So Crazy They Just Might Work

From the Washington Post (via no-reg Houston Chronicle) comes a quick report on some things cooking with NASA's Institute for Advanced Concepts, a program to provide some financial support to experimental space-based ideas from outside NASA's own staff. Featured most prominently in the piece is the "space elevator"--a tether hanging down to Earth from a satellite in geosynchronous orbit with which to ferry materials and people into space. (That idea first took the science fiction world in 1979, with simultaneous novels based on the idea by Arthur C. Clarke and Charles Sheffield.) Jerome Pearson, the man who got the NASA money for researching this, is also keen on building them from the Moon to orbit as well, possibly to "lift carts full of lunar "regolith"--the coarse lunar sand in which Neil Armstrong left his footprints 35 years ago--to be ferried into Earth orbit for use as cheap radiation insulation in spaceships, space hotels and space stations."

Also getting some government cheese through this program in 2004 were

projects to genetically alter plants so they can prosper on Mars; to use sunlight to power a space-based laser that lunar explorers and passing spaceships can use as a power source; to make a superconducting magnetic field to shield astronauts from radiation; and to build a buoyancy-driven glider to fly in thick, "extreme" atmospheres such as those of Venus or Saturn's moon, Titan.

The government support part of these endeavors is certainly questionable (the Institute funds research to the tune of $3 million a year); the fascinating and revolutionary steps in human evolution part, not so much.

Comments

[db]

The space program has always been my one fly in the libertarian ointment--I love the possibilities that space exploration opens up to humanity, but I hate the fact that it's being done top-down, with coerced funds.

Let me be the first to note that it would all be much better if NASA got out of the way, but damn, some of this stuff is cool.

[Stevo Darkly]

db, I feel exactly the same way.

Of course, the very fact that space exploration is being done as a gov't program probably also is crowding out possibilities of action by the private sector. Why do it in pursuit of profit if the gov't is already doing it? Why invest in it if you're already paying for it with your taxes?

[thoreau]

I agree with db. Not done the right way, but damn is it cool.

I will say, fwiw, that sending a man to the moon is a better use of those funds than arresting a pot smoker, and if the budgetary process were zero-sum I'd be the world's most enthusiastic NASA backer. However, thanks to the concept of borrowing the process isn't zero-sum.

[Call me snake]

NASA Bullshit Alarm!!! Calling Gregg Easterbrook!!!

[Jeff]

If any other country tried to build a space tether it would be viewed by the current administration as an act of war. After all, such a tether could be used to drop things on us from a great height...
Also, since such a tether would need to be anchored equatorially, we'll need to annex some land for the job.
Clarke's book Fountains of Paradise had the elevator anchored in Sri Lanka. There is already major geek discussion on chat rooms as to what kind of shudder a tsunami would send up the structure.

[Eric the .5b]

I'm not a fan of NASA myself, but, you know, this $3 million funding program strikes me as a low priority in terms of things to try to cut. Don't we libertarians have 3 million bigger fish to fry, try to fry, or opine that it's immoral to get involved in the kitchen?

[Ball of Confusion]

3 million seems pretty small compared to the NASA budget of 16.5 billion (if I'm reading their fiscal report correctly -- something I don't do for a living) to try to inject even a little bit of private enterprise.

I know, I know - it all adds up. I guess I can't seem to work up any tizzy over this one though.

[Mark Borok]

What about all the pure science research that goes on at NASA? Such as the Hubble, for instance? Without a profit to be made, what incentive would there be for the private sector to step up to the plate? Would a privately-founded foundation be able to raise enough funds to build, launch and maintain an orbiting telescope?

I'm guessing that there are certain research projects that a) are too expensive for any nonprofit group to undertake and b) have no practical application to entice a wealthy for-profit entity. Am I wrong in this? Seems to me no private group stepped up to the plate when the gov't ended funding for the supercollider a few years ago.

[Bob]

Hey, Jeff. From my reading on the subject, the currently leading tether idea is to anchor in the middle of the equatorial Pacific, far from any land, shipping lanes, aircraft routes, etc. Anchoring to any land mass would make a tasty target for terrorism... not to mention what an accidentally dropped payload could do to residents below.

