Slashdot Mirror
Japan's 20-Year Plan for Space
rwven writes "Japan has just released information on their new space plan which will take them through the year 2025. Included in their plan are robots and nanotechnology for moon surveys as well as an eventual hydrogen powered mach-5 capable plane, a mach-2 capable passenger airliner and a manned mission to the moon. They will consider missions to mars and other planets after 2025. Space.com is also carrying this story."
The more competition in the arena of space, the more designs get tested out, and the quicker we find what reduces the cost of spaceflight and what makes it more expensive. The only downside is that we'll have to deal with the oversized Hello Kitty decals flying overhead :P
What a crazy random happenstance!
I wonder how much cooperation is going to be forced on the space faring nations over the next couple of years as they vie for more expensive technology with ever shrinking resources.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Over the next decade, JAXA's plan calls for scientists to develop robots and nanotechnology for surveys of the moon
I thought Nanotech was still in its infancy. What are they going to do, dump a bunch of buckyballs in a crater?
Top 10 Reasons To Procrastinate
10.
All this Japanese talk of the moon and beyond is great -- and welcome, but I think Japan should concentrate on simply putting a human above 62.5 miles safely first...without cancelling the program.
They have obviously run out of places to put hidden giant-mecha hangers, and are looking for room to build more.
Robotic moon surveyors, indeed!
my comic
This is one thing that I love about Japanese culture -- the ability to plan long-term. Their companies will develop 5-year plans while here in the US, we're preoccupied with every 3 months...
One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
Hey, if Japan just gets me decent sat. imagery for New Hampshire that Google Maps can use, I'd be happy ;-)
Honestly, while they wouldn't say it publicly, they're getting involved because of China. China has been very successful with their space program as of late, and as a strategic foe of Japan, and with some high-profile failures recently, Japan has to play catch up. Not that it's a bad thing, mind you - I'd love to see both of them dump all of their money into spaceflight and related research that they can, so that everyone else will reap the benefits. Research is expensive. Hardware is expensive. Testing new designs out is very expensive. Let the Chinese and Japanese pay for all that they can ;)
What a crazy random happenstance!
I think there is a fundamental difference in thinking between corporate USA and much of the rest of the world. US corporations are increasingly quarterly driven and "long term" is starting to mean thinking two or three quarters out. I have not RTFA, but I expect the Japanese actually have a planned program.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Now they can put the robot we saw in action here in space and have them fight the ultimate war of the machines. Imagine you having nuke armed robots on mars attacking flying robots over jupiter... pretty cool
fuvoo: watch something
I could live in Japan. I already watch way too much anime and read too many magnas. They have, like, five story stores there with nothing but. :-)
Why should Asian space efforts go for "manned" space flights?
I love Star Trek as much as anybody but the human body is a very difficult payload to sustain. If Japan is going to do serious planetary exploration (...and I wish them well at this...) then the first step should be to define goals and discard things with a low payoff
Apart from publicity stunts and tourism (... which should be self-funding ...), what goals are served by putting humans on the moon or in cislunar space?
Robots can explore far more cheaply than humans, so for any particular amount of money, we can do more exploration with robots than with humans.
The idea that humans can make on-site decisions better than robots can is simply an artifact of time-scale. That is, while there is some necessary time-lag between a robot noticing a funny rock on Mars or Titan, reporting back to Mission Control on Earth, and then acting on directions ... so what? The robot is patient, doesn't sleep, and if properly powered doesn't have to worry about food supplies.
Like I said, I love Star Trek but until we get really, really serious advances in technology, lunar and cislunar exploration is more sensibly done with robots.
But I'd be interested in contrary views.
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
To say we don't have a plan is pretty ignorant. Go look at http://exploration.nasa.gov/ and you'll see it in great detail. I think what you mean to say is that you don't agree with it -- so say that instead. And going to Mars is a very small, far off part of that plan.
Finally, most of your six points are part of that plan -- except for the maglift sci-fi you propose.
Respectfully, it looks like you have some reading to do.
Flying cars are science fiction (at least economically and resourcefully *viable* flying cars are). What Japan is trying to do is reality. And you have a serious problem of not being able to differentiate between science fiction and reality.
