posted
When it comes to space travel, they'll never do it unless public research leads the way. Companies like Space X were formed 50 years after the advent of space travel after NASA did all the pioneering work, and even now they can only make it work because they have guaranteed contracts and R&D investments from NASA, so it's really still a public-private partnership.
It's not like GE is sinking billions into working on a warp drive. There's always talk of private corporations coming up with asteroid mining plans, but the costs are astronomical with worldwide implications. Most precious metals are only so expensive because they are precious. If you find a platinum asteroid, the price of platinum would bottom out and the thing would never pay for itself. I'm not sure the economics of space commercialism will work out the way we'd like to think to lure private investors.
In the next half century at least, it will ALWAYS require a public partnership at best, or public dollars being the sole funder at worst.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Well the Chinese and Russians are going somewhere, just not the US.
Where exactly are the Russians going? Last I checked, they weren't spending any of the necessary money to push beyond LEO. Selling space on a Soyuz is a nice little profit generator, but it's nothing like the billions required to go from LEO to actual outer space.
China is the only country other than the US who even talks about larger plans with any seriousness. India, Brazil and the ESA all talk about it too, but India and Brazil have stuff on the drawing board at best. China has actually launched taikonauts.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The key elements of the current space plan, introduced in 2005, are:[3] Replacement of the Soyuz spacecraft: Prospective Piloted Transport System New rocket for manned flights: Rus-M. The program was halted in October 2011.[12] Return to Moon: Luna Glob (launch of the first probe planned for 2014) Return to Mars: Fobos-Grunt (launched 8 November 2011, failed, ExoMars(2018, joint) Return to Venus: Venera D (launch expected in 2016) Mars 500 simulation (completed in 2011) Introduction of the Angara launcher (first launch expected in 2013) Completion of the Russian segment of the International Space Station Completion of the GLONASS group to 24 operational satellites by 2012. New Earth resources programs using the Resurs DK platform: Resurs P (2009) and Smotr (2007) and a small platform Arkon (2007) Earthquake monitoring satellite Vulkan (2007) New science missions: Koronas Foton (launched in January 2009), Spektr R (RadioAstron, launched in July 2011), Spektr RG (Roentgen Gamma, 2014), Spektr UV (Ultra Violet, 2016) and Spektr M (2018),[13] Intergelizond (2011), Venera D (2016), Celsta (2018) and Terion (2018) Resumption of Bion missions with Bion-M (2013) New weather satellites Elektro L (launched in January, 2011) and Elektro P (2015)[3]
Considering the crewed phase for the Chinese martian plan is 2040-2060, and a manned lunar mission is for 2025, its not out of the question for Russia to have similar designs for that same period.
Also of note the Russians have a much larger space budget.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right now it looks like Mars One will get some initial funding by stealing money from applicants, and survive for a while as a TV show about people who think they are contending/training to go to Mars, and then it will peter out once the TV ratings go away. It might run as long as American Idol, I guess?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether or not Mars One puts anyone on mars is not the question (they won't, and people paying into them with application fees are especially idiotic) — it's whether or not Mars One is a knowing con job, or the product of profoundly naive confidence in an unworkable idea.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Russian space budget isn't bad, but it's still relatively chump change. I know the Chinese only currently spend a fifth as much as the Russians, but they'll overtake them in the near future.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to point out here that in 2008 I wrote a short lived fictional blog set on Mars in which the first Mars Colony was an ill-fated "Survivor: Mars" series.
Except, I suggested this would happen in 2461, misjudging our travel possibilities (although I don't think this is going to work out) by I'd say maybe 400 years. (But allowing for some terraforming and missions to have already taken place, instead of this being the first manned mission.)
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Serious question here for anyone who would seriously want to sign up on this trip:
could you in all honesty be described as someone who has a penchant for poor life choices
You could also ask this question of anyone signing up for a military deployment to the middle east. You'd be missing the point (in both cases), but you can still ask the question.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
"For the rights to advertise and screen this Survivor in space, Mars One estimates revenues of upwards of $8 billion, basing its estimates on the most recent Olympic Games cycle’s revenues. With this money, Mars One will then be able to purchase the spacefaring technologies that, in 10 years’ time, companies like SpaceX will have perfected, ready to send the Mars One astronauts on their journey. There is the small problem of not having the money until you have the show and not having the show until you have the technology and not having the technology until you have the money and possibly not having the technology in time, or ever, which is why, Mars One says on its website, the schedule is flexible."
It's almost depressing having this article profile a person gullible enough to devote his life, essentially, to this project. It's tempered by the mild humor inherent in that he's what counts as a qualified candidate in mars one's eyes (he is probably bipolar and would be a severe liability in space operations one one hundredth as taxing as mars one's plan)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Didn't read the article, but there exists an Olympic Games that makes money?
Huh.
Looking at the data, you could make a case that as recently as the 2010 Vancouver Olympics a profit was turned. Government spend I think half a billion dollars (chump change compared to what most modern Olympics cost, especially compared to their follow-up act in Sochi), but it added $2.5 billion to the GDP, and created 45,000 jobs (if temporary).
I don't know if it was a net profit, but all things considered it wasn't much of a loss.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Didn't read the article, but there exists an Olympic Games that makes money?
Huh.
Looking at the data, you could make a case that as recently as the 2010 Vancouver Olympics a profit was turned. Government spend I think half a billion dollars (chump change compared to what most modern Olympics cost, especially compared to their follow-up act in Sochi), but it added $2.5 billion to the GDP, and created 45,000 jobs (if temporary).
I don't know if it was a net profit, but all things considered it wasn't much of a loss.
I was under the impression that the last Olympic Games to make a profit was the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, which was roundly criticized (before the bombing, anyway) because everything had a corporate logo on it. Which was pretty much the point behind making a profit.
Posts: 124 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
