NASA Moving Forward to Enable a Low-Earth Orbit Economy
WASHINGTON (NASA PR) — One year ago, NASA announced the agency is opening the space station for business, enabling commercial and marketing opportunities on the station, and the agency has moved forward toward its ultimate goal in low-Earth orbit to partner with industry to achieve a strong ecosystem in which NASA is one of many customers purchasing services and capabilities at lower cost.
Providing expanded opportunities at the International Space Station to manufacture, market and promote commercial products and services will help catalyze and expand space exploration markets for many businesses.
The new policy includes activities that can be as simple as a product pictured in space for use in marketing materials or a company flying and returning commemorative or other items to be sold after having been in space. NASA crew members on the station also can support these activities behind the scenes. The key is that the activity must require the unique microgravity environment, have a nexus to the NASA mission, or support the development of a sustainable low-Earth orbit economy.
U.S. entities can continue to submit proposals for such activities. NASA has received five proposals so far for commercial and marketing opportunities on the station, and the first of those agreements is already now at the station, launched on the SpaceX CRS-20 mission. The agency has two signed Reimbursable Space Act Agreements (RSAA), is processing two, and is evaluating one more. NASA is making available annually 90 hours of crew time and 175 kg of cargo launch capability but will limit the amount provided to any one company.
NASA also enabled private astronaut missions to the station, ensuring the ability to accommodate two missions each year at the space station of up to 30 days duration. The agency has an agreement in place with KBR to train private astronauts using NASA facilities. NASA has an agreement with Axiom Space for developing plans to enable private astronaut missions to the space station. In addition, the agency signed an agreement with Virgin Galactic as it develops a program to identify candidates interested in purchasing private astronaut missions to the station then procures the transportation, on-orbit resources, and ground resources for private astronaut missions.
Axiom Space and SpaceX made a separate agreement for a future private astronaut mission to the station. And SpaceX also announced an agreement for another private astronaut mission not to the space station, an example of NASA enabling a broader market in space. Axiom’s partnership with SpaceX for a private astronaut mission and Virgin Galactic’s plans to develop a new private orbital astronaut readiness program directly support NASA’s broad strategy to facilitate the commercialization of low-Earth orbit by U.S. entities.
NASA awarded a contract to Axiom Space to provide at least one habitable commercial module to be attached to the International Space Station. NASA also intends to support development of free-flying commercial destinations with release of a solicitation soon.
These companies are willing to make these commitments because they can see the long-term potential to sell services to both the U.S. government and to private citizens. They are putting their private capital at risk in these developments for future profit, whether from the U.S. government flying astronauts, or other missions for private astronauts.
NASA also is providing seed money for seven proposals to enable enterprising companies to mature their concepts and stimulate scalable demand for existing and future platforms in space. One example is the work LambdaVision is doing to produce protein-based artificial retinas in space that would be returned to Earth for surgical implant to restore sight for patients suffering from degenerative retinal diseases.
At release, NASA provided a forecast of its minimum long-term, low-Earth orbit requirements, representing the type and amount of services that NASA intends to purchase when those services become commercially available.
Creating a robust economy in low-Earth orbit will be dependent on bringing many new companies and people into that economy, and will require the development of not only the supply of services but also the demand for those capabilities. We are continuing to see new entrants enabled by the new commercial use policy, and via research and development being conducted through the ISS National Laboratory. NASA continues to work with industry to reduce areas of uncertainty regarding the future of these commercial activities.NASA’s goal is to achieve a robust economy in low-Earth orbit from which the agency can purchase services as one of many customers. A robust commercial space economy ensures national interests for research and development in low-Earth orbit are fulfilled while allowing NASA to focus government resources on deep space exploration through the Artemis program and land the first woman and next man on the surface of the Moon in 2024.
101 responses to “NASA Moving Forward to Enable a Low-Earth Orbit Economy”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
KBR training astronauts! Now that’s something to pay attention to! How classic would it be for a company with roots doing construction in the Pacific during WWII to branch off world. Well if anyone is going to make the corporate state as dysfunctional as portrayed in sci fi movies, it’s companies like KBR. Go guys!
Should be a comparative walk in the park for companies like KBR to do work off-world analogous to what they’ve long done Earthside. For one thing, it’s a lot less likely the work will have to proceed while hostiles are shooting at one’s workers.
Keep in mind all those sci-fi dystopias with corporations as bad guys were written, produced, directed and acted by people who share your politics. The silver screen is the only place leftist politics have ever worked.
You don’t have to look to sci-fi to know corporate states are going to be some pretty scary places to live. All you have to do is look at the colonial era and look at the actions methods of the various corporate exploration and exploitation schemes. Someone always got the butt end of something sharp, or blunt. Space is going to be a tight environment and both government and corporate efforts are going to be strapped for cash. It’s not going to be pleasant. The pressures to make them into concentration camps will be real and persistent no matter who does it.
