PmWiki.MeetingTheSPEC History

Hide minor edits - Show changes to output

July 16, 2017, at 11:19 PM by 219.164.205.191 -
Changed line 5 from:
While one Project goal is to make space fun for lots of people, there are always enjoyable things that people shouldn't do, and the things that people ''should'' do aren't always enjoyable. How do you steer a middle course? Where is the balance to be found? Project Persephone calls this "meeting the '''SPEC'''" - reaching goals '''S'''eriously, '''P'''eacefully, '''E'''quitably, and '''C'''leanly. At times, there will be unpleasant trade-offs. Even the minimum of necessary conflict might sometimes amount to a lot of strife.
to:
While one Project goal is to make space fun for lots of people, there are always enjoyable things that people shouldn't do, and the things that people ''should'' do aren't always enjoyable. How do you steer a middle course? Where is the balance to be found? Project Persephone calls this "meeting the '''SPEC'''" - reaching goals '''S'''eriously, '''P'''eacefully, '''E'''quitably, and '''C'''leanly. At times, there will be unpleasant trade-offs. Even the minimum of necessary conflict might sometimes amount to a lot of strife. That's no excuse for not trying.
April 08, 2017, at 10:56 PM by 60.34.223.215 - "decline in launch demand" seems irrelevant now; "orbital debris" seems tangential
Changed line 5 from:
While one Project goal is to make space fun for lots of people, there are always enjoyable things that people shouldn't do, and the things that people ''should'' do aren't always enjoyable. How do you steer a middle course? Where is the balance to be found? Project Persephone calls this "meeting the '''SPEC'''" - reaching goals '''S'''eriously, '''P'''eacefully, '''E'''quitably, and '''C'''leanly. At times, there will be unpleasant trade-offs. Even the minimum of necessary conflict might sometimes amount to a lot of strife. The Project's goals are particularly challenging in view of the trends toward a possible long-term [[decline in launch demand]] for commercial payloads, the problem of space-based and space-enabled [[arms proliferation]], and a threat to all near-Earth uses of space from anthropogenic [[orbital debris]].
to:
While one Project goal is to make space fun for lots of people, there are always enjoyable things that people shouldn't do, and the things that people ''should'' do aren't always enjoyable. How do you steer a middle course? Where is the balance to be found? Project Persephone calls this "meeting the '''SPEC'''" - reaching goals '''S'''eriously, '''P'''eacefully, '''E'''quitably, and '''C'''leanly. At times, there will be unpleasant trade-offs. Even the minimum of necessary conflict might sometimes amount to a lot of strife.
October 03, 2012, at 08:52 AM by 219.167.13.29 -
Changed lines 32-33 from:
-> Launching people into orbit and getting them back safely is an expensive adventure, and right now it's hard to see how to make it ''much'' cheaper. Nevertheless, public and private investment in this adventure isn't slackening much. Whether the space travelers are "billionauts" or cosmonauts, those of us left behind on Earth still find space travel exciting. It's important to find something to do for the rest of us, something that can help make space travel more comfortable and enjoyable for more people in the long run - and more of an adventure for those willing to take greater risks. Adventurous manned space programs (both privately funded and governmental) should be not be derided as a "waste of money" -- mot while these programs can motivate people to make progress. Still, to keep any new efforts ''affordable'', it's better to avoid doing things that ''require'' sending people, especially since others are already willing to pay that cost. In the meantime, new efforts should look closely at how they might be "externalizing" some environmental costs on others, and minimize those costs.
to:
-> Launching people into orbit and getting them back safely is an expensive adventure, and right now it's hard to see how to make it ''much'' cheaper. Nevertheless, public and private investment in this adventure isn't slackening much. Whether the space travelers are "billionauts" or cosmonauts, those of us left behind on Earth still find space travel exciting. It's important to find something to do for the rest of us, something that can help make space travel more comfortable and enjoyable for more people in the long run - and more of an adventure for those willing to take greater risks. Adventurous manned space programs (both privately funded and governmental) should be not be derided as a "waste of money" -- not while these programs can motivate people to make progress. Still, to keep any new efforts ''affordable'', it's better to avoid doing things that ''require'' sending people, especially since others are already willing to pay that cost. In the meantime, new efforts should look closely at how they might be "externalizing" some environmental costs on others, and minimize those costs.
October 03, 2012, at 08:50 AM by 219.167.13.29 -
Changed lines 28-29 from:
-> A few people each paying a lot - that's how orbital tourism works, and it's probably how it will work for the foreseeable future. So far, it's not really increasing launch rates very much. A lot of people paying a little - that's how satellite TV works. So far, it hasn't really increased launch rates very much either. (And watching TV about things happening on Earth isn't creating a [[world worth talking about]] in space, nor is it necessarily very improving.) How can you involve a lot of people who can only pay a little - perhaps only with their own volunteer labor? Enthusiasm is understandably rather limited when only a very few can feel the rewards. Doing a lot more in space means getting and keeping the enthusiasm of lots of individuals, teams and organizations. They will have limited budgets, limited time and energy, limited skills and qualifications.  What's needed is some (mostly) enjoyable thing to do, one that allows people on Earth to make things happen in space, in ways that make them feel like they are becoming better people - more skilled, more educated, more connected, more respected. Whatever it is, it should help build the capacity to do yet more, including more manned space travel in the long run. It should also be social, so that people enjoy talking about what they've gotten done, about what they are doing ''as they are doing it'', and about what they want to do next. And when it comes to what should come next: the effort should never get completely disconnected from the distant promise of a chance to go into space.
to:
-> A few people each paying a lot - that's how orbital tourism works, and it's probably how it will work for the foreseeable future. So far, it's not really increasing launch rates very much. A lot of people paying a little - that's how satellite TV works. So far, it hasn't really increased launch rates very much either. (And watching TV about things happening on Earth isn't creating [[a world worth talking about]] in space, nor is it necessarily very improving.) How can you involve a lot of people who can only pay a little - perhaps only with their own volunteer labor? Enthusiasm is understandably rather limited when only a very few can feel the rewards. Doing a lot more in space means getting and keeping the enthusiasm of lots of individuals, teams and organizations. They will have limited budgets, limited time and energy, limited skills and qualifications.  What's needed is some (mostly) enjoyable thing to do, one that allows people on Earth to make things happen in space, in ways that make them feel like they are becoming better people - more skilled, more educated, more connected, more respected. Whatever it is, it should help build the capacity to do yet more, including more manned space travel in the long run. It should also be social, so that people enjoy talking about what they've gotten done, about what they are doing ''as they are doing it'', and about what they want to do next. And when it comes to what should come next: the effort should never get completely disconnected from the distant promise of a chance to go into space.
October 03, 2012, at 08:49 AM by 219.167.13.29 -
Changed lines 28-29 from:
-> A few people each paying a lot - that's how orbital tourism works, and it's probably how it will work for the foreseeable future. So far, it's not really increasing launch rates very much. A lot of people paying a little - that's how satellite TV works. So far, it hasn't really increasing launch rates very much either. (And watching TV about things happening on Earth isn't creating a [[world worth talking about]] in space, nor is it necessarily very improving.) How can you involve a lot of people who can only pay a little - perhaps only with their own volunteer labor? Enthusiasm is understandably rather limited when only a very few can feel the rewards. Doing a lot more in space means getting and keeping the enthusiasm of lots of individuals, teams and organizations. They will have limited budgets, limited time and energy, limited skills and qualifications.  What's needed is some (mostly) enjoyable thing to do, one that allows people on Earth to make things happen in space, in ways that make them feel like they are becoming better people - more skilled, more educated, more connected, more respected. Whatever it is, it should help build the capacity to do yet more, including more manned space travel in the long run. It should also be social, so that people enjoy talking about what they've gotten done, about what they are doing ''as they are doing it'', and about what they want to do next. And when it comes to what should come next: the effort should never get completely disconnected from the distant promise of a chance to go into space.
to:
-> A few people each paying a lot - that's how orbital tourism works, and it's probably how it will work for the foreseeable future. So far, it's not really increasing launch rates very much. A lot of people paying a little - that's how satellite TV works. So far, it hasn't really increased launch rates very much either. (And watching TV about things happening on Earth isn't creating a [[world worth talking about]] in space, nor is it necessarily very improving.) How can you involve a lot of people who can only pay a little - perhaps only with their own volunteer labor? Enthusiasm is understandably rather limited when only a very few can feel the rewards. Doing a lot more in space means getting and keeping the enthusiasm of lots of individuals, teams and organizations. They will have limited budgets, limited time and energy, limited skills and qualifications.  What's needed is some (mostly) enjoyable thing to do, one that allows people on Earth to make things happen in space, in ways that make them feel like they are becoming better people - more skilled, more educated, more connected, more respected. Whatever it is, it should help build the capacity to do yet more, including more manned space travel in the long run. It should also be social, so that people enjoy talking about what they've gotten done, about what they are doing ''as they are doing it'', and about what they want to do next. And when it comes to what should come next: the effort should never get completely disconnected from the distant promise of a chance to go into space.
August 20, 2012, at 10:11 PM by 114.181.135.35 -
Changed lines 12-16 from:
If the long-run future of humanity depends on good use of the infinite resources (and the infinite waste-sink) of space, 50 years of progress toward that future still leaves much to be desired. It's not hard to see the core problem: getting to space, to make good things happen there, is still far too expensive. If we could get a lot of ''things'' into space, more cheaply and more reliably, many more possibilities open up. Space solar power, to reduce the environmental burden of power production on Earth. Moon and asteroid mining, leaving most of the pollution in space. Diverting near-earth objects, which could potentially set life on Earth back a million years. Space tourism for people who aren't extremely rich. Sending high-level radioactive waste into the sun. And plenty more ideas that haven't happened yet. There's no shortage.

