Campaign '08

No “flexibility” in McCain budget freeze

There have been conflicting statements about how sort of NASA budgets John McCain would propose if elected president. His space policy proposes to “Commit to funding the NASA Constellation program to ensure it has the resources it needs”, and other statements suggest that he would at least be amenable to additional NASA funding. However, his economic policy includes a one-year “spending pause” on non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending, which would include NASA. So which policy holds precedence?

A McCain campaign advisor suggests the latter. Ike Brannon, an economist and senior policy advisor, told scientist lobbyists that “there’s been no talk within the campaign of allowing any flexibility in the proposed freeze”, according to a ScienceNow report. “The purpose of the freeze is to evaluate each and every program, looking at which ones are worthwhile and which are a waste of taxpayer dollars,” he said, although he did appear to leave the door open to reallocating dollars within the overall freeze, although it wasn’t clear if this would apply to the FY2010 budget or future years. “But the freeze applies to the entire budget, most of which doesn’t relate to science,” Brannon said. “He [McCain] hopes to be able to find savings from earmarks, from unnecessary subsidies, and from other programs that could then be applied to research.”

Although, given what’s been called “the most sweeping government intervention in the markets since the Great Depression” this week with the bailout of financial firms, fiscal pressures may be so severe on the next administration that trying to find any additional money, for NASA or any other discretionary program, may simply not be possible.

57 comments to No “flexibility” in McCain budget freeze

  • sc220

    …fiscal pressures may be so severe on the next administration that trying to find any additional money, for NASA or any other discretionary program, may simply not be possible.

    Forget about any additional money. As a taxpayer and U.S. citizen, I would oppose this. In fact, NASA should be more worried about being slashed. I think 25-50% is entirely possible, perhaps even more.

    NASA needs to stop ogling at the Moon, and work on things that have more relevance to the here and now. Energy, climate change and environment should take mainstage, along with a robust science mission program that enhances our understanding of the Universe.

  • red

    sc220: “NASA needs to stop ogling at the Moon, and work on things that have more relevance to the here and now. Energy, climate change and environment should take mainstage, along with a robust science mission program that enhances our understanding of the Universe.”

    I say much the same thing at http://www.spaceapplications.blogspot.com

    My point of view is slightly different, in that I’d add other areas like security, education, economics (i.e. handing over the basics to commercial space) and a few others as potential arenas of immediate relevance that NASA ought to address, and that I wouldn’t keep NASA from the Moon if it could figure out and demonstrate ways for the Moon to be highly relevant to areas like these. However, if NASA happened to pick the areas sc220 mentioned (energy, environment, climate change, science) as areas to devote most of its attention to (rather than trying to be a rocket business) I’d be satisified.

    At any rate, it certainly does seem unlikely that NASA will get the Constellation budget that it wants, which many people here have been saying for years. The upcoming years are more likely to surprise us with additional budget-squeezing events like the bailout than to surprise us with unexpected budget windfalls.

  • Dennis Wingo

    NASA needs to stop ogling at the Moon, and work on things that have more relevance to the here and now. Energy, climate change and environment should take mainstage, along with a robust science mission program that enhances our understanding of the Universe.

    The Moon has more relevance to your priorities above than you think. You want to help the environment and energy? Learning to live off the planet, beginning at the Moon, will develop technologies that have direct application here on the Earth. The technologies developed for ISRU for example have direct application to terrestrial mining. This also has applications toward the environment as the “waste” products from ISRU on the earth is oxygen.

    I do think that the current architecture is dead dead dead, and rightly so. An architecture that is sustainable, modular in nature, with onramps for private enterprise has great potential for helping to create fleets of remote sensing spacecraft for Earth and solar observation as well as other space science. These spacecraft can contribute much, including debunking the myth of human induced climate change.

    :)

  • sc220

    I agree with both of your points. But it only makes sense if NASA focuses on the technology side of things, rather than compete with private industry for development.

  • Engineering Lead

    debunking the myth of human induced climate change.

    Statements like this greatly pain me.

    Perhaps what Americans should be doing is confronting the myth that the cosmos is 10,000 years old, and then they will have gained the emotional maturity to begin to confront some of their other myths.

    I predict either an increasingly beligerant and delusional America, or a humbled and rational America. The evidence you present here indicates the former, rather than the latter. It will be interesting to see if America really does have the ‘right stuff’. We shall see as soon as early next week.

  • Al Fansome

    Where is Jim Hillhouse?

    Jim, your credibility is on the line here.

    You have repeatedly argued that the McCain spending freeze did not apply to NASA. However, a more senior McCain person is saying it does.

    (It was pretty obvious that it almost certainly did for those who understand national policy.)

    – Al

  • Doug Lassiter

    These spacecraft can contribute much, including debunking the myth of human induced climate change.

    OK, I’ll bite. How are fleets of remote sensing spacecraft for Earth and solar observation going to debunk this “myth”? I presume you’re suggesting that there is some critical observation that is not being made that, when made, will reveal a fundamental mistake? We already have a fleet of remote sensing spacecraft for Earth and solar observation, and the evidence from them is that human induced climate change is real, though details are certainly wanting. We’re talking about rational understanding, not unsubstantiated pronouncements.

    Also, how are lunar ISRU technologies relevant to terrestrial mining? Wow. I’ve never heard about that. With a value-driven metric, the word “delusional” really comes to mind on that one. I know! He3 from offshore drilling!! Or oxygen production from tar sands, perhaps?

    Your pronouncement that the current architecture is dead is, however, hardly delusional, and while I find McCain’s pledge to commit to funding the Constellation program well intentioned, it may well not be smart, at least if the program looks the way it does now. In that sense, a discretionary budget freeze that would allow critical reevaluation of Constellation architecture might well be wise. In that case, for Constellation, “ensure it has the resources it needs” may translate into ensuring it can survive until we figure out what we’re going to do with it.

  • Charles In Houston

    Now that we are recovering from our hurricane here, we can rejoin the discussion…

    As the initial article pointed out fiscal pressures may be so severe on the next administration that trying to find any additional money, for NASA or any other discretionary program, may simply not be possible

    Many campaign statements were made in a universe far ago and far away – before we recognized how fragile our economy was. And how much greed and incompetence had damaged the economy.

    Federal discretionary spending on ANYTHING is going to be a tough sell now – space, new toys for the military, roads, etc.

    We need to look at our current budget and do what we can do within it. Just holding on to our existing programs is going to be difficult. Trying to “ramp up” funding is going to be virtually impossible.

  • Al Fansome

    LASSITER: Also, how are lunar ISRU technologies relevant to terrestrial mining?