Cost reductions will only happen if there is significant competition from cost consious buyers. The space market will have to change a lot before that happens.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
or else you would know that they are MANGA and not MAGNA.
yes, typo, I know. But still....a real Otaku would use a japanese to engrish spellchecker.
click me
I wonder if the space ship will use 4 rocket boosters mounted sideways, in an innovative space saving design with front rocket Drive.
Well, according to them you won't have to wait more than 2 more years for your flying car.
The Immortality Institute
Orginally posted by Guppy06:
"Gee, but everybody on Slashdot already knows that manned space exploration just isn't worth it! Everything we could possibly want to do in space can be done by robots!"
Was that sarcasm? I hope so. There are very good things that could eventually come from manned exploration of space. It could lead to the eventual colonization of space which could be an escape from the whole hell's kitten affect. Not to mention that there are things the humans might be able to adapt if something goes wrong that robots can't. It's still risky and dangerous now but that's why it needs developed. Trust me, once China reachs the moon and starts putting coloneys up there the US will suddenly have an interst.
National prestige. That's why. Not all money spent needs to be justified on a quantifiable physical or economic asset. Somethings just can't be graphed on paper. In the end, the feeling people get seeing their citizens on another planet can arguable have more of an impact on that society than spending the same resources on robot missions.
People are allowed to be people, you know. Naturally curious and sometimes doing dangerous and expensive things that have no obvious economic interest.
Burn Hollywood Burn
If Mars had plaid-skirted schoolgirls living on it they'd have been there twenty years ago. Am I right? Am I right? Is this thing on? Thank you, I'll be here all week.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
"I've had flying cars in my 20 year plan for about 50 years. I think TIME Magazine and National Geographic have as well. So, we'll see this Japanese stuff in 2057 is what they're saying, right?"
Uh. Heh. The problem with flying cars isn't so much the technology, it's the pilots. Higher class people can afford their own planes, but they're not exactly selling like hotcakes. Why? Because it takes a lot of hours to get your pilot's license. In order to make flying cars practical for mass-audiences (like they promise in PopSci), cars have to basically fly on their own. That sort of automation isn't all that practical today. GPS is helping, though...
"Derp de derp."
Wow, you hit the nail on the head. But your point about letting them do the reascearch is a good but misleading one. While it's good to let them pour resources into development, that might lead to them surpassing us in the feild of space exploration and in turn could lead to us playing catch up. While we'd be able to benifite from the technology they develop, you have to remember that infastructor is very time consuming to get into place, so we'd better not sit back too far or we may find ourselves left in the dust.
But for exploring the moon, less than 2 light second away, frankly a remote controlled robot is far more than enough, and all decision making are on earth, without having to take tons of water, food, meatbags, air, and protection against radiation or whatnot. And that was I think the point of the poster. He was not in any respect speaking of implementing any decision making into a robot.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
What percentage of car owners are driving cars built in the early '80s?
comparing the shuttle fleet to consumer automobiles is disingenuous. A much more honest, but not perfect example is commercial aircraft. With proper maintenance, aircraft are kept flying for decades.
Dogma - "let's just say we'd like to avoid any empirical entanglements."
Where are they planning to take off from? All the space centers I have ever heard of have always been in remote locations. And last time I checked, these aren't in abundance in Japan...
It really strikes me that nobody evaluates the feasibility of things like Mach 2 air travel in the face of the end of cheap oil era on the horizon. Even as anybody can observe the total failure that today's airlines already are -- due to that very factor.
We can already do those...
Where's the friggin' VERITECHS!?!?!
Fifth Generation Project
There's no mention of Mechs. Or the Yamato. Not even a single reference to a wave motion gun! Ah well, maybe those are in the next 20 year phase.
Seriously though, good luck Japan! I only wish we were as forward thinking as you guys seem to be. As it is, we can't even find a few million to keep getting data from Voyager.
Learn from us, do yourselves a favor and budget past those 20. You'll be glad you did, someday.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Is this an improvement over the ~600mph and 50000' boost that an aircraft (such as the X-series research aircraft's B29s/B52s and SpaceShipOne's White Knight) could provide?
(747's already piggyback the Shuttle - granted, that's without boosters/external tank, but an aircraft that large still wouldn't be prohibitively expensive, and smaller aircraft can be used to further prove the concept).
