Family was still first even if they were not rich, you gave of your time and not money.

...But then came the LBJ and the Hippy revolution, and we gave birth to the gluttonous government-welfare complex that has been eating up about 15%+ of our income ever since, with not one ounce to show for it. Crime increased with it, the Gini index hasnt budged since this "War on Poverty" began, but we got double digit unemployment and inflation, stagnation, massive dropoffs in R&D (public R&D fell by half as a percentage of GDP), The end of the space program, etc, all to pay for people not to work...

The average economic growth rate dropped almost perfectly in line with the increase in social spending as a % of GDP. Growth fell from about a 4-4.5% average from the 40s to mid 60s to 3% by the 80s, where it leveled off (again in tandem with Social Spending which leveled off at Reagan). This abomination has cost the US probably over $20 trillion dollars directly since it's inception... and if the economic growth rate had remained the same about another $30 trillion indirectly in lost economic growth. We could already almost have colonies on mars with just fractions of that money. Our economy would be over 25% larger today.

Hurray for socialism, the bane of democratic civilization; the auctioning of stolen goods in return for votes or political power...

Maybe someday before I die we will go to mars, and stop throwing away more money to subsidize the lazy/weak/stupid.

#2 Re: Human missions » NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-( » 2006-09-09 07:32:24

$229 Billion dollars???

Okay, so let me get this straight...

NASA plans to spend over $229,000,000,000 ($229 thousand million, or nearly a quarter of a Trillion dollars) developing the capability to send astronauts to the moon in tiny little capsules on merry reminiscing sight-seeing voyages to the moon and back.

$229b / 16 = $14.3b

$14.3 billion is about one tenth of one percent of our $13.2 trillion economy.

Thats less than the current NASA budget, it's really not that much money when you consider the US GDP combined over the *last* 16 years is $145.74 *trillion* dollars!

#3 Re: Human missions » ISS - Beware the Bear » 2006-09-09 07:16:40

Nearly one in five American children lives in poverty. That is a statistical fact. They don't work - and are getting a generally substandard education. Many don't get 3 meals a day. America is supposed to be the most prosperous society in the world - yet has some of the highest levels of domestic inequality in the civilised world. Tell me how that is a "just society"? This is a government that seems to have abandoned it's most vunerable.

Poverty is measured off half the countries median income. In a country like the USA our poverty level would be $22,000 a year, higher than the median incomes of all but the top 25 or so richest countries in the world. In India, however the Poverty level would be like $400 a year. A swedish study found that if Sweden's poverty level was at the same *absolute* level as the United States, around 40% of their country would be in "poverty" The United States though is one of the few countries to have childhood poverty decrease over the last 20-25 years (along with Canada and the UK) Countries like Germany have had a marked increase, which is especially profound considering Germany's chronic lack of childbirths.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4 … gra416.gif

German Child poverty has doubled, the US's is decreasing, also since Poverty is half the countries income, the current "poverty" levels would be something like this:

$22,085 USA
$20,673 Norway
$17,789 Canada
$16,783 Sweden
$16,189 UK
$16,035 Belgium
$14,977 Germany
$8,630 Hungary
$7,123 Poland
$5,233 Mexico

i.e. almost 50% higher than most all of the developed nations there. Norway is the exception; most countries have to work to expand their economy, Norway can literally just pump money out of the ground and subsidize it's entire economy with it....

Why should I want to trust a country like this in any joint space mission??

ON the contrary, why should the US go in international projects if we will end up paying 90% of the bill, and the rest of the countries who only pay 10% for it simultaneously demand 25% of the workshare? That's what usually happens, It's just a convenient way of milking Uncle Sugar...

#4 Re: Human missions » ISS - Beware the Bear » 2006-09-09 06:51:20

The United States of America is one nation in a world of 194 nations.

Yeah, but we are 30% of the worlds economic output, 45% of it's market cap, Spends 45% of the world's R&D budgets, a military budget almost as large as the rest of the world combined, same with the space budget probably too, Half of the world's nobel lauriats are American, etc, etc.

Moreso than any other nation on earth we can afford to go it alone, or with some of our best of allies in the Anglosphere.

#5 Re: Human missions » Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-* » 2005-10-03 09:49:43

How do you retain expertise and skill sets of those employed by ISS and Shuttle when you need them again in 2018?

well, If shuttle were cancelled right now that could probably push the moon landing date to around 2013 or earlier, and a CEV first-flight in maybe 2009....