    Doug,

    Let me suggest that you asked the wrong question.

    Dennis is basically making a “spin off” argument for putting humans back on the Moon. If we spend >$100 Billion on going back to the Moon, there are almost certainly going to be some economic returns from doing so (beyond the paychecks to the white collar workers.)

    Some of the spin-off benefits are likely to be new technologies related to ISRU.

    Who knows, maybe the economic spin-off benefits from investing in lunar ISRU will be as high as $100 million. If we get really lucky, we could even generate as much as $1 Billion range of economic benefits from investing in ISRU technologies.

    This suggests a more relevant question.

    FWIW,

    – Al

  • Doug Lassiter

    This suggests a more relevant question.

    “Who knows?” I think you hit on it. That’s a relevant question. And the answer is, exactly no one.

    Spin-off arguments are strategically nonsensical. There is no way to justify expenditures in a sensible, measurable way using them. $100B for “who knows?” Sorry, but I don’t buy it, and the general informed taxpayer shouldn’t either.

    Look, I think that developing our space capabilities is of fundamental importance as a route to scientific exploration, and as an essential expression of skill and creativity — a veritable national challenge. Such national challenges are profoundly important. Yes, we might “almost certainly” even derive some valuable return. He3 anyone? But I can think of many many ways to invest $100B that “if we get really lucky” can generate huge economic benefits. So while spin-offs might be a good spin-off justification — as in, we’re gonna do it for these other good reasons, and … oh goodness … look what else we might get for free! — it’s not in and of itself a strategic direction.

    Wingo said that “the technologies developed for ISRU for example have direct application to terrestrial mining.” I don’t see those direct applications at all, and spin-offs sure aren’t them.

  • anon

    “Energy, climate change and environment should take mainstage,”

    Those are the tasks for the Energy Dept, NOAA and EPA and not NASA

  • anon

    “My point of view is slightly different, in that I’d add other areas like security,”

    Not NASA’s job, it is DOD and Homeland security.

    NASA’s job is to explore

  • Chief Spectroscopist

    NASA’s job is to explore

    NASA’s job is the atmosphere and space, and NOAA’s job is the atmosphere and the oceans, it’s right there in their titles. Why do you people continue to insist on exploring where the sun don’t shine? Oh … I get it, you’re a******s.

    You know what you can do with Constellation, Ares and Orion?

    Flush. Enjoy your financial meltdown, Jesus freaks.

  • Chance

    Hm. Now there’s talk of the government spending $700 billion dollars for the troubled economy. I’d say NASA will be *lucky* if it doesn’t get a drastic budgetcut, regardless of which candidate is elected.

  • Dennis Wingo

    More remote sensing spacecraft are needed for solar/terrestrial physics. For example the Ulysses spacecraft did an incredible job in mapping and monitoring the solar magnetic field. This data has been of great value in mapping the transition between an active sun and what looks to be a period of reduced solar activity. Time will tell if this has an effect on climate.

    In the solar physics community there is a lot of controversy over the effect of sunspots on the terrestrial climate. We simply don’t know enough, as there are no sensors to monitor it, the effect of ultraviolet radiation on the upper atmosphere. It is clear and uncontrovertable that a strong solar cycle expands the earth’s atmosphere. How far down do these effects travel?

    The current fleet of Earth Observational spacecraft are finding that the temperature profile of the atmosphere across the infrared bands does not behave in the manner that the computer model predictions of the IPCC indicate must be the case for anthropogenic CO2 effects in the atmosphere. After 30 years no one has developed a clearly understood cause and effect relationship between CO2 and the net Earth radiation balance. This radiation balance must also incorporate other wavelengths, again, the ultraviolet and visible bands for a full picture to be developed.

    Current IPCC based computer modeling does not explain the cooling that has been observed from satellite sensors in the southern hemisphere. While people whine about the arctic ice, the antarctic ice is at highs not seen in the satellite era (for the last year). Why is this the case? With the oceans acting as a storage medium of heat one would reasonably expect the oceans to be warming as a result of CO2 based greater reflection of infrared heat, yet this is not the case.

    Data? The land based data is very suspect today. Here is just one argument that continues to bust the Mike Mann Hockey stick whenever it rears its ugly head.

    http://www.climateaudit.org/

    We need more satellite data to get the real picture of climate, not a politically induced climate change.

    (P.S. I knew that the phrase would generate that response). Lets see if there is any intelligent replies.)

    Oh by the way I do understand the delta in overall solar output between the peak of a sunspot cycle and a minimum, and yet throughout history that we can peek into when examining proxies, lack of sunspots does indicate cooler climates. The question is, why? Total Solar Irradiance does not explain it, therefore there is another solution that we don’t understand yet in how the different solar radiation (that ultraviolet light again) effects the absorption and emission of radiation from the Earth.

  • Dennis Wingo

    To answer another snark here.

    Yes Lunar ISRU is a spin off argument. The same type of spin off that the United States was from European exploration.

  • Doug Lassiter

    More remote sensing spacecraft are needed for solar/terrestrial physics.

    Thanks. These are science questions that actually reflect some goals in the Earth Science Decadal plan, where they are listed without presumptions about “debunking” things. That Decadal actually means something to the climatology community (see, for example, http://www.realclimate.org/), unlike Steve McIntyre’s rants.

    Re ISRU and mining, a spinoff is not a strategic goal, and pretending that it is one just isn’t constructive. A space policy that is based on spinoffs isn’t tenable for a results-oriented administration and for taxpayers. For this administration such a lack of tenability comes straight out of the President’s Management Agenda – the current management “bible” for OMB. It remains to be seen whether the new administration will adopt this PMA, or would replace it with a new “if you’re lucky” planning mandate. Falling back on spinoff potential makes a sad statement about the strategic viability of the whole space flight enterprise.

    If you put $100B into medical research on black lung disease, you could “if you’re lucky” net an absolutely huge advantage for the terrestrial mining industry. In fact, some of the most opportunistic potential for terrestrial mining probably comes from investment in robotic control systems and virtual presence, and not at all from human space flight.

    So the United States is a spinoff from European-funded exploration. Nice. One could be snarky and ask the standard question of what their investment did for them (as opposed to us).

  • Spacer

    One could keep a budget freeze and still provide alternatives. But things a re shifting so fast its impossible to determine what may be the case when the new administration takes office.

    Also it looks like the Obama space policy collective has finally reached the same conclusion that McCain reached last month on the Shuttle.

    http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/09/obama-buy-soyuz.html

    So it appears that Obama’s space policy is now coming into align with McCain’s.

