Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

comstar03 · 2004-10-18 20:09:54

Martian Republic

Larry,

I think you have a simplistic view on the world. The world isn't simple it is very complex and dynamic, I don't think you understand economic or business methodology. I think you need to study and examine of cultures and business methodologies throughout the world they are all different. Even democractic governments are different the way they govern and how the people are represented.

Space will be no different, in the way things are funded and how they are governed. Loans, Alliances/partnerships, equity and other financing mechanisms. But private asset ownership can also allow community usage rights depending on the arrangements that are set down.

But the value of a business is based on its assets that can expand as they grow across the solar system. A Business can generate credit through promissory notes, debentures and other non-equities instruments.

Look at car protoyping, drug / vaccine research, mining projects, dam construction, just small example are all private financing arrangements, you need only deliver on repayments and you can get the funding. What about a cashflow of 100$B per year from business activaties then you could get a 500 $B revolving credit similar to countries or just do it in small (100% cashflow funded) steps per year.

RobS · 2004-10-18 21:19:48

It is very sad but we are in a global economy the world has shrunk that much.

Actually, I don't think it is sad at all. It is an immense opportunity and a great challenge for humanity. In 1800, the United States did not have a national economy because it had no transportation infrastucture. The vast majority of the population lived in rural communities. New York was the largest "town" and it only had about 50,000 people. In a typical community, 90% of all products were locally made; as soon as they came from outside of the TOWN (not outside the country!) they were considered "imported."

Then along came the steam boat about 1805, and there was a great canal-building boom in the 18-teens and twenties. Then the railroad was developed in the 1830s and the telegraph in the 1840s. They produced an economic revolution. For many people, the advent of a national economy was a terrible tragedy. Most of the farmers in New England went out of business because it was cheaper to raise food out west in the richer soil of Ohio and haul it east on the Erie Canal. In my home town in northern Connecticut, which today is 80% forested, the 3,000 farmers had the town 95% cleared as farm and pasture land until they went bankrupt. The town population plummeted to about 1,500 people and stayed there until after World War 1. Many of the people went west; others moved to factory towns and started working in factories 12 hours a day, six day a week, at a starvation wage.

Connecticut's steel industry collapsed as well. It was based on using locally smelted iron using locally made charcoal. The deforestation of the state eliminated the charcoal supply. The railroads allowed establishment of large steel making centers where coal and iron ore were abundant or could be hauled in cheaply; and that wasn't true anywhere in New England. But New England adjusted and became a major manufacturing center based on water power, especially textile manufacture. That had a different, serious social consequence; New England had been overwhelmingly Protestant Congregationalist of English background, but the natives didn't like the manufacturing work, so they had to attract immigrants: Irish (Catholics, oh my God), later Italians and eastern Europeans, including Jews. There were anti-Catholic riots in the Boston area in the 1840s that including the burning of a convent by a Protestant mob.

Does it sound a bit like the riots associated with the Seattle round of world trade talks? There are a lot of parallels. Today Americans take their national economy for granted. No one screams when New England factory jobs move to North Carolina. They don't say it will cause the New England economy to collapse. They can't threaten war, so the best they can do is sue.

The world is in exactly the same situation right now. There are areas with much greater wealth and others with much less. There are huge educational differences as well. But over time, if trade mechanisms can be created and standard regulations can be set up worldwide, eventually leading (yes) to a planetary minimum wage, then the planetary laissez-faire we see now (parallel to the late nineteenth century American laissez-faire, which resulted in legislative reforms such as the forty hour work week and banning child labor) will be replaced by a vibrant, diverse, prosperous global economy.

-- RobS

Euler · 2004-10-18 21:54:30

Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with some outsourcing. Some tasks can be obsolete in some places or for the entire planet. We no longer need very many blacksmiths because horses have been replaced by cars. Newspapers no longer need armies of typesetters because the word processing programs handle the task. Sewing together clothes is a labor intensive job and will probably be replaced by very smart computers in a decade or two. Why shouldn't the US export the textile industry to places wher it can be done more cheaply? Because the alternative is to keep the industry in the United States, and then hire ILLEGAL ALIENS to do most of the work. Not many Americans want to do that kind of work; it's very demanding and tedious.

The problem is, that if the US is importing a lot of goods and services, it must also export a lot of goods and services. If it does not, it will have a large trade deficit like we have right now.