While it obviously isn’t going to be an anarchic playground, concentration camp mindset won’t work either. For humans to work effectively as human beings, there must be enough individualism for them to think for themselves. Workers that can be treated like machines can be replaced by machines. Workers that can think and plan must be treated with dignity and respect if they are to be effective. There is a history of corporations as well as governments using tight control of their people as you note. There is also a history of those companies and governments failing eventually.
Some will try to do as you say, and they will eventually be swept away by more effective entities. Control will have to be exercised, but that control will have to be tempered by the reality of dealing with people that are not cogs. ISS is an example to me of what you are describing. 80-90% of the hours on maintenance and repairs with the remainder for useful work. I cannot prove, but will speculate, that astronauts not worried about losing flight status could change the ratios dramatically if free to make changes. Changes possibly known in advance to be unacceptable to management. Speculating that much of the high maintenance is on stuff that could be relatively trouble free if replaced or redesigned.
If ISS had competition that mattered, active measures would have to be taken to be more effective. Part of that would necessarily involve more freedom of decision by the astronauts with time on station. Speculating, if a few months were spent changing out systems, the ratio could hit 50% rapidly. That would pay off at a 3-4 to 1 ratio. Can’t happen on top down management with job-scared people.
I dont disagree with most of that. the key to any future expansion out into space by humans doing something…whatever it is that makes money is going to be the ability to do lots of things…and the freedom and assets to deviate from the task, if something special shows up.
none of which are present in small crew sizes
All good points, but I think you’re thinking too much like an American . Look the world over where many factory workers live in extremely spartan dormitories. Or how guest workers in cities like Dubai live in extreme poverty and work very hard hours, and those are the skilled construction workers. Space research will probably be like Antarctica, perhaps a bit worse. However the pressures to maximally squeeze out the maximum work for the minimum investment will be high for settlements that have a profit requirement. In nations the world over who tolerate a higher level of exploitation than Americans or Europeans management gets their way. When colonists have no way back home, management is going to have a free hand and likely with no laws to guide them. All one has to do is look to early industrial practice or current practice in the fast growth economies of Earth to see where management will be tempted to go.
Andrew interesting comments.
Let me ask this question though. Do you think that the availability of cheap replaceable labor in cities like Dubai (ie it doesnt matter how many Bangladeshis you lose, more will come because well the rewards are better for cleaning airports in Dubai then in Dhaka) has an affect on the quality of life?
I say this because pilots at the airlines at those places while working under ruthless regulations (one glance at a cabin crew member and you are gone) are paid relatively well
Perhaps I am painting with too broad a brush. And perhaps you can give me some feedback on that. But I think corporate settlement efforts are going to be a “company town” arrangement. Settlers will start their new lives with a massive debt to the corporation, they probably won’t own any property, and they’ll probably have no ownership of the means of production, food generation, air generation, and might even do things like rent their space suits. I know I’m painting an extreme picture, but it’s believable it could go there. While the flight crews of the ME3 are paid well, they seem overworked, and within Qatar, the UAE, the meaning of their money and how they can spend it seems very directed. It seems to me their money means more everywhere except the nation hosting them? If that’s the case, I think a similar dynamic will be very tempting to establish in a space settlement.
Both economic models will be under extreme pressure to deny ownership to the colonists and control the meaning of their money. Maximizing return on investment and profit for the private sector, and maximizing output for a given input and dealing with negative press or public opinion for a government funded effort. I think the happiest medium we can have when this really becomes an issue is establishing a set of laws and rules of conduct ensuring a functional minimum of property ownership at some minimum level for the individual. A colonist should have ready means to own their own housing, food production, space suit, and some form of transport over the surface of the planet with some sort of rights of passage. That list is by no means well thought out it’s ignoring power and atmosphere generation. But you can see how it’s going to be very problematic.
I think you and I differ 🙂 on the notion of how corporate towns will work in space. perhaps we are thinking different time scales
I limit my time scale to the next 50 years…although to be fair I think this is optimistic since the 50 years since Apollo have kind of well been a dud. in terms of people living and working full time in space but
assuming that time “zero” is stated as the first day that something is produced in space that has a market on earth and requires the continued presence of some humans to make it work…so time zero plus 50 years
I think in that time span that
1) the number of humans in space at any period of time will be very very small.a wildly optimistic number is 1000 as an upper bound and I would suspect that a more likely number is 200 as an upper bound with maybe 50 zounds as a lower one
2. the number of things that make money in space that require humans will be in single digits and
3. thehumans will be short term (less then 1 year) cycle times and
4. this will be limited to the earth moon system.
If we get to Mars in thenext 50 years it will be a small science base (under 25)
the people will be rotated because 1) families are dead mass for employers and 2) the workers will not have enough money to pay for their ticket to come and the cost to keep them there and 3) the infrastructure to support them
Plus few people in their right mind will 1) see a long term future in space or the moon or whereever and 2) with few exceptions with our technology it will be impossible for children to grow up normally in space (much less humans to have long term survival prospects)
a bigger problem is that people just do not live in large numbers in places that are as different from normal life as space will be.