  • Mark

    “Why do you people continue to insist on exploring where the sun don’t shine? Oh … I get it, you’re a******s.

    You know what you can do with Constellation, Ares and Orion?

    Flush. Enjoy your financial meltdown, Jesus freaks.”

    Your level of maturity is astounding. You answered your own question. NASA’s job is the atmosphere and space. Therefore exploring and understanding space is part of its job. Also you should know that the sun does indeed shine in space.

  • Experimental Lead

    Your level of maturity is astounding.

    You idiots have brought the United States within a day or so of financial collapse and ruin by criminality and corruption, and you expect more feel good love fest platitudes and back slapping? Go ahead, go out there and explore, the United States and the world can no longer afford you anymore. Ya’ll don’t come back now either, ya’hear?

    Space is empty. So is your treasury.

    You people literally make me sick.

  • Laboratory Lead

    So it appears that Obama’s space policy is now coming into align with McCain’s.

    More laughable delusions from the laughably delusional fifty percent of America crowd. It’s going to be great watching you flush the remains of America down the toilet this week.

  • Mark

    “You idiots have brought the United States within a day or so of financial collapse and ruin by criminality and corruption, and you expect more feel good love fest platitudes and back slapping? Go ahead, go out there and explore, the United States and the world can no longer afford you anymore. Ya’ll don’t come back now either, ya’hear?”

    I don’t expect back slapping but I would expect something slightly above childish name calling. Also I wasn’t aware that space advocates were responsible for the mortgage crisis.

    You could eliminate the entire US space program and it would be a drop in the ocean to the current budget deficit. I think you are incorrectly identifying spending on space exploration as the cause of the mess we are in.

  • Don’t feed Elifritz the troll, folks.

  • Spectroscopy Chief

    I don’t expect back slapping but I would expect something slightly above childish name calling.

    You deserve far more than just name calling. I’ll leave that to your rapidly proliferating enemies.

    Also I wasn’t aware that space advocates were responsible for the mortgage crisis.

    Americans are responsible for the financial crisis, which extends farther back in time and is much more extensive than the current mortgage crisis.

    The only reason you people can live with yourself is that you’re so stupid.

    It’s all you have. Go with it. Vote McCain.

    You could eliminate the entire US space program and it would be a drop in the ocean to the current budget deficit. I think you are incorrectly identifying spending on space exploration as the cause of the mess we are in.

    I didn’t say that, you did. What I am merely pointing out is because of thirty years of republican incompetence, greed, corruption and irrational inanity you now have no money for a space program, or an X-ray laser facility, or any other modern scientific or technological endeavor that will produce qualified scientists, engineers and managers, in lieu of more Jesus freaks.

    Jesus or science, it’s your call. Ares I. QED.

  • Al Fansome

    WINGO: Yes Lunar ISRU is a spin off argument. The same type of spin off that the United States was from European exploration.

    Mr. Wingo,

    You are changing your argument. You previously said”

    Learning to live off the planet, beginning at the Moon, will develop technologies that have direct application here on the Earth. The technologies developed for ISRU for example have direct application to terrestrial mining.

    Columbus did not go to Queen Isabella and argue that he was going to create new technology in his efforts to find a passage to India. That would be proof an spin-off argument.

    Instead, he argued that he was going to help Spain become bloody rich. It was an economics, or greed-based, argument.

    An argument that paralleled Columbus would read something like “Mr. President, I am going to take that $100 Billion for the Moon, and turn it into a trillion dollars. We will become bloody rich.”

    Since, you are talking about pocket change — e.g., we might get some spin-off technologies to help terrestrial mining, which might be worth a billion dollars if we are LUCKY — your argument is not the same as that made by Columbus.

    Do not equate “spin-offs” with the arguments made by Dr. Marburger for incorporating the solar system into our economic sphere. They are much different things, both in magnitude and in kind.

    – Al

  • Dennis Wingo

    Re ISRU and mining, a spinoff is not a strategic goal, and pretending that it is one just isn’t constructive

    Pretending it isn’t when it was specifically stated as administration policy (you know, that economic development of the solar system thing), is what got Mike Griffin into the mess that he is today.

    Sorry, but if this is not a strategic goal, we should just stay home and give the money to Lehmann brothers.

  • Dennis Wingo

    Spin-off arguments are strategically nonsensical. There is no way to justify expenditures in a sensible, measurable way using them. $100B for “who knows?” Sorry, but I don’t buy it, and the general informed taxpayer shouldn’t either.

    You keep using that word strategic, yet I don’t think that you understand what it means within the context of ISRU. ISRU is a tactical implementation of a strategy to develop the economic resources of the solar system. It is pretty hard to think that you could do the economic development of the solar system without considering the resources that are there.

    Of course there are metrics by which to measure how the tactical implementation of ISRU fits within the larger context of the economic development of the solar system.

    X tons of O2, LO2, H2, LH2 per year.
    X tons of iron, nickel, and other resources.

    Where the fun begins is how you use those resources. The volitials of course are used for rocket fuel but the metals, hmmm the metals.

    How about the number of cubic feet of enclosed pressurized habital space? How about using that habital space to grow food, develop factories, and the other things that you would do within the strategic context of the economic development of the solar system.

    Quit living in the 20th century.

  • Dennis Wingo

    Columbus did not go to Queen Isabella and argue that he was going to create new technology in his efforts to find a passage to India. That would be proof an spin-off argument.

    He said that he was going for gold and spices. He did not bother the queen with the details of mining or the trade that he would do to get them. Since there are no pesky natives to kill or nations to enslave out there it stands to reason that we are going to have to develop those resources on our own.

  • Dennis Wingo

    An argument that paralleled Columbus would read something like “Mr. President, I am going to take that $100 Billion for the Moon, and turn it into a trillion dollars. We will become bloody rich.”

    Quit being so narrow minded. It should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual intelligent observer that if we are going to develop mining technologies for the economic development of the solar system, that we might actually be doing some mining and some processing out there. That does seem to be a logical conclusion to me. If we are going to do that out there then it also stands to reason that we are going to find things of economic value there, oh such as Platinum Group Metals, just as a guess. yes yes I know the tired old saw about launching gold, but within the larger strategic (there is that word properly applied) context of the economic development of the solar system those resources are real. Also, if you have read the proceedings of the LPSC this year you will see that for low velocity NiFe impactors, the vast majority of that material remains within the vicinity of the crater.

    Now, what else do I have to do to explain the interrelationships between ISRU and the strategy of the economic development of the solar system, beginning with Cislunar space?

  • Dennis Wingo

    Do not equate “spin-offs” with the arguments made by Dr. Marburger for incorporating the solar system into our economic sphere. They are much different things, both in magnitude and in kind.