What will it take to make it cheaper to get ''things'', at the very least, into space? It looks like it will take several
, if not all, of the following :
* ''finding something to do that can pay its own way
''
* ''getting lots of people deeply involved
- and making them the better for it''
to:
If the long-run future of humanity depends on good use of the infinite resources (and the infinite waste-sink) of space, 50 years of progress toward that future still leaves much to be desired. It's not hard to see the core problem: getting to space, to make good things happen there, is still far too expensive. If we could get a lot of ''things'' into space, more cheaply and more reliably, many more possibilities open up. Space solar power, to reduce the environmental burden of power production on Earth. Moon and asteroid mining, leaving most of the pollution in space. Diverting near-earth objects, which could otherwise set life on Earth back a million years. Space tourism even for people who aren't very rich. Sending high-level radioactive waste into the sun or to the far side of the Moon. And plenty more ideas that haven't happened yet. There's no shortage.

What will it take to make it cheaper to get ''things'', at the very least
, into space? It looks like it will take several, if not all, of the following:
*
''finding a new activity that can cover its own launch costs''
* ''getting lots of people deeply involved involved in that
- and making them the better for it''
Changed lines 24-25 from:
-> Higher launch rates are key to the economies of scale needed to spur more investment in lower-cost, higher-volume space launch infrastructure. And only some new, growing market will increase launch rates dramatically.  When we look at what's relatively new, it's not necessarily enough. [[Orbital space tourism]] remains a recreation for the few who are motivated enough go through astronaut training, brave enough to take the trip, and rich enough to afford it.  It has been hosted so far only via governmental space programs (Russian manned launch, [[ISS]].)  The market for [[suborbital space tourism]] looks promising, but remains speculative; if successful, it may whet appetites for orbital tourism, but the technologies involved for suborbital flight do not go very far toward solving the much more difficult problem of low-cost ''orbital'' space access.  Something new is needed.  And it has to be popular.
to:
-> Higher launch rates are key to the economies of scale needed to spur more investment in lower-cost, higher-volume space launch infrastructure. And only some new, growing market will increase launch rates dramatically.  When we look at what's relatively new, it's not necessarily enough. [[Orbital space tourism]] remains a recreation for the few: those who are motivated enough go through astronaut training, brave enough to take the trip, and rich enough to afford it.  It has been hosted so far only via governmental space programs (Russian manned launch, [[ISS]].)  The market for [[suborbital space tourism]] looks promising, but remains speculative. If successful, it may whet appetites for orbital tourism. Unfortunately, the technologies involved for suborbital flight do not go very far toward solving the much more difficult problem of low-cost ''orbital'' space access.  Something new is needed.  And it has to be popular.
Changed lines 28-29 from:
-> A few people each paying a lot - that's how orbital tourism works, and it's probably how it will work for the foreseeable future. So far, it's not really increasing launch rates very much. A lot of people paying a little - that's how satellite TV works. So far, it's not really increasing launch rates very much either. (And watching TV about things happening on Earth isn't exactly deep involvement in things happening in space, nor is it necessarily very improving.) How can you involve a lot of people who can only pay a little - perhaps only with their own volunteer labor?  Enthusiasm is naturally limited when only a very few can feel the rewards. Doing a lot more in space means getting and keeping the enthusiasm of lots of individuals, teams and organizations. They will have limited budgets, limited time and energy, limited skills and qualifications.  What's needed is some (mostly) enjoyable thing to do, one that allows people on Earth to make things happen in space, in ways that make them feel like they are becoming better people - more skilled, more educated, more connected, more respected. Whatever it is, it should help build the capacity to do yet more, including more manned space travel in the long run. It should also be social, so that people enjoy talking about what they've gotten done, about what they are doing ''as they are doing it'', and about what they want to do next. And when it comes to what should come next: the effort should never get completely disconnected from the distant promise of a chance to go into space.
to:
-> A few people each paying a lot - that's how orbital tourism works, and it's probably how it will work for the foreseeable future. So far, it's not really increasing launch rates very much. A lot of people paying a little - that's how satellite TV works. So far, it hasn't really increasing launch rates very much either. (And watching TV about things happening on Earth isn't creating a [[world worth talking about]] in space, nor is it necessarily very improving.) How can you involve a lot of people who can only pay a little - perhaps only with their own volunteer labor? Enthusiasm is understandably rather limited when only a very few can feel the rewards. Doing a lot more in space means getting and keeping the enthusiasm of lots of individuals, teams and organizations. They will have limited budgets, limited time and energy, limited skills and qualifications.  What's needed is some (mostly) enjoyable thing to do, one that allows people on Earth to make things happen in space, in ways that make them feel like they are becoming better people - more skilled, more educated, more connected, more respected. Whatever it is, it should help build the capacity to do yet more, including more manned space travel in the long run. It should also be social, so that people enjoy talking about what they've gotten done, about what they are doing ''as they are doing it'', and about what they want to do next. And when it comes to what should come next: the effort should never get completely disconnected from the distant promise of a chance to go into space.
Changed lines 32-33 from:
