I S A

[Josh]

So there has been talk in this forum before about an International Space Agency.

In the words of a great leader ... I have a dream! That an International Space Agency become a reality. It's part of the reason I'm on here. Lookng for the right people to help me make that happen. Obviously, "it won't happen over night but it will happen". Essentially partner governments (possibly those who can't afford a space agency of their own outright) in business with industry partners. Run as a company in most respects.

So I've been talking around with people I know and asking the pros and cons they can see with the idea.

You guys on here obviously have an interest in space so I figured I'd put the same question to you. Is it a good idea? a viable idea? what are the pros and cons? A number of people have said that they think agencies like NASA would try to squash anything like this. What do you think? No time like the present to get the ball rolling!

Josh

[Tom2Mars]

Tell you what Josh, you find a country that's interested in it, and I'll show them how to eliminate their dependence on oil, and then use the money they save to outspend NASA and assume the lead position in the ISA. Piece of cake. Besides, NASA is too busy downsizing, they won't even notice! B)

[damienpaul]

The non-relaince on oil is easy.....the leaps and strides made in alternative technologies, such as MagLev etc. Find a country that is nearly under and go in and rejuvinate it via this method. Now that would be something i'd put my hat in to contribute.

[Nick4]

Originally posted by Tom2Mars@Apr 3 2004, 01:33 AM
Tell you what Josh, you find a country that's interested in it, and I'll show them how to eliminate their dependence on oil, and then use the money they save to outspend NASA and assume the lead position in the ISA. Piece of cake. Besides, NASA is too busy downsizing, they won't even notice! B)
Good idea. B)

[imported_Ziggy]

I think Josh got "I.S.A." from Star Trek. Am I right? A "I.S.A." sounds like a good idea, but the world's governments, right now, would argue too much about how to control it.

[Sphinx]

That's why you make it private. If enough of us got together and starting making some real stuff happen, the governments would have to listen to us. Change would take place and policy would be enacted. First you start with a small private organisation with some voluntary members (I'm sure there are many us here that would love to take part) with Tom to head those cost effecient ideas. Start small programs. Make some money of course...some how. Start changing small communities. You know, heading off small projects that make big differences. Make some more money, etc, etc,.............you have a name, money, privately owned, no strings, and the means by which to reach for the stars. WHOS WITH ME!?!?! Josh, you be president, Tom, you be administrator and me? I can be the guy who listens and does what he's told. :D .....and with much enthusiasm. Everyone else can fill in where they're good at. WHAT SAY YOU MEN?!?!? Let's start with Brazil.

[Sphinx]

But seriously, a private institution would be the best way to go. The largest problem would be funding.

[Josh]

I agree Sphinx, funding would be the biggest problem. That's why i think partner governments are the way to go in conjunction with private industry. Money from the governments and initiative and work from private industry.

[kashi]

Count me in! I'll be the resident piano player. The problem is, the piano is one of the only instruments that relies on gravity, hence it won't work in orbit!

[damienpaul]

I am with you Sphinx!!! As a scientist (geologist, physicist and chemist) and as an educator (secondary, remdial and adult/tertiary)... and soon to be a locksmith - I am sure i could be of service!

[Sphinx]

Josh, ellaborate for me what a partnership with a government and a private industry might look like.

Industry - 1. the aggregate of manufacturing enterprises in a particular field: the steel industry. 2. any general business activity: the tourist industry. 3. trade or manufacture in general. 4. systematic work or labor. 5. energetic, devoted activity at any work or task; diligence.

I think definition 5 is closer to what we would be looking at but then again, I don't really know what kind of work we would be doing. By industry, we imply that we will provide a service that will generate income. The more income we can generate the more independent of government funding we can be. This is all common sense but what is not and is beyond my level of education is "how." To answer this "how" I get the feeling that Tom has some very good solutions to consider. Also, since it is you who brought up the idea of generating the organisation (or should I call it an industry now) I'm sure you have some ideas of what "how" might look like as well. Also, as emphasised by Tom on more than one occasion, I'm sure that other members of the forum are more than capable of thinking outside of the box and coming up with ideas for themselves. Please, fill in with your two cents.