    I will absolutely make that linkage. Hell Bob Zubrin did so a decade ago with the case for Mars, and it is just as relevant if not more so regarding the Moon and its resources. It is up to you to prove that there is no linkage. I would expect that developing economic resources might just have to do with the economic development of the solar system but that is just me.

  • Doug Lassiter

    Of course there are metrics by which to measure how the tactical implementation of ISRU fits within the larger context of the economic development of the solar system.

    Ah, it’s a tactical implementation! It’s about mining stuff without a compelling plan for what to do with what you mine. It’s about measuring the height of piles and having “fun” with what you mine. Well, in that case, let’s all get our rulers out and march forward. That’s an inspiring vision for the US taxpayer.

    Now, I don’t think Marburger was talking about the height of piles when he made that historic comment at his 2006 Goddard Symposium keynote address. As I interpreted his original words, our challenge was to incorporate the Solar System in our economic sphere in order to serve national interests. In fact, he specifically made that clarification about national interests at his Goddard Symposium address this year. It’s that latter phrase where strategic perspective comes in. A pile of platinum isn’t in and of itself a compelling argument for serving a national interest. The metric of interest isn’t the height of the pile, but how well it served a national interest in a cost-conscious way.

    Now, what else do I have to do to explain the interrelationships between ISRU and the strategy of the economic development of the solar system, beginning with Cislunar space?

    Nothing. There is no argument about whether lunar ISRU technology is essential to economic development of the solar system. That’s a “duh!” one. You’re changing the subject. The original argument was about claiming that ISRU spinoffs would be of value (as in, worth the expense) for terrestrial mining.

  • Al Fansome

    WINGO: Quit being so narrow minded. It should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual intelligent observer that if we are going to develop mining technologies for the economic development of the solar system, that we might actually be doing some mining and some processing out there.

    Mr. Wingo,

    Don’t be so sensitive! When somebody points out that your argument is flawed, is specific about the flaws, and urges you to pick a better/more-effective argument — they are helping you sharpen your arguments.

    I support ISRU.

    I 100% agree with Marburger’s policy goal of incorporating the Solar System into our economic sphere of influence.

    I agree with Marburger’s stated approach to grading the value of any proposed approach — that it be measured in terrms of benefits to economics, security and science. (My issue is that Griffin ignored Marburger when he conducted ESAS.)

    But your argument that we should go to the Moon because of the “technology spin-offs here on Earth” is an extremely poor justification for spending more than $100 Billion of taxpayers money. It will not work.

    You can call it “narrow minded” if you like, but it also happens to be political reality.

    FWIW,

    – Al

    “Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics.”

  • Dennis Wingo

    Al

    No flaw to point out a spin off of a larger effort. I have a friend in the ISRU community that has been offered funding already for a terrestrial spin off of the magma electrolysis process originally developed for ISRU. It is already viable here on the Earth.

    Anyone who understands mining on the Earth knows that we are going after more and more dilute resources. PGM mining on the Earth is already at concentrations at or below that of similar resources on the Moon.

    The Moon in general is in microcosim reflective of the problems that we have here on the Earth in macrocosim. Energy, resources, transportation, all have their analogs there and solutions, whether directly in the form of resources or indirectly in the form of technologies will have an impact on the way that we do things on the Earth.

    I don’t give a rats ass about political reality, I am ready to puke at what passes for reality in the political world today. We will do this one way or an other, in this civilization or the next one.

  • Dennis Wingo

    Ah, it’s a tactical implementation! It’s about mining stuff without a compelling plan for what to do with what you mine. It’s about measuring the height of piles and having “fun” with what you mine. Well, in that case, let’s all get our rulers out and march forward. That’s an inspiring vision for the US taxpayer.

    Now, I don’t think Marburger was talking about the height of piles when he made that historic comment at his 2006 Goddard Symposium keynote address. As I interpreted his original words, our challenge was to incorporate the Solar System in our economic sphere in order to serve national interests. In fact, he specifically made that clarification about national interests at his Goddard Symposium address this year. It’s that latter phrase where strategic perspective comes in. A pile of platinum isn’t in and of itself a compelling argument for serving a national interest. The metric of interest isn’t the height of the pile, but how well it served a national interest in a cost-conscious way.

    Well I think that if you read about what those resources (as well as many others) are used for then you might come to a different conclusion. For example, various estimates are coming out that we only have a few years worth of gallium and indium left on the planet at current consumption rates. I have a meteorite on my desk with 86 grams per ton of gallium. Subsitutes? Yes, if you but you cannot violate the laws of physics. Gallium/Arsenide chips and devices go out the door as well as advanced solar cells.

    No one technology, no one spin off makes the case. You are looking for a silver bullet when there isn’t one and if you don’t find it you love to sit back and throw rocks at everyone else.

    There is a compelling plan for what to do with these resources and it has been around for a while. As far back as the 1960’s and Neil Ruzic’s “The Case for Going to the Moon” the argument has been around. You expect this compelling argument to be laid out in a few sentence in the comments section of a blog?

    One way or another it will happen.

  • Mamasan

    I don’t give a rats ass about political reality

    Just as soon as you want back into the reality based world, let us know, ok?.

  • typo

    Dennis,

    I don’t think NASA should be in the prospecting business for resources for corporations and other manufacturers. If they want to build a spaceship on their own dime to look for piles of resources, I will not protest. If they want me and you to pay for the prospecting and they’ll keep the profits on the back side, I’ll pass.

    IMO.

  • typo

    P.S. The cell phone companies and semiconductor industry has much deeper pockets than NASA anyway. Let them find their gallium and petition for OST’67 changes if the market case exists for mining the moon for more.

  • Al Fansome

    WINGO: I don’t give a rats ass about political reality

    OK. Spoken like a true engineer. (My apologies to the many other engineers who care about political reality.)

    WINGO: Anyone who understands mining on the Earth knows that we are going after more and more dilute resources.

    Anyone who understands mining on Earth also knows that this problem is always being solved using Earth-based solutions.

    Everybody tends to underestimate the impacts of the rapid advance of Earth-based technology on mining, minerals, oil, etc. here on Earth. Every decade for as long as I have been alive somebody is proclaiming that we are about run out of “X”. But then new technology advances “magically” arrive (via the free market system) to radically increase the economic availability of those key resources, even though the raw materials are much more diluted.

    BTW, heard of something called “nanotechnology”?