Ordinarily, trade deficits are self-correcting. If a country is importing more than it is exporting, its currency gets weaker so that it is more expensive for the people in that country to import goods, and it is cheaper for people in other countries to buy that country's exports. However, that is not the case with the US right now. OPEC's policy of pricing oil in dollars and the fact that some other countries (especially China) tie their currency to the dollar have caused US dollars to stay artificially inflated in price. That is why our trade deficit continues to grow, and that is why the US now has a large and rapidly growing foreign debt.

Such a debt is not healthy and not sustainable. Eventually, there will have to be a large market correction, where the value of the dollar plummets. Americans will no longer be able to cheaply buy the goods and services produced buy those "outsourced" jobs, and there will consequently be a large decrease in the standard of living in the US.

Your statement that if we export our industrial sector, the economy will collapse is simply false. First of all, we have already exported parts of the manufacturing base, and there are parts we won't be exporting for a long time; manufactuing of missiles for example. Second, manufacturing already makes up less than half of our economy; the rest is services, and services are a growing segment, including exported services (such as filling orders for items sent via the internet). There are areas of the US that have no industrial facilities at all and they do fine. To argue that exporting industry will make out economy collapse is like an early nineteenth century American arguing that exporting agriculture will make our economy collapse; before the industrial revolution, after all, agriculture was 80% of the economy (today it's about 1%, and a major export segment as well).

Industry currently makes up about 18% of our economy, and that fraction is shrinking. The overwhelming majority of our economy is based around services. The problem with that is that service jobs are rarely export jobs. In fact, a large percentage of service jobs are based around selling products made in other countries to Americans. They also tend to be rather low-paying and unskilled jobs.

If we have no major exports to balance all of the imports that Americans believe they need, then the market correction will be much worse when it happens. There will be nothing to slow the drop in the dollars value, and we will find that we no longer have the infrastructure to produce the things that we are used to importing, but can no longer afford.

Martian Republic · 2004-10-18 22:06:39

RobS,

I agree with some of the stuff you say, but I don't agree with other things you say. My policy is, if the trade is good for both side, then you should do the trade. But, when the trade does not benifit either side and even hurts both parties in that trade, then it should not be done.

Let my give you an illistration and work camps in Northern Mexico and NAFTA and Trade Zone. The only people that benifit in a deal like this are the Big New York Bankers and Wall Street and everybody else suffers. The people that make cars that lost there jobs did not benifit. The state that they work loses that tax money and has to pay out unemployment insurance. So they didn't benifit. The workers in Mexico didn't benifit either in that there wages were also depressed and are making less money than before. So there not benifiting either and is Mexico benifiting the price of the good depressed. So Mexico not benifiting either. As a matter of fact, the only ones to do benifit are those bandit in three piece suits as either banker, Wall Street or company President, but every body else is being ground up into hamburger. This type of trading should not be allowed and violates both the best interest of the United States and Mexico too. We need to get out of NAFTA, but we need to put together a trade agreement that benifits both the United States and Mexico too. We want to rebuild both country and make both countries properous and not loot the people on either side of the boarder. Canada is part of this NAFTA Agreement too, so we will make this a three way deal of rebuilding all countries. We have to decide what we want to build and how to fund it. So we decide that we want to build a levetated train system throughout the entire North American Contenient complete with subway in the major urbine city. Canada needs about 10 subway system, the United States needs about 70 subway system, Mexico needs between 30 to 40 subways system to serve there needs. Now we need to finance it, so we setup three government funds by the three governments one with Paso with Mexicon generated Credit, one with dollars with U.S. generated Credit and third one with Canadian dollars and generated credit on a long turm low interest rate. These three countries are going to set the value of there currency in a fix exchange rate to each other so they can stop any runs against there currency Wall Street bandit like George Soro did to Southeast Asia twenty years ago. We want the manufacturing sectors of all three country concentrating there effort of building up the infrastructure in there own country so there not competing other country work force, but can concentrate on there own country. Both the American and Canadian worker don't have to worry about low Mexican wages. There won't be an illegal immegrant problem inside the United States, because Mexico is developing good paying jobs with benifits in Mexico for them to work at. So Mexico will be brining up the living standard to that of America and Canada.