#7 Re: Single Stage To Orbit » Realistic solutions to the difficulties of SSTO? » 2005-09-12 20:27:30

IMHO, an SSTO is not practical unless non-chemical methods of propulsion are used.

#8 Re: Human missions » Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it! » 2005-07-14 20:58:40

Don't forget India at number 5, and growing much faster than Japan.

However, Russia is not bankrupt and has made impressive economic progress in the last 10 years - paid off foriegn loans, improve cash reserves and averaged about 6% growth pa.  The very welcome news of a boost to space funding is a reflection of this.

Jon

Yeah, but that's after averaging a -7% from 1990-1998... and most of Russia's growth has been from bringing old capacity on line and because of froth in commodities rather than too much real progress. Combine that with Russia's *massive* demographic deficit and the future picture is not too pretty for the Russian bear...

#9 Re: Human missions » Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it! » 2005-07-14 11:38:43

"without Russian participation I believe the ISS would still be a dream."

...and we would not have had that Albatross saddled on or neck...

#11 Re: Human missions » Is the Space Exploration Initiative in trouble - You decide » 2005-07-10 14:40:52

McCain wont run in 2008. He already look like "Tales from the Crypt"" now, and lord only knows for 2008-2016....

#12 Re: Human missions » Russia:  Mars Station Model - ...to be displayed » 2005-06-23 08:16:20

GCN there is a difference between Russia worship and being realistic.  Russia built the Buran (their shuttle) and discovered that it was not going to be worth it.  This was after they flew it unmanned and landed it perfectly (also unmanned, something that American technology has yet to perfect).

The Buran only died because the USSR collapsed, not because of some fabled Russian clairvoyancy. You cant really launch a large booster like that when 40% of your economy just ceded from yours and *then* you economy begins shrinking by 7% a year on average for the next 8 years....

#13 Re: Human missions » Japan Eyes Future Manned Moon Base, Space Shuttle » 2005-06-21 10:13:59

Japanese military and space equipment generally costs more than equivalent US equipment, not less.  Setting up an advanced industrial capacity requires a lot more equipment than many people seem to think, and it gets much worse if you stupidly build humanoid robots rather than using a simpler and more efficient design.

The Japanese Moon base plan looks like pure fantasy.

Look at their F-2 Fighter plane.. It is basically a sexed up copy of the 30 year old US F-16 design, only they can't seem to make it cost less than an FA-22....

#14 Re: Human missions » Japan Eyes Future Manned Moon Base, Space Shuttle » 2005-06-20 19:56:46

So dont think of it as JAXA having less of a budget think of it as the japanese being able to get 100 times more out of there dollar spent than NASA.

???  Japan is the king of wasteful spending, they've been running huge deficits for a decade funding useless construction projects like the Tokyo bay aqualine.

#15 Re: Human missions » A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money » 2005-05-13 07:53:53

$14.14 Bank of America (USA)

Fine, you want to talk profitable investment in Space. Ok. Assuming these are annual profits, the Bank of America could finance a colony for the self sustainment of one thousand people (built over thirty years) which would be an underground town with a space exposed clear dome. Estimated cost: 150 billion dollars on the moon.
If they sold residency rights to a thousand people for one billion dollars each.

           $1,000,000,000,000.00
          -$150,000,000,000.00
          $850,000,000,000.00

That would be a profit in the area of 850 billion dollars over thirty years. That is twice the annual profit they get now. Long term investments reap rewards and they didn't have to cut jobs to do it.

Your numbers are flawed because they do not assume operating costs.

#16 Re: Human missions » A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money » 2005-05-12 09:00:10

Those profits go to the shareholders.  People like me who have invested and want that return to make the house payment and pay for the kids soccer practice. 

If living underground is your thing then do it in Australia.  Why would anyone want to live underground on the moon?  You're making the public think we are all science fiction quacks.

True.

