[amsat-bb] Re: A rose is a rose... is a rose
w5ggw at cox.net
Tue Aug 9 16:47:05 PDT 2011
I agree, that there is change that can happen. Here's my view on what I really
think are the issues.
I was specifically referring to the notion that "funding" is the "problem".
Funding will be the "issue" that allows change to actually happen, and at what
speed it can happen. Money availability is largely controlled by the "Fed" in
terms of providing an interest rate that will allow private enterprise to
"invest" by getting loans from the banks that the Fed serves.
Sure, there is also a fixed amount of "money" available from private parties.
But, if no one who "has the money" wants to fund "space flight", then it won't
ever happen privately. I.e. why hasn't the privetization already happened? I
think it's because it doesn't "make money". There's nothing "known" to generate
value out of space "flight". Space based research, perhaps, but not "space
flight". Transportation to the ISS is an occasional thing... Not a giant
opportunity for continued income and business growth (limited occupancy etc.).
There has to be some other interests generated. Nasa's exploratory program can
provide the data and some "Wow moments" that raise the interest levels of those
with money. But, if there is no "investment" opportunity, then a mindset change
has to happen that causes people to believe that it needs to happen and they
should "pay" for it rather than "invest" in it.
Because of the development of "the space program" by the government of the U.S.,
that's largely where it has been funded from, and the Fed, has "printed money"
for many parts of that development.
If there is only a "small" amount of private funding available, it may not go to
the 'right' places. So, in order for "all possible opportunities to be
explored", there has to exist enough interests with enough money to make it
happen. Federally funded exploration programs are one way to make sure specific
tasks are executed. But, because people believe that "money" is and should be
of a "fixed supply", we'll have countless arguments about "budget".
If we did something with a space program over the course of 10 years, instead of
doing it in 1 year, for example, people would see less effect of the "money
spent" over 10 years. But if all of the economic impact occured in just 1 year,
it could have very recognizable impact, as the wars have in the past. The Fed
has moved the economy along at slow speeds because its easier to keep an eye on it.
The amount of "cash" available, is arbitrary, because the Fed decides when to
print it based on their economic outlook and then decided interest rates. They
are printing like mad right now because of the recession. This is the policy
and procedures of how the Fed works as an independent organization (no one who
you voted for can make them do anything).
As we all know, a huge mount of "value" was "injected" into our economy by
massive, risky, unmanaged credit. We didn't have the money in circulation to
support that value, and suddenly it was realized that there was a problem. Next
was the decision about who loses? Is it the person making the purchase, or the
person loaning the money, or the person who sold the risky item? It has been
decided that no one loses, and we'll just adjust the economy by printing money
so everyone can "do" what needs to be done to recover. Go watch the Fed vs the
congress videos on youtube.com if you didn't get to see how much grilling the
Fed got for "fixing the economy" by bailing out the "can't fail".
Let's hope everyone is acting responsibly this time, because printing more money
only adds "money" to support the "value", if everyone agrees to "keep" the value
of "money" the same in the economy. Otherwise, we get "inflation" that will
devalue money again, and that won't help. Hyper-inflation is being predicted.
You can hope for privatization to work, but there are no guarantees. With a
baseless "money", we can, actually just print like mad, all we want to employ as
many people as possible to do as much "work" as we can find to do. Since
everyone is working, and we are getting useful results, does it seem wrong to
"print money" to employ people to work? We did this for the wars...
Once we are done with a "work" program, how do all those people continue to live
in the economy? What is happening with the Space Shuttle program? An answer
might be that we just keep printing money and let them "live". But that's what
everyone calls socialism and historically, it hasn't worked. Food stamps,
unemployment, and other assistance programs are argued to create socialistic
behaviors, but how do we decide the moment that a person or a project deserves
to fail? Do we have to judge it as "bad", or do we need to declare it "okay to
Practically, we can argue and discuss about gold or silver backed currency till
we are blue in the face. In a resource backed, currency based economy, if new
people are to be employed, someone else needs to take a pay cut, spend some
money, or die so that the new person can be paid some money. If more "value" is
created in the economy with new products, then the price of other items have to
decline for that other value to be accessible for purchase. If you have to plan
your business to continuously reduce prices, how far can you go before you
can't? What does that do to initial prices and who can purchase? The Fed
controls available money, hoping to manage this appropriately so that printing
only should happen when new economic value exists.
Getting more of the "resource" such as mining gold/silver, would be like
"printing" money because once you add it to the economy, there will be more
available and the worth of the existing will likely decline unless there is
additional "value" added to the economy to make the "gold" harder to get. This
is why some people believe the Fed is okay as long as it's managed
appropriately. It is cheaper to print money then it is to "mine" gold, and gold
and silver are useful resources, where as "paper" is manufactured from renewable
With the Fed in operation, the "annual cost of living increase" in your pay
check was about equalizing your "money" with the "Fed" printing rate so that you
didn't have to take an effective cut in pay because of the inflation being created.