Now I don't want you to think that I'm against trading, because I'm not trading with other country. There are thing that we need from the other country and trading is the best way to get those other things that other country have. As a matter of fact, we will be doing more trading with each other than we doing right now, because everybody has more free money to buy things. I have not problem with that kind of trading and it benifits everybody in trade.

But, that not what the North American Free Trade Agreement is about. NAFTA real purpose is to destroy all three country and that exactly what it doing.

This is how you should judge whether doing trading is a good thing and not necesserally whether is the cheapest thing on the market.

We have to defend our manufacturing sector. That how we generate wealth and make the dollars worth something in a trade. You can buy X number of goods with that dollar. Or otherwise our dollars is worthless, because it can't buy anything. You lose your farmers, minning operation, your factories and lose your ability to maintain your standard of living.

>>>As for the alternative to protectionism being war to expropriate resources, I think it is rather the opposite. In the 1920s when the world economy shrank, everyone slapped on protectionist controls. Goods couldn't be imported, so they couldn't be exported; currency couldn't be exported either. What was the result? A further shrinkage in all the national economies, especially the big exporters. Germany was a big exporter and its economy tanked as a result of the depression and protectionism. And what resulted from Germany's economic collapse? Desperation, and the election of a certain national socialist named Adolph Hitler. He proceeded to solve the problem of global trade by trying to take over the globe.<<<

Actually it was the bankers that cause that problem and bailed Adolph Hitler out of bankrupsy to he could be dictator of Germany or the Furer. It was the treaty that ended World War I that brought Germany down. It was the war reparatians the were excessive that Germany was forced to pay that blew out the German economy. The only way that Germany could pay the debt was to print Marks. But, it would deflate and there answer to that problem was to print more Marks which deflated it more and they ended up with run away inflation. Which ended the Mark disintegrating and becoming worthless paper.

Larry,

Martian Republic · 2004-10-18 22:35:37

Martian Republic
Larry,
I think you have a simplistic view on the world. The world isn't simple it is very complex and dynamic, I don't think you understand economic or business methodology. I think you need to study and examine of cultures and business methodologies throughout the world they are all different. Even democractic governments are different the way they govern and how the people are represented.
Space will be no different, in the way things are funded and how they are governed. Loans, Alliances/partnerships, equity and other financing mechanisms. But private asset ownership can also allow community usage rights depending on the arrangements that are set down.
But the value of a business is based on its assets that can expand as they grow across the solar system. A Business can generate credit through promissory notes, debentures and other non-equities instruments.
Look at car protoyping, drug / vaccine research, mining projects, dam construction, just small example are all private financing arrangements, you need only deliver on repayments and you can get the funding. What about a cashflow of 100$B per year from business activaties then you could get a 500 $B revolving credit similar to countries or just do it in small (100% cashflow funded) steps per year.

I understand that there are different culture in different countries and that they have different value system too. There a lot about other culture that I don't know and don't claim to know about either. Being some one that has never left the United States except at the Mexican Boarder, I will not make such foolish statements. But, there are some things that do change like droping something off a build to the ground below. If I'm in American, I know where that things going to go. If I'm in some foriegn country and I drop something off the building, I will still be reasonably certain that things going to go. If we can assume that my understanding of economics is sound, thin it will be just as sound in some other country just like that thing I threw off the building. I know where it going to go. Now my delivery might need to be modified to be plalitable to who ever is lissoning to me, but the economic message will basically stay the same, because that will not change.

