On January 06 2011 12:57 Cloud wrote: SNIP Private companies can actually be filled by people that want to do scientific research. They aren't like NASA who is most likely only able to research the stuff the government thinks its good to research.
Oh and the fact that technology is in the hands of the private sector (despite all the government's obstacles) is the only reason the USA is so far ahead of Europe and Japan.
Ok 999 here we go...
You're so damn off it hurts me. Why do you comment on things you know NOTHING about? Have you ever asked for funding from NASA? I have, guess what they did? They funded me. Did I have to jump through some bureaucratic red tape? Yes, but not that much. For the most part NASA is only interested in it as long as you can prove there is a practical application for your research (and that such a project is feasible)
The US is so far ahead BECAUSE of our GOVERNMENT investing in private companies and independent researchers (not so common)
Edit: I hope editing doesn't count towards post count...
Who the hell did you think was funding the majority of our basic research?
In any case, NASA should keep funding basic research by scientists... but Private companies should start providing the rockets to put NASA funded-probes into space Private companies should start providing the rockets to put satellites for other private companies into space and Private companies should be providing other services into space that the gov./individuals contract for.
NASA can also regulate just like the FAA does.. crashes still happen, but they are safe enough for most people... space travel will probably be safer than auto travel eventually
On January 01 2011 10:08 mahnini wrote: i can only imagine private contracts to be a bad thing. imagine if something goes wrong during a mission, when stuff is being sourced in house the engineer who built or designed whatever went wrong is a phone call away or probably on stand by. what happens when something goes wrong with a privately sourced component or two privately sourced components fail synchronously?
Uhh.. the NASA (and all government agencies in general) ALREADY use private contractors for pretty much everything.. bureaucratic management is way too bloated to do stuff like that. Even in the military, Blackwater boys do a clean sweep while army/marines bludgeon under bureaucratic compliance.
On January 06 2011 12:57 Cloud wrote: SNIP Private companies can actually be filled by people that want to do scientific research. They aren't like NASA who is most likely only able to research the stuff the government thinks its good to research.
Oh and the fact that technology is in the hands of the private sector (despite all the government's obstacles) is the only reason the USA is so far ahead of Europe and Japan.
Ok 999 here we go...
You're so damn off it hurts me. Why do you comment on things you know NOTHING about? Have you ever asked for funding from NASA? I have, guess what they did? They funded me. Did I have to jump through some bureaucratic red tape? Yes, but not that much. For the most part NASA is only interested in it as long as you can prove there is a practical application for your research (and that such a project is feasible)
The US is so far ahead BECAUSE of our GOVERNMENT investing in private companies and independent researchers (not so common)
Edit: I hope editing doesn't count towards post count...
Who the hell did you think was funding the majority of our basic research?
What do you think "practical application" means? Because if it means investment towards the end of producing profitable goods for revenue from consumers, government "science" has little to do with it(because bureaucratic management rejects profitability as a premise, its premise is instead compliance with political objectives). And if you mean something else by "practical application", then it struggles from the problem of economic calculation and hence cant be produced according to the preferences of consumers. In either case: consumers lose, govt and govt contractors like you win.
Another score for the Privatization of the Space Industry?
WASHINGTON — NASA told U.S. lawmakers Jan. 10 it intends to build a heavy-lift rocket that incorporates the space shuttle’s main engines, giant external tank and taller versions of the solid-rocket boosters it jettisons on the way to orbit, according to a senior NASA official. However, neither the rocket nor the crew vehicle it would launch could be completed within the cost and schedule Congress outlined for the project late last year.
NASA's SDLV sounds A LOT like the DIRECT launcher ... just a lot more expensive and seemingly at a much longer timeline. Whats worse is that they still refuse to give any acknowledgement/credit to the name and people behind DIRECT
"So as Oliver Hardy would say, here's another fine mess we've gotten ourselves into. NASA creates an unaffordable architecture (ESAS) to implement the VSE. The response by the new administration is to cancel the VSE and replace it with promises of more distant goals at some nebulous time in the far future. Congress directs the agency to build an HLV anyway, but the vehicle has no mission, so they pull out the specs of the last HLV America flew. NASA responds by saying they can't do it on the money and schedule specified, even though they themselves have in hand a report that shows how it can be done. Moreover, the agency still claims it doesn't know why anyone would want to go to the Moon, despite having been shown repeatedly that what we do there will create new space faring capability."
