I greatly enjoy the traditional-media grain of these pics.

Ooooh, I like it.

That one still looks highly plausible today. I'd love to see your take on the "Black Horse" concept of a single-stage (or stage-and-a-half if you include the air-to-air onloading of LOX) planetary surface to orbit shuttle.

What? No Canadarm?

My feeling is that if we're lucky we'll get some sort of smallish, lifting-body to take six to eight into orbit, or down to earth, but full scale shuttles that can cary an Abrams tank into orbit doesn't make sense. It'll be a long time, I suspect before throw-away sold-fuel boosters for that sort of thing won't be more economical than a complex, manned spacecraft. And we need a separate manned craft that goes from orbit to destination (another orbit, most likely). The Orion would do, but why stick with a re-entry shape and such a small volume when the deep-space vehicle never has to enter an atmopshere?

For bulk cargo to LEO, big dumb boosters, the kind no one wants to build, would be the way to go for that. A simple capsule and heat shield for routine personell lifts to and from with an up-rated BDB would also be nice. But there are times for taking up and/or bringing back large stuff where an aerospace plane would be the way to go. Its all just money.

By comparison, a vigorous space program would be cheap -- scrap the F-35, which nobody seems to really need, since there other planes that are in service and we know are as good as we only hope the F-35 willl be, and *cheaper* -- and you could likely fund NASA for ten years. Let people grow marijuana if they want it, and the reduction in law enforcement would probably save even more money. Tax corporations at the same rate they were in the 1970s... or even the 1980s... and claw back some of the dough that seems to be going into investment overseas. There's probably a lot that could be done to save money, so that a little could be used to develop space properly.

Mind you, if we don't have rides into orbit for multi-millionaires until the 24th. century, I won't weep tears over it. By proper development I mean mostly exploration. There's no other reason to live on the Moon or on Mars except as part of a scientific adventure.

Yeah, but corperate welfare is so much easier when done more or less off-stage (and for DE-fense!) instead of the all too public arena of space.

Since we're going into Da Foocher! My Great Fear is that the American experiment in democracy will undisputably end in my lifetime in favor of an autocratic oligarchy.

I suspect that, functionally, it already has, tough there are sporadic efforts to behave more democratically -- the current administration, for example. But fandamental change is impossible. The system of checks and balances has frozen the country into a stalmate of immovable special interest groups, who will permit no change that will threaten their power base. I would imagine it was like this to live in most of Byzantine history.

Canada is approaching a similar impasse, very quickly. The reasons are a little different, but the result is the same -- power being held by a minority of s.i.g's, enthnic minorities, political elites and regional biases who won't permit any more democratic form of government because it would dis-emppower them.

If you want innovation, you need to drop tax rates, not raise them. Tax revenues in the US over the last century have been 18% of GDP every year, +- about 1.5%, no matter what the tax rate was. Higher tax rates just drive funding into shelters or off shore. Lower rates bring it home and put it to work. So, what you really have to decide is whether you want 18% of a crippled economy's GDP or 18% of a vigorous economy's GDP.

In fact, if you're worried about "clawing back the dough going into investment overseas" then the reason it's going overseas is for tax purposes. The US has the second highest corporate tax rates in the developed world, right after Japan. So, re-incorporating offshore makes a lot of sense if you value keeping your business intact.

Also, the amount of money we (the USA) spend on NASA is a joke. It's not even a drop in the bucket compared to social entitlement programs.

Not lack of innovation or tax rates, but lack of enough profit is the real deterance to private space, and partisan nickle-and-diming NASA funding keeps that agency from boldly going.
And as an aside, corporate tax rates actually paid are the lowest since at least WWII. And those percent of profit not paid in taxes are not going into reinvestment or other classic business models of responsible stewardship, but simply doled out to stockholders. Which is what modern pure capitalism is all about. An example, at a meeting in Boeing some years ago, managers were told that the company was not in business to make airplanes, but to service their stockholders. Needless to say, that mindset has come back to bite Boeing on the ass over inadequitely funded R&D and engineering as well as farmed out production.

But that's the model of all investment-driven ventures. In exchange for the upfront funding to be able to perform the business or industrial function (in this case, making airplanes) the stockholders gain a share of ownership (or a lien in the case of bondholders or preferred stock) in the company, with the responsibility for that company to provide a return on that investment.

For the company to be able to return that investment (and thus "earn" the upfront money) they have to perform the function that they're in business for, providing goods or services to fill a market need (in this case, those airplanes!). When the company turns profit, they have to balance growth, innovation, and dividends in order to remain competitive and be attractive to future investment.

*Failing* to fulfill the responsibility to shareholders is fraud. Fraudulent or nonperforming companies become less attractive to investors and find a way to go out of business quickly, as long as the system continues to work.