-> Launching people into orbit and getting them back safely is an expensive adventure, and right now it's hard to see how to make it ''much'' cheaper. Nevertheless, public and private investment in this adventure isn't slackening much. Whether the space travelers are "billionauts" or cosmonauts, earthbound people still find space travel exciting. It's important to find something to do for those left behind that can help make space travel more comfortable and enjoyable for more people in the long run - and more of an adventure for those willing to take greater risks. Adventurous manned space programs (both privately funded and governmental) should be not be derided as a "waste of money." Not while these programs can motivate people to make progress. Still, to keep any new efforts ''affordable'', it's better to avoid doing things that ''require'' sending people, especially since others are already willing to pay that cost. In the meantime, new efforts should look closely at how they might be "externalizing" some environmental costs on others, and minimize costs.
to:
-> Launching people into orbit and getting them back safely is an expensive adventure, and right now it's hard to see how to make it ''much'' cheaper. Nevertheless, public and private investment in this adventure isn't slackening much. Whether the space travelers are "billionauts" or cosmonauts, those of us left behind on Earth still find space travel exciting. It's important to find something to do for the rest of us, something that can help make space travel more comfortable and enjoyable for more people in the long run - and more of an adventure for those willing to take greater risks. Adventurous manned space programs (both privately funded and governmental) should be not be derided as a "waste of money" -- mot while these programs can motivate people to make progress. Still, to keep any new efforts ''affordable'', it's better to avoid doing things that ''require'' sending people, especially since others are already willing to pay that cost. In the meantime, new efforts should look closely at how they might be "externalizing" some environmental costs on others, and minimize those costs.
Changed lines 36-37 from:
-> Space will never be the ultimate global-environmental-disaster escape hatch.  Space activist rhetoric aimed at selling space development that way is not only hard to take seriously. It's also unnecessarily alarmist, and sometimes transparently elitist, since any "lifeboats" would necessarily take only the very few.  99.9999%+ of us will be stuck here on Earth even if some "lifeboat" effort succeeds. So whatever [[Project Persephone]] does, it should be as "green" as possible, and should emphasize long-term (even multi-century) improvements in global living standards. Regardless of whether it ever meets its longer-term goals, it should improve the living standards and ecosystems wherever it acts, especially in developing nations.  Looking farther ahead, the goal of sustainability includes minimizing [[orbital debris]], debris that could endanger satellites that contribute to sustainability. [[Project Persephone]] must also avoid "information pollution" - spreading abusable knowledge of how to weaponize space - for as long as people on Earth have reason to fear [[arms proliferation]].
to:
-> Space will never be the ultimate global-environmental-disaster escape hatch. Space activist rhetoric aimed at selling space development that way is not only hard to take seriously. It's also unnecessarily alarmist, and sometimes transparently elitist, since any "lifeboats" would necessarily take only the very few. 99.9999%+ of us will be stuck here on Earth even if some "lifeboat" effort succeeds. Whatever [[Project Persephone]] does, it should be as "green" as possible, and should emphasize long-term (even multi-century) improvements in global living standards. Regardless of whether it ever meets its longer-term goals, it should improve the living standards ''and'' ecosystems wherever it acts, especially in developing nations.  Looking farther ahead, the goal of sustainability includes minimizing [[orbital debris]], debris that could endanger satellites that contribute to sustainability. [[Project Persephone]] must also avoid "information pollution" - spreading abusable knowledge of how to weaponize space - for as long as people on Earth have reason to fear [[arms proliferation]].
August 20, 2012, at 10:03 PM by 114.181.135.35 -
Changed lines 3-7 from:
To get something done, you have to set standards, not just goals. If [[Project Persephone]] is the right thing to do, the questions aren't over. Doing the right things gets you nowhere if you're not also doing things right. The risks, expense and difficulty of space travel makes figuring out ''any'' "right way" very hard.

While one project goal is to make space fun for lots of people, there are enjoyable things people shouldn't do, and the things that people should do aren't always enjoyable. How do you steer a middle course? Where is the balance to be found? Project Persephone calls this "meeting the '''SPEC'''" - reaching goals '''S'''eriously, '''P'''eacefully, '''E'''quitably, and '''C'''leanly. At times, there will be unpleasant trade-offs among modes. Even the minimum of necessary conflict might sometimes amount to a lot of strife. The Project's goals are particularly challenging in view of the trends toward a possible [[decline in launch demand]] for commercial payloads, the problem of space-based and space-enabled [[arms proliferation]], and a threat to all near-Earth uses of space from anthropogenic [[orbital debris]].

to:
To get something done, you need to set standards, not just goals. If [[Project Persephone]] is the right thing to do, the questions are just beginning. Doing the right things gets you nowhere if you're not also doing things right. The risks, expense and difficulty of space travel makes figuring out ''any'' "right way" very hard.

While one Project goal is to make space fun for lots of people, there are always enjoyable things that people shouldn't do, and the things that people ''should'' do aren't always enjoyable. How do you steer a middle course? Where is the balance to be found? Project Persephone calls this "meeting the '''SPEC'''" - reaching goals '''S'''eriously, '''P'''eacefully, '''E'''quitably, and '''C'''leanly. At times, there will be unpleasant trade-offs. Even the minimum of necessary conflict might sometimes amount to a lot of strife. The Project's goals are particularly challenging in view of the trends toward a possible long-term [[decline in launch demand]] for commercial payloads, the problem of space-based and space-enabled [[arms proliferation]], and a threat to all near-Earth uses of space from anthropogenic [[orbital debris]].

