Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

Grypd · 2005-11-30 17:55:11

I think what will happen is that we will obey the outer space treaty, in principle it is a decent treaty ensuring protection for the astronaut and ensuring national sovreignity of missions and protection from harrasement. It also bans anything that can be classed as a weapon of mass distruction being placed in space and of course makes states take care in bringing samples back to Earth.

The problem of course is this dammned insistence that territory cant be claimed.

Of course if we use commen sense then if you have a base, you own that base. The surface under it you dont but as you can utilise it to keep your base operating, not a problem. As long as your base is there it cannot be interfered with and so in effect you own that terrain. Not legally but physically go away and it becomes free land again.

So this comes down to if you are utilising a terrain then no one else can interfere with you as long as you do not interfere in other operations and are not doing anything illegal. Build a base on the Moon and the area around is yours to utilise as long as you are present. No one else will go too close as it would put them open to claims of interference.

So what we have is a law of common courtesy. Do what you want just dont interfere with others and if they are in trouble an obligation to help is imposed. No law of salvage everything belongs to a country. ( I wonder if there will be a law to deal with wanton rubbish)

clark · 2005-12-01 07:39:33

How does one renounce their terran citizenship?

We are engaging in drift. Not that I really care.

It still seems like space exploitation, the total commercialization of space, really, is nothing more than a deal with the devil.

It is familiar, so we cling to it. But I was under the impression that the motivations around here was to get away from the strangle hold of the status quo. How much sense is there in supporting the status quo to get us there, yet somehow magically expect some enlightened future to undo the foundation?

I'm not arguing for some hippie love fest commune. But I for one would like to understand why so many are so willing to sell off space, or limit space exploration for the sake of the almighty dollar.

BWhite · 2005-12-01 10:36:35

How does one renounce their terran citizenship?
We are engaging in drift. Not that I really care.
It still seems like space exploitation, the total commercialization of space, really, is nothing more than a deal with the devil.
It is familiar, so we cling to it. But I was under the impression that the motivations around here was to get away from the strangle hold of the status quo. How much sense is there in supporting the status quo to get us there, yet somehow magically expect some enlightened future to undo the foundation?
I'm not arguing for some hippie love fest commune. But I for one would like to understand why so many are so willing to sell off space, or limit space exploration for the sake of the almighty dollar.

I remained confused by the "all or nothing" mentality expressed here. Is ANY commercialization acceptable? Your comments suggest no.

Of course, commercialization is the original source of the tax dollars you propose we spend.

clark · 2005-12-01 11:30:29

I always loved the teeter-totter.

What you see is the opposite reaction to the general misconception that the only way to *do* space is to go whole hog and exploit the sh*t out of it. You talk about me and "either/or", but you neglect your own belief that anything and everything is up for grabs in space without a hint of suggestion that maybe some things are not for sale. You are just as guilty but are now in danger of being a hypocrite.

Look, I've said from the begining that there might be a place for commercialization and exploitation. However, I introduce restrictions. Why? Because I do not share the Adam Smith zeal for the "invisible hand", and I think we both know that the concept is flawed.

A purely private interest will not develop space in the manner that many here claim they want. A purely private interest will not provide the long term development, or the timeframe for development, that many here clamour for.I do not understand why you support a system that will not even come close to giving you, or enabiling what you want.

We went to the Moon when the government led. We went nowhere when the mantle was handed to private commercialization. Am I the only one that can see this?

heathen one-eyed hobo's indeed.

BWhite · 2005-12-01 11:36:40

We went nowhere when the mantle was handed to private commercialization.

Uh? When did this happen? I must have missed it.

= = =

The money spent on Apollo was collected by taxing folks like GM and IBM.

Commercial profit filtered through the government. But its still commercial sourced money, masked with a perfume you find sweet.

= = =

As for zoning and other reasonable restrictions? Sure, fine, okay. No objections here.

Now. Lets haggle out "reasonable"

clark · 2005-12-01 12:53:04

Uh? When did this happen? I must have missed it.

The last 40 years of space development was predicated on a larger role of private ventures moving forward into space. That development, and the interest, never materialized.

The only commercial interest for exploitation was and is the use of LEO and GEO for communication sats that serve large markets. That is where a profit could be made, and only at great government subsidy to maintain a global advantage (or on par) with other nations in the related technology fields.