Keith's note: During its recent deliberations the HEFT II activity look at a variety of scenarios, reference missions etc. One of them, DM1, actually meets the costs and schedule specified by Congress. DM1 entails creation and use of an in-space propellant depot and refueling capability. It also makes use of EELVs and other commercial launch assets. But forces within NASA ESMD personnel - led by Doug Cooke - have purposefully sat on such ideas and have made certain that they were scrubbed from presentation charts and reports to Congress and other "stakeholders". Charlie Bolden is aware of this tactic.
Also SpaceX has met all of it's milestones so far:
Hawthorne-based rocket venture Space Exploration Technologies Corp. has received $25 million from NASA since successfully launching its 18-story Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon space capsule from Cape Canaveral last month.
The company, better known as SpaceX, has developed the Dragon capsule under NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program. The spacecraft, which can carry as many as seven astronauts, is considered a contender for the multibillion-dollar job of ferrying crews to and from the International Space Station after the space shuttle is retired this year.
SpaceX already has a $1.6-billion contract with NASA to have the Dragon capsule transport cargo to the space station, a job that could start this year.
Alan Lindenmoyer, manager of the NASA program, confirmed in an interview that the space agency has paid the company for reaching a series of important milestones.
From what I've heard from my uncle who is a senior engineer for Aerojet (big manufacturer of rocket motors), NASA is too bogged down by bureaucracy to actually get anything done. Short of some kind of serious reform, the future is private.
Today, Elon Musk, CEO and chief rocket designer of Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) unveiled the dramatic final specifications and launch date for the Falcon Heavy, the world's largest rocket. "Falcon Heavy will carry more payload to orbit or escape velocity than any vehicle in history, apart from the Saturn V moon rocket, which was decommissioned after the Apollo program. This opens a new world of capability for both government and commercial space missions," Musk told a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.
"Falcon Heavy will arrive at our Vandenberg, California, launch complex by the end of next year, with liftoff to follow soon thereafter. First launch from our Cape Canaveral launch complex is planned for late 2013 or 2014."
Musk added that with the ability to carry satellites or interplanetary spacecraft weighing over 53 metric tons or 117,000 pounds to orbit, Falcon Heavy will have more than twice the performance of the Space Shuttle or Delta IV Heavy, the next most powerful vehicle, which is operated by United Launch Alliance, a Boeing-Lockheed Martin joint venture.
53 metric tons is more than the maximum take-off weight of a fully-loaded Boeing 737-200 with 136 passengers. In other words, Falcon Heavy can deliver the equivalent of an entire commercial airplane full of passengers, crew, luggage and fuel all the way to orbit.
The 2012 budget for four Air Force launches is $1.74B, which is an average of $435M per launch. Falcon 9 is offered on the commercial market for $50-60M and Falcon Heavy is offered for $80-$125M. Unlike our competitors, this price includes all non-recurring development costs and on-orbit delivery of an agreed upon mission. For government missions, NASA has added mission assurance and additional services to the Falcon 9 for less than $20M.
SpaceX once again seems to take the initiative, meanwhile NASA is still arguing about budgets:
"We'll probably put a first man in space in about three years," Elon Musk told the Wall Street Journal Saturday. "We're going all the way to Mars, I think... best case 10 years, worst case 15 to 20 years."
SpaceX is one of the two leading private space companies in the United States and has won $75 million from the US space agency NASA to help its pursuit of developing a spacecraft to replace the space shuttle.
The California-based company last year completed its first successful test of an unmanned space capsule into orbit and back.
"Our goal is to facilitate the transfer of people and cargo to other planets, and then it will be up to people if they want to go," said Musk, who also runs the Tesla company which develops electric cars.
The US space shuttle program is winding down later this year with final flights of Endeavour set for next week and Atlantis in June, ending an era of American spaceflight that began with the first space shuttle mission in 1981.
When the shuttle program ends, the United States hopes private industry will be able to fill the gap by creating the next generation of spacecraft to transport astronauts into space.
On January 06 2011 12:57 Cloud wrote: SNIP Private companies can actually be filled by people that want to do scientific research. They aren't like NASA who is most likely only able to research the stuff the government thinks its good to research.
Oh and the fact that technology is in the hands of the private sector (despite all the government's obstacles) is the only reason the USA is so far ahead of Europe and Japan.
Ok 999 here we go...