Japan is broke as well is the United States. How does japan plan to accomplish this feat? More debt i assume?
Damnit.. why don't they have a moderation for "Groan" ... and then people that haven't groaned enough during the day can set that REALLY high...
and read nothing but really, really bad jokes all day.
But, while we're on the subject... "If Mars had Oil in it's belly, the US would have invaded it years ago, claiming the aliens were being ruled by an evil overlord"
"There is a reason Linux is free"
~me~
Bring on the MECHA!!!
GET FREE APPLE STUFF!
Aerospace really seems to be the one place that Japan is behined the US, the EU, Russia, and even China.
Take a look at there "plans".
A Mach 2 airliner? The Concorde already did that. A Mach 5 unmanned aircraft? The shuttle and X-15 already beat those speeds and they where manned.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
"Perhaps it would be best if we were to convince the Japanese that they should take over the stewardship of the Hubble Space Telescope and the Voyager Probe, both of which are now slated for abandonment by the Bush administration"
You are incorrect. The current congress/adminstration has specifically budgeted money for Hubble to remain in use and it is NASA that is not spending that money and cancelling Hubble.
Burn Hollywood Burn
It's funny how we were dicussing Japan and Mars in the Mars Rover story and then boom, here it is again
In America, you spam computers In Soviet Russia, computers spam you!
a robot can only do so much in space, its decision making capabilities are limited by what is programmed into it, a human being is flexible enough to change the plan if the need arises. robots in space can only show us so much, i'm all for manned space exploration, 100% behind it.
besides, maybe this is the swift kick in the ass that the U.S. needs in order to get their space program moving at a faster pace.
/. is overrun by bed-wetting elitist nerds
let it be known, for anything other than servers, a *nix OS sucks
If we're ever going to get off this frigging rock, we need man-rated vehicles, we need efficient launch solutions, we need fast turnaround and we need sustainable habitats.
NASA has one man rated vehicle that is grossly expensive to launch, has a turnaround that is at best seasonal, and is currently used to service a barely sustainable habitat that is essentially a badly under-crewed garbage barge orbiting too low to avoid reentry without constant readjustment.
NASA, assuming they have ANY interest in the future of manned spaceflight, just isn't getting the job done. Competition is good. It took getting our ass handed to us by the Russians with Sputnik, etc. for us to even start giving a shit about space- if China or Japan puts a man on the moon, you can bet we'll be busting ass to beat them to mars.
500 years ago you probably would have been insisting on a land route to china, since it's Safe And Proven and Doesn't Risk Equipment Or Lives, etc, etc.
It's not really limited to higher class or that much time. You can get your PPL in as little as 40 hours (though that's rare. I'd plan for around 60) and an older Cessna 150 or 152 can be had for around $18,000. If you're willing to build a kit airplane you can have a very high performance brand-new aircraft for as little as $10k for some models, with darn-nice models (like the Mustang II or Zodiac 601XL) coming in at around $25-35k to build. That's cheap but it's not exactly higher class either.
:).
What seems to keep most people out of the air is that they're downright terrified of flying. My family completely flipped out when I told them I'd be taking pilot's lessons, and no ammount of statistics would convince them that GA is safe. To them they truly belive that flying a private plane is a question of when you crash and die, not if. Most of the general public seem to share in this ignorance. Oh well. Their loss
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Oops. Last sentence of first paragraph should have read:
That's not cheap, but it's not exactly higher class either.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
to power Japan's and China's space flights.
At least some countries believe in scientific research, even if we don't.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
You don't have to be so closed-minded and nationalistic. I think its fantastic that China, India and now Japan are working on their space programs, as they'll no doubt bring things that Europe, the US and Russia would not. What's more, any 'space race' that leads to "us" being overtaken can only encourage "our" governments to increase spending on space.
They're called planes.
Mada mada dane.
". In order to make flying cars practical for mass-audiences (like they promise in PopSci), cars have to basically fly on their own. That sort of automation isn't all that practical today. GPS is helping, though..." Not true. Autopilots fly planes today, the pilots are now the "backup" systems. GPS just makes the flying more accurate. With collision avoidance technology available now (some high end SUVs have it so of something is behind the vehicle it warns you if you back up) and autopilots that don't need a lot of CPU it's IS possible to have flying cars today. The average home PC can do the flying tasks for a small plane. There could even be AI that warns the pilot he/she is Bingo on fuel and diverts the carplane to the nearest gas station. I wouldn't be cheap, and the reliability of some components would need to increase but it is certainly doable. IMNSHO, the reason it has not been done at least on a small scale is 1) the traffic control infrastructure is not there to control the flow and 2) Insurance costs would be very high and 3) liablility lawsuits against the carplane mfgs would have the sharks..ooops..lawyers salivating.
Not only that.
Reliability is also a major show-stopper. It you have the present airplane catastrophic failure rate multiplied a thousand times flying over our heads in any major city, you can easily see the point why a flying car is a very bad idea. Add to that the fact that most car owners are very sloppy with proper maintenance and you can see an even worse scenario. Do you really want them flying over your house?
Increased reliability means increased cost. Every tiny little bit of reliability planes get costs a lot of money.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Um, the small planes can't be flown automatically, but the larger ones can. Ask any pilot of any major airline. They can be automated, and sometimes the pilots do let the planes land themselves. Just I think the pilots still need to be present to make any corrections if need be and to apply the brakes.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
12345
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Cheated! I want my giant robots!
Sure, autopilot can take me place to place through the air, but taking off and landing, the most dangerous parts, still have to be done by a human.
It should be illegal to say that freedom of speech should be limited.
Nice to see Japan is ambitious about their space program. However I noticed they had no plans drawn up to keep Rodan from interfering. http://www.tohokingdom.com/web_pages/kajiu_bios/fi re_rodan.htm
...and I was SO sure this was about population density.
I wonder if it will have a huge Type R sticker on it. R standing for Lunar.
(think about it)
. (sorry)
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Nope. Last plane trip I took (to LA) I sat next to the pilot from the next leg of the trip (LA to Hawaii). He was in uniform and his stripes indicated he was a Captain so we struck up an convo about what we each did. Then we discussed the topic of technology in airplanes and if electronic devices really are a problem and if so how. What I learned was that Instrument landing systems such as MLS (Microwaves) and GPS can land a plane VERY accurately but they can be susceptible to interference which is why they ask devices to be OFF for Landing. The only thing a pilot really HAS to do these days is taxi the plane to the gate/runway and make all the announcements. Of course the pilot's unions are getting kinda upset about the reduced workload.
space race! .. space race! .. space race!
WURD!!
Japan ran out of space years ago?
You mean the moon landing fake theory?
I always about one thing: how is this theory supposed to explain the observations made by thousands of amateur astronoms with their telescopes at home?
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
From what it shows here there may not be many Japanese around to fly to the Moon... Oh, I keep forgetting, they will be the first to implant their 125 year old brains into robotic bodies...
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Trying to solve a problem is one of the fastest ways to come up with solutions to that problem. We are currently enjoying many of the technological advances acheived by (or for) the manned space program. Waiting for technology to advance enough to do something doesn't make as much sense as actively advancing it.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
As it would happen, a NASA study showed that we could build your "maglift", more specifically known as a space elevator, for under 10 billion dollars. It would allow lifting objects to orbit for as low as 10 dollars a pound, compared to 10,000 for the space shuttle.
I saw a documentary on the Concord a while back, and they said that the biggest problem they had wasn't technological, but getting overflight rights for a supersonic aircraft.
If countries wouldn't do it for British Airways, why does the Japanese government think they will for JAL?
And if not part of the plan, then like number 2: already in effect
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
"Everything we could possibly want to do in space can be done by robots!"
Except be flexible and respond to unexpected situations of course.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
I'm curious, what about fuel/hangar/airport and other costs. How expensive are those, and are there other operating expenses (e.g. insurance) that add up?
Seriously, though, it's weird because 2025AD used to seem like THE FUTURE!!! Whereas it's actually now only 20 years away, which isn't really all that long. Computer tech aside, was 1985 all that different from today?
[Activates DeLorean, goes back to 1985] ... ...
Me: Hi! I'm you, from THE FUTURE!!! 2005, to be exact!