My fiance is a business and economics major at Berkeley's School of HAAS (the number three business school in the nation) so I would imagine she has some pretty good ideas about how to make money really stretch. I know for college students, we have quite a bit and of our own accord as well. Both of our families don't have any money to offer either one of us. We are completely independent. Although, I am sure that it is the case that there are a few economists in here as well? but then again, does science really concern itself with money?

[Weaselbunny]

does science really concern itself with money
Everything comes down to money in the end... sigh <_<

The only thing that concerns me with an international business venture is... what if it becomes too powerful? We see sci-fi films where evil corporations are in charge and governments have become obselete. Mind you... if we form the international agency then we won&#39;t be on the recieveing end... Mwahahahaha&#33;

Count me in... you&#39;ll need artistic types and smooth talkers yes? Or I could handle the advertising. We&#39;ll need to promote our whiter than white eco friendly image so that people prefer us to the shabby polluting alternatives.

[Sphinx]

Need I mention Enron, Halliburton, President Bush....???? We&#39;re already there and it&#39;s so efficient that most of us are largely unaware. Of course it all comes down to money but it shouldn&#39;t be the basis of our drive. But I&#39;m with you, I&#39;d rather be on the other side of the receiving end. Mwahahahaha

[imported_Ziggy]

Another topic in this forum says that the U.S.A. and Russia are fighting over the ISS. I think that if a multinational space agency were established it would&#39;nt survive that long. The worlds&#39;s burocrocies would tare it apart. Good idea though. A "I.S.A." would have alot more money being pumped into it then a national agency like NASA. In order for a "I.S.A." to work, WE NEED LESS "BUSHES" IN THE WORLD.

[Sphinx]

AMEN

[Josh]

I think, Ziggy, that you are talking about one massive all encompassing space agency - a bigger world wide NASA. That&#39;s not what I&#39;m talking about, however. I am thinking more along the lines of a business. A lot of governments are partners to private sector businesses. That&#39;s the idea behind this. The reason they&#39;re partners (in this case) is because they get to do the scientific research an have intellectual property rights to it. They get to influence the direction of the research and the exploration. Governments aren&#39;t always about making money and as long as a part of their budget is dedicated to this venture then less money has to be made in order to keep it running.

Private sector partners will obviously want return. This will provide an entirely different aspect to the exploration or usage of space. Hopefully doing both at the same time whilst ensuring and striving for a well set out goal.

To be honest I don&#39;t know the design of this agency. That&#39;s exactly why I&#39;ve brought it up here with intelligent people who are on the same wavelength. Put forward ideas and let it grow from there.

Whatever the shape of it, I&#39;m certain that the people who would be willing and able to make it happen can be found on this forum&#33;

[Tom2Mars]

Hi everybody, I&#39;ve been gone for a bit. I&#39;ve been busy building the solution and laying the groundwork for success. Thanks for the vote of support Sphinx, I will not disappoint.

Step #1- An internationally recognized space consultant has been giving my designs a private peer review, likes the plan, and will help set up a meeting with the heads of Nasa. Nasa needs to change their approach, and we&#39;ll give them some options. If Nasa doesn&#39;t go for it, no problem.

Step #2- A private approach will parallel the overture to Nasa. The good news is, Money is Not a Problem. Sufficient private funding is available to jumpstart a business to generate income to efficiently engage in space activities. It should be possible, without too much fanfare, to underwrite the equivalent of 1 Trillion dollars of space activities within a 10 year period. That represents nearly 10 times the current budget of Nasa for 10 years. All private, no government.

And, this is the small approach. There is room for improvement on that&#33;

Step #3- Development of Centers of Operation. These could start out as conference centers and develop into actual R&D and production/teaching facilities. These Centers can be spread about in different locations in different countries for easy accessibility to the Forum members (and other organizations I suppose). Look for a new topic on this in a few days.

[ASEI]

The good news is, Money is Not a Problem. Sufficient private funding is available to jumpstart a business to generate income to efficiently engage in space activities. It should be possible, without too much fanfare, to underwrite the equivalent of 1 Trillion dollars of space activities within a 10 year period. That represents nearly 10 times the current budget of Nasa for 10 years. All private, no government.


Why would they give 1 trillion dollars to a space agency? Where would the return come from? Private industries usually want either a) a return on their investment, or b ) some sort of humanitarian effect if they are donating for charity.