During at least the first 30 of those 50 years post-Apollo, the U.S. government monopolized space. We’re only just now getting to a point where that is no longer the case. The last 50 years in space are no sort of gauge for what the next 50 years in space are going to be like.
Your notions of how many humans will be living and working in space, and on what sort of “schedule” are all off by orders of magnitude – more the further out one cares to project.
You continue to be hagridden by the absurd and Earth-centric notion that what gets done in space must have value on Earth. It will need to have value where it is done, not on Earth. The Earthside benefits will be in the form of investment mechanisms and dividends/profits, not, except trivially, in the form of trade goods.
The company town model didn’t work especially well in the U.S. and only worked at all because worker defections could be readily made up from the ranks of freshly arrived immigrants. Even so, company towns were hardly a dominant form of corporate endeavor even in the 19th century.
“company towns” were not necessarily a bad thing. Not all company towns were the same…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
Company towns only emerge when there is no local workforce, but are a financial burden. That is why Rio Tinto has invested very heavily in telebotic mining in its Australia iron mine, to minimize the size of the company town needed to support it. On the Moon corporations will be only too happy to transition any company towns to local self-government if it shows it’s a reasonable alternative.
About time folks recognize that space will be no different than Earth. If Western nations set up settlements they will be governed by Western values like liberty, self-determination, and respect for individual rights. If non-western nations set up settlements in space it will also be business as usual for them with no liberty, no self-determination and no respect for the individual for the settlers.
the flaw in that logic is that space wont be settled like earth…because the cost to settle space, will not for centuries be anywhere near something that a person or family can afford without somesort of corporate involvement
Which was no different than what happened in North America. Roanoke, Jamestown, Plymouth, Hudson Bay and others were all corporate ventures. Some succeeded, others didn’t, but the self-determination they experienced within the corporate structure set the foundations for both Canada and the United States.
except I think it will. whenever low earth orbit or the moon or whatever place one wants to talk about “being exploited” (or settled) economically. I suggest to you that the numbers of people involved will be very very very very small
almost every process that makes any money in space with humans is going to have as few of them as robotics will allow…andwhatever is done in space that makes money will be as automated as possible. I would suggest that probably the “only” role for humans will be what limited fixing (repairs) is done of the automation.
and due to low gravity, high solar radiation etc…the numbers of those workers who bring their kids/families to space are going to be trivial…perhaps in the next 100 years or so…none
even where wages are low and labor cheap you are going to see automation continue its sweep because machines work 24 hours a day and almost flawlessly 🙂
You’ve obviously never worked in primary extractive industries or been around any automation that does much but fly airplanes. The optimum mix of human workers and automation in space is going to skew a lot further human-ward than you think.
are you claiming that a space settlement would have the same level of risk as say Plymouth?
Depends on what you are referring to as risk. It won’t have anywhere near the level of physical risk because we know more about the envirionment. And there is virtually no chance a dishonest sea capitan will take them to the wrong location as was the case with the Pilgrams and which caused the huge lost of life during the founding of the settlement. In terms of financial risk it will be about as high, but there are ways to address the financial risk.
the personal risk on a working “plant” on the Moon will be higher then any plant on earth
If the plant on the Moon is run by a U.S. entity and the plant on Earth is run by a Chinese entity, I don’t think so.
The settlement of space will resemble Earthside settlement a lot more than it won’t. Centuries to be affordable? It took well under two centuries for passage to the New World to fall in price to something families, or even individuals, could afford. Space travel will reach that point in two or three decades.
Thank you. Thinking like an American is a complement as far as I am concerned. But actually, I believe I am thinking more like an economist. Profit must be maximized in the space ventures to make them viable, which point I believe we mostly agree on. It is the attaining of that maximization where I think we differ. I believe that people treated and paid like serfs or peons will have productivity similar to serfs or peons. Effectively low with little to no innovation. For instance, I pay double time on Sundays when I ask people to work because that is profit maximizing. They tend to show up and be productive with a reasonably good attitude. I can’t make money off of people there for 8 and the gate.
People under duress are not the kind of people you want in critical positions.
Well in the end, I hope management like you wins out. Unfortunately American business is voting with their dollars and investing wildly in captive work forces treated like serfs in Asia. They’ve been running from American environmental law and trade unions for well over 30 years since they’ve been set free. And they favor communist countries over banana republics. I think the pressures to own everything coupled with decades of business practice and expectations will make for a horrible place to live.
And those businesses are not the ones that will settle space. Just as old space firms like Boeing an incapable of opening the space frontier.
I apologize for not being able to make my points clear. Most small businesses operate in a similar manor as I do if they want to retain quality employees. And quality employees are critical to running a successful business. I am not exceptional in that regard and not a paragon of virtue. The businesses that treat people like dirt normally have a serious problem keeping good people which makes them less competitive. All cost inputs must be held to the lowest figure which allows a decent product to be produced for a profit. The only thing more expensive that good quality employees is poor quality employees.
When a company spends millions of dollars per employee sending them to LEO or elsewhere in space, it just doesn’t make sense to use the type of people that will put up with lousy conditions. The lost productivity from using warm bodies in space will destroy any company that tries it. People with enough skill and motivation to do the job right can demand and get proper wages and treatment because they will have other options.