1985 Me: Wow, the 21st Century! So, did we get our flying cars?
Me: Um, no.
1985 Me: Jetpacks? Bionic implants? AIs? Robot servants? Semiballistic airliners allowing us to reach anywhere in the world in two hours? Space holidays? No more poverty or hunger? A cure for cancer? World peace? No more self-serving shitwicks in high political office?
Me: Sorry, no, none of that. But on the plus side, our videogames kick ass, there'll be a new Star Trek TV series and there's this thing called 'the internet'.
1985 Me: What, like William Gibson's cyberspace?
Me: Again, no, not really.
1985 Me: Wow. The future sounds really shitty. At least tell me I get rich in the next 20 years.
Me:
1985 Me: Laid on a regular basis?
Me:
1985 Me: Okay, find me a bottle of whiskey and some pills. I'm going to create a time paradox.
You must think in Russian.
Fuel costs can vary tremendously. Some aircraft can be run on high-grade automotive gasoline, and some require aviation grade gasoline (well, jets don't run on gasoline at all, but most private pilots are going to fly with a piston engine).
:). Until I get my plane built though I'll just be taking joy rides in the rentals (which range from $40 to $100 per hour for a single engine, depending on the model. That includes all fuel).
Naturally the automotive gasoline will be cheaper, but you'll need to look at the fuel consumption of your plane which is usually measured in gallons per hour. In general many of the kit aicraft burn 5-6 gallons per hour, though I've seen as low as 3 gallons per hour (some of the small Rotax engine planes) to as high as 33 gallons per hour (the Lancair Sentry, though that plane will cost about $400k anyways, so it is in the upper class bracket). You'd be hard pressed to find a kit-craft that burns more than 10 gph though.
As to hangar costs, it's something that I haven't looked into myself. I'm a county employee and we have a county airport so hopefully by the time I get done building whichever kit I decide on I'll get a discount on a hangar
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
That's EXACTLY the same as my 20 year plan for space! Well, exccept for the line item under 2010 that says "...profit" and the last line that says "Continue profiting."
Agreed. If my engine management computer quits on my Civic, I pull over and call a towtruck. If the engine on my plane dies, I have to quickly find a safe place to land, hope I can make it there, hope it really is an ok place to land, and hope I don't come up short.
Also, you can drive a car in any weather short of a hurricane. Try landing a small plane in strong gusting crosswinds without hundreds or thousands of hours experience. Now try doing that without a working engine. Now try doing that with thousands of other rush-hour pilots trying to get home at the same time.
A previous poster mentioned that a kitplane can be put together for ~$18,000. That's certainly not going to include the instruments and electronics to make high-traffic-density flying possible.
Those glass-cockpits in some high-end small planes don't come cheap. It's not just a PC and a monitor hooked up to a few sensors. A basic glass cockpit system capable of showing artificial terrain and flightpath along with airspeed, altitude, trend data and local radar info will easily run in the high five figure range. And that's just for the display. Add in the sensors, driving electronics package, autopilot, and backup systems, and you're looking at more than your average 4-bedroom house, just for the avionics.
Oh, and then you need to buy the plane to put it all in.
sounds like a reasonable plan, i agree with ThreeE though, they need to get people out there first - baby steps!
after the unknown debris hit the wing on columbia, i knew in my heart there was disaster ahead. they brought the shuttle back in without special consideration to the take-off incident (or at least any that we know about). i'm worried about this flight too, our ancient shuttles are kind of a joke and a blemish on NASA and our great country's space exploration.
i will soon be starting my moon real estate company...
Do or do not. There is no try. --Yoda
Good luck to 'em, but this doesn't seem to be funded. Will the Diet budget committes believethere won't be substantial budget increases in the outyears?
/..
Oh, the Space.com story is the same AP story ref'd earlier in the intro. Thanks for paying attention to details there at
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Everybody knows five year plans are the way to go.
This plan by the Japanese is aggressive. They not only intend to enter the aerospace business, but they intend to dominate it and do it quickly.
It looks to me that, perhaps, the major technologies are in place for a real space race. Personally, I'll place my bets on China.
The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
Well... if I start walking now...
UTF-8: There and Back Again
But we all know that the moon has too low gravity for general living... Their out to build Space Colonies... with giant robots... sound familiar!