Tell you what Josh, you find a country that&#39;s interested in it, and I&#39;ll show them how to eliminate their dependence on oil

I would be very interested in hearing how you intend to eliminate dependence on oil. I hope it doesn&#39;t involve "efficiency" or going without power, because developing nations need their industry and their energy more than anything else - to develop.

[Weaselbunny]

I would be very interested in hearing how you intend to eliminate dependence on oil. I hope it doesn&#39;t involve "efficiency" or going without power, because developing nations need their industry and their energy more than anything else - to develop. There are cheaper and cleaner alternatives, but these are not made widely available, also don&#39;t oil companies buy the patents on some cleaner energies that they believe may be a threat to them and their dominance? <_<

[Tom2Mars]

Weaselbunny asked-
don&#39;t oil companies buy the patents on some cleaner energies that they believe may be a threat to them and their dominance

I believe that&#39;s pretty much a myth. Some European oil companies are buying into Solar Photovoltaics and selling them and making money and experiencing good growth rates.

Also, if oil runs out, there is no product to sell. If alternatives and efficiency became the order of the day, the available Petrochemical stocks could be manufactured into plastics and made into products, then recycled and resold a thousand times over. Some plastics earn more dollars per pound than if the same weight of petrochemical was sold as fuel, which is used once and burned up. If you can make more money per pound off the stuff and resell it as a solid material over and over, the oil companies could conceivably become thousands of times richer without having to find more oil. That&#39;s capitalism, that&#39;s profitmaking, that&#39;s the kind of thing that increases the wealth of the planet.

Asei asked-
Why would they give 1 trillion dollars to a space agency?

What I wrote was-QUOTE]All private, no government.
[/QUOTE]
I didn&#39;t say anything about giving that money to the government.

Asei also asked-QUOTE]I would be very interested in hearing how you intend to eliminate dependence on oil. I hope it doesn&#39;t involve "efficiency" or going without power, because developing nations need their industry and their energy more than anything else - to develop.[/QUOTE]
Asei, since you are new here, click on my blue underlined user name next to the Avatar-tom2mars, which takes you to the member area, then click on &#39;view all previous posts&#39;. Then read them. Any explanation I give will make more sense after we have a common point of reference.

Also, look up a guy named Archimedes and read about some of the stuff he came up with regarding efficiency. Levers, fulcrums and pulleys, doing more work with less energy and effort, stuff like that. I think that the more you find out about about efficiency, the more you might be able to appreciate what some dudes like Archimedes were thinking about. By the way, I don&#39;t think he graduated Cum Laude from a huge expensive university, so try to cut him a little slack. ;)

[ASEI]

The good news is, Money is Not a Problem. Sufficient private funding is available to jumpstart a business to generate income to efficiently engage in space activities. It should be possible, without too much fanfare, to underwrite the equivalent of 1 Trillion dollars of space activities within a 10 year period. That represents nearly 10 times the current budget of Nasa for 10 years. All private, no government.


I realize that. But whatever you create is an organization of some sort asking for investment. What would your envisioned payoff be? Metal foam? SPS? Money is always a problem. :D I&#39;m interested in products that can be made in space, because if profit can be made, that would drive private industry. They won&#39;t even look twice at space unless they think there is something to do up there to make money.

[Tom2Mars]

Asei, The approach I am taking is a whole new paradigm and takes some getting used to. It would really help if you read some of my previous posts.

The essential core of the approach is that all money on all space activities is spent here on Earth. There is a great line from the movie, "All the President&#39;s Men" with Redford and Hoffman. "Follow the Money". There are ways to solve the problems of spaceflight and simultaneously free up the funds to pay for future space efforts.

An Example: Awhile back in the Forum, there was a thread about the "light pollution" of the night sky from lights, mostly from the big ones in the parking lots in malls and at grocery/department stores. It reduces the visibility of the night sky for the backyard astronomers and is even encroaching on the quality of observation at big, remote observatories.

Old style lights are omni-directional, they light up the parking lot, and you can see them from 30 miles away in an airplane. However, the light is only required on the parking lot under the light. Stores spend literally several to 10&#39;s of thousands of dollars on electricity for the lights.