The ratio of the price of a stock to it's dividends is called the P/E ratio (Price/Earnings, naturally). A P/E ratio of 16 or so is considered to be historically healthy... that is, you get your purchase price of the stock back in annual dividends over 16 years. Boeing is currently at 16.9 P/E as I type this, which is a little worse than average, but certainly not excessively bad or good.

(BTW -- all this is NOT a flame war or argument, but intended as a discussion among well-reasoned people who WANT to get our butts off this tiny little wonderful mudball we call home. It can be hard to read intent over the internet, so making sure that's clear)

However, the central weakness of that process is that, in practice, servicing the stockholders NOW is still the sole mission of the company. Even if it means cannibalizing it self into destruction to do so.
More generally, there is an expectation (unrealistic to my mind, and speaking as a stockholder) of totally risk free, absolutely garenteed, forever growing profit that can be extracted from the economy. And that it can be done without reinvestment, both in direct spending and through taxes.
That was not always the case.
Until the '60s, long term stewardship and being a good corporate neighbor and citizen were an important ingrediant to a prosperous economy. Then new management models emphasised profits NOW as the measure of all things. Ultimately, the overall economy has became one of wealth extraction instead of wealth creation.

Indeed! That is the type of finance that has led to all of the recent bubble-economies -- telecom, housing, even the upcoming problems with the (long term!) stock and mutual fund markets, which are going to be getting beat up as more people retire and withdraw their purchasing money.

A lot of the drive behind a bubble economy comes from higher taxation and inflation. No investment is worthwhile unless it ruthlessly maximizes profit (higher than tax and other costs), or if inflation, or taxation punishes investment rather than simply sitting on "money in the mattress".

I give you an enthusiastic welcome to the ranks of "the left!" Believe it or not, your remarks have been left of center of where American politics have sat for some time. I'm a bit surprised, actually! But you may actually represent the majority. The center and left, though, seem unmanned -- unable to express themselves forcefully and to advance any collective agenda the way the right can. The right is a miniority -- no mistaking that -- but the can push around the majority at will.

Well, I'll agree with your last line, but everything else runs backasswards to everything I've read about taxes in the US and abroad. Yeah, there are third world nations and ex-soviet era countries with lower taxes, but I have never seen anyone state that the US had lower corporate taxes than France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, etc. And whatever the rate may be at present, it's about half what it was in the '70s. This is no place for a war of words, though.

Money for Nasa can be found, even if it meant a surchare of ten cents on every theatre ticket sold to a science fiction movie. But space exploration is too easy a target for budget cuts for any administration to pass up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:I.....By_Country.svg

I don't get what the purple and green lines represent, and can't return to the earlier page from you link, but...

If the green line is the right one, the average US tax rate is just about dead median.

More important, I suspect these figures include personal income taxes. I never claimed American personal taxes were low or especially high either. We are talking about corporate taxes, which according to all sources I've read are low among developed nations.

Also, when corporate taxes in the US were highest is when the middle-class had it best. Now that corporate taxes are low, public expenditures are low, and mainly directed to welfare. Corporations make obscene profits... or lose obscene amounts. But the middle-class is clearly under a lot of stress, and many writers are beginning to see a connection between relieving corporations (and the poor, to be technical) of their tax burden and placing it all on the consumming classes.

The green lines are individual income taxes. The purple lines are corporate income taxes. Notice that the US's corporate income tax (purple) is second only to Japan's.

US taxes of all types were most recently highest in the 1970's, when the US experienced "stagflation" which was a stagnant economy, high unemployment, and high inflation all at once. We had shortages for gas, with rationing.

The greatest growth in tax revenue followed after the early 1980's, when the tax system was reformed and taxes were dropped... personal income taxes were dropped in ~1983 from a top marginal rate of something like 70% to closer to 30%. This caused a massive increase in investment, particularly in technology investment. The investment and technology work of the '80's, in fact, is what directly led to the commercial development of the Internet, based on the framework of the old ARPANet. You and I are quite literally having this discussion as a direct result of tax reform and reduction.

(again, this is in no way a flamewar. My entire point in this is to enthusiastically -- zealously! -- agree that we need to get our butts off this wonderful little mudball. I simply wish to explore ideas how we can best do so! Anybody who thinks we ought to venture forth to the stars is all on the same side in this discussion, as far as I'm concerned. )

The stagflation set in about 1974, and I don't think it was any coincidence that there were two oil embargos and a decade long war in Asia to pay for at the time. The real boom times were the late 1950s and the 60s, and even the inflation of the 70's hurt mainly capital assets. I think the problme might have been better brought to heel by cuts in spending, mainly on the military but also on large government construction plans that could wait a few years. But, instead, Nixon and his successors printed more money. Increasing taxes or cutting services are both unpopular moves among voters, rich or poor. But in lieu of slowing productivity and huge debts, one or the other was necessary. Instead, the US effectively ran up debts. It has never entirely delt with the problem.

You really hit the nail on the head, as far as runaway spending and debt!

X-51 space shuttle...