You're right about Hubble being scratched by NASA leadership.
My hasty wording made my serious point about ceding leadership in space sciences into flamebait. [And, upon reading it again, the flamebait tag was well-deserved.]
That said, leadership comes from the top. If leaders in the White House and Congress had thought that continued support of Hubble and Voyager were worthy, that would have set the tone and neither project would today be in trouble.
I stand corrected on your point of money being allocated but the NASA administrator not doing the right thing.
Astronaut: Houston, we've found a Lost Temple on Titan with a Beckoning Door.
Several Hours Go By
Ok, please note it. We've still got to collect the samples of martian rocks and dust from beneath the cliff-face. If we've got some time after the six-month long dust, rock and other kind of dust collecting mission we'll send a rover by for a closer round of picture taking in november.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Exactly! For example, no one has explained how you can stop your flying car to put on your spare wheel in the case of a puncture! Even if you could stop it, there'd be nothing to stand the jack on! You fools!
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
Actually according to their FAQ it is 4 years till they have a FAA certified model. That is a concern for those of us here in the USA. And the ones they build before that are listed as being marketing demonstrators, special sales, and military applications. Then don't forget price:In limited production (500 units per year) the M400 Skycar will sell for a price comparable to that of a four-passenger high performance helicopter or airplane, approximately $500,000. As the volume of production increases substantially, its price can approach that of a quality automobile ($60,000-$80,000).
That $60K-80K pricetag will still be 10+ years off. Again (at least in the USA) you still have to wonder how will the FAA regulate them? Currently: This means that, yes, you will require a "powered-lift normal" category pilot's license to operate a Skycar. Can I drive from home to work or do I have to go from airport to airport? The closest to my house and work are both about 15 miles. At its ground speed of 30-35 thats a bit of a drive. When will my job get with the 21st century and put in an aircar landing zone? What about insurance?
As so many others have pointed out you also have bad/drunk pilots and malfunctions to worry about. If I remember the PopSci article on this model it doesn't glide well at all so emergency landings are tricky. Lets check the FAQ again: the system can be maneuvered to a suitable site to deploy the parachutes. Parachutes?? I've always wanted to try parachuting, but skydiving was more what I had in mind thank you.
Don't get me wrong I appreciate what this company is doing for us and look forward to the day when I get out of the I95 jam on the way into DC. But if you think two years is even close to any reasonable market penetartion please pass whatever your smoking.
chown -R us
Chikan
Grope-fest
Pervert Express
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
I completely agree with you here. What doesn't seem to be understood is that the gov't built and maintains the entire transportation infrastructure that we enjoy today. In fact there is really very little free market at play here. The railroads were once privately held in the beginning and look at the choas that resulted until the gov't stepped in(though part of the problem was due to gov't protected monopolies). Same goes for the hodge-podge of different regulations from state to state that had to be standardized by the feds. The "free" market will never be able to handle our transportation, communication, and other basic needs. That's why we have a gov't that collects taxes to fill that huge money pool to assure that these needs are met. The fact that our public transportation system is so horrible makes me doubt that those needs are being met adequately. A good system would be as safe and as simple as an elevator. Push a button, and off you go. The free market will never grant us that. I can assure you that the demand is there. However there are too many that are convinced that this is impossible, when in fact they are just unwilling to try. This is why our space program is in such a shambles. There's no will on the part of the public to build it up. They are convinced it's a waste. Due to the heavy politics and fat egos there, they might be right. Imagine how we would be if they felt the same about the national highway system, or rural electrification. A lot of us would still be using donkey carts and kerosene lamps. There certainly would be no regular airline service. It's also important to remember that "competition" from the gov't(that's us) keeps the free market honest. I wouldn't like to see the price of electricity if that market were to be completely deregulated and left in the hands of private marketeers. In reality, I would hope that something like that would induce people to look more closely into allternatives. However, even that will require some gov't assistance, through good, honest information, and possibly some temporary economic incentives. This would be a good election issue if we can keep the FUDsters away.
What?
Glad you agree on this one.