As for offshoring and union avoidance, perhaps the unions and regulators ought to think about the results of trying to force intelligent people to work against their own best interests. It’s the same principle applied to companies rather than individuals.
regulators and unions are not problems.
The problem is that fed/state cong/legislatuers write horrible regulations.
Bad Unions are either they are DIVORCED from the company, as opposed to working with them, or for those that work with the business, the executives will screw over the unions (which is what created the afore mentioned condition).
Horrible regulations and bad unions are precisely the problem. Either could be a positive factor in some cases. For the most part though, they are detrimental to productivity. The primary cause is that they are DIVORCED from the consequences of poor decisions for the most part. Somewhat like the architects (degreed CAD clickers) that send out unworkable blueprints at an increasing rate over the decades.
They’ve been fleeing excessive Democrat taxation. U.S. trade unions have been dying for a long time and the rot started well before off-shoring became a word.
Our taxation is nearly the lowest it has been in the last 100 years, ESP for the rich.
And who did the taxation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
What is needed is to
1) get rid of all the GD tax breaks that GOP put in for their buddies,
2) remove corporate taxes for those that are truly based here and sell/make American (otherwise tax at 10% on gross receipts i.e. NO write-offs, etc), and
3) do a FAIR personal tax by simply pooling all money obtained and then taxing at a progressive rate.
I wasn’t referring to personal income taxes but corporate taxes. Prior to Trump’s presidency those had been the highest in the world. Before the Democrats imposed these idiotic rates – entirely for Marxian ideological reasons – U.S. off-shoring was typically of labor-intensive production. Afterward, it became “rational” for all kinds of production.
While the MAX corporate tax could be high, the truth is that our EFFECTIVE corporate tax was below average around the globe.
And it was NOT the dems that put it up that high, but IKE.
Since IKE, the corporate tax rates have fallen including under Carter.
Considering that corporate taxes pay a small % of America’s revenue, Trump/GOP would be smart to simplify taxes and ZERO out corporate taxes that employs 40+% Americans/sells 40% American goods/has 40% American-made parts in AM goods, and raise that 40% by 5% a year for 8 years.
Otherwise, tax at 10% on GROSS RECEIPT (i.e. ZERO WRITE-OFFS, just a straight 10% on their revenues).
All excellent points. A good example might be the difference in quality and innovation between Russia and SpaceX.
However the Russians do innovate, they always rise to the occasion. Compare GIRD with the VfR. Two totally separate approaches to the problem of fostering innovation, yet both formed the 20th cen’s space programs. And GIRD which was abused the most, was first, and the direct heritage of their efforts are still flying. It’s interesting to compare GIRD and VfR, one group became slaves, and the other used slave labor. Both approaches work.
For certain rather restrictive values of “work” – as neither of the regimes in question survived.
I think that you mean that ppl that can not handle duress are not the kind o fppl that you want in critical positions.
Yes?
I would think so 🙂 see how Americans are dealing with wearing mask and social distancing
Yeah, but most of those ppl whining about it are idiots in the first.
Depending on duress to control your workers is not going to work for the kind of people you need. They will need to be the type that can handle stress as there will be considerable performance pressure for the foreseeable future. That is not the same as depending on duress to control them. Trying to micromanage and force highly productive people will backfire. Though some results can be had short term, long term it will be disastrous if there is any competition whatsoever.
You’re the one thinking too much like an American – and a modern-day one at that. Even now, life on oil rigs or in oil and gas fracking towns in ND is often dorm-like as well. Even modern-day Americans will choose to voluntarily live that way if the pay is good enough.
Urban slums of the 19th century were still a step up for many of the time whose alternatives were subsistence agricuture on the American Frontier or in some European homeland.
The same is true today of Chinese from the provinces and of Philippine gastarbeiter in places like Dubai. Overall, the treatment of workers seems more dependent on the nature of local governments than it does on corporate managements.
Nope. Not a good choice. For the first round (up to say 200 ppl) of Moon and mars settlement, I would select most, if not all, from those that have served on-board nuclear submarines. These go under and stay below for 3-6 months at a time. While I want to see us send the initial ppl for 10 years to mars, AT A MINIMUM. But the moon can be 6-12 months.
It’s going to be very hard finding geologists, Civil Engineers, Chemical Engineers and similar skill sets by limiting yourself to that background requirement. Better to simply use the research environmental psychologists have done on submarine crews to designing lunar habits for those early workers.
You are kidding yourself if you think believe that many ex-navy ppl do not go into fields like “geologists, Civil Engineers, Chemical Engineers and similar skill”.
Yes, but how many were submariners?
America has 71 nuke subs. We run 2 crews on each (3 month rotations). That means 200+ * 71 or 14,000. Consider a 3 year hitch on these. As such, America alone produces ~5000 ppl from a u-boat EACH YEAR. Russia produces similar #. UK, France, India, etc all produce their own #.