#17 Re: Human missions » A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money » 2005-05-12 08:58:36

For you guys (Source: Forbes 2000)
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/03/30/ … 0land.html

Largest Banks/financial institutions by Profit:
$17.05 Citigroup (USA)
$14.14 Bank of America (USA)
$10.91 American International Group (USA)
$9.52 HSBC Group (UK)
$8.66 Royal Bank of Scotland (UK)
$8.10 ING Group (Netherlands)
$7.69 Fannie Mae (USA)
$7.10 UBS (Switzerland)
$7.01 Wells Fargo (USA)
$6.36 Berkshire Hathaway (USA)
$6.27 Barclays (UK)
$5.81 Lloyds TSB Group (UK)
$5.80 BNP Paribas (France)
$5.58 ABN-Amro Holdings
$5.37 Mitsubishi Tokyo Financial (Japan)
$5.21 Wachovia (USA)
$4.82 Freedie Mac (USA)
$4.66 JP Morgan Chase (USA)
$4.55 Goldman Sachs Group (USA)
$4.53 Credit Suisse Group (Switzerland)
$4.53 Morgan Stanley (USA)
$4.44 Merryl Linch (USA)
$4.38 HBOS (UK)
$4.17 US Bancorp (USA)
$3.90 Mizhuo Financial (Japan)
$3.80 BBVA (Spain)
$3.52 American Express (USA)
$3.42 AXA Group (France)
$3.36 Allstate (USA)
$3.28 Banco Santander (Spain)
$3.17 Sumitomo Mitsui Financial (Japan)
$3.16 Deutsche Bank Group (Germany)
$3.13 Société Générale Group (France)
$2.88 Washington Mutual (USA)
$2.84 MetLife (USA)
$2.78 National City (USA)
$2.76 Fortis (Netherlands)
$2.61 MBNA (USA)
$2.47 UniCredito Italiano (Italy)
$2.41 Bank of Nova Scotia (Canada)
$2.39 Lehman Brothers Holdings (USA)
$2.31 National Australia Bank (Australia)
$2.31 Prudential Financial (USA)
$2.31 Royal Bank of Canada (Canada)
$2.30 Zurich Financial Services (Switzerland)
$2.26 Aegon (Netherlands)
$2.20 Countrywide Financial (USA)
$2.14 Hartford Financial Services (USA)
$2.14 Manulife Financial (Canada)
$2.05 ANZ Banking (Australia)
$2.03 Allianz Worldwide (Germany)
$1.93 Bank of Montreal (Canada)
$1.93 Danske Bank Group (Denmark)
$1.91 SLM (USA)
$1.90 Toronto-Dominion Bank (Canada)
$1.89 Nordea Bank (Sweden)
$1.85 Westpac Banking Group (Australia)
$1.81 Canadian Imperial Bank (Canada)
$1.81 Fifth Third Bancorp (USA)
$1.80 Commonwealth Bank Group (Australia)
$1.80 Dexia (Belgium)
$1.69 Aviva (UK)
$1.65 Nomura Holdings (Japan)
$1.65 Progressive (USA)
$1.56 BB&T (USA)

#18 Re: Human missions » A private sector Lunar Mining colony - Getting the money » 2005-05-12 08:36:06

Meh... drops in the bucket compared to the behemoth that is Citigroup ($17b profits, $1.5 Trillion in assets)  cool

#20 Re: Human missions » NASA is screwed up. - I have no patience left :-( » 2005-04-30 18:52:14

uhhh..... 229/16 = 14.3
and wasnt Nasa's 2005 budget around $16b? add to that if the budget rises with the economy (GDP) that should make a budget of about $35 billion a year in 2021 from a ~$30 Trillion economy...

#21 Re: Human missions » Japan Eyes Future Manned Moon Base, Space Shuttle » 2005-03-07 18:49:39

I am going to throw flags on the field... There is no way Japan could afford this, they have a shrinking population, an economy that pretty much hasnt grown in 15 years,  and government deficits and debts larger than the USA despite being 2/5ths our size....

#22 Re: Human missions » China The Dominant Superpower In 20 Years..... - What does this mean for US? » 2005-01-25 20:54:16

The US consumer sentiment report today was higher, and higher than forecast as well...

#23 Re: Human missions » China The Dominant Superpower In 20 Years..... - What does this mean for US? » 2005-01-25 14:19:43

"The US is maintaining a high GDP/capita and it is outperforming Europe and Japan, but the US share of the total world economy is steadily dropping due to the rapid growth in developing countries.  In 1950, the US had around 30% of the world's GDP (in PPP), but now has only about 20% and this fraction is expected to shrink further."

Yes and no.