The Fed prints enough new money to take "growth" into account, based on what it
can track. The problem was that too much "money" was being loaned out and the
"banks" had stacked their own debt at more than 10-to-1 against cash on hand
with loans because of lack of regulation. Thus the economy was larger than the
Fed could "perceive" and we didn't have enough "cash" to cover such risky
behavior. And yes, the risky behavior should not of been happening either.
It's important to learn how it all works so that we understand that
privetization is possible, but there are countless circumstances that don't
always make it economically possible. Money, today, is a vehicle that can be
used for a lot of things, and the misuse of it, as we've seen, can destroy the
economy or damage it severely.
The X-Prize, for example had very view participants because there wasn't any
"real" prize except recognition, and ultimately the "knowledge" gained from
Where are all the interests at really? I think there should be lots of
interest, but I sure don't see anything that would suggest that there would be
10 space flight companies making regular trips into space by 2020.
This is way off topic for this group...
On 8/9/2011 11:08 AM, R Oler wrote:
> Greg. well all I can say is that anyone who says that the US has "virtually
> abandoned" crewed spaceflight is not up on current events. What we are doing is
> transitioning from a program of the military industrial complex to one which
> centers on private enterprise...and that will open space access for a lot of
> things. And that will include amateur radio payloads. In my view the association
> between amateur radio and human spaceflight has hurt amateur radio more then it
> has helped.
> Go read "The Revolution in Military Affairs"...and you will get the drift Robert
> G. Oler WB5MZO Life member AMSAT ARRL NARS
> > Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:08:01 -0500
> > From: w5ggw at cox.net
> > To: orbitjet at hotmail.com
> > CC: m5aka at yahoo.co.uk; amsat-bb at amsat.org; bruninga at usna.edu
> > Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: A rose is a rose... is a rose
> > When these kinds of comments come up, I often wonder how many people actually
> > understand how the US economy works. I spend some time to put together some
> > view points of how the FED is affecting what's happening and how the "basis of
> > the FED" as a mechanism is not really working to manage the complexities of our
> > economy. There are things all over youtube.com which are records of senate and
> > congressional committee sessions, historical videos, documentaries etc. If you
> > are not really sure how the FED works and what all the "troubles" of the economy
> > in the U.S. and the world (because many countries chose to tie themselves to our
> > currency system), visible my Google+ post that I've put up and look around at
> > some of the videos I've linked to.
> > https://plus.google.com/110612293771822302429/posts/eG6QC13kgv8
> > Gregg Wonderly
> > W5GGW
> > On 8/5/2011 5:39 PM, R Oler wrote:
> > >
> > > Trevor...there is not a chance that is going to happen. The US is on the
> verge of a revolution in space affairs (to mimic Admiral Bill Owens) and we are
> about to leave a technowelfare program and go into something truly free
> enterprise. Watch
> > >
> > > Robert G. Oler WB5MZO life member AMSAT ARRL NARS
> > >
> > >> Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 23:04:09 +0100
> > >> From: m5aka at yahoo.co.uk
> > >> To: amsat-bb at amsat.org; bruninga at usna.edu
> > >> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: A rose is a rose... is a rose
> > >>
> > >> Bob, Politicians are the same the world over.
> > >>
> > >> I note that some of your Politicians seem paranoid about the USA's biggest
> trading partner, Beijing. I don't mind betting that in a few years time your
> Politicians will be falling over themselves to vote billions of tax dollars to
> the Space program to prevent the US falling into 3rd place behind the Russian
> Federation and Beijing.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> 73 Trevor M5AKA
> > >>
> > >> --- On Fri, 5/8/11, Bob Bruninga<bruninga at usna.edu> wrote:
> > >>>>> ,,,it now lists keps for 'Radioscaf-B'. (no
> > >>>>> ARRISat-1' listing). Will that eventually change?
> > >>>
> > >>> I chuckle.
> > >>>
> > >>> We in the USA have virtually abandoned manned space. We
> > >>> have no manned space
> > >>> flight vehicles because all we do is squabble with the
> > >>> attention span of 2
> > >>> year olds in our politics and long term outlooks. All
> > >>> our politicians do is
> > >>> worry about their re-election in the next 2 years.
> > >>> They cannot face the
> > >>> really big issues that need to be solved without
> > >>> jeopardizing their
> > >>> re-election by the me-first, screw-them electorate.
> > >>> The voters only have
> > >>> the attention span from one radio talk show to the next.
> > >>>
> > >>> So since the Russians are now the only manned space program
> > >>> that can provide
> > >>> the ride, I guess they get to call it whatever they
> > >>> want. Our guys worked
> > >>> VERY HARD to build it and deliver it against unbelieveable
> > >>> pressures and
> > >>> bureaucratic issues, but the only way to get it to ISS was
> > >>> to give it to the
> > >>> Russians.
> > >>>
> > >>> Sigh...
> > >>> Bob, WB4APR
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> > >> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> > >> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> > > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> > > Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
> > >
More information about the AMSAT-BB