Changed lines 12-13 from:
If the long-run future of humanity depends on good use of the infinite resources (and the infinite waste-sink) of space, 50 years of progress toward that future still leaves much to be desired. It's not hard to see the core problem: getting to space, to make good things happen there, is still far too expensive. If we could get a lot of ''things'' into space, more cheaply and more reliably, lots more possibilities open up. Space solar power, to reduce the environmental burden of power production on Earth. Moon and asteroid mining, leaving most of the pollution in space. Diverting near-earth objects, which could potentially set life on Earth back a million years. Space tourism for people who aren't extremely rich. Sending high-level radioactive waste into the sun. And plenty more ideas that haven't happened yet. There's no shortage.
to:
If the long-run future of humanity depends on good use of the infinite resources (and the infinite waste-sink) of space, 50 years of progress toward that future still leaves much to be desired. It's not hard to see the core problem: getting to space, to make good things happen there, is still far too expensive. If we could get a lot of ''things'' into space, more cheaply and more reliably, many more possibilities open up. Space solar power, to reduce the environmental burden of power production on Earth. Moon and asteroid mining, leaving most of the pollution in space. Diverting near-earth objects, which could potentially set life on Earth back a million years. Space tourism for people who aren't extremely rich. Sending high-level radioactive waste into the sun. And plenty more ideas that haven't happened yet. There's no shortage.
Changed lines 28-29 from:
-> A few people each paying a lot - that's how orbital tourism works, and probably how it will work for the foreseeable future. So far, it's not really increasing launch rates very much. A lot of people paying a little - that's how satellite TV works. So far, it's not really increasing launch rates very much either. (And watching TV about things happening on Earth isn't exactly deep involvement in things happening in space, nor is it necessarily very improving.) How can you involve a lot of people who can only pay a little - perhaps only with their own volunteer labor?  Enthusiasm is naturally limited when only a very few can feel the rewards. Doing a lot more in space means getting and keeping the enthusiasm of lots of individuals, teams and organizations. They will have limited budgets, limited time and energy, limited skills and qualifications.  What's needed is some (mostly) enjoyable thing to do, one that allows people on Earth to make things happen in space, in ways that make them feel like they are becoming better people - more skilled, more educated, more connected, more respected. Whatever it is, it should help build the capacity to do yet more, including more manned space travel in the long run. It should also be social, so that people enjoy talking about what they've gotten done, about what they are doing ''as they are doing it'', and about what they want to do next. And when it comes to what should come next: the effort should never get completely disconnected from the distant promise of a chance to go into space.
to:
-> A few people each paying a lot - that's how orbital tourism works, and it's probably how it will work for the foreseeable future. So far, it's not really increasing launch rates very much. A lot of people paying a little - that's how satellite TV works. So far, it's not really increasing launch rates very much either. (And watching TV about things happening on Earth isn't exactly deep involvement in things happening in space, nor is it necessarily very improving.) How can you involve a lot of people who can only pay a little - perhaps only with their own volunteer labor?  Enthusiasm is naturally limited when only a very few can feel the rewards. Doing a lot more in space means getting and keeping the enthusiasm of lots of individuals, teams and organizations. They will have limited budgets, limited time and energy, limited skills and qualifications.  What's needed is some (mostly) enjoyable thing to do, one that allows people on Earth to make things happen in space, in ways that make them feel like they are becoming better people - more skilled, more educated, more connected, more respected. Whatever it is, it should help build the capacity to do yet more, including more manned space travel in the long run. It should also be social, so that people enjoy talking about what they've gotten done, about what they are doing ''as they are doing it'', and about what they want to do next. And when it comes to what should come next: the effort should never get completely disconnected from the distant promise of a chance to go into space.
August 20, 2012, at 10:00 PM by 114.181.135.35 -
Changed lines 5-6 from:
While one project goal is to make space fun for lots of people, there are enjoyable things people shouldn't do, and the things that people should do aren't always enjoyable. How do you steer a middle course? Where is the balance to be found? Project Persephone calls this "meeting the '''SPEC'''" - reaching goals '''S'''eriously, '''P'''eacefully, '''E'''quitably, and '''C'''leanly. At times, there will be unpleasant trade-offs among modes. Even the minimum of necessary conflict might sometimes amount to a lot of strife.  
to:
While one project goal is to make space fun for lots of people, there are enjoyable things people shouldn't do, and the things that people should do aren't always enjoyable. How do you steer a middle course? Where is the balance to be found? Project Persephone calls this "meeting the '''SPEC'''" - reaching goals '''S'''eriously, '''P'''eacefully, '''E'''quitably, and '''C'''leanly. At times, there will be unpleasant trade-offs among modes. Even the minimum of necessary conflict might sometimes amount to a lot of strife. The Project's goals are particularly challenging in view of the trends toward a possible [[decline in launch demand]] for commercial payloads, the problem of space-based and space-enabled [[arms proliferation]], and a threat to all near-Earth uses of space from anthropogenic [[orbital debris]].