So, we are looking at 10-15,000 ppl a year who have left the u-boats, are motivated enough to make it (easier to make a navy or USAF pilot, than to be on a nuke sub). Once out, many of them will go to school and earn advanced degrees. That INCLUDES lots of science.
IOW, there are PLENTY of available ppl who have already proven that they have the metal to do such trips.
The U.S. Navy has a service retention rate of 76%. The retention rate in an elite field like submarines where high bonuses are paid to stay on will likely be much higher. But even with the service wide rate your numbers numbers down to around 1200 a year. Plus most of those leaving after only three years probably didn’t like or couldn’t take living under those conditions.
Then you have the very small percentage likely going into the fields needed. The American Geological Society for example only has a member of 25,000. I expect that the number that are former submariners will be very small. And most of those will already working in a related field like oceanography. You might get enough to staff a small science base with your restrictions, but not the numbers needed for lunar settlements.
if there were jobs in space that required X expertise, there would be people there to fill them. that is a no brainer
I think you will find lunar “jobs” limited to 6 months at the start…but I suspect there wont be that high a demand. I bet you a “mining” operation might have oh 10
the closest real analogy today is an oil rig
If we can do space settlements like oil rigs, that would be a great start. But consider that families are not made and raised on oil rigs. Space colonies will need to be family affairs if they’re going to stick. If the model is gong to be based on the California gold rush, then I think the “Outland” model might be the result.
I picked oil rigs because 1) the assignments are temporary in duration 2) there is no real settlement and 3) they are corporate gigs (there even is a person on a rig with the title “the company man”)
I am afraid I have completely dropped off the wagon of “settlements in the sky” at least for thenext 50 to 100 years or really as long as the limits of our technology exist
I think that there will be romance in the sky and hot sex in the sky and all this stuff but families no
for so many reasons and if you would like I can name them. or the top five…but in any event I think that the number of people in space will be few and they will all be there for limited temporary durations for the next 50 years
I can see why you’d think that. But at some point, space has to be “kid tested and mother approved”.
It won’t be hard to build 1G settlements on the Moon using Starship level technology. If you are able to make use of local sources of Aluminum and Iron for building them via lunar industrialization so much better as you will reduce the mass needed from Earth by 70-80%. Folks will emigrate there because life in those habitats have the potential be better than on Earth for those able to adapt to it. There are business models that will also justify such settlement if folks stop thinking with a 19th Century commodity export mindset.
“
It won’t be hard to build 1G settlements on the Moon using Starship level technolog
t
how would you do that?
” Folks will emigrate there because life in those habitats have the
potential be better than on Earth for those able to adapt to it.”
thats the space groupie wish…I’ve had it and believed it…but I see no reason that it is accurate. for this to be accurate (assuming the human body can adapt to lunar gravity levels and radiation etc can be dealt with) the promise of life would have to be more earthlike then say Alaska…
and its not
Its not that hard if you get rid of the old space mindset on space habitat design. I made a presentation on it at last year’s ISDC that was well received, but the slide show doesn’t seem to be posted anywhere.
Not everyone will have the personality to emigrate and live on the Moon. But you really need to stop thinking in terms of the old O’Neill mindset, those types of space settlements are no more feasible to build than it would be for the settlers at Plymouth to build modern skyscrapers.
Not everyone will have the personality to emigrate and live on the Moon.
But you really need to stop thinking in terms of the old O’Neill
mindset
for the last part. I dont actually have that mindset…I dont think those are any real “settlements” that are long term are practical
“personality to emigrate and live on the Moon”
having spent 6 years on a CVN, a bunch of years on a compound in various arab countries and three months on a boomer..and beenon the Mars oil rig for 2 months….(sub) I have no idea what kind of personality that you are talking about here
everyone of those places the only ones who 1) do not look forward to the cruise being over, or 2) getting off to Europe or somewhere normal are the crazy ones who you need to stay away from
I know a few of the mythic heroes ie the astronauts and a few cosmonauts and none of them want to live upthere.
how would you describe “better then on earth”
You are thinking in the terms of military deployments and engineering projects which is a completely different thing as they are only temporary. Settlers and their families are something completely different. The personality they will need is the ability to live within the limited confines of the settlement with only limited excursions outside it. On Earth you would call recluses, but again its not quite the same as they would need to be friendly with the 1,000 or so other inhabitats of a basic settlement and so the appropriate social skills to get along will be as important as their technical skills so they will be able to function well in what will be a closed society.
The folks who are going stir crazy with the COVID-19 lockdown need not apply…
Robert Heilein outlined the personality traits well in his 1947 short story “It’s Great to be back”. His Novel, “The Rolling Stones” published in 1952 also outlined it. Issac Asimov also outlined it in his novella from 1953, “The Martian Way”.
Just as very few were cut out for the Frontier, very few will be cut out for space settlement. Estimates are that only about 2,000 folks a year made the trip from England (1650 popultion 5.2 million) to New England in the 17th Century, many against their will. About 3,500 traveled the length of the Oregon Trail to Oregon each year in the mid-19th Century out of an U.S. population of 31 million, 1 in 10,000 annually.