Larry,

Martian Republic · 2004-10-18 22:38:40

Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with some outsourcing. Some tasks can be obsolete in some places or for the entire planet. We no longer need very many blacksmiths because horses have been replaced by cars. Newspapers no longer need armies of typesetters because the word processing programs handle the task. Sewing together clothes is a labor intensive job and will probably be replaced by very smart computers in a decade or two. Why shouldn't the US export the textile industry to places wher it can be done more cheaply? Because the alternative is to keep the industry in the United States, and then hire ILLEGAL ALIENS to do most of the work. Not many Americans want to do that kind of work; it's very demanding and tedious.
The problem is, that if the US is importing a lot of goods and services, it must also export a lot of goods and services. If it does not, it will have a large trade deficit like we have right now.
Ordinarily, trade deficits are self-correcting. If a country is importing more than it is exporting, its currency gets weaker so that it is more expensive for the people in that country to import goods, and it is cheaper for people in other countries to buy that country's exports. However, that is not the case with the US right now. OPEC's policy of pricing oil in dollars and the fact that some other countries (especially China) tie their currency to the dollar have caused US dollars to stay artificially inflated in price. That is why our trade deficit continues to grow, and that is why the US now has a large and rapidly growing foreign debt.
Such a debt is not healthy and not sustainable. Eventually, there will have to be a large market correction, where the value of the dollar plummets. Americans will no longer be able to cheaply buy the goods and services produced buy those "outsourced" jobs, and there will consequently be a large decrease in the standard of living in the US.
Your statement that if we export our industrial sector, the economy will collapse is simply false. First of all, we have already exported parts of the manufacturing base, and there are parts we won't be exporting for a long time; manufactuing of missiles for example. Second, manufacturing already makes up less than half of our economy; the rest is services, and services are a growing segment, including exported services (such as filling orders for items sent via the internet). There are areas of the US that have no industrial facilities at all and they do fine. To argue that exporting industry will make out economy collapse is like an early nineteenth century American arguing that exporting agriculture will make our economy collapse; before the industrial revolution, after all, agriculture was 80% of the economy (today it's about 1%, and a major export segment as well).
Industry currently makes up about 18% of our economy, and that fraction is shrinking. The overwhelming majority of our economy is based around services. The problem with that is that service jobs are rarely export jobs. In fact, a large percentage of service jobs are based around selling products made in other countries to Americans. They also tend to be rather low-paying and unskilled jobs.
If we have no major exports to balance all of the imports that Americans believe they need, then the market correction will be much worse when it happens. There will be nothing to slow the drop in the dollars value, and we will find that we no longer have the infrastructure to produce the things that we are used to importing, but can no longer afford.

Well, congradulations!

I'm in complete agreement with you!

Larry,

BWhite · 2004-10-19 05:21:48

If we have no major exports to balance all of the imports that Americans believe they need, then the market correction will be much worse when it happens. There will be nothing to slow the drop in the dollars value, and we will find that we no longer have the infrastructure to produce the things that we are used to importing, but can no longer afford.

A large portion of what we currently export is "culture" from Hollywood movies to TV re-runs to brand name products like Coca-Cola.

To be sustainable, this market requires other people to want to imitate us.

= = =

Oh, and food. Our agri-business exports are significant.

Grypd · 2004-10-19 06:12:06

If we have no major exports to balance all of the imports that Americans believe they need, then the market correction will be much worse when it happens. There will be nothing to slow the drop in the dollars value, and we will find that we no longer have the infrastructure to produce the things that we are used to importing, but can no longer afford.
A large portion of what we currently export is "culture" from Hollywood movies to TV re-runs to brand name products like Coca-Cola.
To be sustainable, this market requires other people to want to imitate us.
= = =
Oh, and food. Our agri-business exports are significant.

Imports to the united States are much greater than the exports and the nature of some of the major imports means that any hindrance or lack of these imports would cause severe repercussions to the United States.

One of the most important imports is of course fuel, The United States is the greatest user of Oil than any other state in the world. This is both used in the generation of electrical power and of course in petrol. Should these imports be stopped it will severely affect agriculture. This is due to the entire agriculture sector being heavily mechanised and is heavily energy intensive fuel and electricity. This has the effect that with no Oil no agriculture. This possible imbalance of trade leading to difficulties and requirement of fuel Oil has been noted and the United States has also one of the greatest reserves of Oil with this reserve being increased by the Federal Goverment. Its a simple matter of civil defence to ensure that any difficulties with the Oil supply are reduced. But should the cause be that the dollar plumets it would prove to be a hazard for the bulk cheap production by agriculture.

It is the cheap access to energy that allows the American agri sector to be so competitive, If the dollar plummets this will be severely dented. The American agri sector is too reliant on these imports and also requires cheap access to mass pesticides and fertilisers also usually imported.

Also any reduction in the value of the Dollar would put companies which are American under increased risk of takeover by foreign owned corporations.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-19 06:48:08

So imports versus exports for trade deficits, the tieing of the oil per barrel cost to the dollar which it is having an artificial inflation effect on the dollar, and the outsourcing of jobs have cause the caving effect of the US and of other closely couple nations economy.

So does that make the US currency the world or UN currency, I would hope not but if this is true then possibly the other info on the credit, banking and loans might be true.

If so then we did do it to our selves with the passing of law but like most laws they too have time limitations, ways to repeal them, to declare them unconstitutional and lastly to pass other laws that make them ineffective.

