You are not logged in.
We need to change the way we conduct all facets of human space develeopment and Operations. In space - we managed all aspects of their life from living enironment, food, and activities while orbiting earth or travelling to the Moon or Mars.
We to look at the costs involved and ways to reduce the cost including using space methods on earth such as - large moon colony or mars settlement based living environments include food processing , health facilities and even clothing while on the campus / complex. Because the economies of scale can reduce the costs for individuals ( up to 40% ) we could reduce the salaries for employees within the settlement ( with overall savings of 10-20% settlement wide compared with individual costs and the savings could be used to advance space activities.)
This will provide a focused workforce for the development of space in an environment providing the focus for all employees on their individual and group tasks for the future expansion of space for humanity. Also it would be the first large scale pilot base / settlement and would provide the additional research data on human interaction for employees in this working / sleeping / and living environment.
Offline
"We to look at the costs involved"
Paying rocket men and buying expensive materials
"using space methods on earth"
Like what? These so-called space methods are really a preetty small portion of the cost of spaceflight, lots of "space methods" are totally inapplicable to Earth, nobody would willingly live in the cramped environs of a Mars-sized habitat. Their high cost also makes them unattractive versus traditional methods, and superlight weight herimetically sealed apartments aren't going to have much of a market. Don't even think about how to power the thing or telling tennants they can't shower daily, or there is no play to put a piece of furniture... And if all you have is a Mars-shaped regular concrete apartment, whats the point? Where is the economics of scale? And you can't make a "tent city" because such a thing wouldn't handle the weather here on Earth without an unrealistic amount of trouble, witness the failure of Biosphere-II.
The biggest problem is though, I don't need a rocket to commute to work. The habs and all that are a nontrivial amount of the cost, but the rocket is really the biggest problem. Habs are expensive in part because they have to be built light weight, so that a rocket of reasonable power can launch them.
"This will provide a focused workforce for the development of space in an environment providing the focus for all employees on their individual and group tasks for the future expansion of space for humanity. Also it would be the first large scale pilot base / settlement and would provide the additional research data on human interaction for employees in this working / sleeping / and living environment."
"This will provide a focused workforce for the development of space..."
Etc etc. Which won't bring down the cost since they will still want to get paid most likly.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
I don't think Martin was suggesting re-using the space equipment on Earth - just getting labor costs down via some sort of communal living/economies of scale approach. Ultimately all costs do trace back to people working for profit at some point, so *in theory* one could even get the cost of rockets down that way. However, I suspect this scheme would only work for committed space fanatics - Joe Average rocket worker and his family probably will not want to live in a dormitory.
On the other hand, it might work for committed space fanatics! The problem would be getting enough people with the right skills to make a real space program work. It would probably have to be a private, not-for-profit program - few would be willing to live like a monk just so the government can save some money or so a private corporation can make a profit.
Funding then becomes the huge question mark - even if you can "do space" for 1/10th the cost, if you only have 1/1000th the funding, you're going nowhere. Maybe it could still get government funding, somehow without getting so weighted down with bureaucracy that it discourages the workers?
Offline
The only sure fire way to reduce costs is to reduce the expense, danger and violence of the excape from Earths gravity well is to not launch from the Earths gravity well.
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
No, you have to pay a living wage or there no point in trying to even do it. There no reason that someone should commit there life to such a project like that if it doesn't return enough money so they can take care of there families. They don't have to make a lot of money, but they do have to have a fair return on there labor.
There is only two things that we can use to even have a chance to pull something like this off. They are:
1. Government generated credit system, with open line of credit to finance our operation.
2. Government sponsored technology development program for new rocket and to discovery of new universal principles of physic and bring it into design of new space ships.
Yes, it will be very expensive to do it that way. But, that the only way to bring down the future cost of getting into space twenty to thirty years from now. However there will be a whole lot of technological spin off, which would be nice in the mean time.
Otherwise, the price ain't coming down any time soon.
Offline
While I'm all for forward thinking about new alternatives to our current capitilist based system, it seems to me that trying to overthrow our well entrenched and functional economic system ON TOP of going to Mars is a bit much. If the only way we get to mars is to overturn our current economic system, then it isn't going to happen.