The same numbers will be likely true for the settlement of the Moon. I estimate perhaps a thousand or so a year when things ramp up and the Moon’s economy starts developing. A smaller number from Earth will go to Mars, but expansion outward into the Solar System will basically be from those whose parents settled on the Moon.
And they will go for the same generic reasons as earlier pioneers, they will Perceive life to be better, and safer, from their perspective, than on Earth for rising kids, just as you perceive life is better in Turkey for your family.
The idea that everyone is into exploring and pioneering is basically a myth. It’s mostly a very small fraction who see the world differently than the majority of the population. Space settlement will be the same. And the 1G settlements on the Moon will be the great filter. Those not able to make it there will return to Earth. And another portion will go no further than the Moon. And a third portion who like the lifestyle will settle the Solar System.
On Earth you would call recluses, but again its not quite the same as
they would need to be friendly with the 1,000 or so other inhabitats of a
basic settlement and so the appropriate social skills to get along will
be as important as their technical skills so they will be able to
function well in what will be a closed society.///
what you are describing is people who work on CVN’s, Subs (both Boomers and attack), people who work on oil rigs…etc
but its more then that Tom. its people who 1) follow orders to the letter, 2) are use to living a regimented well trained ife, 3) do not question authority easily and 4) work work work and do it every day
and I would add embrace a large dose of personal danger in a world with dynamics quite different then earth and none of this environment that I am aware of has familes
you bring in our families life here in Turkey. the ONLY unique part of that life is “where it is”. We have air conditioning, high speed internet, excellent resturants, a political world almost like the US …the only unique part about it is the language difference…(which we have cured ourselves) …but other wise there was no risk in social changes, etc for me or my family
it is why I chose here iinstead of more money in China or the mideast…
this is why no space “mining” camp will have families. included in my salary is enough to make us a lot of money and allow us to have a standard of living here, exactly on par with what we have in Houston…meaning I make enough money to equal my life for my family in Houston.
the airline pays for health care, eetc…and no company in a space mining world is going to pay a family of four or three to come to the moon when either two or three of those people dont work or they have to provide more people at more cost so both adults can work and someone take care of the kids…
one more point…
b We have almost cured (or controlled) the virus here. How? severe lockdowns, severe lockdowns, severe regulations on how to operate outside the house, in business and on my airline…
and yet in the US we have politicians who are afraid to mandate mask wearing because you have right wing nuts saying “wow that interferes with gods breathing system” and so the darn thing is spinning out of control.
space efforts Tom for then ext 100 years or more are going to be heavily regimented semi military operations …go spend sometime on an oilr rig…
I see you are not able to think beyond the NASA model of space habitats. Again lunar settlements won’t be bases like the ISS, they will be communities, a place where folks will move to live permanently with their families. Also mining will only be one sector of their economy, just like mining is only one sector of the economy in many states on Earth,
And the point about you living in Turkey is to illustrate that only a small portion of Americans choose the expat lifestyle you like so much. Most folks would not want to live in a country that is rated among the most dangerous in the world for journalists. One that has a very low rating on human rights and whose ships just threaten to fire on another NATO ship. Again, it’s a matter of perspective which is why space settlement won’t be for everyone.
I see you are not able to think beyond the NASA model of space habitats.
Again lunar settlements won’t be bases like the ISS, they will be
communities
that is more a hope isnt it? there is no earth bound analogy to illustrate that
it is your belief that some “company” or “group” or “government” or someone… is going to build a community on say the Moon and spend the money to import families?
why would they do that? you would be creating a situation where someone would have to pay for the “non productive” members of the families care while 1 or 2 members of the family worked..and who is going to do that?
do you have an example of this?
as for Turkey. except for the language and the fact that the virus is under control…its no different then living in the US.
Aircraft Carrier/compounds in arab nation is NOTHING like living on lunar/mars settlement.
HOWEVER, by boomer, do you mean boomer sub (interesting for a pilot)?
If so, that is EXACTLY what it will be like. In fact, that is the best training for anybody going to the moon; dangerous; limited movement; close quarters (though hopefully not hot buncking), etc.
I only spent a few months on one, but my cousin (like my brother’s) oldest is “Guns” on the Wyoming. she enjoys the cruises and the job
she would not like that as a perm way of life
People are arguing in the US about wearing mask as there are record deaths…space is going to be more regimented then that
As I stated, the folks who are having trouble adapting to COVID-19 probably won’t make it in space settlements.
its unclear to me “what” will be the key for a real business kick off on the Moon…or Low Earth orbit. I think that the latter will come before the former…and the former is very very unlikely unless and until the latter happens
but in any event what the LEO “product” is going to look like is a Lot of machines doing, putting together “something” and at best what the humans are going to do is maintain the machines and resupply them in some fashion
this wont at least at the start take more then single digits of people…and even if it takes off most everythingwill be done by robots.
and because of the virus…well its a long way off
You are still thinking in terms of what Alvin Toffler names Second Wave economics, while today’s wealth is being driven by Third Wave economies. Beyond luxury items and some specialized industrial goods very few Second Wave products will be exported from the Moon to the Earth’s surface. The lunar economy will be basically a Third Wave economy. This is why folks still clinging to the Old Space model of space settlement have so much trouble closing the business models they try to develop for lunar industrialization.