Martian Republic · 2004-10-19 08:49:18

If we have no major exports to balance all of the imports that Americans believe they need, then the market correction will be much worse when it happens. There will be nothing to slow the drop in the dollars value, and we will find that we no longer have the infrastructure to produce the things that we are used to importing, but can no longer afford.
A large portion of what we currently export is "culture" from Hollywood movies to TV re-runs to brand name products like Coca-Cola.
To be sustainable, this market requires other people to want to imitate us.
= = =
Oh, and food. Our agri-business exports are significant.
Imports to the united States are much greater than the exports and the nature of some of the major imports means that any hindrance or lack of these imports would cause severe repercussions to the United States.
One of the most important imports is of course fuel, The United States is the greatest user of Oil than any other state in the world. This is both used in the generation of electrical power and of course in petrol. Should these imports be stopped it will severely affect agriculture. This is due to the entire agriculture sector being heavily mechanised and is heavily energy intensive fuel and electricity. This has the effect that with no Oil no agriculture. This possible imbalance of trade leading to difficulties and requirement of fuel Oil has been noted and the United States has also one of the greatest reserves of Oil with this reserve being increased by the Federal Goverment. Its a simple matter of civil defence to ensure that any difficulties with the Oil supply are reduced. But should the cause be that the dollar plumets it would prove to be a hazard for the bulk cheap production by agriculture.
It is the cheap access to energy that allows the American agri sector to be so competitive, If the dollar plummets this will be severely dented. The American agri sector is too reliant on these imports and also requires cheap access to mass pesticides and fertilisers also usually imported.
Also any reduction in the value of the Dollar would put companies which are American under increased risk of takeover by foreign owned corporations.

So we could say that the United States needs to start investing in the future by developing alternate fuel supplies and revitalize there manufacturing sector. We need to do thing like tax credit to farmer buy new equipment and buy bio-diesel plants for there own internal use so they don't have to use petro-chemical or oil. We need a tax credit plan for American Manufacturers so they can afford to buy new machines so we can produce our own wealth, instead of having to steal it from other countries. But, even if we do all this, it only a temporary solulion to the problem and even it will come up short for what we need to have. So you pick some major project that demands that you have to develop new technology so you can accomplish it. Then you can funnel that new techonogy into physical economy to solve our problem. You want to pick something massive that absolutly can't be done with present technology and demands the scientist and engineers are going have to burn the midnight oil to solve. We set down targets that we want to accomplish in our grand plan. So we decided to pick a New National Space Mission Projects as our primary target to develop this new technology.

Do you have any ideas of things that we can do in space that we don't currently have the technology for and a certain time that it needs to be done in?

Were after the technology that it takes to do it.

But, we also have our stated goal of what we intend to do.

Beside doing things like this, we will also open this thing up to private individuals who have idea's or are developing some new and inventive way to solve one or more of our problems too. There is no one solution fits all the problem, will ultimatly be solved by an accross the board mobilization of both the United States and the rest of the World working together to solve a common problems that we both face.

Larry,

Martian Republic · 2004-10-19 09:23:30

So imports versus exports for trade deficits, the tieing of the oil per barrel cost to the dollar which it is having an artificial inflation effect on the dollar, and the outsourcing of jobs have cause the caving effect of the US and of other closely couple nations economy.
So does that make the US currency the world or UN currency, I would hope not but if this is true then possibly the other info on the credit, banking and loans might be true.
If so then we did do it to our selves with the passing of law but like most laws they too have time limitations, ways to repeal them, to declare them unconstitutional and lastly to pass other laws that make them ineffective.