No one has been building new rockets in the last 40 years (save Musk, and only recently) because there is no real market to justify the exspense. The only reason we are seeing SpaceX develop a new rocket is because Musk is slightly bent to begin with. Just like Bigelow.

If our hopes for the stars is powered by priavte interests, and predicated on rich-crazies, then we have a very good story, but a very bad reality.

The money spent on Apollo was collected by taxing folks like GM and IBM.

And borrowing from our neighbors, and borrowing from our future, and income tax... The government is going to tax no matter what, and if 1% gets us to the moon, then I think it is a legitimate solution- considering a public driven decision process is available to form the process. In a private system, the public has no say.

As for zoning and other reasonable restrictions? Sure, fine, okay. No objections here.
Now. Lets haggle out "reasonable"

Reasonable? Do whatever the hell you want, but keep the majority of the profits *out-there*. If profits are coming back down, then tax the hell out of it to redistribute the bounty so a greater number of people actually benefit from the sale of common ground.

You see, pro-space groups have a card to play- but too many want to just throw it away. If space is *going* to bought, then it behooves the pro-space community to sell their support at a price that will buy them what they want.

Private interests will need government buy-in to scrap treaties and to support sapce commercialization (either through laws, or by looking the other way). Government needs the populace to go along. If people make a holy stink about it, then a compromise must be reached that satisfies enough of the populace to allow the government to meet the needs of the private interests.

The leaders of the pro-space community simply miss this, and are to busy yelling about "guv'ment in the way".

BWhite · 2005-12-01 14:21:55

I want to sell advertising to buy rockets. How does that fit it? Does "brand value" exist out there or back here?

Otherwise (except maybe for PGM) there is nothing of economic value to bring back. Tax the profits earned by companies that take tourists to the Moon? I see no reason to tax them more or less than any other company.

clark · 2005-12-01 15:12:46

I see no reason to tax them more or less than any other company.

Here is your reason:

Otherwise (except maybe for PGM) there is nothing of economic value to bring back.

There is no real economic value without a market. There is no market without people. We need to create the genesis for a future market in space. Private buisness will not do it- they serve markets, they do not make them.

My suggestion would lead to the creation of new markets, which leads to a sustaining factor for utilizing private interests for space expansion.

Free Market needs to follow, not lead.

BWhite · 2005-12-01 16:41:28

American companies spend $500 billion per year on advertising. 1.7% of that total equals NASA entire manned spaceflight budget.

This is based upon 50% of the annual $16B going to robotics and aeronautics - - given earmarks and other pork, a "leaner" operation might not need $8 billion per year.

Josh Cryer · 2005-12-01 20:50:44

From the book description of Bill's link: Although American companies spend a staggering $500 billion on advertising annually, many fail to establish an emotional connection with consumers.

Staggering indeed! My god! Holy shit! AAAAH!!!

HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS PEOPLE!

A YEAR!

This thing is easily dooable (read the suicide thread).

Commodore · 2005-12-01 21:16:09

If you ask me (which I note that no one did ), its not a matter of exploitation, but a matter of humanitys natural dendancy to seek "greener" pastures. When the will and technology is there, we will cross the fence, and if your here, I presume you think we are more or less on the threshold.

BWhite · 2005-12-02 00:12:27

From the book description of Bill's link: Although American companies spend a staggering $500 billion on advertising annually, many fail to establish an emotional connection with consumers.
Staggering indeed! My god! Holy shit! AAAAH!!!
HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS PEOPLE!
A YEAR!
This thing is easily dooable (read the suicide thread).

If that mountain of money won't come to Mohammad, maybe Mohammad had better mosey on over to that mountain.

I believe a great many people would find a genuine emotional connnection with building permanent human settlements "out there" - - and remember this is America, only.

What about selling stuff to Europeans, Indians, Chinese, Japanese, South Americans, etc. . .

The global economy has trillions of dollars. Buy Russian lift and siphon off a few billion and you can really go places.

clark · 2005-12-02 05:25:45

Figures can lie, and liers can figure.

It's true in accounting, and it's true in advertising.

500 billion for *total* advertising spent. That means advertising for viagra and womens hair care products are in there.