Yes, the USAs share in PPP has shrunk since 1950(from about 35% to 25%), but has risen since 1980-1990. Remember, in 1950 the USA was basically an economic Giant surrounded by a world in the ruins of WWII. The large factor of the shrinking in the 1950-1980 period was the recovery of Europe and Japan. Th

Now the USA is growing at about the world average, which is slightly higher than normal because asia is being propped up by a China bubble. The developing world is growing faster, but is being equalled out by the crappy performance of Europe/Japan, which make up a very large share of the world economy.

PPP has it problems as a measurement tool, it *massively* overstates te value of 3rd- world agrarian countries.

#24 Re: Human missions » China The Dominant Superpower In 20 Years..... - What does this mean for US? » 2005-01-11 12:51:03

I aleady posted this but no one seemed to see it:

Behind the mask

Mar 18th 2004
From The Economist print edition

http://www.economist.com/images/2004032 … 204SU8.jpg

Hailed as the business opportunity of the century, China is bound to disappoint. Sameena Ahmad (interviewed here) examines the mismatch between excitable perception and sober reality

THE whole world's gaze is fixed on China—not just because the country is vast and growing rapidly, but because it profoundly affects the fortunes of companies everywhere. Around the globe, shelves are stacked with the low-cost goods churned out by “the world's workshop”. Chinese-based manufacturers suck in imports and dictate global prices of everything from steel to microchips. For foreign companies, a huge market beckons as China liberalises its relations with the rest of the world, having acceded to the World Trade Organisation in 2001.

China's progress since it first opened to foreign investment and reform in 1978 has been dazzling. Over the past 25 years, its real gross domestic product has expanded at an average of 9% a year. Growth in foreign trade has averaged 15% annually since 1978; China's trade surplus with America is now twice the size of Japan's. And every week, more than $1 billion of foreign direct investment flows into the country. All this testifies to the global integration of China's economy, now the sixth-largest in the world with a GDP of $1.4 trillion.

This rapid growth has ensured political stability. Whereas socialist regimes around the world have crumbled, China's Communist Party survived the 1989 Tiananmen Square uprising, the 1997 Asian crisis and last year's SARS virus without making concessions to democracy. The present leadership is well-educated, capable and pragmatic.

Internationally, China has become respectable, more a partner than a threat. The continuing debate about the “undervalued” yuan says more about partisan American politics than about Chinese mercantilism. Domestically, the government is well aware that its political acceptance derives solely from rapid economic growth, and will do whatever is necessary to meet its internal benchmark, an annual rise of 7%. China's leaders still call themselves communists, but they have become capitalists in practice. If they have a guiding philosophy, it owes nothing to Mao or Marx, but is best summed up by Deng Xiaoping's famous dictum: “It doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as it catches the mouse.”

The combination of growth, stability and potential has set off a tidal wave of foreign enthusiasm for China. Businessmen return from pilgrimages to Shanghai and Beijing convinced that this is China's century. Robert Bestani, head of the private-sector arm of the Asian Development Bank, calls the phenomenon “future shock”—change so rapid that it seems like a vision of the future. Dietmar Nissen, East Asia president of BASF, a huge chemical company, says that “the speed and scale of growth in China over the past 12 years is a miracle. It is a miracle that China is developing in such an orderly fashion.” Messianic terms are de rigueur when discussing the country's 1.3 billion consumers, its vast pool of low-cost workers and its need for every imaginable product and service. Goldman Sachs, an investment bank, predicts that by 2040 China will overtake America as the world's biggest economy.

This survey will cut through some of the hyperbole currently enveloping China. Progress there is as real as it is dramatic, but the country is still in transition from one political and economic system to another. The constraints imposed by the communist leaders (not least on themselves) have produced “a darker reality” behind the impressive statistics and soaring skylines, in the words of Orville Schell, a professor at Berkeley who knows the country well.

http://www.economist.com/images/2004032 … CSU946.gif

Look on the dark side
China needs 12m-15m new jobs every year just to keep pace with its population growth. It has to provide opportunities for the 800m people living in rural areas who have been left behind by the current boom, and a third of whom are under- or unemployed. It also has to deal with the 100m-150m migrant workers in the cities who have no job security, no long-term housing and no health care. And it needs a functioning pension system. No wonder the government is concerned, above all, with growth and job creation.