The U.S. Currency is known a world currency or a standard trading currency. It the currency that is the standard the all other currency are pegged to and what oil is bought and sold by and much of the rest of the trading in the world it trade by. Back in the middle of the 1960's the decission was made to shute down the factories in American and import everything, because this is the new economy and American doesn't need manufacture anymore. This is the service economy and we don't need to be productive anymore, we will just sell our services to the world and that how we will make our money. This process of de-industrializing the United States when into full swing with Nixon too us off the Gold Reserve Standard. It pick up steam during Jimmy Carter Administration, Reagan, Clinton and then went into a free fall in the current George Bush Administration. Since we own the Federal Reserve System and the U.S. Dollar is the currency of choice for trading worldwide. They are using slight of the hand trick and even out and out fraud to keep the money coming in from foriegn countries to fund Wall Street and those big banks so we American can continue to buy things and think that everythings OK with the U.S. Economy. In the mean time there there tearing up the physical economy of the United States and sutting down the factories. They show you Wall Street Stock Market Chart with lines generally going up and they say there Stock Marke rally, that show a strong U.S. Economy and that a recovery is on the horizon. Good times are here again. But, in fact, the U.S. Economic system is colapsing and the masses are becoming poorer. The U.S. Economy has been torn up so badly, if the U.S. Currency were not currency of choice, the U.S. would fall on it face and not be able to get back up. It only a matter of time before the rest of the world decides they don't want to subsidize the United States to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year and which may go to a trillion dollars per year. That is the situation that the United States is currently in.

Larry,

SpaceNut · 2004-10-20 06:38:31

Well the congress is still at it squabbling over the funding.

Space money delays final '05 spending bill
http://www.al.com/news....160.xml

clark · 2004-10-21 06:13:57

Well, it appears NASA should send Homer into space.

http://www.dittmar-associates.com/Abrid … ummary.pdf

It basically says American's, a majority, support NASA, but they don't think it is "personal" enough.

It also points out most American's have no idea how much NASA gets in terms of funding, but when they do find out, most of them agree that it should get more than just 1%.

"I for one welcome our new insect overlords..."

comstar03 · 2004-10-21 20:28:54

Clark,

Thank you, Thank you

It just shows what I am telling the forum , that the public can't see the benefits out of the space program and we need to advertise those facts or create a TV channel, discussing all aspects of space and space developments, space exploration, planet finding projects and more.

Then the funding will be there , because you will excite the public.

Martian Republic · 2004-10-21 21:14:53

Clark,
Thank you, Thank you
It just shows what I am telling the forum , that the public can't see the benefits out of the space program and we need to advertise those facts or create a TV channel, discussing all aspects of space and space developments, space exploration, planet finding projects and more.
Then the funding will be there , because you will excite the public.

I agree with you on this. We need either or both a NASA Nation Television Station/Private Space Television Station in the United States. Along with posibly clubs for people who are interested in space. That way it would be easier for us to get a crittical mass so we could push for new space mission and generally develop space. We would be able to 50% to 70% of the U.S. Population behind it and that would be enough to do it too.

Larry,

BWhite · 2004-10-21 21:58:52

Clark,
Thank you, Thank you
It just shows what I am telling the forum , that the public can't see the benefits out of the space program and we need to advertise those facts or create a TV channel, discussing all aspects of space and space developments, space exploration, planet finding projects and more.
Then the funding will be there , because you will excite the public.
I agree with you on this. We need either or both a NASA Nation Television Station/Private Space Television Station in the United States. Along with posibly clubs for people who are interested in space. That way it would be easier for us to get a crittical mass so we could push for new space mission and generally develop space. We would be able to 50% to 70% of the U.S. Population behind it and that would be enough to do it too.
Larry,

How do we pay for this TV station? How will it compete with all the other TV stations?

NASA TV does exist, by the way.

I am not against the idea (actually, the opposite) but my question is how do we pay for it?

Martian Republic · 2004-10-21 22:36:19

Clark,
Thank you, Thank you
It just shows what I am telling the forum , that the public can't see the benefits out of the space program and we need to advertise those facts or create a TV channel, discussing all aspects of space and space developments, space exploration, planet finding projects and more.
Then the funding will be there , because you will excite the public.
I agree with you on this. We need either or both a NASA Nation Television Station/Private Space Television Station in the United States. Along with posibly clubs for people who are interested in space. That way it would be easier for us to get a crittical mass so we could push for new space mission and generally develop space. We would be able to 50% to 70% of the U.S. Population behind it and that would be enough to do it too.
Larry,
How do we pay for this TV station? How will it compete with all the other TV stations?
NASA TV does exist, by the way.
I am not against the idea (actually, the opposite) but my question is how do we pay for it?

That's the sixty four dollars question. It a good idea, but how do you pay for it. Well, at least they have one advantage being a primarally space TV Station over the regular TV Station. That is they will cover the space launches or other relevent topic about space more thoughly than the regular Television Station would cover it. If grabing 50% to 70% of the viewing audience on some major NASA space event and are having regular updates on there nightly news. They might be barely posible that they might develop a faithfull viewing audience, which advertiser seem to like very well thank you.