August 20, 2011, at 04:16 AM by 114.181.130.36 -
Changed lines 27-28 from:
-> A few people each paying a lot - that's how orbital tourism works, and probably how it will work for the foreseeable future. So far, it's not really increasing launch rates very much. A lot of people paying a little - that's how satellite TV works. So far, it's not really increasing launch rates very much. (And watching TV about things happening on Earth isn't exactly deep involvement in things happening in space, nor necessarily very improving.) How can you involve a lot of people who can only pay a little - perhaps only with their own volunteer labor?  Enthusiasm is naturally limited when only a very few can feel the rewards. Doing a lot more in space means getting and keeping the enthusiasm of lots of individuals, teams and organizations. They will have limited budgets, limited time and energy, limited skills and qualifications.  What's needed is some (mostly) enjoyable thing to do, one that allows people on Earth to make things happen in space, in ways that make them feel like they are becoming better people - more skilled, more educated, more connected, more respected. Whatever it is, it should help build the capacity to do yet more, including more manned space travel in the long run. It should also be social, so that people enjoy talking about what they've gotten done, about what they are doing ''as they are doing it'', and about what they want to do next. And when it comes to what should come next: the effort should never get completely disconnected from the distant promise of a chance to go into space.
to:
-> A few people each paying a lot - that's how orbital tourism works, and probably how it will work for the foreseeable future. So far, it's not really increasing launch rates very much. A lot of people paying a little - that's how satellite TV works. So far, it's not really increasing launch rates very much either. (And watching TV about things happening on Earth isn't exactly deep involvement in things happening in space, nor is it necessarily very improving.) How can you involve a lot of people who can only pay a little - perhaps only with their own volunteer labor?  Enthusiasm is naturally limited when only a very few can feel the rewards. Doing a lot more in space means getting and keeping the enthusiasm of lots of individuals, teams and organizations. They will have limited budgets, limited time and energy, limited skills and qualifications.  What's needed is some (mostly) enjoyable thing to do, one that allows people on Earth to make things happen in space, in ways that make them feel like they are becoming better people - more skilled, more educated, more connected, more respected. Whatever it is, it should help build the capacity to do yet more, including more manned space travel in the long run. It should also be social, so that people enjoy talking about what they've gotten done, about what they are doing ''as they are doing it'', and about what they want to do next. And when it comes to what should come next: the effort should never get completely disconnected from the distant promise of a chance to go into space.
July 30, 2011, at 04:00 AM by 114.181.130.36 -
Changed lines 35-36 from:
-> Space will never be the ultimate global-environmental-disaster escape hatch.  Space activist rhetoric aimed at selling space development that way is not only hard to take seriously. It's also unnecessarily alarmist, and sometimes transparently elitist, since any "lifeboats" would necessarily take only the very few.  99.9999%+ of us will be stuck here on Earth even if some "lifeboat" effort succeeds. So whatever [[Project Persephone]] does, it should be as "green" as possible, and should emphasize long-term (even multi-century) improvements in global living standards. Regardless of whether it ever meets its longer-term goals, it should improve the living standards and ecosystems wherever it acts, especially in developing nations.  Looking farther ahead, the goal of sustainability includes minimizing debris in the orbits being used, debris which could endanger satellites that contribute to sustainability. [[Project Persephone]] must also avoid "information pollution" - spreading abusable knowledge of how to weaponize space - for as long as people on Earth have reason to fear this.
to:
-> Space will never be the ultimate global-environmental-disaster escape hatch.  Space activist rhetoric aimed at selling space development that way is not only hard to take seriously. It's also unnecessarily alarmist, and sometimes transparently elitist, since any "lifeboats" would necessarily take only the very few.  99.9999%+ of us will be stuck here on Earth even if some "lifeboat" effort succeeds. So whatever [[Project Persephone]] does, it should be as "green" as possible, and should emphasize long-term (even multi-century) improvements in global living standards. Regardless of whether it ever meets its longer-term goals, it should improve the living standards and ecosystems wherever it acts, especially in developing nations.  Looking farther ahead, the goal of sustainability includes minimizing [[orbital debris]], debris that could endanger satellites that contribute to sustainability. [[Project Persephone]] must also avoid "information pollution" - spreading abusable knowledge of how to weaponize space - for as long as people on Earth have reason to fear [[arms proliferation]].
July 21, 2011, at 12:01 PM by 114.181.130.36 -
Changed lines 38-39 from:

* '''S'''eriously - educating people in the process; it's ambitious goals might mean education is its only legacy
to:
* '''S'''eriously - educating people in the process - since after all, education might be its only legacy, given how ambitious its goals are
July 13, 2011, at 01:21 PM by 58.93.21.252 -
Changed lines 37-38 from:
Adding it all up, we get the goal of '''Meeting the SPEC''': ideally, Project Persephone must pursue its agenda
to:
Adding it all up, we get the goal of '''Meeting the SPEC''': ideally, Project Persephone pursues its agenda
July 13, 2011, at 01:21 PM by 58.93.21.252 -
Changed lines 31-32 from:
-> Launching people into orbit and getting them back safely is an expensive adventure, and right now it's hard to see how to make it ''much'' cheaper. Nevertheless, public and private investment in this adventure isn't slackening much. Whether the space travelers are "billionauts" or cosmonauts, earthbound people still find space travel exciting. It's important to find something to do for those left behind that can help make space travel more comfortable and enjoyable for more people in the long run - and more of an adventure for those willing to take greater risks. Adventurous manned space programs (both privately funded and governmental) should be not be derided as a "waste of money." Not while these programs can motivate people to make progress. Still, to keep any new efforts ''affordable'', it's better to avoid doing things that ''require'' sending people, especially since others are already willing to pay that cost. In the meantime, new efforts should look closely at the costs these might be "externalizing" on others, and minimize those.
to:
-> Launching people into orbit and getting them back safely is an expensive adventure, and right now it's hard to see how to make it ''much'' cheaper. Nevertheless, public and private investment in this adventure isn't slackening much. Whether the space travelers are "billionauts" or cosmonauts, earthbound people still find space travel exciting. It's important to find something to do for those left behind that can help make space travel more comfortable and enjoyable for more people in the long run - and more of an adventure for those willing to take greater risks. Adventurous manned space programs (both privately funded and governmental) should be not be derided as a "waste of money." Not while these programs can motivate people to make progress. Still, to keep any new efforts ''affordable'', it's better to avoid doing things that ''require'' sending people, especially since others are already willing to pay that cost. In the meantime, new efforts should look closely at how they might be "externalizing" some environmental costs on others, and minimize costs.
July 13, 2011, at 09:54 AM by 58.93.21.252 -
July 13, 2011, at 09:49 AM by 58.93.21.252 -
Changed lines 31-32 from:
-> Launching people into orbit and getting them back safely is an expensive adventure, and right now it's hard to see how to make it ''much'' cheaper. Nevertheless, public and private investment in this adventure isn't slackening much. Whether the space travelers are "billionauts" or cosmonauts, earthbound people still find space travel exciting. It's important to find something to do for those left behind that can help make space travel more comfortable and enjoyable for more people in the long run - and more of an adventure for those willing to take greater risks. Adventurous manned space programs (both privately funded and governmental) should be not be derided as a "waste of money." Not while these programs can motivate people to make progress. Still, to keep any new efforts ''affordable'', it's better to avoid doing things that ''require'' sending people, especially since others are already willing to pay that cost. In the meantime, it has to look closely at the costs it might be "externalizing" on others, and minimize those.
to:
-> Launching people into orbit and getting them back safely is an expensive adventure, and right now it's hard to see how to make it ''much'' cheaper. Nevertheless, public and private investment in this adventure isn't slackening much. Whether the space travelers are "billionauts" or cosmonauts, earthbound people still find space travel exciting. It's important to find something to do for those left behind that can help make space travel more comfortable and enjoyable for more people in the long run - and more of an adventure for those willing to take greater risks. Adventurous manned space programs (both privately funded and governmental) should be not be derided as a "waste of money." Not while these programs can motivate people to make progress. Still, to keep any new efforts ''affordable'', it's better to avoid doing things that ''require'' sending people, especially since others are already willing to pay that cost. In the meantime, new efforts should look closely at the costs these might be "externalizing" on others, and minimize those.
July 12, 2011, at 10:54 AM by 114.180.37.113 -
Added lines 1-2:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f2/MSc_student_at_Kenyatta_University.jpg/500px-MSc_student_at_Kenyatta_University.jpg
July 11, 2011, at 07:06 AM by 114.180.37.113 -
Changed lines 1-2 from:
'''Note: the Meeting the SPEC part isn't fully coherent here.  The emphasis below is about economies, secondarily about responsibilities.'''
to:
To get something done, you have to set standards, not just goals. If [[Project Persephone]] is the right thing to do, the questions aren't over. Doing the right things gets you nowhere if you're not also doing things right. The risks, expense and difficulty of space travel makes figuring out ''any'' "right way" very hard.

