Is the Space Elevator a Public Good?

[doc_loliday]

Apollo is the tougher one, but I can make good arguments all day long on how the program was a public good.

I'm not bullshitting you... I took your statement to mean that you could argue that the Apollo program was a public good.

[TheReal_ND]

[Fife]

Apollo is the tougher one, but I can make good arguments all day long on how the program was a public good.

I'm not bullshitting you... I took your statement to mean that you could argue that the Apollo program was a public good.

I didn't say that my argument would be something I believe in, just that there are decent arguments I could pick up on saying that Apollo was a public good.

I can definitely make an argument that the Apollo program was a public good. Not necessarily a winning argument, and not one that I personally believe in necessarily, but an argument nonetheless.

That's kind of the whole point of my OP questions, if you look at those.

[TheReal_ND]

1965:
White man landed on the moon after only inventing flight less than half a century earlier
2017:
White man cant even decide on a reasonable immigration policy.

The whole thing is fake. If you believe humans landed on the moon you're retarded. The earth is flat and you're being tricked by airline companies. Sorry for the harsh red pills but you fucking need them you autistic man child. You live in a bubble.

[doc_loliday]

I know what you meant, I didn't take it to mean you were personally arguing space exploration is public good. It's just that, like you said, there were arguments out there. So long as you include education as a public good, you can justify all sorts of stuff.

Anyways, this whole conversation has been an attempt to answer/talk about one of the questions in the OP. What do you think about public funding of zero-g transport? I don't know the answer. But again, DSL is at least bringing up a couple things that I think ought to be considered. Namely, should we only be talking about public goods? Or is it worth including something like a "universal benefit", and what do we do when there is something that we consider important, like space exploration (or space elevators) but they don't fit the definition of public good? I dunno, initially I was just probing to see your position.

[de officiis]

Don't we need some real estate on the equator to make this work?

Why wouldn't this be handled like other huge public works projects, e.g., the Panama Canal?

[Fife]

Don't we need some real estate on the equator to make this work?

Why wouldn't this be handled like other huge public works projects, e.g., the Panama Canal?

In theory, we would need to be right smack on the equator for a normal space elevator. Probably in the Pacific somewhere. And yes, the cost would make the Panama Canal look like a bake sale. And, it would probably be "handled" in the same manner, more or less.

Acquiring real property on the equator seems like about the least of our problems. If a true leap occurs, zero-G free transport could occur from about anywhere, it seems to me.

[de officiis]

Don't we need some real estate on the equator to make this work?

Why wouldn't this be handled like other huge public works projects, e.g., the Panama Canal?

In theory, we would need to be right smack on the equator for a normal space elevator. Probably in the Pacific somewhere. And yes, the cost would make the Panama Canal look like a bake sale. And, it would probably be "handled" in the same manner, more or less.

Acquiring real property on the equator seems like about the least of our problems. If a true leap occurs, zero-G free transport could occur from about anywhere, it seems to me.

I wonder if it would eventually slow the Earth's rotational speed...

[BjornP]

Is the space elevator a means to the end of zero-G? Of course, no one knows, I just picked that example arbitrarily. Zero-G transport might be developed by some kid messing around with number theory and topology in the middle of Iowa in his mom's basement for all we know. Which leads to the big question: Should the state attempt to mandate the development of certain technologies to the exclusion of others? Who says the state has a crystal ball to know in which direction research efforts should go?

No. Look at which period in time produced the greatest leaps in technological development. The late Enlightenment/early Industrial age and onwards, when the state was letting go of total power and capitalism was on the rise. The state should, by all means, be party and directly involved with the development of technologies beneficial to wider society, but it would be counterproductive and a historical error to endow the state with an actual mandate to direct which technologies companies should focus on developing. It is simply the application of "two heads are better than one". Having thousands of people look at a challenge in a thousand different ways, will provide more solutions to pick and choose from in a shorter amount of time, than having one government agency set out one path for everyone to follow, then discard a flawed plan seventeen times before arriving at a workable solution.

If the purpose of a space elevator is primarily aimed at making it easier to launch spacecrafts and satellites without the use of rockets, isn't a space elevator's... "user base" (dunno what other term to use?) too limited to call it public good? It seems to be a commodity that lends itself most naturally to a "pay to use" system by those companies and state organizations capable of launching, creating and developing national or commercial spaceflight.

[Martin Hash]

The State is NOT a person: supposedly it's us. If WE want a "space elevator" then WE can build one. I'm not sure how much salesmanship it would take to get to 51% but if the right person was promoting it (Trump?) then maybe?