    In this case, technology advancement works against the argument of the use of PGMs from space for economic utilization here on Earth. There are some interesting ideas on how to mine PGM asteroids for bringing back to Earth, which I still have hope for, but mining PGMs on the Moon to bring back to Earth will never — in my opinion — make economic sense. I believe the value of PGMs on the Moon will be useful for the settlements on the Moon, not for bringing back to Earth.

    I know this is like kicking sand in your face, as the author of a book on this subject, but there it goes.

    FWIW,

    – Al

  • Dennis Wingo

    I know this is like kicking sand in your face, as the author of a book on this subject, but there it goes.

    You at least need something to back it up rather than simple assertions of your point. Just this year at the LPSC there was a paper regarding low velocity impactors on the Moon. They specifically studied NiFe bodies and discovered through their simulations that at velocities up to 10 km/sec that up to 79% of the material remained in the vicinity of the crater. Go look up the paper.

    Also, there was a blurb on spaceref just yesterday that indicates that the PGM’s that we have here on the Earth are derived from post planetary solidification impactors, not from Earth native supplies.

    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=26516

    As for the asteroids, the entire premise in my books was a time cost of money argument related to NiFe impactors on the Moon versus the minimum two year turn around of mining these assets at an asteroid. It simply does not make sense in the near term to assert that it is more viable to do that rather than to go three days away. This is financial as well as business and technical reality.

    I don’t mind being challenged, it is good for the discussion, but at least bring something to the party rather than assertions.

  • Dennis Wingo

    I don’t think NASA should be in the prospecting business for resources for corporations and other manufacturers. If they want to build a spaceship on their own dime to look for piles of resources, I will not protest. If they want me and you to pay for the prospecting and they’ll keep the profits on the back side, I’ll pass.

    A reasonable libertarian position. Then you would have been against the Panama Canal and the continental railroad and interstates as well?

    It is reasonable for governments to do what private industry cannot, which is long term projects, building infrastructure, for the purpose of promoting the general welfare. Obtaining off planet resources does fit that bill and helping to create the infrastructure to do so, at least in the beginning is a proper role of government. You would not have space tourists today without the support of government infrastructure. Now one day that infrastructure will be superseeded by something better and then the government steps out of the way.

  • Dennis Wingo

    I don’t give a rats ass about political reality

    Just as soon as you want back into the reality based world, let us know, ok?.

    Political reality is a changing thing. Just a few weeks ago we did not have enough money to build Ares 1. Today several hundred times that is slated to be spent buying up junk debt. Lest you think the two are not related, it is all about money and creating wealth. The banking debacle was never about creating wealth, it was about a pyramid scheme. We will have to create wealth to get out of this and pay the debt off that we are putting ourselves into with this mess. The economic development of the solar system is a very good way to create trillions of dollars worth of wealth, better than anything else that I have seen out there.

  • Al Fansome

    WINGO: You at least need something to back it up rather than simple assertions of your point.

    Mr. Wingo,

    Let me get this straight. You want me to quote a source backing up my assertion about the huge economic advantage of EARTH-based PGM resources over LUNAR-based PGM mines?

    I guess I miss your point (or maybe you are intentionally ignoring my point).

    Technology continues to advance here on Earth (do I need to source this?) such that Earth-based PGM mining technology continues to advance (do I need to source this?), thus making it economical to utilize ever more diluted sources of PGM raw material (do I need to source this?)

    I am asserting that lunar-based PGM sources will not become economically useful, on the Earth, in the next 100 years.

    The core reason I believe this is because mineral-mining technology will keep advancing (as it always has) — to eventually using nano-technology — such that it makes access to PGM resources already here on Earth quite inexpensive. If it is really necessary, somebody here can quote you some nanotechnology sources.

    You are focused on just one subsystem cost (the cost of distilling raw materials to pure materials). A real business needs to think about total systems costs.

    The overhead cost of a developing and sustaining a mining operation on the Moon, plus cost of “transportation” out of the lunar gravity well will overwhelm any notional advantages you suggest for just one cost area.

    WINGO: Just this year at the LPSC there was a paper regarding low velocity impactors on the Moon.They specifically studied NiFe bodies and discovered through their simulations that at velocities up to 10 km/sec that up to 79% of the material remained in the vicinity of the crater.

    I don’t care if the PGMs are sitting on the Moon, in 100% pure form. The total system economics (cost and risk) of remote mining operations in an extremely harsh environment, plus transportation, still kills the business case.

    Now, if you believe that I am wrong (which you clearly do) you just need to persuade some investors to finance your business plan.

    But one of the first things that the investors will ask you is “Tell me about all the competition, why you can beat them on both price, and why it is low risk to invest in your business.”

    FWIW,

    – Al

    “Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics.”

  • Dennis Wingo

    Let me get this straight. You want me to quote a source backing up my assertion about the huge economic advantage of EARTH-based PGM resources over LUNAR-based PGM mines?

    The contention that I was answering was this one:

    There are some interesting ideas on how to mine PGM asteroids for bringing back to Earth, which I still have hope for, but mining PGMs on the Moon to bring back to Earth will never — in my opinion — make economic sense.

    Which was the context of the reply. It is clear, not only from my research but others as well, that the PGM resources are there (moon), just not identified en mass at this time. As I have pointed out to others, there is 10,000 times more PGM’s in the lunar regolith than there is He-3 but that is another argument. If you have a hope for asteroid mining of PGM’s then my contention is that simple time cost of money and the ability to use telepresence will make the acquistion and processing of lunar PGM’s more cost effective.

    As for the Earth, talk to the South Africans, they are the ones saying that their resources are playing out down there. I have no doubt that it is technically possible to use more and more dilute resources of PGM’s but the question again is, what is the financial viability. The acquisition cost for PGM’s today is getting near the $400-500 dollars per oz level. At some point there will be a cross over to where the far more plentiful resources of these metals on the Moon will be more cost effective.

    If you read the green blogs one of the arguments today against the hydrogen economy is the limited supply of PGM’s and there is a lot of research going on for alternatives. However, the laws of physics still apply and so far none of those alternatives are anywhere near efficient enough to be cost effective in terms of energy produced. For example a PGM catalyst that splits water into H2 and O2 uses about 3.3 kw/hr of energy. A nickel catalyst made by GE is just about at 4.3 kw/hr. Run the numbers and at today’s prices PGM’s still make sense in that application as they do in fuel cells.

    A lot of research today in nanomaterials is to find those that can increase the surface area of PGM’s while reducing the amount of material needed. However, the research that I have seen indicates that while there is an improvement, it is no where near the 10x improvement cited as the required level for mass adoption. The 10x improvement is cited because there is a limited supply of PGM’s

    As I have said many times before, I do not consider PGM’s alone as the silver bullet that enables lunar industrialization. It is one of many bronze bullets, that when taken together, will lead to that tipping point.