While one project goal is to make space fun for lots of people, there are enjoyable things people shouldn't do, and the things that people should do aren't always enjoyable. How do you steer a middle course? Where is the balance to be found? Project Persephone calls this "meeting the '''SPEC'''" - reaching goals '''S'''eriously, '''P'''eacefully, '''E'''quitably, and '''C'''leanly. At times, there will be unpleasant trade-offs among modes. Even the minimum of necessary conflict might sometimes amount to a lot of strife. 

Changed lines 7-22 from:
->''We can judge our progress by the courage of our [[Project Persephone FAQ|questions]] and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good'' - Carl Sagan

[[Project Persephone]]'s agenda grows out of several conclusions about what it will take to bring space access costs down to Earth: future space applications must meet the criteria of ''being commercially attractive'', ''involving a large user base'', ''fostering (but not requiring) human presence in space'', and ''being environmentally sustainable''.  In more detail:

* '''Be commercially attractive'''

-> Only some new, growing market will increase launch rates.  Higher launch rates are key to fostering the economies of scale (in production and operation) required to spur investment in lower-cost, higher-volume space launch infrastructure.  [[Orbital space tourism]] remains a recreation for the few who are motivated enough go through astronaut training, brave enough to take the trip, and rich enough to afford it.  It has been hosted so far only via governmental space programs (Russian manned launch, [[ISS]]
.)  The market for [[suborbital flight]] looks promising, but remains somewhat speculative; if successful, it may whet appetites for orbital tourism, but the technologies involved for suborbital flight do not go far toward solving the much more difficult problem of low-cost ''orbital'' space access.  Something new is needed.  And it has to be popular.

*
'''Involve a large user base'''

-> This may be a prerequisite for being commercially attractive.  Enthusiasm for space development is naturally limited when only a very few can experience the rewards of participating directly
.  Expansion of activities in orbit must compel the attention of a large user base consisting of individuals, teams and organizations with relatively small budgets, limited time and energy, and limited skills and qualifications.  Popular activities must be designed that allow people on Earth to visibly make things happen in space; to do things on Earth that enable present and future space activities, including more manned space travel in the long run; and to communicate effectively and enjoyably about what they are doing, what they have accomplished, and what they want to do next.

* '''Foster -- but don't require -- human presence in space'''

-> Even though launching people into orbit and returning them safely to Earth
is an expensive adventure and will remain so for the foreseeable future, public and private investment in this adventure shows no sign of slackening.  Future project activities should (among other goals) be oriented toward making space more habitable for human beings in the long run.  Adventurous manned space programs (both privately funded and governmental) should be not be denigrated as a "waste of money."  However, in the interest of maintaining and reaching ''affordable'' goals, no work should be undertaken by the organization if the activity ''requires'' sponsoring human presence in space.
to:
->''We can judge our progress by the courage of our [[Project Persephone FAQ|questions]] and the depth of our answers, by our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good'' - Carl Sagan

If the long-run future of humanity depends on good use of the infinite resources (and the infinite waste-sink) of space, 50 years of progress toward that future still leaves much to be desired. It's not hard to see the core problem: getting to space, to make good things happen there, is still far too expensive. If we could get a lot of ''things'' into space, more cheaply and more reliably, lots more possibilities open up. Space solar power, to reduce the environmental burden of power production on Earth. Moon and asteroid mining, leaving most of the pollution in space. Diverting near-earth objects, which could potentially set life on Earth back a million years. Space tourism for people who aren't extremely rich. Sending high-level radioactive waste into the sun. And plenty more ideas that haven't happened yet. There's no shortage.

What will it take to make it cheaper to get ''things'', at the very least, into space? It looks like it will take several, if not all, of the following :
* ''finding something to do that can pay its own way
''
*
''getting lots of people deeply involved - and making them the better for it''
*
''fostering (but not immediately requiring) human space travel''
* ''being environmentally sustainable''.

In more detail:

* '''pay its own way'''

-> Higher launch rates are key to the economies of scale needed to spur more investment in lower-cost, higher-volume space launch infrastructure
. And only some new, growing market will increase launch rates dramatically.  When we look at what's relatively new, it's not necessarily enough. [[Orbital space tourism]] remains a recreation for the few who are motivated enough go through astronaut training, brave enough to take the trip, and rich enough to afford it.  It has been hosted so far only via governmental space programs (Russian manned launch, [[ISS]].)  The market for [[suborbital space tourism]] looks promising, but remains speculative; if successful, it may whet appetites for orbital tourism, but the technologies involved for suborbital flight do not go very far toward solving the much more difficult problem of low-cost ''orbital'' space access.  Something new is needed.  And it has to be popular.

* '''lots of people deeply involved'''

-> A few people each paying a lot - that's how orbital tourism works, and probably how it will work for the foreseeable future. So far, it's not really increasing launch rates very much. A lot of people paying a little - that's how satellite TV works. So far, it's not really increasing launch rates very much. (And watching TV about things happening on Earth isn
't exactly deep involvement in things happening in space, nor necessarily very improving.) How can you involve a lot of people who can only pay a little - perhaps only with their own volunteer labor?  Enthusiasm is naturally limited when only a very few can feel the rewards. Doing a lot more in space means getting and keeping the enthusiasm of lots of individuals, teams and organizations. They will have limited budgets, limited time and energy, limited skills and qualifications.  What's needed is some (mostly) enjoyable thing to do, one that allows people on Earth to make things happen in space, in ways that make them feel like they are becoming better people - more skilled, more educated, more connected, more respected. Whatever it is, it should help build the capacity to do yet more, including more manned space travel in the long run. It should also be social, so that people enjoy talking about what they've gotten done, about what they are doing ''as they are doing it'', and about what they want to do next. And when it comes to what should come next: the effort should never get completely disconnected from the distant promise of a chance to go into space.

* '''Eyes on the prize - even if not everybody wins it'''

-> Launching people into orbit and getting them back safely is an expensive adventure, and right now it's hard to see how to make it ''much'' cheaper. Nevertheless, public and private investment in this adventure isn't slackening much. Whether the space travelers are "billionauts" or cosmonauts, earthbound people still find space travel exciting. It's important to find something to do for those left behind that can help make space travel more comfortable and enjoyable for more people in the long run - and more of an adventure for those willing to take greater risks. Adventurous manned space programs (both privately funded and governmental) should be not be derided as a "waste of money." Not while these programs can motivate people to make progress. Still, to keep any new efforts ''affordable'', it's better to avoid doing things that ''require'' sending people, especially since others are already willing to pay that cost. In the meantime, it has to look closely at the costs it might be "externalizing" on others, and minimize those
.
Changed lines 33-37 from:
-> Space will never be the ultimate global-disaster escape hatch.  Space activist rhetoric aimed at selling space access that way is easily seen as alarmist, and sometimes seen as transparently elitist, since any "lifeboats" would necessarily take only the few.  Project activities should therefore minimize the degree of environmental degradation necessary for success, and should emphasize long-term (multi-century) improvements in living standards globally.  They should improve, in the near- and medium-term, the living standards and ecosystems of localities that host activities, especially those in developing nations.  Looking farther ahead, sustainability includes minimizing pollution of the orbital environment with debris, which poses hazards to other useful (and environmentally important) space activities.