That money is targeted to sell brands to consumers- they usually spend money on stuff that is relevant to their product and their targeted market.

You want to make "space" a form of brand identity, fine. But to throw around the 500 billion number like you are is a bit misguided.

Not to mention that those advertising dollars would be needed to create the space development- and would not neccessarily cover the exspense of also marketing the space development.

BWhite · 2005-12-02 09:22:45

Nike logos will cost essentially zero to add to the spacesuits. Let Nike pay the marketing expenses and merely tender a net check to the space operator.

Even 1% or 0.5% or 0.1% of that $500 billion helps enormously.

$7 or $8 billion per year gets us back to the Moon at NASA prices. Lower those prices using private sector lift (or even Proton) and even $1 billion per year helps balance the budget. And that $500 billion total figure excludes the European market as well as the rest of the world.

BWhite · 2005-12-02 09:57:35

If you ask me (which I note that no one did ), its not a matter of exploitation, but a matter of humanitys natural dendancy to seek "greener" pastures. When the will and technology is there, we will cross the fence, and if your here, I presume you think we are more or less on the threshold.

I agree with this. Absolutely, this is part of the mosaic of what will motivate people to go out there.

clark · 2005-12-02 12:32:15

People tuned into Apollo because they were watching hero's. Who will people watch on the marketing plan? Rich tourists?

why would companies spend hundreds of millions on a pro-space market group that comprises a few million people? They could spend less money and target more people, so how does space compete in the market place of ideas for resources when it comes to advertising?

And for the record, I am not motivated to go out there, but I wouldn't mind sending a few of you. One way.

BWhite · 2005-12-02 13:10:07

People tuned into Apollo because they were watching hero's. Who will people watch on the marketing plan? Rich tourists?
why would companies spend hundreds of millions on a pro-space market group that comprises a few million people? They could spend less money and target more people, so how does space compete in the market place of ideas for resources when it comes to advertising?
And for the record, I am not motivated to go out there, but I wouldn't mind sending a few of you. One way.

To repeat myself. Yet again. :sigh:

Few (or perhaps no one) will pay to watch tourists, or buy consumer goods that express their support for space tourism. No argument. Space tourism doesn't really bother me, but there is no pot of gold there either.

But settlers? People who go to stay, not to play? That will resonate with people. And if it doesn't? Then we won't get the votes for taxpayer funding, either.

= = =

Oh. The first permanent settlers will be heroic.

clark · 2005-12-02 13:36:01

But settlers? People who go to stay, not to play? That will resonate with people. And if it doesn't? Then we won't get the votes for taxpayer funding, either.

That will resonate? With whom?

You believe "reality tv" will blaze the way? Come on Bill, you have more sense than that.

As for votes for taxpayer funding? Hell, we can bargain with the name of a Post Office.

BWhite · 2005-12-02 16:05:57

But settlers? People who go to stay, not to play? That will resonate with people. And if it doesn't? Then we won't get the votes for taxpayer funding, either.
That will resonate? With whom?
You believe "reality tv" will blaze the way? Come on Bill, you have more sense than that.
As for votes for taxpayer funding? Hell, we can bargain with the name of a Post Office.

Who said reality TV? Not I. BAD media and marketing will be bad media and marketing no matter what the hook.

If the world's finest media and marketing experts weren't capable of selling humanity expanding permanently into the solar system in a profitable and dignified and classy manner then that industry wouldn't be a $500 billion industry today.

Overexposure and tacky video will be death to this new space brand. So don't do that. The experts know how.

Commodore · 2005-12-03 11:35:18

Nike logos will cost essentially zero to add to the spacesuits. Let Nike pay the marketing expenses and merely tender a net check to the space operator.

Why would Nike want to advertise on spacesuits? They didn't make the boots. Aliens probably can't use them. I don't think many people are going be more apt to buy things because the manufacturer paid to to have their logo on a piece of hardware. If that kind of brand loyalty still existed GM could afford to send each of their union workers to space once a year.

The economics of space are quite simple. It falls to NASA and its counterparts around the world to work out the hardware, and the methods, and find reasons for private industry to follow to the point were the rest of us can afford the hardware, and know the methods and the means to thrive.