    I don’t care if the PGMs are sitting on the Moon, in 100% pure form. The total system economics (cost and risk) of remote mining operations in an extremely harsh environment, plus transportation, still kills the business case.

    Cost and risks are relative. Again the beginning context here is to discuss why and how of the government return to the Moon and its value. Its value is in creating infrastructure and helping to lower the cost and the risk of such ventures. This is what made settling the western USA much easier when we built the transcontinental railroad. Now I will certainly agree that the current architecture that NASA has pursued has been the opposite of that architecture. This is why Marburger was uninterested in helping NASA with their budget after Griffin came up with his one true way of getting to the Moon.

    Mineral mining technology, just as oil technology, has limits in terms of the cost/benefit ratio for the acquistion of whatever that resource is. Today many mines are only viable due to the historically high prices of materials that feed into the maw of Chinese development. With PGM prices well into the thousands of dollars per ounce, the economics start to look interesting.

    And don’t end, as so many always do, with why don’t you go find investors. Something like this is a direction for the nation as a whole. We have to find some way to pay back that trillion dollars that we are borrowing from our grandchildren right now for the banking debacle. With the demand for resources like it is, space is looking better every day.

    And yes I am working the issue. What are you doing besides throwing stones?

  • Al Fansome

    WINGO: As for the Earth, talk to the South Africans, they are the ones saying that their resources are playing out down there. I have no doubt that it is technically possible to use more and more dilute resources of PGM’s but the question again is, what is the financial viability.

    This is the core of the issue.

    You appear to believe that our PGM resources will play out, and that our ability to economically access PGM resources from ever more dilute raw materials will NOT keep advancing — based on advances in technology.

    I believe the opposite — a belief that is not based on faith — but based on the last couple hundred years of empirical evidence of technology advancement. In fact, the evidence only suggests that the technology advancement rate is increasing (not decreasing), and that technology is being applied to make resources more economically accessible.

    FWIW,

    – Al

  • Dennis Wingo

    I believe the opposite — a belief that is not based on faith — but based on the last couple hundred years of empirical evidence of technology advancement. In fact, the evidence only suggests that the technology advancement rate is increasing (not decreasing), and that technology is being applied to make resources more economically accessible.

    For that you do need to provide references. Then I will provide my references to articles and declarations by the mining industry and South African government to the contrary. I have actually been working with a gold and Platinum mine in SA to provide them with power so have a bit of knowledge in this area right now.

    The problem is that as energy cost grow, the viability of going after these more dilute resources grows faster as the per unit cost rises in inverse proportion to the dilution.

  • Al Fansome

    Actually, I am not trying to convince anyone Mr. Wingo. I am just a resident empirical skeptic.

    You are the one who needs to make the case for “action” in the form of more than $100 Billion in taxpayer funding.

    Your argument, so far, is very weak.

    – Al

  • Dennis Wingo

    Actually, I am not trying to convince anyone Mr. Wingo. I am just a resident empirical skeptic.

    Yes that is quite evident.

    You are the one who needs to make the case for “action” in the form of more than $100 Billion in taxpayer funding.

    I don’t need to make the case for you here on this forum. All I have to do here is to either force you to back up your own skeptical empircism with a fact or two or have you post the above, which is what people who don’t want to do the heavy lifting of research usually do.

    Your argument, so far, is very weak.

    You have not done 10 minutes of research on my argument. Did you go to the LPSC and find the paper from 2008 about the survival of low velocity impactors? You probably did not even do that. If you had, you would have seen the numbers, which are more impressive than what I originally thought that they would be. At a minimum there is billions of tons of Ni-Fe (considering the statistical distribution of the size and frequency of NEO impactors vs the number of craters on the Moon). This alone makes an incredible resource for possible lunar industrialization.

    That alone moves what was, which I wrote the book, a hypotheis, to a very strong working theory. In my book as well as in later papers, I have outlined concrete experiments, in the form of remote sensing sensors and missions, along with follow up ground truth, to either prove or disprove the existence of these resources. Then the issue, should they be confirmed in the quantities that the 2008 LPSC paper indicate, this provides a solid basis for calculations of the Net Present Value of obtaining these resources.

    This is what the scientific method does, a hypothesis, with a clear experimental path to confirmation, backed by solid theory based upon already established knowledge.

    There is a weak argument here, but it is not mine.

  • Al Fansome

    You obviously don’t listen. It doesn’t matter how much Ni-Fe is laying around the Moon, ready to pick up … or how pure it is.

    You keep on making technical arguments, but the issue is not technical. It will not be economical to bring these materials back to Earth.

    You can repeatedly ignore the economic reality of this issue, but it does not make it go away.

    “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.” – Richard Feynman

    – Al

  • Vladislaw

    “It doesn’t matter how much Ni-Fe is laying around the Moon, ready to pick up or how pure it is. You keep on making technical arguments, but the issue is not technical. It will not be economical to bring these materials back to Earth.”

    Why do you continue with the FALSE arguement that material HAS to come back to earth to be economical?

    You say it DOESN’T matter how HIGH you stack it up OR how pure it is, as long as you CAN NOT bring it back to earth it is not economical.

    I tell you what, tell me where there is a pure mountain of gold is on the moon and give me OWNERSHIP to that gold, I will stick a sign on it with the word BANK written on it and will conduct business electronically. You do not have to move it at all.

    When transportation to california was expensive it was the same thing, rather then risk shipping the gold by ocean transports, they just put it in a box and opened a bank. It was the value of ownership that allowed them to borrow money. If companies were given 50000 acres of regolith it would AUTOMATICALLY become an asset on the books to borrow against to finance operations.

  • Dennis Wingo

    You keep on making technical arguments, but the issue is not technical. It will not be economical to bring these materials back to Earth.

    This is an assertion, not an argument.

    Why do you continue with the FALSE arguement that material HAS to come back to earth to be economical?

    I don’t and I have never. I do think that some of it will come back to the Earth as a trade good. You seem to have a one track mind that this is the entire reason for doing this. It is part of a larger plan to actually develop cislunar space. Transportation costs come down as a function of the development of a general ISRU architecture that includes fuels as well as trade metals and even fully assembled systems. As I stated before, there is no silver bullet, but there are a lot of bronze ones.

    Now you can either continue the discussion or continue with all caps.

    Your choice.

  • Vladislaw

    Dennis, that comment about the false arguement was not directed to you but to al.

  • Dennis Wingo

    V

    Sorry, was in a hurry. I do like the idea of the localized bank, it has interesting ramifications.