If I recall, though, American railroads were quite successful in their privately-held heyday, roughly 1850-1950, so I'm not sure what chaos you're seeing there. Railroads, especially passenger lines, became unprofitable with the explosion of suburban neighborhoods: No one wants to drive to the center of town to wait for a train that will take you to the center of another town. This is perfectly reasonable behavior. Government intervention in the form of Amtrak, etc., is prolonging the agony, but it didn't cause it.
Public transportation suffers, outside large urban areas, because, like railroads, people won't use it. Our suburban areas lack the population density that's needed to really make public transportation an effective proposition. No one wants to pay more taxes to subsidize something they believe they'll never use. No one sees much benefit in a public trnasportation system that, typically, doesn't come closer than a mile or so to their house.
Public tranportation, typically heavily subsidized by the state, works in older European cities because the trains, or buses, or whatever, or are usually a short walk away, regardless of your location. I've lived in Europe for a while, and it was very nice to have the bus stop in front of my house, and to be able to walk for a few minutes and catch a train to anywhere. Not going to happen here, though. (Just as it hasn't happened in newer European urban and suburban areas that have been designed to cater to the needs of the automobile.)
By the way, on standards, you do realize that I haven't argued against standards? Just that a standard that is ignored, regardless of isolated technical merit, is not standard at all. Standards are determined by how people actually behave, not what someone else says they should do.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
My take on the railroads probably didn't apply here. They enjoyed a very strong monopoly which they used to extort very high prices from the farmers needing to get their produce to market. They were successful, but they were extortionists. Like with Standard oil, the gov't had to step in. Before they became the success they were, I'm not sure if things like track gage was standardized across the country, or who set them. gov't or the railroads? It's neither here or there anymore considering the public has indeed virtually abandoned the train for the car. We might not have any cross country or interstate passenger rail service was it not for Amtrak. So, despite all its flaws, I'm very glad we have at least that. To me, train travel is THE best way for overland transport. It's so nice and comfortable, and except for the drunks in their pick up trucks trying to beat the train to the crossing, it's very safe. Even Amtrak. I'll gladly hop onto an Amtrak train long before I'll get on on one of those plastic(carbon fibre), fly by wire(night), kerosene burning contraptions. I love the smell of diesel in the morning :) That fly by wire stuff is going to become pretty iffy as soon as the isulation starts to chafe off. We can fly forty or fifty year old aircraft because they were mechanical and metal with predictable failure rates. Only time will tell if these new computerized monstrosities will hold up as well. I don't trust a computer to operate heavy equipment unless I can pull the plug in an emergency.
You're right about public transport as long as it remins the kludge that it is. Nobody's going to use it until the thing can stop at your door...on demand. It's a real case of "Give me convenience or give me death". I now will only work in a place that does provide good public transport. I haven't had to drive to work for 20 years now. I can ride drunk(as long as I'm not belligerent and keep quiet). If they get into a wreck, nobody will ever be able to blame me for it. I don't have to stay awake. I pay a set fee. No licensing, insurance, gas, maintenance, tickets, parking, etc, etc, etc. to worry about. That, for me, is real convenience. To me public public transport is good socialism. For an example of what can happen to a good public transport system when the market deices how to do things, check out the history of Los Angeles's Red Car. They are paying a dear price now for letting that one go. Their present system is a sad joke.
No one wants to drive to the center of town to wait for a train that will take you to the center of another town. This is perfectly reasonable behavior.
I understand you here, but it's kind of funny that we do exactly that with the usually miserable drive to the airport(I know, time more than compensated with the comparatively "short" plane ride). And then you need transportation at the other end also. Airports aren't exactly close to downtown like the railway station usually is, and the weather isn't such a big issue. I think that now with all the silliness the airlines put you through now, you have to travel over 500 miles bfore the airliner will save you any time over the automobile.
What?
I don't believe it is accurate to a single railroad monopoly ever existed. Rather, in many locations, freight railway service was monopolized by a single carrier. Farmers, miners, etc., faced prices set by that local or regional monopoly. Railroads, if I recall, frequently colluded on price setting, as well.
I say "freight railway service" because that's where the impact was felt. Livelihoods and incomes depended on shipping freight via the railroads, but much less so on actually travelling by railrooad.