Adding it all up, we get
the goal of '''Meeting the SPEC''': Project Persephone must pursue its agenda

* '''S'''eriously - educating people in the process
to:
-> Space will never be the ultimate global-environmental-disaster escape hatch.  Space activist rhetoric aimed at selling space development that way is not only hard to take seriously. It's also unnecessarily alarmist, and sometimes transparently elitist, since any "lifeboats" would necessarily take only the very few.  99.9999%+ of us will be stuck here on Earth even if some "lifeboat" effort succeeds. So whatever [[Project Persephone]] does, it should be as "green" as possible, and should emphasize long-term (even multi-century) improvements in global living standards. Regardless of whether it ever meets its longer-term goals, it should improve the living standards and ecosystems wherever it acts, especially in developing nations.  Looking farther ahead, the goal of sustainability includes minimizing debris in the orbits being used, debris which could endanger satellites that contribute to sustainability. [[Project Persephone]] must also avoid "information pollution" - spreading abusable knowledge of how to weaponize space - for as long as people on Earth have reason to fear this.

Adding it all up, we get the goal of '''Meeting the SPEC''': ideally, Project Persephone must pursue its agenda

* '''S'''eriously - educating people in the process; it's ambitious goals might mean education is its only legacy
Added lines 1-2:
'''Note: the Meeting the SPEC part isn't fully coherent here.  The emphasis below is about economies, secondarily about responsibilities.'''
Changed lines 21-22 from:
-> Space will never be the ultimate global-disaster escape hatch.  Space activist rhetoric aimed at selling space access that way is easily seen as alarmist, and sometimes seen as transparently elitist, since any "lifeboats" would necessarily take only the few.  Project activities should therefor minimize the degree of environmental degradation necessary for success, and should emphasize long-term (multi-century) improvements in living standards globally.  They should improve, in the near- and medium-term, the living standards and ecosystems of localities that host activities, especially those in developing nations.  Looking farther ahead, sustainability includes minimizing pollution of the orbital environment with debris, which poses hazards to other useful (and environmentally important) space activities.
to:
-> Space will never be the ultimate global-disaster escape hatch.  Space activist rhetoric aimed at selling space access that way is easily seen as alarmist, and sometimes seen as transparently elitist, since any "lifeboats" would necessarily take only the few.  Project activities should therefore minimize the degree of environmental degradation necessary for success, and should emphasize long-term (multi-century) improvements in living standards globally.  They should improve, in the near- and medium-term, the living standards and ecosystems of localities that host activities, especially those in developing nations.  Looking farther ahead, sustainability includes minimizing pollution of the orbital environment with debris, which poses hazards to other useful (and environmentally important) space activities.
Added lines 23-30:
Adding it all up, we get the goal of '''Meeting the SPEC''': Project Persephone must pursue its agenda

* '''S'''eriously - educating people in the process
* '''P'''eacefully - avoiding (ideally even countering) [[arms proliferation]]
* '''E'''quitably - improving developing-world [[prosperity]]
* '''C'''leanly - not degrading (and ideally promoting) environmental [[sustainability]]