As for the specifics. I'm certianly not capatilisims greatest fan, but the problems it does have aren't going to fixed by overthrowing it with some-sort of socilist/communist system. The people who do the most important work in any space-program, the technicians and engineers, are well paid, but not extravegently so. We are generaly only talking about 5 or 6 digit salaries here. This is entierly just as these workers are some of the best trained and educated in the world to acomplish these tough jobs. If there is waste, it is in the managment of these projects.
I don't see how overthrowing our current system will fix these problems. If history is any guide, then socilist/communist systems tend to have even more waste then capitalist system, and the workers have less incentive to do the best work possible.
IMHO, if there is to be a revolution, it should be more of a refinment of market driven capatilisim then replacing it with something else. I certianly think there are steps our goverment could (and should) take to ensure people are more adequatly compensated for their labor, to reduce and eliminate much of the waste that is present in the upper levels of management, and to refocus companies upon goals that are more benifical to the community at large rather than just their investors.
But all this has little to do with a succesfull space program.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Offline
Austin Stanley,
What waffle !!!!!!!, What I am suggesting is an alternative in spaceport management from a loose assembly of different organizations, personnel, and facilities to building an integrated approach right down to managing personnel living environment -- based on a settlement approach in space thus reducing the overall cost of the operations to a minimum without compromising quality standards in both living standards and operational standards.
At the same time use it as a providing ground for technology for space settlements including communications , integrated settlement software applications, integrated computing systems and living environment systems.
Offline
"I am suggesting is an alternative in spaceport management from a loose assembly of different organizations, personnel, and facilities to building an integrated approach right down to managing personnel living environment"
You aren't making much sense, this is pretty much incoherant. I think one of the earlier post'ers may have decoded your idea.
What you want to do is set up a kind of "colonization commune" on Earth, where people would be paid far less (if at all) then normal for working for your space program in return for getting to be the first colonists. The money saved would go into funding the colonization program.
This will by nessesity mean that these aspiring colonists will have a lower quality of life then non-colonist workers of comperable skill, this will be unavoidable, because you are asking all the colonists to take a "pay cut" ... or maybe more like a vow of poverty... to help fund colonization.
Its an imaginative idea, but I don't think it will work. You are asking too much of a sacrifice for most people, and you will likely not have the massive number of workers needed. Alot of people will learn that they don't like living at your commune regularly too I bet, so there will be some turnover.
You will also need an outside source of money to support this "commune" as well as to build and buy both the commune and the space complex and the vehicles themselves.
If we already HAD a super-cheap means of reaching orbit, then this would be a step halfway there, but without a better means of launching its still going to cost way too much.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Austin Stanley,
What waffle !!!!!!!, What I am suggesting is an alternative in spaceport management from a loose assembly of different organizations, personnel, and facilities to building an integrated approach right down to managing personnel living environment -- based on a settlement approach in space thus reducing the overall cost of the operations to a minimum without compromising quality standards in both living standards and operational standards.
At the same time use it as a providing ground for technology for space settlements including communications , integrated settlement software applications, integrated computing systems and living environment systems.
I'm sure your idea would work fine, IF you could find people that would go for it. But quite frankly, I don't think you will. I'm just now starting to pull down one of those middle 5-digit salaries and I wouldn't give it up to work in your commune. I'm not a big fan of money, I see it as a necessary evil, but unfortuantly the people at Best-Buy, New Egg, and Game Stop all seem to be quite fond of it. And I DO have a thing for electronic gizmos. Even worse, women seem to enjoy things bought with the green paper even more than I do. And I am rather fond of them as well.
I'm a big fan of Mars and space-flight. I may be less willing to sacrifice my personal pleasures for it than you are, but I also think I am closer to the mean than you are as well. I just don't think you are going to find enough engineers and technicians who are willing to sacrifice their personal pleasures for the Mars vision.
Another killer issue is finding the start-up capital for this high-tech commune. Building a self-supporting society is expensive enough by itself, even more so if you plan to provide (or exceed) the modern standard of living. But doing this AS WELL as devloping the INCREDIBLY expensive capital invesments necessary for spaceflight is even worse. Rockets and the machinery to make, maintain, and launch them is insanely expensive, far more so than the money necessary for the commune itself.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Offline
Austin Stanley,
I am talking about a hybrid environment with components of a commune style environment and elements from a military style environment. A settlement in space will have some military style controls and procedures and some communal living elements that will sustain the settlement. We need to test, both the operational aspects for a settlement in space and the social aspects for these enironments.