BWhite · 2005-12-03 14:27:03

Nike logos will cost essentially zero to add to the spacesuits. Let Nike pay the marketing expenses and merely tender a net check to the space operator.
Why would Nike want to advertise on spacesuits? They didn't make the boots. Aliens probably can't use them. I don't think many people are going be more apt to buy things because the manufacturer paid to to have their logo on a piece of hardware. If that kind of brand loyalty still existed GM could afford to send each of their union workers to space once a year.

For the record, Nike actually doesn't make anything. Sara Lee doesn't bake cheesecakes any more either.

Boots? Nah.

But Nike does pays out nearly two billion dollars per year on endorsement contracts. Just Nike, excluding Adidas, Reebok etc. . .

Tiger Woods wears a Nike logo shirt and people buy Nike shirts or shorts or hats because they are fans of Tiger Woods. I have a pair of expensive Greg Norman khaki slacks because his shark logo is cool. I haven't played golf in three years.

If Nike poured $250 million per year into a Burt Rutan orbital program and Burt's pilots and ground crew wore Nike polo shirts, more people would buy Nike polo shirts than otherwise. Because they were fans of Burt Rutan.

Sir Richard Branson will make more money from Virgin Galactic from Volvo, 7-Up and M&Ms marketing than he will selling tickets. IMHO.

Now I agree that NASA would have a heck of a time capitalizing on this, but who said that spaceflight should equal NASA?

BWhite · 2005-12-03 14:36:51

Can you doubt for a moment that Nike could produce some really cool TV ads centered on astronauts doing a lunar EVA with that swoosh prominently depicted on the breastplate?

Then, back in the LSAM, the crew kicks back wearing "jump suits" with the Nike logo as they rest and discuss the day's events.

A replica of that same jumpsuit is then sold for $125 at Nike Town. Of course, Nike would insist on better fashion designers than NASA currently uses.

BWhite · 2005-12-06 14:03:32

Yup

Like I didn't call this within 30 seconds of hearing that Branson was buying into SpaceShipOne and Virgin Galactic. I'm too lazy to scroll through the archives, but I called this, long ago.

A Branson quote from Naomi Klein's book No Logo (page 24):

The idea of selling the courageous message of a brand, as opposed to a product, intoxicated these CEOs, providing as it did an opportunity for seemingly limitless expansion. After all, if a brand was not a product, it could be anything! And nobody embraced branding theory with more evangelical zeal than Richard Branson, whose Virgin Group has branded joint ventures in everything from music to bridal gowns to airlines to cola to financial services.
Branson refers derisively to the “stilted Anglo-Saxon view of consumers,” which holds that a name should be associated with a product like sneakers or soft drinks, and opts instead for “the Asian ‘trick’” of the keiretsus (a Japanese term meaning a network of linked corporations). The idea, he explains, is to “build brands not around products but around reputation.
* * *
I call these ‘attributes” brands: They do not relate directly to one product- such as a Mars bar or a Coca-Cola-but instead to set of values”

Once you accept that a brand identity or a product name need not have ANYTHING to do with the product itself, and you focus on creating killer brands rather than products, you have discovered a license to print money. Careful study of the last 20 years demonstrates this point readily enough.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2005-11-30 17:55:11

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#102 2005-12-01 07:39:33

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#103 2005-12-01 10:36:35

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#104 2005-12-01 11:30:29

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#105 2005-12-01 11:36:40

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#106 2005-12-01 12:53:04

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#107 2005-12-01 14:21:55

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#108 2005-12-01 15:12:46

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#109 2005-12-01 16:41:28

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#110 2005-12-01 20:50:44

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#111 2005-12-01 21:16:09

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#112 2005-12-02 00:12:27

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#113 2005-12-02 05:25:45

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#114 2005-12-02 09:22:45

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#115 2005-12-02 09:57:35

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#116 2005-12-02 12:32:15

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#117 2005-12-02 13:10:07

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#118 2005-12-02 13:36:01

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#119 2005-12-02 16:05:57

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#120 2005-12-03 11:35:18

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#121 2005-12-03 14:27:03

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#122 2005-12-03 14:36:51

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#123 2005-12-06 14:03:32

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#124 2023-03-10 08:34:06

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#125 2023-05-30 18:39:06

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

Board footer