steve@groucho.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson) (12/18/89)
The few discussions on this topic have been interesting, but haven't addressed the original question, viz. a description (preferably financial) of those currently existing demands for `space-mail' services which are analogous to the early-aviation demand for more rapid mail delivery. Anyone? [Respond via e-mail, if you wish. I'll summarize if asked.] --Steve Emmerson steve@unidata.ucar.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (12/19/89)
In article <5711@ncar.ucar.edu> steve@groucho.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson) writes: >... the original question, viz. a description (preferably financial) >of those currently existing demands for `space-mail' services which are >analogous to the early-aviation demand for more rapid mail delivery. Uh, Steve, I hate repeating myself, but: *what* early-aviation demand for more rapid mail delivery? There wasn't any, not that you could point to and measure in dollars and cents. Why are you asking for analogies to something that didn't exist? (Indeed, the analogy is very close, since cheap launch services have the same problem: there's little demand that can be quantified and sold to venture capitalists.) If there had been solid, quantifiable demand, the Post Office wouldn't have had to subsidize it. -- 1755 EST, Dec 14, 1972: human | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology exploration of space terminates| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery) (12/20/89)
Steve Emmerson writes: >The few discussions on this topic have been interesting, but haven't >addressed the original question, viz. a description (preferably financial) >of those currently existing demands for `space-mail' services which are >analogous to the early-aviation demand for more rapid mail delivery. Save your breath, Steve. Henry and Kieran are just making noises. HR2674 is the correct solution. By the way, I've noticed a marked decline in Henry's critical thinking skills since Kieran showed up on the net with his nauseating sophistry. Too bad for Henry. --- Typical RESEARCH grant: $ Typical DEVELOPMENT contract: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
jay@hermix.UUCP (Jay Skeer) (12/21/89)
Some "space mail" proposals: A) one way 1) Burial. As a currently offered service Burial, or ash disposal is lucrative. What about Burial in space? At $2000/lb (Current rates?) disposal of ash (I guess about 2.5 lbs worth) is rather expensive ($5000) but I bet there would be buyers. At $200/lb disposal of ash is more reasonable ($500), of a body it is still extravagant ($40000). At $20/lb disposal of ash is probably competitive with current dumping at sea or in the air ($50); and disposal of a body at $20/lb ($4000) would be more competitive with other funeral services. 2) Hazardous waist disposal There might be a possibility here. Anyone know how much waist disposal costs? But what about launch risks? Cristics complain about carefully build low mass radioactive substances. Who would complain about tons of stuff, all of it really nasty? 3) Satellite delivery Already a very busy field. 4) Satellite or ICBM destruction A field that may be operating, and may have some room for expansion. Probably is or will be tied up by the military. And I wouldn't want to support it. 5) Fantastic arial fireworks People will pay for fire work displays. What advantage could a show gain from extreme height (and thus a very hard access control problem)? 6) Art There have been a couple of proposals for orbiting artworks. 7+) Your suggestion here B) Two way, hard landing 1) Bombs This is a (the) major field of space/nearly space rocket construction. 2) Transportation of goods = "Space Mail" How could it possibly compete with electronic (fax) and air mail? Not much else could withstand the hard landing. 3+) Your suggestion here C) Two way, soft landing 1) Transportation of people Already the hour of time spent in airport terminals is a significant part of travel time, a rocket would make a trip half way around the world 1.5 -- 2 hours instead of 12-13. At the above 2000-200-20 $/lb a ticket would be about $50000, $5000, $500. For $500 you might get some traffic. For $5000 you would have to offer many more conveniences to compete with charter and private planes. I can't imagine $50000, but you might see how. 2) Transportation of goods Boxes usually don't complain about 13 hour plane rides. And what needs delivery halfway across the planet with a tighter time frame? 3+) Your suggestion here j' --
mark@watsnew.waterloo.edu (Mark Earnshaw) (12/22/89)