Currently there are worries that the economy is overheating. Bubbles are beginning to form in property, steel and cars, and power generation is running up against capacity constraints. China's real problem, however, is not inflation but overinvestment. In its quest for growth, the government has directed its state-owned banks to open the taps. Easy credit is producing massive overcapacity, leading to deflation, more bad debts and fewer new jobs. Already, nine-tenths of manufactured goods are in oversupply, yet investment in fixed assets last year grew by 30% and contributed 47% of GDP. Three-quarters of China's growth comes from capital accumulation, according to Paul Heytens and Harm Zebregs of the IMF, yet total factor productivity—a measure of overall economic efficiency—rose by only 2% a year in 1995-99.

http://www.economist.com/images/2004032 … CSU461.gif

Even for a developing economy, China's level of investment is unusually high. South Korea in its period of rapid growth in the 1970s and 80s had investment levels closer to 25% of GDP. But the biggest concern is that China's growth is staggeringly wasteful. Whereas in the 1980s and 90s it took $2-3 of new investment to produce $1 of additional growth, now it needs more than $4. Even India, often compared unfavourably with China, is now more efficient on that measure (see chart 1).

Only a very high domestic savings rate—around 40% of household income—and the uncontrolled exploitation of its natural resources make it possible for China to waste capital on this scale. But neither is sustainable. With little social welfare on offer from the state, the Chinese need to save to provide for themselves. And environmental degradation and noxious pollution are storing up costs for the future. All this means that China's growth will have to slow markedly unless its government wants to drown in debt—maybe not this year or next, but soon.

That is yet another risk for businesses already facing a host of challenges. China's developing capitalism is not solidly based on law, respect for property rights and free markets. It is unbalanced and potentially unstable. Multinational companies operating in China have often failed to produce an adequate return on their investment, or indeed a profit of any sort. That is partly their own fault, because they overestimated the market and underestimated the competition. With experience, more are getting it right. However, the business climate in China remains capricious and often corrupt.

Chinese firms contribute to that climate. State-owned enterprises are much more concerned to maintain patronage and employment than to generate profits, and even the best are not globally competitive. China's fledgling private businesses, by contrast, have shown astounding growth and produced the country's first crop of wealthy entrepreneurs. But they are still too small to offer an effective counterweight to the state sector.

It is in the financial sector that China's brand of “not wholly black, not fully white” capitalism works least well. The banks do not allocate capital rationally, and they are vulnerable to external shocks. Yet the potentially huge cost of reforming them will constrain the government's ability to finance economic growth. That will have implications for China's political stability, and for its attractiveness as a place in which to do business.

#25 Re: Human missions » China The Dominant Superpower In 20 Years..... - What does this mean for US? » 2005-01-11 12:43:10

Within a century, at current population growth rates, the US will have a population equal to one third or even one half of China's. So all the US needs is two or three times the economic output per person to stay ahead. Until China can open up more and encourage personal creativity, it is not likely to surpass the US; that means big changes in culture, not just economic policy.

Meanwhile, no one is watching India! It's population is approaching China's and will surpass it in the next few decades. China's one-child policy will produce a huge social security problem in about thirty or forty years. India doesn't have that problem. It is a democracy and has a huge English-speaking population. It has rule of law (more or less). And it now has pro-growth economic policies. In 100 or 150 years, India may be number one, China and the US vying for number two. Who knows.

                -- RobS

China's working age population will actually peak in 2013, and then begin to shrink indefinitely. Chinas productivity growth over the last ten years has actually been quite low, lower than the US', and has been declining, the reason behind China having strong growth is because it has 15 million people every year entering the workforce and leaving agriculture. The one-child policy will actually come back to bite them. The size of the Chinese population aged 1-15 has been declining dramatically since 1975.

China has many other serious problems among them being ulta-high investment with low growth per investment dollar, especially compared to India, and a giant load of the worst kind of debt; nonperforming/bad loans, that makes Japans post bubble bad debt look like childs play, at 50% of GDP!

The ultimate main problem that, although the government is trying to supress it, riots have been skyrocketing in the past few months. And any hiccup to the economic growth cold lead to tiananmen or worse uprising. The only excuse the PRC government has for existing is economic growth.

China seems like the miracle of moden times, but in fact, the more you look at it, the more it is like a leaky dike with bubble gum plugging the holes....

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB