NASA and the Private Sector - Page 2

On January 01 2011 09:03 t3hwUn wrote:
I'd rather see our tax dollars spent elsewhere. The Private sector takes care of things and is the most efficient model to do so. Unfortunately that's not the majority view or at least it isn't portrayed as such.

On January 01 2011 12:13 Djzapz wrote:
R&D of that level requires an enormous body because the investment doesn't directly result in profit as pointed out above. Very few companies, if any, would take those kind of risks without financial support.

It's also sad how poorly funded scientists like physicians are. It's sad that people don't realize how it's our understanding of the forces of the universe that led to the technology we have today. NASA's funding is such a small part of the US budget - especially when you look at the military budget and such - and yet it's one of the most important. Sure it's important to think of today, but NASA is about the future, and we can't neglect that either.

If you don't understand why science is important, then I suggest you observe your lifestyle and take notice of how much it's affected by it - and not just Microsoft's R&D. Sure you might think space missions don't matter because you think in the short term, but like Michio Kaku once said (and I paraphrase), we have a very limited perspective of what our universe really is - just like fishes don't really have a concept of up and down and kind of live in a 2D universe, we see 3 dimensions and we tend to think that that's all there is.

Luckily we have people who are able to wrap their minds around the fact that it's not that simple. Those people need money.

On January 01 2011 12:20 Ferrose wrote:


I don't think the general public understand it though. I mean, we land on the Moon, and everyone parties because it's a big deal. But even small things are a big deal. Like the LHC. Most people would be like "Wow, cool. They made some particles go really fast and hit each other." When really, there's much more to it than that. It seems that the general public doesn't give a shit about science unless there's some giant progressional leap.

On January 01 2011 10:51 majestouch wrote:

wow, that is extremely narrow-minded that you think of human life as being so how do i put this... not worthwhile? not important? lol. Good thing that engineers follow a code of ethics and morals, else your house would crash in on yourself--to bad it isn't after reading that comment. For more information about the earliest set of rules/ethics in engineering/building read the Code of Hammurabi.

On January 01 2011 13:39 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
There is absolutely no realistic benefit to going into space from an economic standpoint. What's out there that isn't on the ground? There's basically no reason at all as a company to invest into spaceflight.

The only reasons you'd go into space is:
-exploration
-research
-tourism

Of these, only tourism is a market force in any meaningful way, and there just aren't enough millionaires with $400 million in expendable cash that want to go into orbit.

So to quell this stupid debate on public vs private. Spaceflight will be invested into by the private sector when there's a lucrative benefit to the company. Until someone can make a profit off it, nobody will care. The public sector has no reason to invest into space unless it gives a benefit to the nation as a whole. We have military spy satellites and communication satellites because those give us a massive edge over other nations.

The only reason to go into space is because we want to. The reason the space program swelled in the 60s is because we had another reason to go - get there before Russia. Perhaps if China wants to seriously challenge our domain then we'll see a resurgence.

It's a pity because I really want us to push the boundaries and venture into the outer solar system and beyond. I just don't see it happening unless someone has a damn good reason to do so.

On January 01 2011 11:40 Tadzio wrote:

Meanwhile, NASAs been to the moon, has probes exiting our solar system. Has a massive satellite network in place, has an international space station and is contemplating a manned mission to Mars. They're also doing a ton of research on the universe, its origins, and the nature of reality (physics) that has very little to do with spaceflight, and everything to do with their budget.

The truth is, things don't get "efficient" until the public pays for the development. The private sector cannot afford-- and indeed has very little interest in-- driving scientific advancement, or even innovation, for that matter. What the private sector is good at is exploiting resources, minimizing risks and growing markets. That's not a bad thing, btw, but you should be very careful ascribing misleading characteristics to the private sector. Private agencies seem (and often are) efficient simply as a consequence of their aversion to risk. And that isn't something we should encourage upon sciences.

I guess if NASA announced that every asteroid was filled with crude oil, Halliburton would have a team of contractors in space inside of a week, but they'd be using rocket designs from NASA to do it.

On January 01 2011 11:40 Tadzio wrote:


1. First manned spaceflight (orbit) = 1961. Russians. US had sub-orbital spaceflight in 1961, but wouldn't put a man into orbit until 1962.

2. The first non-governmental manned spaceflight (sub-orbital). = 2004. The plans for the first non-governmental manned orbital mission were set in motion in 2009. I still haven't heard anything about them accomplishing it.

Some killer efficiency right there.... Peeps be takin' care of bizniz.