This is just an idea or two, but how do you aquire the money to put such an opperation together and spend six month to maybe several years to establish youself, I don't know that answer.

Larry,

SpaceNut · 2004-10-22 06:01:34

One avenue to get it onto the TV would be to see if local cable providers would broadcast it into there networks where ever possible, see if the local PBS channels would be willing to add segments to there normal broadcast and by the way we are mostly there in the the webcast from nasa is available as a starting point if permission were granted to rebroadcast, couple that with home grown shows and news commentary segments and you done. Add to that the political side of the congress law making process and budget appropriation news to complete the main body of the efforts to educate the public. Visit Nasa facility, do guest interviews and fill out the programming line up as if it where an editorial style news broadcast. I know, I am probably confusing with my writing style.

Nasa tv page:
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

comstar03 · 2004-10-25 04:08:05

Funding the Space TV Channel, can be done via calling all the suppliers of space products to advertise their other products and services. Secondly, you will work with nasa and other space agencies throughout the world to market their activities. Thirdly, we could build specialised series relating to space.

Alot more ways to fund the TV Channel and provide alot more in space related activities, new technologies and lifestyle programs and marketing activities to the general public.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-25 08:06:49

We all know that funding is an issue but is our plans also one as well. Or are others that have been developed by those in the game a better chance or just more practical. Are there other plans or options out there that would cost less and be done on a faster time line. Is the building of infrastructure costing to much within the plan? Recently even Nasa released a new plan of the vision or at least part of it.

Implementing the vision

Martian Republic · 2004-10-25 08:19:13

One avenue to get it onto the TV would be to see if local cable providers would broadcast it into there networks where ever possible, see if the local PBS channels would be willing to add segments to there normal broadcast and by the way we are mostly there in the the webcast from nasa is available as a starting point if permission were granted to rebroadcast, couple that with home grown shows and news comentary segments and you done. Add to that the political side of the congress law making process and budget appropiation news to complete the main body of the efforts to educate the public. Visit Nasa facility, do guest interviews and fill out the programming line up as if it where an editorial style news broadcast. I know, I am probably confusing with my writing style.
Nasa tv page:
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/i … index.html

You have an idea there, I have take several shows to the Fort Worth City Cable Company where they have there own cable outlet for the entire City of Fort Worth. A lot of city have there own cable TV like that. They mostly air different people stuff in the area that people bring in and so we would have to develop an entire network of people accross the United States to go to these independent City Networks to take those Video Reals to them to put on there Cable TV. I know that is so, because I use to take Video Reals to them a few years ago for the Lyndon LaRouche Organization and I know they were doing it then. Those Video Reals were documentaries of what was going on in the world of current events and other news type items and they were of a very good quality too. Most of the information in those documentaries were of broadcast quality that equaled of surpassed the regular TV Station and they covered subjects that the regular would never touch either. They were actually happy to get the tapes and on one occassion bragged that it either equaled or surpassed the regular news and even gave them stuff that the didn't or didn't carry. They will even give you a time slot that your time slot if you can get enough tapes to them to fill that time slot. Then every so often you take down new tapes and pick up the old tapes about once ever two or three weeks.

If we were going to try and do something like this, we would have to develop a quality product of at least one to two Video a week and put together a distribution network through the entire country of individual members that want to participate in this effort and make a go of it. If we produce a quality product, they may actually be happy to see you after two or three visits and they get a chance to see product that we are putting out there for them to show on the Cable TV. And I'm assuming that that option is still out there and that independent suppliers still have access to local Cable Networks like that.

Larry,

SpaceNut · 2004-10-25 08:40:03

yup you are right about the indepent channels that cable do provide some of which in my area are for local government use for the communities that they service.

So how would we get this going from the stand point of production of a quality product for others to view?

I think the video tape (VHS) or even the newer DVD formats would be great to supply. This could even be accessed from the web if there were one made to access the files. Or that such of those interested in doing the handing of the tapes to there local cable provider portion could make copies in oder to make this occur by those that live in there broadcast area. Provide cable companies even a news letter as to how to find the space information site if created if they where willing to bring in the info for broadcast without the middle man.