Changed lines 3-4 from:
->''We can judge our progress by the courage of our [[FAQ|questions]] and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good'' - Carl Sagan
to:
->''We can judge our progress by the courage of our [[Project Persephone FAQ|questions]] and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good'' - Carl Sagan
Changed lines 3-4 from:
->''We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good'' - Carl Sagan
to:
->''We can judge our progress by the courage of our [[FAQ|questions]] and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good'' - Carl Sagan
July 23, 2010, at 12:27 PM by 218.44.38.86 -
Changed lines 17-18 from:
-> Even though launching people into orbit and returning them safely to Earth is an expensive adventure and will remain so for the foreseeable future, public and private investment in this adventure shows no sign of slackening.  Future project activities should (among other goals) be oriented toward making space more habitable for human beings in the long run.  Adventurous manned space programs (both privately funded and governmental) should be not be denigrated as a "waste of money."  However, in the interest of maintain affordable goals, no work should be undertaken by the organization if the activity ''requires'' sponsoring human presence in space.
to:
-> Even though launching people into orbit and returning them safely to Earth is an expensive adventure and will remain so for the foreseeable future, public and private investment in this adventure shows no sign of slackening.  Future project activities should (among other goals) be oriented toward making space more habitable for human beings in the long run.  Adventurous manned space programs (both privately funded and governmental) should be not be denigrated as a "waste of money."  However, in the interest of maintaining and reaching ''affordable'' goals, no work should be undertaken by the organization if the activity ''requires'' sponsoring human presence in space.
Changed lines 21-22 from:
-> Space will never be the ultimate environmental escape hatch.  Space activist rhetoric aimed at selling space access that way is easily seen as alarmist, and sometimes seen as transparently elitist, since any "lifeboats" would necessarily take only the few.  Activities should therefor minimize the degree of environmental degradation necessary for success, and should emphasize long-term (multi-century) improvements in living standards globally.  They should improve, in the near- and medium-term, the living standards and ecosystems of localities that host activities, especially those in developing nations.  Sustainability includes minimizing pollution of the orbital environment with debris, which poses hazards to other useful (and environmentally important) space activities.
to:
-> Space will never be the ultimate global-disaster escape hatch.  Space activist rhetoric aimed at selling space access that way is easily seen as alarmist, and sometimes seen as transparently elitist, since any "lifeboats" would necessarily take only the few.  Project activities should therefor minimize the degree of environmental degradation necessary for success, and should emphasize long-term (multi-century) improvements in living standards globally.  They should improve, in the near- and medium-term, the living standards and ecosystems of localities that host activities, especially those in developing nations.  Looking farther ahead, sustainability includes minimizing pollution of the orbital environment with debris, which poses hazards to other useful (and environmentally important) space activities.
October 04, 2009, at 06:19 AM by 114.181.137.230 -
Changed lines 17-18 from:
-> Launching human beings into orbit and returning them safely to Earth will entail very high costs for the foreseeable future.  Yet, public and private investment in this adventure proceeds apace.  Future activities should (among other goals) be oriented toward making space more habitable for human beings in the long run; adventurous manned space programs (both governmental and private sector) should be not be denigrated.  However, no work should be undertaken by the organization if the activity ''requires'' sponsoring human presence in space.
to:
-> Even though launching people into orbit and returning them safely to Earth is an expensive adventure and will remain so for the foreseeable future, public and private investment in this adventure shows no sign of slackening.  Future project activities should (among other goals) be oriented toward making space more habitable for human beings in the long run.  Adventurous manned space programs (both privately funded and governmental) should be not be denigrated as a "waste of money."  However, in the interest of maintain affordable goals, no work should be undertaken by the organization if the activity ''requires'' sponsoring human presence in space.
Changed lines 21-22 from:
-> Space is not the ultimate environmental escape hatch; rhetoric aimed at selling space access that way is easily seen as alarmist, and sometimes seen as transparently elitist, since the lifeboat would necessarily only be for the few.  Activities should therefor minimize the degree of environmental degradation necessary for success, and should emphasize long-term (multi-century) improvements in living standards globally.  They should improve, in the near- and medium-term, the living standards and ecosystems of localities that host activities, especially those in developing nations.  Sustainability includes minimizing pollution of the orbital environment with debris, which poses hazards to other useful (and environmentally important) space activities.
to:
-> Space will never be the ultimate environmental escape hatch.  Space activist rhetoric aimed at selling space access that way is easily seen as alarmist, and sometimes seen as transparently elitist, since any "lifeboats" would necessarily take only the few.  Activities should therefor minimize the degree of environmental degradation necessary for success, and should emphasize long-term (multi-century) improvements in living standards globally.  They should improve, in the near- and medium-term, the living standards and ecosystems of localities that host activities, especially those in developing nations.  Sustainability includes minimizing pollution of the orbital environment with debris, which poses hazards to other useful (and environmentally important) space activities.
October 04, 2009, at 06:05 AM by 114.181.137.230 -
Changed lines 9-10 from:
-> Only some new, growing market will increase launch rates.  Higher launch rates are key to fostering the economies of scale (in production and operation) required to spur investment in lower-cost, higher-volume space launch infrastructure.  [[Orbital space tourism]] remains a recreation for the few who are motivated enough go through astronaut training, brave enough to take the trip, and rich enough to afford it.  It has been hosted so far only via governmental space programs (Russian manned launch, [ISS]].)  The market for [[suborbital flight]] looks promising, but remains somewhat speculative; if successful, it may whet appetites for orbital tourism, but the technologies involved for suborbital flight do not go far toward solving the much more difficult problem of low-cost ''orbital'' space access.  Something new is needed.  And it has to be popular.
to:
-> Only some new, growing market will increase launch rates.  Higher launch rates are key to fostering the economies of scale (in production and operation) required to spur investment in lower-cost, higher-volume space launch infrastructure.  [[Orbital space tourism]] remains a recreation for the few who are motivated enough go through astronaut training, brave enough to take the trip, and rich enough to afford it.  It has been hosted so far only via governmental space programs (Russian manned launch, [[ISS]].)  The market for [[suborbital flight]] looks promising, but remains somewhat speculative; if successful, it may whet appetites for orbital tourism, but the technologies involved for suborbital flight do not go far toward solving the much more difficult problem of low-cost ''orbital'' space access.  Something new is needed.  And it has to be popular.
October 04, 2009, at 06:04 AM by 114.181.137.230 -
Changed lines 5-6 from:
Project Persephone's agenda grows out of several conclusions about what it will take to bring space access costs down to Earth: future space applications must meet the criteria of ''being commercially attractive'', ''involving a large user base'', ''fostering (but not requiring) human presence in space'', and ''being environmentally sustainable''.  In more detail:
to:
[[Project Persephone]]'s agenda grows out of several conclusions about what it will take to bring space access costs down to Earth: future space applications must meet the criteria of ''being commercially attractive'', ''involving a large user base'', ''fostering (but not requiring) human presence in space'', and ''being environmentally sustainable''.  In more detail:
October 04, 2009, at 06:00 AM by 114.181.137.230 -
Added lines 1-23:
!!! Facing Inescapable Realities

->''We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good'' - Carl Sagan

Project Persephone's agenda grows out of several conclusions about what it will take to bring space access costs down to Earth: future space applications must meet the criteria of ''being commercially attractive'', ''involving a large user base'', ''fostering (but not requiring) human presence in space'', and ''being environmentally sustainable''.  In more detail:

* '''Be commercially attractive'''

-> Only some new, growing market will increase launch rates.  Higher launch rates are key to fostering the economies of scale (in production and operation) required to spur investment in lower-cost, higher-volume space launch infrastructure.  [[Orbital space tourism]] remains a recreation for the few who are motivated enough go through astronaut training, brave enough to take the trip, and rich enough to afford it.  It has been hosted so far only via governmental space programs (Russian manned launch, [ISS]].)  The market for [[suborbital flight]] looks promising, but remains somewhat speculative; if successful, it may whet appetites for orbital tourism, but the technologies involved for suborbital flight do not go far toward solving the much more difficult problem of low-cost ''orbital'' space access.  Something new is needed.  And it has to be popular.

* '''Involve a large user base'''

-> This may be a prerequisite for being commercially attractive.  Enthusiasm for space development is naturally limited when only a very few can experience the rewards of participating directly.  Expansion of activities in orbit must compel the attention of a large user base consisting of individuals, teams and organizations with relatively small budgets, limited time and energy, and limited skills and qualifications.  Popular activities must be designed that allow people on Earth to visibly make things happen in space; to do things on Earth that enable present and future space activities, including more manned space travel in the long run; and to communicate effectively and enjoyably about what they are doing, what they have accomplished, and what they want to do next.

* '''Foster -- but don't require -- human presence in space'''

-> Launching human beings into orbit and returning them safely to Earth will entail very high costs for the foreseeable future.  Yet, public and private investment in this adventure proceeds apace.  Future activities should (among other goals) be oriented toward making space more habitable for human beings in the long run; adventurous manned space programs (both governmental and private sector) should be not be denigrated.  However, no work should be undertaken by the organization if the activity ''requires'' sponsoring human presence in space.

* '''Be environmentally sustainable'''

-> Space is not the ultimate environmental escape hatch; rhetoric aimed at selling space access that way is easily seen as alarmist, and sometimes seen as transparently elitist, since the lifeboat would necessarily only be for the few.  Activities should therefor minimize the degree of environmental degradation necessary for success, and should emphasize long-term (multi-century) improvements in living standards globally.  They should improve, in the near- and medium-term, the living standards and ecosystems of localities that host activities, especially those in developing nations.  Sustainability includes minimizing pollution of the orbital environment with debris, which poses hazards to other useful (and environmentally important) space activities.

[^#^]
GlossyBlue theme adapted by David Gilbert
Powered by PmWiki