szabo@sequent.com (06/19/91)
In article <31516@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >Communications satellites are a pretty loose defintion of 'industry'; I >am not terribly impressed by an example that uses passive objects in high >orbit that do little more than bounce and amplify signals sent from the >ground. Interesting. This ("loosely" defined :-) self-sustaining industry is $6 billion per year. The proposed El Dorado platinum mining would be $3 billion per year. CNN, MTV, News Corp., TV network communications, direct broadcast TV and radio, Ted Turner, Rupert Murdoch, international telephone calls, data communications, wire services, the international legs of USENET, etc. Not terribly impressive. Now that's special. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter... These views are my own, and do not represent any organization.
aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.172719.26033@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >>Communications satellites are a pretty loose defintion of 'industry'... >Interesting. This ("loosely" defined :-) self-sustaining industry is $6 >billion per year. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It is a big industry but it is by no means self-sustaining. Buyers of launch services only pay the incrimental cost of their launches. They use huge amounts of infrastructure provided by nasty central planners (some of it constructed to support evil manned space). This is true for every launch proveder in the world today. If we did it your way there wouldn't be any launchers at all. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten. | | aws@iti.org | | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.172719.26033@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >In article <31516@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >>Communications satellites are a pretty loose defintion of 'industry'[...] >Interesting. This ("loosely" defined :-) self-sustaining industry is $6 >billion per year. The proposed El Dorado platinum mining would be $3 >billion per year. CNN, MTV, News Corp., TV network communications, direct >broadcast TV and radio, Ted Turner, Rupert Murdoch, international telephone >calls, data communications, wire services, the international legs of >USENET, etc. Not terribly impressive. Communications satellites are a service. The service sector of the economy does not create signifigant real wealth, so I don't consider it a very impressive industry. The only real industry involved is planted solidly on the ground, in building the rockets, satellites, and transmission and receiving stations. Granted, that is good; it is a net benefit to the national economy. But to call it a 'self-sustaining industry' is akin to your last abuse of the English language, calling a rockhunt in Antarctica a 'manned asteroid sample-return mission'. Subtle abuse of the language is rapidly placing your name alongside that of my two favorite sci.space demagogues, William Baxter and Jim Bowery. Entertainment value, nothing more. -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their Office of Information Technology P.O. box." - Zebadiah Carter, Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu _The Number of the Beast_
szabo@sequent.com (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.182934.17996@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >[Satellite communications] is a big industry but it is by no means >self-sustaining. Buyers of launch services only pay the incrimental cost >of their launches. They use huge amounts of infrastructure provided by >nasty central planners (some of it constructed to support evil manned >space). Oh boy, now we're down to "good vs. evil". So who is Darth Vader here? The TV networks and telephone companies using those evil robotic communications satellites? Or perhaps the people watching the TV or making the phone calls? May the Force be with you. :-) Seriously, my goal is and always has been to create an economical, self- sustaining manned infrastructure in space. I am afraid that the solution is a bit more subtle and long-term than launching tin cans into LEO that cost 2,000,000 times what it costs to build a house on Earth, without producing any significant revenues. That is not economical. That is not self-sustaining. It is not even close. The U.S. commercial launch vehicles use USAF launch pads developed for the DoD automated infrastructure (which is also, sadly, self-sustaining, insofar as there are still Saddam Husseins and Soviets with thousands of nuclear tipped ICBMs and other assorted hazards on our planet). The automated launchers were themselves developed from automated ICBMs (Thor, Atlas, Titan). For the European launch service, both the launch pad and the automated Ariane rocket were built from scratch to launch automated commercial payloads. The amount of Apollo and Shuttle infrastructure used by the satcom industry is practically nil, despite the $100's of billions NASA has spent on it. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter... These views are my own, and do not represent any organization.
aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.195748.27968@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >Oh boy, now we're down to "good vs. evil". I'm just using your own words Nick. If you don't like them then don't use them. As to the rest of it, I am just pointing out that if the standards you apply to projects you don't like where applied to projects you do like, then they wouldn't have them either. Communication satellites are NOT self sustaining because they only pay incrimental launch costs. This is true for both the US and all world providers. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten. | | aws@iti.org | | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
szabo@sequent.com (06/19/91)
In article <31548@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >Communications satellites are a service. The service sector of the >economy does not create signifigant real wealth, If the ability to communicate instantly across the planet does not constitute "wealth", what does? My particular business, Sequent, would lose over half of its revenues if we couldn't talk and send faxes to our European offices via satellite. Perhaps we could also say that steel mills and airplanes don't create real wealth, because that's merely manufacturing and transportation. Only farms that make food are real wealth. Ad absurdum. I find your arguments quite astounding. Perhaps what you are really trying to say is that, because the industry does not employ astronauts, you don't care about it? -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter... These views are my own, and do not represent any organization.
ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun18.215511.29612@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >In article <31548@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >>Communications satellites are a service. The service sector of the >>economy does not create signifigant real wealth, >If the ability to communicate instantly across the planet does not >constitute "wealth", what does? My particular business, Sequent, >would lose over half of its revenues if we couldn't talk and send >faxes to our European offices via satellite. If you couldn't talk to Europe instantaneously, would the demand for computers in Europe be less? No, there would just be two companies instead of one, or several companies. All advanced communications allows Sequent to do is expand the scope of its operations. It does not actually create wealth. (Considering our experiences with the Sequent I am on now, cutting your satellite links might be a good idea...but that's another article. :-) >Perhaps we could also say that steel mills and airplanes don't >create real wealth, because that's merely manufacturing and >transportation. Only farms that make food are real wealth. >Ad absurdum. Manufacturing indeed creates wealth, as it adds value to something. What does a comsat add value to? Airplanes don't create wealth, either, they just provide a service. >I find your arguments quite astounding. Perhaps what you are really >trying to say is that, because the industry does not employ astronauts, >you don't care about it? Perhaps you have a hole in your head, too. Where did I say I do not care about the communications satellites? I think they're a great idea. I am taking issue with your statement that comsats are a self-sustaining industry, because they're only industry in the loosest sense of the word. Asteroid mining (manned or unmanned) would create wealth. Space-based materials processing would create wealth. Solar power satellites would create wealth. Communications satellites don't create wealth. Do you see what I am getting at? You've gotten into a rut on your anti-astronaut crusade...it's starting to color your perceptions of other people's articles. -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their Office of Information Technology P.O. box." - Zebadiah Carter, Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu _The Number of the Beast_