Example - your issue of large salaries , I didn't say to cut salaries I said to cut the funds relating to paid expenses by the space center and private a credit based internal purchasing system.
We need to look at all the indivdual projects for terraforming and space living environments and create the next generation spaceport complex on earth.
Offline
"cut the funds relating to paid expenses by the space center"
The large majority of the operating expenses incured by the space center are the salleries of its workers. Again, back to the physics about rockets being hard (which all our discussions here ultimatly relate to), anything hard to do will inherintly be expensive. You have to have professional engineers, and you will either have to pay them professional engineers' wages, or else find ones that are willing to work for less. I don't think you'll find enough of the latter though.
"and private a credit based internal purchasing system"
No you didn't, you just picked up on the credit thing from the nutty LaRouche fanboy Martian Republic to make your plan sound more nuanced. It doesn't make much more sense for your plan for space then it does for his of America, "internal credit" is imaginary money, especially for private institutions since they can't order people to consider it money like the government.
"We need to look at all the indivdual projects for terraforming and space living environments and create the next generation spaceport complex on earth."
Someday, sure, but don't you think we ought to focus on actually getting into space efficiently first? If you put your "colonization date" too far into the future, none of the residents of the commune will live to see the day they get to go. That will kind of impact membership I bet.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
GCNR,
We don't function as a collective for space to get efficiently into space !!!!!!
So we won't get there without radical changes in space infrastructure including management structures, resource allocation and personnel living enironment management.
On the Credit System ---- I am not talking about Martian Republic, I am talking about the creation of a cash / trade value based system for internal and external purchasing for personnel. Managed volume purchasing through a centralized procurement based on wholesale / manuafacture direct purchasing of goods for the space center would reduce the costs overall. Personnel will use the Credit Dollars to purchase goods and service within the space center.
Offline
What I am saying that you should be more concerned about getting into space, Mars specifically, more efficiently first before you start talking about how to live there. If you don't, then the residents of your commune will not have any reasonable expectation that they will live long enough to go. And if you can't give them that much, then they won't sign on.
"...without radical changes in space infrastructure including management structures, resource allocation and personnel living enironment management. "
It takes a large number of highly educated and skilled people to execute a manned space program, particularly one that seeks to colonize another planet. These people will expect to be paid in accordance with the high worth of the specialist status. This is not going to go away, you either pay them well or else only a few die-hard space nuts will join your scheme, its simple economics.
Resource allocation? Personnel living environment management? Just what kind of a commune are you going to run? You want to take away not only their money, but freedom too? And your talk of a "military" lifestyle is just kind of scarry. People living in the "secret cities" built for the Manhatten Project (US atomic bomb program in world war two) is probably as far as your average rocket man is willing to go as far as sacrifice for a particular cause.
"On the Credit System ---- I am not talking about Martian Republic"
No, but you did get the idea from him, and he got it from a certifiable nut-case named Lyndon LaRouche (just look up his literature about Dick Cheney or the LaRouche youth podcasts).
"the creation of a cash / trade value based system for internal and external purchasing for personnel"
Huh? So now you are going to pay your rocket men with credit at the company store? I really doubt that you could match the quality of regular retailers cheaply. I also doubt that you can convince people not to be paid with real money, there is only so far that a large number of engineers would trust you, especially for an endeavour so expensive where a little cost overrun would wipe them out financially or scuttle the project. A private program, unlike the government, doesn't have room for error.
Overall though, volume purchasing and cramming engineers with their families into apartment blocks of your commune is simply not going to reduce your costs that much. A few tens of percent is just not a big savings on a trillion-dollar program, especially if you have to get a loan to set up the project to begin with and its interest weighing you down.
The non-personel costs will also be huge, and these aren't going to go away. You will need to buy land (that isn't too remote), you will need to set up roads/water/power, you will need to build a small city for your engineers and their families (housing, food, possibly hospitals and schools too), you will need workshops (and equipment to put in them), you will need the actual launch facilities of similar scale to the Shuttle complex in Florida...and then you can start to talk about space ships.
___________________________________________________________
Of course, because so many of the components can't be reasonably built on site from scratch, this still won't reduce your costs much. So many of the parts will have to be bought from contractors for "normal" sums of money... Computers, solar arrays, nuclear reactors, advanced polymers, etc etc etc. Virtually all spacecraft are made from parts from all over the country, and duplicating their manufacturing ability at your complex for a reasonable cost is simply not going to happen.
So, your plan is simply a drop in the bucket until after the entire enterprise of space travel and hardware becomes "astronomically" cheaper.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
While I'm all for forward thinking about new alternatives to our current capitilist based system, it seems to me that trying to overthrow our well entrenched and functional economic system ON TOP of going to Mars is a bit much. If the only way we get to mars is to overturn our current economic system, then it isn't going to happen.
As for the specifics. I'm certianly not capatilisims greatest fan, but the problems it does have aren't going to fixed by overthrowing it with some-sort of socilist/communist system. The people who do the most important work in any space-program, the technicians and engineers, are well paid, but not extravegently so. We are generaly only talking about 5 or 6 digit salaries here. This is entierly just as these workers are some of the best trained and educated in the world to acomplish these tough jobs. If there is waste, it is in the managment of these projects.
I don't see how overthrowing our current system will fix these problems. If history is any guide, then socilist/communist systems tend to have even more waste then capitalist system, and the workers have less incentive to do the best work possible.
IMHO, if there is to be a revolution, it should be more of a refinment of market driven capatilisim then replacing it with something else. I certianly think there are steps our goverment could (and should) take to ensure people are more adequatly compensated for their labor, to reduce and eliminate much of the waste that is present in the upper levels of management, and to refocus companies upon goals that are more benifical to the community at large rather than just their investors.
But all this has little to do with a succesfull space program.
The capitalist system of economics doesn’t work or what most people consider the capitalist system is non functioning economic system. The socialist/communist economic system is a non functioning economic system too. Neither economic system function as an economic system and both of them are defunct economic system that don't function.
Without going into too much detail of a Government banking System that generating it own credit. It would be financing both government project programs along with private enterprise projects programs all at the same time. You use the Government generated credit to finance a National Mission Project run through NASA which generates business activities or opportunities in the private sector and generates business activity in space also. You use the Government generated credit in the private enterprise to say to build a rocket to take people and resources to the ISS so NASA can do something else and not be tide down by taking care of the ISS space station.
Austin Stanley, what type of economic system is this that I just describe Capitalism or Communism or something else?
Now stop assuming that if I don't support Capitalism that I then must be supporting Communism. I do not support either one, but I support a support a third type of economic system.
Larry,
Offline
"The capitalist system of economics doesn’t work... defunct economic system that don't function"
>200 years of history says otherwise. Seems to work pretty well to me for the most part... perfection it isn't, but there aren't really any other options that are better. Especially not the French psuedo-socialism, which would enter death throes if left to itself.
"Government banking System that generating it own credit... You use the Government generated credit in the private enterprise"
The idea that for every dollar the government prints in credit, more then one dollar is produced, reguardless of the amount printed is a fallacy. One that is very simple to explain: money is just a medium of exchange, and by itself has no worth, so if the government were to print vast sums of money and lend it out, each bill printed would be worth less and less. Inflation like this obliterated the WWI German economy completly.
Can government help build industry by loans? Sure, but each sucessive bill printed has diminishing returns because of inflation, and beyond a certain point issuing "cheap" credit does more harm than good. Particularly since the term of the loan is for an absolute number of dollars, and if you pay back devalued money (worth less then when it was issued), the government actually loses... And then you have the times when the company the government loaned the money to can't repay it.
"...but I support a support a third type of economic system."
If Socialism and Communism don't work, and Capitalism is all a big lie, then you must favor the only other economic system available: the barter system.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
As long as they find an alternative to the worst case scenario cost of colonizing and terraforming Mars. I can tell you now that 20 billion per person per year in continuous resupply for a colony of ten million will suck Earth dry of resources, and cost the full value of the twenty billion-billion dollars that such a oneway endeavour will involve. Certainly it will take more than a hundred years which will kill it for most thinking they can go now, and then there is the whole Population quota thing to ensure Earth representation...The thing that Pisses off those of the "God's chosen few" space colonization philosophy the most.
Mars transfer vehicle/lander/hab/resuppy module method:$20,000,000,000.00/year/colonist
Offline
As long as they find an alternative to the worst case scenario cost of colonizing and terraforming Mars. I can tell you now that 20 billion per person per year in continuous resupply for a colony of ten million will suck Earth dry of resources, and cost the full value of the twenty billion-billion dollars that such a oneway endeavour will involve. Certainly it will take more than a hundred years which will kill it for most thinking they can go now, and then there is the whole Population quota thing to ensure Earth representation...The thing that Pisses off those of the "God's chosen few" space colonization philosophy the most.
Mars transfer vehicle/lander/hab/resuppy module method:$20,000,000,000.00/year/colonist
Twenty billion per person, per year? Um. I'm not quite that...... pessimistic
Heres what happens:
1: VSE suceeds with a varient of DRM-III starting sometime around 2025, with plans to start setting up a base after the first round of expeditions. A site is selected with a supply of water, subsequent mission or unmanned payload tests water extraction hardware.
2: VSE-based hardware is used to construct a minimal base for perminant habitation, with periodic resupply from Earth for ~6. Heavy ISRU plant, long-term nuclear reactor, and inflatable "hanger" constructed, maybe a greenhouse too.
3: Reuseable Mars light lander built, fueled entirely from native propellants, serviced in the hanger as needed. Primarily for crews, permitting the DRM Earth return vehicle to be reused as a interplanetary "taxi," reducing the number of launches per crew from six to two.
So, this gets us basic access to Mars on a regular basis relativly cheaply; the entire base could likly be sustained with only three no-EDS CaLV launches anually, or five for every departure window. Two for crew, say three for supplies/science/engineering, and one for a replacement ERV every few cycles. Toss in one CEV for crew launch maybe.
...So then NASA can save the money from reusing the ERV and lander and switches to phase two, now that NASA has "conqured Mars" and established man there perminantly, sights can then be set a little higher: With continuing support for the Mars base and perhaps Lunar science (if NASA hasn't contracted that to a private firm yet), NASA could then truthfully state that going beyond a little base on Mars is too inefficient for plain old rockets.
Phase two will be a tripple-pronged enterprise, centerd around the development of an honest-to-goodness "we're not kidding this time" reuseable launch vehicle. Most likly a TSTO with LOX-boosted jet powerd carrier and a rocket upper burning slushed hydrogen.
The upper will come in two flavors, crew (14 crew and luggage or a tonne or two of supplies + airlock) and cargo (minimum of 20MT, Shuttle sized bay, no crew). This vehicle should be capable of launch every other week for ~$10M a shot and fly at least ~250 missions over its lifespan (double STS).
NASA should then set its sights on manned missions to the gas giants, powerd by a high-energy nuclear engine (GCNR, VASIMR, etc). With this engine and the super-cheap spaceplane, add in a fully reuseable Mars lander (14 crew or 20MT cargo), and then the cost to get to Mars will be low enough to be really acessable to a private entity.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
The capitalist system of economics doesn’t work or what most people consider the capitalist system is non functioning economic system. The socialist/communist economic system is a non functioning economic system too. Neither economic system function as an economic system and both of them are defunct economic system that don't function.
Without going into too much detail of a Government banking System that generating it own credit. It would be financing both government project programs along with private enterprise projects programs all at the same time. You use the Government generated credit to finance a National Mission Project run through NASA which generates business activities or opportunities in the private sector and generates business activity in space also. You use the Government generated credit in the private enterprise to say to build a rocket to take people and resources to the ISS so NASA can do something else and not be tide down by taking care of the ISS space station.
Austin Stanley, what type of economic system is this that I just describe Capitalism or Communism or something else?
Actualy, I think the system you describe is not realy to diffrent then the one we already have. Our goverment treasure department already generates credit my printing money (Federal Reserve Notes) and by selling bonds (US Treasury Notes). It uses this "money" or "credit" it prints to finance both it's opertaions and the operations of our economy at large. Of course the goverment must be carefull how much "money" it allows out into our ecconomy, to much and the currancy inflates making our dollars less valualble, and to little and it deflates makeing them worth more. Modern economic thought is that keeping the currency as close to level as possible is the best course (though I tend to think that since America is a large amount of debt, a small amount of deflation might not be to bad a thing).