When "dark sky" organizations began complaining, they were met with resistance by the merchants. Eventually, someone started showing the the business people, who are always concerned about the "bottom line" that they could buy "downlights", lighting fixtures with a reflective cover that redirected the light downwards. The new fixtures were more "efficient" in that they used about 1/2 the power of the previous, indiscriminate fixture. The new fixtures cost hundreds of dollars to replace, but saved thousands of dollars in electrical savings. That is energy "conservation". The job of lighting the parking lots was as effective, the new fixtures quickly paid themselves off, and continued to save money every month. The stores had more money left over and they could choose to share part of that with their customers in the form of lower prices, and the business owners still had more profit at the end of each month.

Also, the sky was darker and the astronomers(environmentalists?) were happier.

Everybody won something, business improved, customers were happy, the "environment" improved. In addition, in some cities, extra utility capacity is scarce and that makes it hard to zone/permit new businesses fast enough. So when you conserve energy in one place, it becomes available for another new customer, buildings get built, jobs are created and the area can support more growth, and that is exactly the kind of thing you said should happen in the developing world, isn&#39;t it?

developing nations need their industry and their energy more than anything else - to develop

Efficiency can enable growth and productivity to increase at a faster rate. It does not mean doing without.

Back to the whole Space thing...By my analysis, about 90% of all activities related to "doing space" is waste and inefficiency. Close up those loops, and you drop the price of going out to space by 90%. Then, if you do the same thing for a fraction of space advocacy organization members, ie, save a few percent of the members a lot of money, the members can elect to keep some of the savings for themselves(they have more money left at the end of each month, they get richer), and they can donate, bequest, loan, invest the rest to the job of "doing space". Preferably by private organizations. And remember, all the money eventually gets spent here on Earth.

Believe me, if some money gets redirected and some business activities are affected, the brokers of the investors will be sure to tell their stockholder clients where the money is going, and their clients can get a piece of that new action if they want. Money may flow to different places, but those with money will always be in on the movement of that money.

Quickly, go read the other posts now. There&#39;s a Trillion dollars or two tucked away in there for you somewhere. ;)

[Galaxy dweller]

ISA will be viable after United Earth Federation is in place.

[ASEI]

I&#39;m still fishing around for a bottom line. If effort is spent here on earth to send things into space, something must come back to justify the effort.

[Sphinx]

....and to know what will satisfy that "justification" will take data and to get more data we need to make it cheaper to collect which is going to take some effort here on the ground. The mission?&#33;?&#33; Tie up the loose ends hence, privatization with a motive and drive. Is this what you mean by "bottom line"? If not, it still applies but what did you mean? I suppose I&#39;m not clear on whether you view this topic&#39;s idea in a positive or negative light. :P

[Tom2Mars]

Asei asked-
I&#39;m still fishing around for a bottom line. If effort is spent here on earth to send things into space, something must come back to justify the effort.
Sphinx replied-
The mission?&#33;?&#33; Tie up the loose ends hence, privatization with a motive and drive. Is this what you mean by "bottom line"?

Asei, that "something" can be anything we want it to be. It can even be entertainment. For example, Dennis Tito spent &#036;20 million dollars to go through some training, fly to space, stay out of everyone&#39;s way, and peek through a window the size of a pie pan.

And entertainment is big money. Music is another example. Tens of Billions of return, lots of people employed, and basically it is nothing more than the transmission of modulated sound waves into someone&#39;s head. People gladly justify spending billions on sound waves.

Movies&#33; Mel Gibson made a film about an historical figure, using a dead language, so it is subtitled and watched by an audience from a culture that does not usually appreciate subtitles. Though the film contains violence and torture, few members of this particular audience would care to watch Mel&#39;s other films which contain violence and a few laughs(Lethat Weapon series). And yet the film makes over &#036;500 Million dollars. People gladly justify spending billions (on thousands of films yearly) to watch pictures move on a screen in a darkened room, and they walk out with nothing more than an experience and fingers covered with popcorn oil.

It doesn&#39;t matter what we send into space, or what comes back, or even if anything comes back. The money gets spent here on Earth, all of it. And as long as enough people agree on the goals and find the money to pay for it and are happy with the outcome...well, that&#39;s economics for you. B)