In article <330@hermix.UUCP> jay@hermix.UUCP (Jay Skeer) writes: >Some "space mail" proposals: > >A) one way > 1) Burial. >As a currently offered service Burial, or ash disposal is lucrative. What >about Burial in space? At $2000/lb (Current rates?) disposal of ash (I guess >about 2.5 lbs worth) is rather expensive ($5000) but I bet there would be >buyers. At $200/lb disposal of ash is more reasonable ($500), of a body it is >still extravagant ($40000). At $20/lb disposal of ash is probably >competitive with current dumping at sea or in the air ($50); and disposal of a >body at $20/lb ($4000) would be more competitive with other funeral services. Where exactly would this ash end up? We already have lots of junk in earth orbit without putting more up there. I suppose you could either dump it in the upper atmosphere where it would disperse fairly quickly (of course, it might destroy the ozone layer :-) ) or fire it out of orbit. In the latter case, you still have to make sure that it's going to land somewhere so that we don't have all these commemorative urns flying around the solar system with unknown trajectories. -- Mark Earnshaw, Systems Design Engineering {uunet,utai}!watmath!watsnew!mark University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada mark@watsnew.waterloo.{edu,cdn}
kcarroll@utzoo.uucp (Kieran A. Carroll) (12/22/89)
jim@pnet01.cts.COM (Jim Bowery) writes: > Steve Emmerson writes: > >The few discussions on this topic have been interesting, but haven't > >addressed the original question, viz. a description (preferably financial) > >of those currently existing demands for `space-mail' services which are > >analogous to the early-aviation demand for more rapid mail delivery. > > Save your breath, Steve. Henry and Kieran are just making noises. > HR2674 is the correct solution. > Gosh. How can any of us disagree with such a well-supported argument as this one? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ New product Announcement: Be the first (but probably not the last) on your block to get a "I've Been Personally Insulted By Jim Bowery" button. Something that you can wear with pride, as his coveted insults are only dealt out to those whose reasoning he can't shake :-) -- Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu
dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) (12/23/89)
In article <330@hermix.UUCP>, jay@hermix.UUCP (Jay Skeer) writes: > 2) Hazardous waist disposal >There might be a possibility here. Anyone know how much waist disposal costs? >But what about launch risks? Cristics complain about carefully build low mass > radioactive substances. Who would complain about tons of stuff, all of it > really nasty? Hazardous waste treatment is a complex field. Since almost any compound or element in pure form has some sort of commercial value, most waste streams contain otherwise valuable (but dangerous) compounds or elements in dilute form. The stream is "waste" because the cost of separating the stream into its constituents is higher than the market value of those components. In other words, a "waste" is a raw material you aren't smart enough to use yet. The cost of launching a unit mass into space is (and will remain) much higher than the cost of running that mass through almost any commercial process. Therefore, to conserve launch costs, we would want to process waste streams to extract only the least valuable and most dangerous components for space disposal. But since this is not economical to do already, what's the point? The best way to reduce process waste is to (1) run your plants tighter (remember, industry has to pay for every pound of waste, even if disposal is free, because it has to make the waste out of something), and/or (2) design new processes with higher yields. Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu
games@maven.u.washington.edu (Games Wizard) (12/23/89)
In article <330@hermix.UUCP>, jay@hermix.UUCP (Jay Skeer) writes: > .. > 2) Transportation of goods > Boxes usually don't complain about 13 hour plane rides. And what needs > delivery halfway across the planet with a tighter time frame? > I for one can think of a lot of things that would benefit from much faster transit times. One example : I used to work for a company called Showlites. They do most of the VERY LARGE rock-n-roll tours in the world. Based out of L.A. They use a lot of custom electronics in their moving lights, dimming systems, chain hoist control systems, etc... Some systems are very good, and require few spares on the road, others require a good set of spares. We were doing the Billy Joel tour in Russia, when a motor control system case got dropped and run over with a fork-lift. In this case, ( digital contol lines to the chain hoists that lift the equipment ) ( many scenic moves during the show ) it was possible to get the stuff into the air with a small jury rigged unit, but not to run the show. Luckily in russia, all load-ins are done the day before the show. (In the rest of the country the same day is the rule. ) We had less than 20 hours to get them a replacement unit. And if you think that this is trivial, FED-EX does NOT go to moscow overnight, let alone some city in russia that I cant even remember the name of. Turns out that we bought the controller a seat on an airplane to london, then paid somebody there to carry it through customs to a seat on a plane to moscow, then paid somebody there to carry it through customs to a seat on the plane for the final destination. They got the thing about 20 minutes before showtime. 2-3 hour travel time would have helped a lot. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trendy footer by: John Stevens-Schlick Internet?: JOHN@tranya.cpac.washington.edu 7720 35'th Ave S.W. Seattle, Wa. 98126 (206) 935 - 4384 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My boss dosn't know what I do.