3. Meanwhile, NASAs been to the moon, has probes exiting our solar system. Has a massive satellite network in place, has an international space station and is contemplating a manned mission to Mars. They're also doing a ton of research on the universe, its origins, and the nature of reality (physics) that has very little to do with spaceflight, and everything to do with their budget.

The truth is, things don't get "efficient" until the public pays for the development. The private sector cannot afford-- and indeed has very little interest in-- driving scientific advancement, or even innovation, for that matter. What the private sector is good at is exploiting resources, minimizing risks and growing markets. That's not a bad thing, btw, but you should be very careful ascribing misleading characteristics to the private sector. Private agencies seem (and often are) efficient simply as a consequence of their aversion to risk. And that isn't something we should encourage upon sciences.

I guess if NASA announced that every asteroid was filled with crude oil, Halliburton would have a team of contractors in space inside of a week, but they'd be using rocket designs from NASA to do it.

On January 01 2011 12:13 Aquafresh wrote:
I think the author of the article is not understanding what is happening here. No one in charge is advocating for the private sector to replace NASA, that isn't what this is about. The private sector is designing rockets to earn contracts to do things that NASA has been doing quite badly for ages. For instance the shuttle, which costs about 500 million per launch, is basically only used to service the ISS and run LEO experiments. Mission costs and maintenance of the Shuttle alone have basically tied the US manned space program to LEO since the 70s due the insane recurring costs. Why should NASA have to blow its manned space budget on maintaining 40 year old equipment when there is a whole industry worth of private space companies that are vying for the contract to resupply the ISS and ferry Astronauts to LEO? They are willing to do it for 57 million, using superior, safer, technology. NASA isn't going to go away once these contracts are awarded, unless think going to LEO and back is all NASA is capable of. Once these thing are shifted on to private space NASA will be free to use its increased budget to develop new technologies, and tackle projects that it had its eyes set on decades ago, but never got the funding for (due to the shuttle.)

The new role of NASA will almost exclusively be to explore space, develop new technologies such as advanced propulsion, and open up new fields. The routine things like sending Astronauts to LEO and servicing the ISS will be contracted out to private companies such as SpaceX. For this to work private space is the key. Currently the ISS contract is the main incentive for private companies to spend their money, shortly space tourism will take off and that will be a major incentive as well. With a healthy private space industry NASA can shift a lot of the burden of getting back and forth to orbit to them and will be freed up to tackle more scientifically worthy projects.

On January 02 2011 02:28 majestouch wrote:
3. nasa isn't contemplating the dems are not funding it b/c they think giving $200 to every man, woman, and child in the us to go spend on useless shit is more important.

1. usa would of been to space and in orbit sooner, werner von braun (the father of modern rocketry//ex nazi) proposed in 1955 for the international geographic year(or something w/e it was) to put a satellite in orbit. govt said go fuck urself cuz ur german. govt then gave project to the navy code-named vanguard, they didn't know shit about rockets. while in huntsville, von braun was secretly testing exhaust shit and when vanguard failed, his team was given 6months to get a satellite in orbit. they did it in 3.
2. private sector had no reason to get involved until:
ppl wanted to go to space (commerically) ie venture capitalism
nasa was doing just fine until political pissing contests.
3. nasa isn't contemplating the dems are not funding it b/c they think giving $200 to every man, woman, and child in the us to go spend on useless shit is more important.

ur post is great, simply elaborating upon it.

On January 02 2011 04:00 InvalidID wrote:



1. I have no idea about this story, but it is plausible. I doubt it had much to do with his German heritage, as a number of US scientists were German immigrants from the former Nazi regime. von Braun, in fact, was arrested by the Nazis, and made a number of comments openly critical of the Nazi regime that would have gotten him shot, if he was not the most critical scientist in Germany at the time(he ran the V2 project). On the flip side, the rocket plants nominally under his control had brutal conditions and slave labor, that he claimed to be unable to control.

2. The private sector has always been involved for a long time. Space Systems Loral, Boeing, and Lockheed have been contracting in the industry for a long time, for both public sector and private sector clients. Where do you think your satellite TV comes from? NASA was successful but obscenely cost inefficient. The fact of the matter is that private industry can currently accomplish most space tasks, from satellite design, through payload launch for significantly less then NASA. Russia can send payloads for 1/4 of the cost of the space shuttle per kg. SpaceX has achieved 5%.

3. NASA budget has not been cut, but the democrats are forcing them to undergo significant reforms to focus on more cost effective research and launch methodologies.