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

If any other country tried to build a space tether it would be viewed by the current administration as an act of war. After all, such a tether could be used to drop things on us from a great height...

This would be the best water-balloon bomb site EVER!

[Jacob]

I guess I just remember the International Space Station debacle. Sure, it sounded cool. But it ended up taking much longer to build, doing much less, and costing much more than anticipated. When it was first proposed, space geeks were wetting themselves with glee. I can't say the final product has been that great though.

I'll look up the specific data for it. Feel free to help.

And in the meantime, don't get too excited about government space boondoggles. And don't ride in one without life insurance.

[Kirsten]

What about all the pure science research that goes on at NASA? Such as the Hubble, for instance? Without a profit to be made, what incentive would there be for the private sector to step up to the plate? Would a privately-founded foundation be able to raise enough funds to build, launch and maintain an orbiting telescope?

1. A privately-funded orbiting telescope, not to mention just about every other hypothetical private venture vs. its hypothetical government counterpart, would likely be cheaper than a government-funded orbiting telescope.

2. See The Planetary Society as an example of a private organization doing purely scientific research. For about $4 million, TPS will be launching a nifty solar sail later this year (all the while clamoring for more government funding of scientific research on their pet topics, of course):
http://www.planetary.org/solarsail/

3. Some research ighty not get done in the absence of government coercion. That is true. Oh, well.

[Morat]

1. A privately-funded orbiting telescope, not to mention just about every other hypothetical private venture vs. its hypothetical government counterpart, would likely be cheaper than a government-funded orbiting telescope.

That wasn't responsive. He didn't ask if a privately funded space telescope would be cheaper than a government funded one.

He asked if a privately funded one would ever be built in the first place.

[Kirsten]

He asked, "Would a privately-founded foundation be able to raise enough funds to build, launch and maintain an orbiting telescope?"

My point #1 is directly relevant to that question.

[PintofStout]

The fact that it is cheaper makes it more likely to be done. Not all privately-funded ventures have to be for profit. The Red Cross doesn't operate for profit; yet their aid gets delivered. (I don't want to argue about the Red Cross. It was just a quick example; not necessarily the best example.)

[PintofStout]

The government confiscates our money and uses it less efficiently than a private organization theoretically would. If not then we have more money to donate privately, have to give less privately than what is taken to acheive the same results, or we give the same and accomplish that much more.

Doesn't take a rocket-scientist!

[Syd]

Wouldn't a "lunarsynchronous" space elevator have to be 237000 miles long?

[Captain Awesome]

The space tether isn't predicted to cost that much in the first place. It's a matter of other technologies coming to term first (I.E. carbon nanotubes). There also is a website for a group collecting private funding for R&D on the mission (I think it's http://www.liftport.com), of course they're also going to various governments for sponsorship as well. It's almost surprizing that no governments have jump on the scant $6billion price tag when compared to other rediculous projects.

[TheRev]

I think libertarians should all get together and fund the space elevator, because the sooner we settle the moon, and the sooner we develop a self-aware joke-telling supercomputer there, the sooner we can declare our independence and start chucking rocks back at this big blue marble.

Apologies for the run-on.

[Captain Awesome]

I never thought I'd say this, but I'm with "The Rev."

[Stevo Darkly]

Oh Bog! Smart thinkum, cobber!

[Stevo Darkly]

If a private-sector outfit built a powerful orbiting telescope, it could raise money by selling memberships to see the photos on its Web site, http://www.heavenly-bodies.com.

While most of the money would come from the overhead shots at http://www.heavenly-bodies.com/sunbathing-celebrities.htm and http://www.heavenly-bodies.com/amazing-cleavage-shots.htm, it might have deep enough pockets to make photos available at http://www.heavenly-bodies.com/space.htm at a relatively low cost subsidized by its more profitable operations.

Such a project might be undertaken as a joint venture by Richard Branson, the Planetary Society, and the guy who does the "Girls Gone Wild" videos (supposed to be pretty rich).

[PGW Disclaimer]

All planets were at least 18 years of age at the time of production...

[db]

The Rev's a dinkum thinkum, all right.