I am very interested in space development, and large scale human space settlements. This ranges from launch technology (SSTO using chemical, beamed and electromagnetic railgun propulsion), space based propulsion (especially using antimatter and other exotic propulsion systems), microspacecraft, through to the use of nanotechnology for terraforming space habitats and planets.

Space Commercialisation

I think the future lies through rapid commercialisation of space through space tourism, space power generation and mineral extraction from planetary bodies. The hot air that clueless people talk in the UK about Remote Sensing and telecommunications, demonstrates the complete lack of vision, since the profits of these, whilst reasonable, will pale into insignificance when the real space commercialisation gets underway.

What I find interesting, is that in the UK, the supposed space industry is little more than a bunch of service companies with sidelines in building components for satellites or programming software for satellites etc. And that's supposed to be the UK Space Industry ? I think not.

There are some really good companies in the UK doing real space technology development, the likes of SIL, SSTL etc, but most of the rest might as well be involved in toilet cleaning (in fact, one of them is ! As someone who has a Masters degree in remote sensing, and hears all this propaganda put out by the supposed UK space companies, their trade lobbying organisation (little more than a dining club, for typical British management mediocrities), and the civil service department responsible for UK space interests (The BNSC - otherwise known as the British National Space Embarassment Basically, if remote sensing is as financially viable as they make out, then surely, it should not need to be consuming the majority of the UK's space budget. You don't have to be a mathematical genius to work out that if it is consuming so much of the budget, then it is not financially as viable as it is made out. In which case, the individuals in question are trying to pull the wool over people's eyes by claiming otherwise. Why ? Probably to line their pockets in my opinion. If they were committed to space development, let's see them dip into their pockets in the way those of us who really believe in space development do.

So launch vehicles aren't viable ? Really ? How do you get satellites into space ? Launch vehicles are the infrastructure glue that allows the remote sensing lobby to eventually pad their pensions. Take launchers away and they're stuck. It's like networking and land based communications infrastructure. If you want to consistently make money, invest it in shares of the networking and cabling companies.

The only saving grace is that these companies are what one may call "second wave". They are relics of a bygone age. Even their websites miss the plot. They will be crushed by progress whether they like it or not.

A space book which is extremely long term in its vision (well for the UK at least), is Space for Enterprise, by C. Stott (published by the Adam Smith Institute - hardly the Institute you would have thought capable of thinking of the long term prospects of Space development) - if you can track it down, it's worth a read. I think starting with small schemes, and then building up to manned operations is the key. It is not impossible for small organisations and companies to mount planetary missions using microspacecraft. The expensive bit is just the launch costs.

Once we get there though, I think space needs to be a tax-free zone. The thought of setting an off-planet bank up on an asteroid is extremely tempting !

[Space Concepts | Research | Current | Home | Education | Digital Themes | Rocketry | Contact | Personal]

(c) 1998 Richard Osborne, London.
http://www.gbnet.net/~richard/