Your plan seems to propose to increase the amount of credit the goverment issues, which might lead to drastic hyper-inflation like Germany saw after WWI. This would be a bad thing. But in the end, if your economy is still based upon the principle that people (or coporations) not the goverment own the majority of the factories/buisness/buildings/property and use them and paid labor to generate a profit, then I would say it is still a capatilisit system, regardless of how the banking system is managed.
Now stop assuming that if I don't support Capitalism that I then must be supporting Communism. I do not support either one, but I support a support a third type of economic system.
I did not mean to assume that you were supporting Capitalisim or Communism. In fact my response was primarily aimed at Martian_Tristar who's plan would definetly be defined as Communisim. I do not see how establising a new "Bank of the United States" would in the end be that diffrent from our current Treasury system, however. Certianly our current system evolved from just such a beast long ago.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Offline
I think you all are getting away from the decision on this subject !!!!!!!
First and formost the world currencies are not going to be used outside the world going into outer space for humanity, because they don't right systems like the federal reserve banking system and currency exchange systems like here on earth. However we need to develop systems to replace those for the expansion into space and interaction with earth systems and we need to implement them in a controlled environment, before we try and implements these systems in space going to mars.
We could also integrate alot of the individual space projects from various research and science institutes, agencies, universities and colleges globally and bring them together into a spaceport operations for existing space programs including launching rockets. It doesn't mean the use of the existing launching facilities but new greenfield site or remodelling an aging site moving from government to private sector.
We need to bring all our technology together for a practical test of the systems, environments and management processes for a full field testing to see if they would work and what doesn't in a " real world " situation.
I am not talking about communism / capitalism, or alternative banking systems fopr governments but a hybrid systems similar to the barter systems used around the world for trading in various countries and with B2B Transactions without the use of currency. ( Money --- Dollars ) I am not against Salaries or Personnel or Engineers or anyone else, but the development of a more efficent enivonrment to expand into space for the next leap for humanity because we have used the same facilities for nearly 50 years .
I hope this clearifies the decision on this subject. :?
Offline
I usually stop reading after seeing
!!!!!!!
Reminds me too much of 80's bad websites...
Offline
The simple fact is that nothing we can do now will make much difference in the cost of a space program. It is all to do with economies of scale and how much things cost. The Russians make cheaper rockets but that comes down to they are using older designs repeatedly and those designs are actually guite simple from a rocket point of view and there wages and resources bill is substantially less.
Any commune or group will need resources to be able to develop and sustain a space program. They will need to be able to develop and test there spacecraft and to ensure it is safe and programmed well. These people will be the brightest and best that a society has and they will want to be paid for it. The materials used on the rockets will be some of the most expensive used and it all adds up.
As these items add up and the majority have will have to come from outwith the organisation or group you have made and to pay for that requires cash. As GCN guite rightly states there will be no great cost reduction until there is a need and we develop something that reduces the single biggest cost that of the launching from Earth in the first place. We do on new mars go over and over the ways that this could be done but no one here has the money or to make the political will to actually be able to get a cheaper overall launch method developed.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
"We could also integrate alot of the individual space projects from various research and science institutes, agencies, universities and colleges globally and bring them together into a spaceport operations for existing space programs including launching rockets."
Uh huh. Why?
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
"(their) wages and resources bill is substantially less."
That is something of an understatement. The average Russian rocket engineer is paid around as much (perhaps a bit less) then an employee at McDonalds.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Saying as it is.
But the production costs of making rockets is decreasing in the west as technology makes it easier to produce. But in the end it will always come down to the cost of those expensive engineers doing the job and checking again and again.
Come on 3 d printers able to make parts 100% perfect every time.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Saying as it is.
But the production costs of making rockets is decreasing in the west as technology makes it easier to produce. But in the end it will always come down to the cost of those expensive engineers doing the job and checking again and again.
Come on 3 d printers able to make parts 100% perfect every time.
While I agree with your general point, I disagree with your specific example. Even the most precise automated milling machine (or 3d printer) will ocasionaly produce peices with errors or defects. This may be due to incorrect instruction or calibration, or may simply be due to defects in the source material or drill bits. This is especialy true for rocketry where the tolerances are so tight. This is why it is necessary for a technician to come back and re-measure to make-sure the machine got it right. So while advances can drasticly lower the costs, there are still limits.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Offline