OK I’ll bite. what is an example of a third wave product that a lunar “settlement” would have that would interest people on earth to pay for it?
Toffler’s Third Wave products are information, entertainment, arts and services. Lunar tourism would be an example and its no surprise that the first commercial flight around the Moon is a tourist flight that includes artists. NASA is already paying for private robotic lander missions to carry instruments for them which is a service.
those products have next to zero chance of funding a lunar settlement or sustaining it. none
Why not? They have been driving the global economy for decades? Indeed, your job as a commercial pilot wouldn’t even exist if it wasn’t for tourism and business travel. One is entertainment based, the other information based, so your income depends on providing a service to support both.
I call this the Sea Quest theory of space exploration
I cannot remember what episode is was, but it centered around some dude who ran a gaming center on some under sea settlement that specialized in what else gaming underwater…
my job as a commercial pilot would not exist if people did not travel. but it only exist because to travel from the US to Istanbul did not mean that the people in the US had to 1) create the means of travel and 2) create the fascinating places in Istanbul to go see. and 3) create everything in Istanbul to keep you alive while you were seeing all those places that people had to build so you would want to come to Istanbul.
Its unclear to me why people would spend billions to create both a transportation system and places to go to…on the moon or anywhere else so people could go there and write software or do ballet in low g or paint or whatever else you think a third wave economy is going to do ..and then when that activity is over retreat to sparse accomadations to look endlessly at either four walls or the sky through monitors or thick glass (transparent al) or whatever
why not go and do all this (and live) in Palu or Peleliu or someplace where well you can do endless numbers of things and the scenery changes?
if I was having software written why would I pay the extra premium to have it done on the moon instead of in India?
there is of course no proof for any of our opinions other then that nothing like you have advocated has ever been done on earth
my suggestion is that whatever people eventually go to the Moon and other then a science base…stay for any length of time…are going to look at lot like people on Alaska’s north slope or the Mars oil rig…ie temp attachments with little dependents and producing something of value to Earth. I have no idea what that is
You really are stuck in terms of thinking of space based on the old Second Wave economic model. Even with the evidence of how Third Wave economics is already driving space commerce firms like SpaceX and VG. And how firms (Deep Space Industries and Planetary Resources) based on Second Wave economics business models have gone under. At least you are not thinking in terms of First Wave economics as Robert Heinlein was in his book, “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”.
you still cannot tell me why someone would invest billions for a lunar settlement to do software
You love the red herrings don’t you? The Third Wave products firms like SpaceX and VG are selling now have nothing to do with software other than the software needed to operate their systems, although from what I understand SpaceshipTwo still has a cockpit out of the 1950’s which is probably why you are such a fan of them. The folks that want the security and benefits they perceive make living in lunar settlements better than staying on Earth will develop ways to generate the revenues to cover their emigration just like all pioneers have.
sorry this is mish mash as my wife calls it. SpaceX and VG are no more third wave firms then Boeing is
a third wave firm is my 10 year old daughter, my 26 year old daughter and each of my cousins (really my brother, my two cousins and I are basically brothers with different parents ie my Grandfathers two brothers) oldest
my 10 year old has a youtube channel where they are now paying her 200 dollars a month 🙂 to do her yourtube channel. she has over 3K subscribers and she talks about being 10…and living on a big farm and in Istanbul and traveling the world…and wow makeup and raising Turkeys for money this summer…my 26 year old does motocycling and sailing in southern Europe (and flying F16’s) (its more money) …the cousins kids are likewise. one talks about life in Alaska as she and her partner homestead a zillion acres and run an airport etc and the other goes on about her and her partners life in the South Pacific and the PI doing medical work off a 42 foot sailboat.
what they do on Utube etc is third wave…but what they do to have that U tube channel is second wave pretty standard (although exotic) stuff for people their age (the 10 year old is however flabbergasting to me. Until I though about it. at 10 I had a lawn mowing business and well she puts more time into her channel then I did I guess onmy paper route.
the problem is that to support all this “third wave” stuff you need basic core industries…I can see a person who say works on a lunar science or mining system having a business where they do life stories on it and then start talking about products etc that they use …but there has to be something to support the core activity because well while lucrative its hard to see the basic thing paying the bills
SpaceX is doing what most launch companies do…just cheaper and their starlink system if successful is well pretty second wave
you have to have that on the moon to get the basic investment of the “base”
It’s clear that you haven’t read The Third Wave which is why you are confusing it with the digital economy which is only a subset of it.
LOL when the third wave does something in space with humans that makes money let me know 🙂
Space tourism is a good example of a Third Wave industry by Alvin Toffler’s definition so it has been happening since 2001. Really, you need to move your thinking out of the Old Space mindset its locked into. 🙂
there is no chance that a lunar base or a space station will emerge where the prime business is space tourism none
And when settlers came from Europe to America and most of the world, it was dangerous and offered little for them.