    There are several problems with the high cost of transportation argument. All of them are predicated on a lean model of space activities. If we go to a fat model, which means that we are at least developing the ability to at will travel within the gravitational confines of the Earth (to the Earth/Sun libration points), then we can start to acquire and use the resources of the Moon in various ways. Al is right, if the context is ESAS, but fortunately we do expect to see the ESAS architecture die soon.

    I go back now to a familiar soapbox and say that launch from the earth is but a single aspect to the issue of the ubiquitous use of space. We have beat our heads against the wall for several decades not and it is my position that we can make a lot more progress, a lot sooner by developing reusable in-space transportation systems. This leverages the high cost of launch in a positive direction and sets the stage for the ability to move around (humans and robots) in cislunar space in a more affordable manner. We are taking the first step in this with Orbital Recovery with more to come.

  • Vladislaw

    Dennis,
    Here is where I disagree, the cost driver for a change in a transportation system is PRE EXISTING economic activity. We didnt discover california and then say “gosh let’s build a railroad out there”. Same with the discovery of the new world. Transportation ALREADY existed that would take you to those places, it was only AFTER economic activity begins AND increases that new ways to transport goods, services and people take place and generally PAID FOR by THAT economic activity.

    Think about it, MOST businesses and people new exactly where they were going, they had a LAND DEED in their hand OR a government giveaway of the land. It was OWNING the timber rights, it was OWNING the mineral rights, water rights, etc that drove the exploration and settling of those lands.

    Our current policy is “build a spaceship travel to the moon and when you get there, NOTHING is yours.”

    How much is a 1 pound hammer worth on the moon? 10 bucks PLUS the $20,000 a pound NASA says it cost to put it there.

    If NASA builds a station there and says they will buy lunar oxygen from domestic lunar sources and suppliers how much would you charge NASA for a ton of oxy? You would charge them the same as it cost on earth PLUS the 43 million dollars it would cost to ship there.

    If I am a supplier to NASA and I am selling them lunar oxygen at 40 million ton priced just below what they can get it for themselves AND I OWN 50000 acres of regolith with another 10,000 tons of unprossed oxy how much on my BOOKS do I get to claim for the value of that oxy?

    YOu would get to claim the earth based market costs PLUS the 20,000 a pound transportation costs. That is why in california during the gold rush an egg was LITERALLY worth its weight in gold because you had to INCLUDE the transportation costs until domestic production and transportation changed.

    That is why it does not matter if a SINGLE OUNCE of ANYTHING is EVER brought back at first. Alcoa keeps on it’s books as assets ALL metal it has laying around AND in the ground AND get to claim those minerals rights they have as ASSETS. They use those asset values to borrow money.

    It will be the same for the moon, how much is an ounce of moon gold worth? 1000 bucks PLUS transportation costs, if anyone ON the moon wants to buy that gold for ANY reason, that is what they will have to pay.

    It goes for EVERY metal, gemstone, silca, etc. So it is just the fact that OWNSHIP is recognized of THOSE assests, and companies get to list them as an ASSET in the accounting books that will make development possible AND THEN that will lead to a NEW transportation system. Economic activity HAS to be in front of transportation, it is the instant asset wealth that will provide the funding bridge to create it.

    I am from the state of north dakota, we have about 800 years of coal here. Coal mineral rights have been bought and sold here for ALMOST A CENTURY! And in the VAST BULK of those mineral rights not one single ton of coal has EVER been mined in almost 100 years. They just keep being bought and sold, carried as an asset on the books for whatever current market is paying. That will be the same on the moon claims will be bought and sold and THEN industry will go after them, the cheaper they get them the more likely to act on them as the economics will be better.

  • Dennis Wingo

    Here is where I disagree, the cost driver for a change in a transportation system is PRE EXISTING economic activity. We didnt discover california and then say “gosh let’s build a railroad out there”. Same with the discovery of the new world. Transportation ALREADY existed that would take you to those places, it was only AFTER economic activity begins AND increases that new ways to transport goods, services and people take place and generally PAID FOR by THAT economic activity.

    We are not in disagreement here. The pre existing economic activity is the comsat business as well as the increasingly important alternative energy market. The pre existing transportation exists as well in the form of the existing fleet of vehicles but as Al has accurately observed, that form of transportation is too expensive.

    You make a good argument but I just wonder how it would carry over to a lunar asset. Today those mineral rights, even though not exercised, has an implicit understanding that there are no real barriers to access them, transport them, and sell them. There is also the doubtful nature of the legal validity of a claim due to the various U.N. conventions. These are obstacles to overcome, not barriers.

    I don’t think that the ownership issue will be settled until a concentrated resource like an asteroid impact with a few million tons of metal is actually discovered and even then I think that it will go down the route that Berin Szoka has talked about with ownership established when someone lands on it and starts using it, even in-situ.

    I do think that the vast majority of the metals will be much better used in-situ. I would not advocate bringing back iron for example, probably not nickel, but cobalt, germanium, gallium, and the PGM’s are distinct possibilities. Not on day one or even day ten but I can see how it can work without a lot of miracles.

    Some of this will start sorting itself out next year after the election in regards to getting a transportation network to and from the Moon. Remember that even though transportation systems existed from the east to California it took federal government incentives to get that railroad built.

  • Vladislaw

    .D,

    “The pre existing economic activity is the comsat business as well as the increasingly important alternative energy market.”

    That economic activity is relegated to LEO/GEO of earth, We are not in disagreement there but there is a difference. Geo has already been settled.If you read satellite magazines and journals they refer to satellite slots as “real estate” and there has been many recent articles about how the best real estate is gone. You can now OWN a satellite slot. The OWNSHIP of that slot has value and satellite businesses routinely talk about owning these slots and how it is an asset. So EARTH satellite slots have been allocated and the market determines their relative value.
    But has this taken place for the moon yet? No, as far as I know, private industry can not own lunar satellite “real estate” slots for LLO/GLO.

    GPS provides package tracking for industry and if we are going to be dropping packages on the moon and exploring we will need lunar GPS. As we wont need military GPS on the moon ( I hope) and it will more market driven why not put lunar slots up for industry to bid on? If you put up GPS and com satelites in lunar orbit you get to OWN that slot for 50-100 years from today? Satelites around earth does NOT bring LUNAR satelites slots into earth’s economic sphere of activity.

    “no barriers to access” There are always barriers of one kind or another, it is just a matter of first determining what the barriers are and what piece of legislation will be needed to lower that barrier. For coal the barriers are pollution, environmental degredation, cost of mining equipment etc. If a country wants coal you loosen regs, if you want less more regulations.