I'd say it is more accurate to say that passenger rail traffic never took off because of the auto, rather than arguing that the car killed passenger rail travel. Usable passenger rail travel, or any other form of mass transit, depends on enough people living in a concentrated area. Those conditions exist in few Americian urban areas because most of the population growth occurred after the auto became popular. That allowed people to spread out. Europe's cities, and their mass transit systems, grew prior to the auto. Even there, few systems could profitably operate within the private sector.
Cities like New York, Boston, D.C., and San Francisco have good mass transit system. I've found it as easy to get around in those cities as in, say, London. Several others have limited subway and train systems that cater to commuters. We'll never see much beyond that.
I take your point about driving to the airport, but remember that we don't use airplanes to commute or to go the grocery, etc. Besides, there no room in the cities for airports.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Unless your one of those people who compares a 200billion$ manned mission to a 200million unmanned mission then sending people to mars is going to be worth less than spending the same cash and sending lots of robots. First off it's a planet aka a large place so it's better to send robots to 1000 places than send humans to study one real well. Second with robots if something goes wrong then you send another one with humans you either send replacement parts that might not be needed or have everyone dies or you can't do good science because you don't have interment x. Besides, spending billions on R&D for robot's gives us better robot's spending billions to send food and water to mares teaches us nothing.
Ok, now if you wanted to send say a 1000 people to live there for 30 years and setup shop so we could send millions of people to live there well that would be one thing but as long as it's a set up shop for a year and go home it's a waste of time IMO.
Yeah, you got it. It was actually decribed that way...as railroad monopolies...
:) Great transit to and from both airports! and all over town. Sure is fun whizzing by all the stuck traffic on the expressway.
Cities like New York, Boston, D.C., and San Francisco have good mass transit system.
Don't forget Chicago
I take your point about driving to the airport, but remember that we don't use airplanes to commute...
Ever hear of Tom Joyner? What I believe are called regional airlines now, used to be called commuter airlines...or maybe that was commuter airliners...either way, quite a few people do commute by airplane, but lucky for them, they can use smaller, closer to town airports. Meig's Field was right by downtown Chicago. It enjoyed regular commuter service from Springfield, Bloomington, and that other big place down there I can't remember the name of...Champaign! That's it, and Indiana, Michigan, etc. Very little regular service, but it was there. The smaller cities probably have more regular air commuters due to the proximity of their airports. Probably what keeps the regionals afloat. Come to think of it, aren't most of the domestic air travelers actually business flyers? A lot of those travel probably at least twice a week? Aren't they responsible for our "crowded skies"? I don't know how to "google" the question. I can't believe that all those planes are full of vacationers. I've actually noticed a rush hour period at the airports also. Morning and afternoon. To me, a commute by air everyday would be real torture. I simply wouldn't consider it.
Even there, few systems could profitably operate within the private sector.
I wouldn't want to hand it over to the private sector. The benefits of gov't funded public transport are so enormous in terms of peace of mind for the user, the lower pollution and resulting health benefits, the reliablity of a well run system, all these things and many more make up for the taxes taken in. I just feel that the majority is mistaken when they vote against such systems. They probably feel that they would just be robbed. It wouldn't happen that way if they would just stay focused and keep an eye on the money. We can't just hand it to them and say, "Here, build me a train.". A strong will can do amazing things. And...to stay on topic(kinda), all this also applies to our space program.
What?
>> The benefits of gov't funded public transport are so enormous...
I agree, but I'm pretty certain, with the exception of cities that currently have good mass transit, any newly funded systems would go largely unused. People expect mass transit to eliminate the need to get in your car and commute. They won't use it if they need to get in the car and commute to the place they get on mass transit.
Back on space: There's a lot of enthusiams these days about privately funded space travel. I have no issues with that. I doubt that, beyond expensive suborbital passenger flights (spadce travel by definition only) and, possibly, orbital flight, I don't believe the private sector will do much else for a long time. Anything beyond short visits to LEO requires the appropriate infrastructure. The private sector won't build that by itself, with its own resources, because the time between the commitment of resources and the final payoff is far too long. Example: Let's assume someone knew how to make money sending people to Mars and back. A number of years, perhaps ten or more, would elapse between the initation of the project and any expectation of seeing revenue, much less proft. Only the government -- the state -- has the ability to take on such efforts.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"