Just being alive was pretty damned dangerous in those days compared to now. Most Europeans were stuck in some form of hierarchical social order in which one’s future was pretty well determined at birth. Coming to the New World at least offered the possibility one could do things entirely impossible in one’s place of birth in the Old World. It was a risk against a certainty.
same thing would apply going to mars or elsewhere (not so much on the moon).
why? as long as it is as unique as it is, its unclear the human body can function there for long
Those problems will be worked, and are being worked. There are some that seem really difficult like the extremely energetic neutral particles, but so long as you’re surrounded by sufficient mass it can be dealt with. Then again colonizing space is all about taking human operations to a much larger scale.
well ,…limiting our “field of view” to the earth moon system since not in 100 years will there be something on Mars that is economically viable on earth
I dont have a clue why anyone would put enormous assets into fixing gravity issues, radiation issues etc when temporary occupancy will take care of most of those and is far more desirable then leaving people on the moon who as they grow older will grow less productive and either have to be tossed out an airlock or put in some costly retirement center
parituclarly when we are talking numbers of under 100 or so
Great points, I’ve thought of them too. But then again, I’m 51 pretty darn healthy, very productive, capable of hard physical labor, and can fool people I’m in my 30’s. I have all my teeth, and theyre still pearly white. My grandparents were prunes, missing half their teeth, wearing dentures, amazingly overweight, had copd cough, wheezed when we went walking in the 1970’s when they were in their 50’s. We’re aging different today than they did back then. I expect future generations will age differently too.
I more or less am in the same shape…but one reason is that I and you live in a low risk world with excellent medical care, until the virus came along no real killing things that our medical care could not handle and no real threats of solar radiation
the virus, in large measure thanks to our politicans handling of it, has brought us in touch with the dark ages
What’s done on Mars doesn’t have to be economically valuable on Earth, it just has to be economically valuable on Mars – a much lower bar to get over.
A society that functions above the level of bare subsistence is able to accommodate the usual distribution of age cohorts. Space will be no different in that respect.
What’s done on Mars doesn’t have to be economically valuable on Earth,
it just has to be economically valuable on Mars – a much lower bar to
get over.
then how do they buy things from earth?
That is the difference between Mars bases and Mars settlements. Bases require constant outside support and so need to justify spending on the massive supplies they need. Settlements by contrast live off the land for basic needs and only need to raise the investment funds, which may not have to be paid off if the individuals who saved the money are the emigrants. Read the “The Martian Way” by Issac Asimov for a good story built around this difference in outlook.
there is no chance of that happening. it is just complete fantasy
For the most part, they won’t buy things from Earth, they’ll make what they need on Mars.
For a very long time, it was not clear than humankind could function beyond the confines of Central Africa. Technology has traditionally been humanity’s way of dealing with inhospitable environments.
That has never been true of any other substantive migration. I see no reason why space should be different.
because it is completely different then earth and requires enormous technology to function in
One could argue that the technological leap required to develop fire, clothing, shelters and food/water storage, all needed to expand out of Africa into northern latitudes, was more challenging as we hadn’t invented science or engineering yet. The technology for lunar settlements is basically available once someone invests in the research. One could lay out the research agenda now for only a few million dollars a year, one that would produce spin-off tech will go a long way to the solving problems associated with climate change and building sustainable economies on Earth as well.
So does living in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Yet we Yupes manage to do it. The same will prove true on the Moon, on Mars, in free space or wherever else humans go.
In what ways do you imagine the history of Gold Rush-era CA to have resembled Outland?
Well, the fates of native indigenes and/or imported slaves were not always pleasant in the days of the Dutch and British East India Companies or even of the Hudson’s Bay Co.
But there are no native indigenes in space. And the lives of expat home-country nationals in the employ of such erstwhile enterprises were not necessarily worse than those of their fellows who remained behind and were generally more lucrative as well.
The same seems likely to be true of space settlers. Space will be an expensive place in which to operate, but, at least on the corporate side, such operations won’t be undertaken absent a reasonable probability of financial reward. That is true of remote mines and marine oil and gas operations today.
The only “concentration camps” organized around extractive industry of which I’m aware are those run by regimes based on the Marxist politics you also share. Only one such seems even arguably able to initiate manned space operations of any consequence.
So I think Outland, the Alien films and other such dystopian sci-fi will remain the only place where proletarians are actually oppressed by corporate overlords.
And the facilities they are likely to have on the Moon will be for the single purpose of projecting geopolitical power much like the communities that Argentina and Chile have in Antarctica. They will be entirely dependent on government support and the “residents” on those lunar “settlements” will be rotated home every few years like the one Robert is arguing for.
The tours may be shorter than a few years. American lunar installations are going to be bigger and more populous than anything the Chinese can maintain on Luna. The organs of state control are going to be pretty thin on the ground too. If the Chinese are foolish enough to put their installations too close to American ones, I think we will see some defections.