    For the moon, I believe there ARE barriers to access and one of the BIGGEST ( in my opinion) are the “sunk costs”. The higher the sunk costs the risker the investment.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry
    “Sunk costs – Sunk costs cannot be recovered if a firm decides to leave a market. Sunk costs therefore increase the risk and deter entry.”

    Right now, if a company wants to land on the moon, the sunk costs are HUGE. You have to build the transportation system and go there, you can keep whatever you can wrap your arms around AND bring back to earth and bring to market. So you goto the moon, find gold, and bring back 200 pounds of it. At today’s prices 200 pounds of gold is worth around 30 million dollars, not only would it not even pay for the gas it doesnt do anything towards the cost of construction of transportation. Remember, economic activity HAS to be taking place with CURRENT transportation FIRST.
    This is the current “freedom of the seas” mentality for the current moon treaty seems to be worded.

    The value of a gold mine is never and has never been determined by how much gold you pull out, actually it is closer to the opposite, the more you pull out of a mine the more it DECREASES in value over the long term. The value of a mine is determined by it’s FUTURE VALUE to produce. That is how the market does it, it automatically adjusts and includes that future potential into TODAY’S market price. So in mining you are not buying a mineral claim for what it has produced in the past but what it can produce in the future.

    Now let’s take that same example, a company builds a ship, brings back the 200 pound lump of gold and then files a LAND CLAIM for that area. Not only are they bringing back CURRENT value, but they also are bringing back FUTURE POTENTIAL. So the real value is in the UNMINED gold, not the current chunk they bring back. This is the only way to lower sunk costs unless the government assumes ALL sunk costs AND provides the ONLY market.
    This also brings the moon into earth’s economic sphere of activity. Because that land claim will have an asset value and can now be broken up and bought and sold. Like north dakota coal mineral rights claims that never actually get exercised there will also be lunar claims that actually never get worked, but at least the claims will be traded for their asset value and moon gets brought into our economic sphere of activity.

  • Dennis Wingo

    GPS provides package tracking for industry and if we are going to be dropping packages on the moon and exploring we will need lunar GPS.

    Not necessarily. I am spending a LOT of time right now examining lunar photographs and at least initially I see no need for the expense of a lunar GPS.

    “Sunk costs – Sunk costs cannot be recovered if a firm decides to leave a market. Sunk costs therefore increase the risk and deter entry.”

    I understand this but right now we are confusing two things. If this is a private only enterprise it will evolve much differently than if the government operates to provide the initial infrastructure and revenue to a private company through support contracts. If it is a private only system, it will begin in GEO, which is where the money is being made today and then grow from there.

    If there is a government based initial system, most of your sunk costs are absorbed by the government. Without the government Space Adventures would not exist, no matter the interest in space tourism as the sunk cost risk issue would preclude the investment ever being made. One day a Bigelow station serviced by a Musk Vehicle may take over that role, but that would not happen without the proof principle of an overly expensive government owned asset that provided the initial market for orbital tourism.

    If there is a private only system, it will take far longer and will be based upon the GEO comsat model to provide the revenue for growth beyond GEO. Even with that, it will be by a privately held company that is not beholden to public stockholders.

    Since we are in a thread that is about presidential contenders and what they want to do, what I am talking about is the former model.

    Right now your mining model seems to be at least somewhat orthogonal to the discussion.

    Maybe to lay out the initial implementation model would make sense.

    Check out this contractor report of how an initial commerce model would start and then grow outward from there.

    http://www.lib.uah.edu/researchassistance/files/NNL06AE27P.pdf

  • Vladislaw

    Dennis,

    Just finished reading that pdf file. Great read, a good summation of the history of lunar outpost planning. I had read most of the reports you mentioned on and off over the years and agree with most summations.

    That said ( smiles) BUT it does not, in my mind, bring in commericial aspects as fast and furious as my thinking. This is NOT to be critical and spinning off into negativity, just trying to create talking points.

    As I understand it, you are saying something to the affect that NASA built a space station for 100 billion and tooks years to complete to the point someone in private enterprise steps up and says “100 billion for a space station, that is crazy I can do it cheaper”

    Here is where I differ, the space station in no way, shape, or form was ever mean’t by NASA to provide tourism, demonstrate tourism, or provide a road map to tourism. Nasa actually was against it. Mir was rather seen better off sent to burn up then have tourism go on by the russians.

    The tourism that did take place was to save the russian space program not actually to provide tourism as an end game.

    As far as political candidates, I believe they both view the NASA budget as an asterick on the pie graph of government spending, it is so small it does not even warrant a slice or even a line, just an asterick.

    Obama and McCain both have stated the HUGE importance of energy independance. I mean they are talking energy is at the absolute forefront of problems we face. Both McCain and Obama says energy is one of THEE most pressing issues. So McCain is going to spend something like 7-8 billion and obama 15 billion a year. Energy is so important that they are both going to move it to the forfront to the point of ALMOST reaching the 18 billion dollar EARMARK level.

    If energy is so dire that both campaigns are STRESSING it so much that the federal government has to step in and spend ALMOST as much as the 18 billion in earmark spending WOW energy MUST be REALLY important. For me that means BOTH campaigns have pushed the importance of space spending also less then 18 billion a year in earmarks to the nonexistence of it’s importance at all other then to briefly mention it as nothing more then a tiny regional issue and not important at the national level at all.

    Maybe that is why I push for more private enterpise, no faith in either of them. Obama uses NASA as a: look at we have done in the past in space, lets use that knowledge here and not in space. McCain used Nasa as a quip to say “I know what astronauts have to have in mortal fortitude and I have it too”

    Neither have used space as a forward looking mission for the nation, lacking that, I do not see Nasa on the moon with a base, or having ANY true lunar economic activity for 30 years.

    To say that NASA will order a terrestrial company to build something here and then NASA takes it to the moon does not, for me, bring the moon in to our DAILY terrestrial economic activity. Land claims AUTOMATICALLY bring it into our spere of economic activity INSTANTLY.

    For example, I bid on a 50000 acre parcel at a discount and the government recgonizes my ownship rights, I can immediatly use it as an asset. Building a wrench for nasa might make me a few bucks profit but does not create a lunar asset base or the buying and selling of anything lunar.

    Also, If I sell any parcels for a profit, I am under a capital gains tax that brings revenue into the government that was not given to me by the government in the first place. I sell nasa a wrench for a profit and the irs takes a bit of the government check back in taxes. There is no speculation phase that is the keystone of capital formation and input to the activity.

    Let me hear your thoughts and I will try and stay on topic.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>