I know to many thoughts again, I must slow down....

edit:
we might even contact the various societies and or organization that we are aware of as well.
Planetary org
Mars society
lunar society

I am sure that there are others.

Martian Republic · 2004-10-25 12:15:52

yup you are right about the indepent channels that cable do provide some of which in my area are for local government use for the communities that they service.
So how would we get this going from the stand point of production of a quality product for others to view?
I think the video tape (VHS) or even the newer DVD formats would be great to supply. This could even be accessed from the web if there were one made to access the files. Or that such of those interested in doing the handing of the tapes to there local cable provider portion could make copies inoder to make this occur by those that live in there broadcast area. Provide cable companies even a news letter as to how to find the space information site if created if they where willing to bring in the info for broadcast without the middle man.
I know to many thoughts again, I mustslow down....
edit:
we might even contact the various societies and or organization that we are aware of as well.
Planetary org
Mars society
lunar society
I am sure that there are others.

As far as what they were using a few years ago, which probably has changed by now, they were not using (VHS), but they were using a wider tape and so it would not have fit into a regular (VHS) recorder or player. So we would have to have someone do some investigation and find out what they are using right now or what most of them are using right now.

>>>So how would we get this going from the stand point of production of a quality product for others to view? <<<

We would have to produce something that people will want to watch and become a faithful audience that want's to see what are next programs going to be. You develop that follow by people flipping the channels trying to find something that worthwhile to watch when they run in to our program and they stop to watch and get hooked on the program. So it take time to build up that following or hearing about how good program was on Cable City Channel XXX and how you should watch that program. If our progame doesn't do that, then you defeat the purpose for putting it on the Cable Channel. That is basically how it would work.

No, you can't get away from the middle man, because that was one of the condition for putting it on the local channel in the first place. Beside, they don't want to deal shipping cost or handling cost. They just want to air it and next tape and they don't want have to mess with it. At least that was the deal in Fort Worth when I was doing it. If that still the policies, then you will just have to have dedicated people that will take the responsibility to see to it that it get done or it won't get done.

Yes, of course you would want to get other space advicates involved like the Planetary org, Mars society, lunar society involved, because that how you would very the progame to captivate the interest of the viewing audiences. You don't want the same old same old stuff all the time and you want it to be informative beside entertaining too. The goal is to draw people in and get them interested in space even if there moon first or Mars first or something else first. At least we will be getting the American People going in the right direction and besides it beats staying where we are at right now as far as space goes.

Larry,

SpaceNut · 2004-10-25 12:31:33

Well currently playing on the Nasa tv is about project Dart.

Here are some of the other Nasa web tv links

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/ (NASA TV Program Schedules)

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html (Watch NASA TV on Your Computer)

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/na … edule.html (Television Schedule for Shuttle and ISS Missions)

http://spacelink.msfc.nasa.gov/NASA.Ne....chedule (Education TV Schedule and Program Information)

SpaceNut · 2004-11-09 13:46:29

What would it be like to take a six-year trip around our Solar System? A major new science series from the BBC imagines just such a journey.

Pushing frontiers in TV space A Space Odyssey - Voyage To The Planets

Space Odyssey: Voyage To The Planets starts on BBC One at 2100GMT on Tuesday 9 November.

Gee: Something that I would have watched had it been on my cable system here in america.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2004-10-18 20:09:54

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#102 2004-10-18 21:19:48

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#103 2004-10-18 21:54:30

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#104 2004-10-18 22:06:39

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#105 2004-10-18 22:35:37

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#106 2004-10-18 22:38:40

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#107 2004-10-19 05:21:48

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#108 2004-10-19 06:12:06

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#109 2004-10-19 06:48:08

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#110 2004-10-19 08:49:18

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#111 2004-10-19 09:23:30

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#112 2004-10-20 06:38:31

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#113 2004-10-21 06:13:57

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#114 2004-10-21 20:28:54

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#115 2004-10-21 21:14:53

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#116 2004-10-21 21:58:52

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#117 2004-10-21 22:36:19

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#118 2004-10-22 06:01:34

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#119 2004-10-25 04:08:05

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#120 2004-10-25 08:06:49

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#121 2004-10-25 08:19:13

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#122 2004-10-25 08:40:03

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#123 2004-10-25 12:15:52

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#124 2004-10-25 12:31:33

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

#125 2004-11-09 13:46:29

Re: Funding space - How much do Americans pay for sneakers?

Board footer