You're so damn off it hurts me. Why do you comment on things you know NOTHING about? Have you ever asked for funding from NASA? I have, guess what they did? They funded me. Did I have to jump through some bureaucratic red tape? Yes, but not that much. For the most part NASA is only interested in it as long as you can prove there is a practical application for your research (and that such a project is feasible)
The US is so far ahead BECAUSE of our GOVERNMENT investing in private companies and independent researchers (not so common)
Edit: I hope editing doesn't count towards post count...
Who the hell did you think was funding the majority of our basic research?
I guess Eli Whitney, Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, & Benjamin Franklin were all Government-researchers paid with by tax-money? Most of the inventions and scientific advancement came about through individual effort and private funding. Chicago, New York, Baltimore, San Francisco, St. Louis, etc. entirely built from private investors (aka market). How on Earth did we have an Industrial Revolution when Government spending was .5% of GDP and there were no grants, very little internal taxes, and little to no regulation?
Government takes money out of the private sector through taxation -- and then gives it away to interest groups who will vote for them. It is bribing the public with the publics money.
I'm interested to see what SpaceX can bring to the table. I would pay 500$ to travel to outer-space. :p
Just caught with whats been going on, and my excitement levels are pretty high to say the least. Could we actually see a human on Mars within our lifetime? Further space exploration and development is long past due.
NASA is confused. And until they and US congress realize public funded human space flight is nonsense, they will stay.
Problem is, they still have the ISS there and they have it there to do science and it would be a waste to not use it not that it is there.
Of course tourists will be the first on Mars and of course it will be the private sector. Who else?
NASA is wasting a lot of resources in answering real questions rather that facilitating tourism for a very select few. We want to know if there is other life out there. Well, is SpaceX going to buy a space telescope? No. Why not. The answer to that question is not worth any money. Same with measuring gravity waves and any other space instrument. And we still want to send robots to all the planets, right?
NASA is building the James Webb Space telescope right now. It is vastly delayed and way over budget. It is devouring the whole NASA science budget. People fear it will be canceled and then nothing is left.
Remember the US particle collider in Texas? Congress held a hearing on it because it cost 11 billion dollar and they had just approved of 11 billion dollar for the ISS. So one guy asked: "Will you find god with that machine." The physicist answered "We will find another subatomic particle."
So they canceled the project halfway. They had dug a 1 billion dollar hole which they filled using another 1 billion dollar. It saved them 10 billion dollars of taxpayer money. In the mean time ISS is a white elephant and the real science is being done by the far smaller LHC in Geneve.
The day a human walks on Mars I will probably not be happy. We will have a couple of suberbillionares all give for example SpaceX a billion euro. Then one of them will be drawn out to actually be the first one to go. It will be a sickening waste of money and resources. In that case let's hope it is a one way trip. Will reduce the costs by at least 66% and we'll get rid of one more of those wasteful superbillionares as they don't contribute to society, to put it mildly.
If robots, no matter how advanced won't suffice, and if it is really that important to see Mars with human eyes, send them in a glass jar.
On January 01 2011 10:08 mahnini wrote: i can only imagine private contracts to be a bad thing. imagine if something goes wrong during a mission, when stuff is being sourced in house the engineer who built or designed whatever went wrong is a phone call away or probably on stand by. what happens when something goes wrong with a privately sourced component or two privately sourced components fail synchronously?
What youre talking about is exactly the LACK OF PRIVATE SECTOR, the lack of private liability and property rights establishment. Your argument is against the PUBLIC sector.
On January 06 2011 12:57 Cloud wrote: SNIP Private companies can actually be filled by people that want to do scientific research. They aren't like NASA who is most likely only able to research the stuff the government thinks its good to research.
Oh and the fact that technology is in the hands of the private sector (despite all the government's obstacles) is the only reason the USA is so far ahead of Europe and Japan.
Ok 999 here we go...
You're so damn off it hurts me. Why do you comment on things you know NOTHING about? Have you ever asked for funding from NASA? I have, guess what they did? They funded me. Did I have to jump through some bureaucratic red tape? Yes, but not that much. For the most part NASA is only interested in it as long as you can prove there is a practical application for your research (and that such a project is feasible)
The US is so far ahead BECAUSE of our GOVERNMENT investing in private companies and independent researchers (not so common)
Edit: I hope editing doesn't count towards post count...
Who the hell did you think was funding the majority of our basic research?
The test of usefulness is profitability. If a project isnt profitable, no one is demonstrating their preference of it over the money they could use elsewhere. Public finance doesnt fill this criterion, private finance does. Hence it is only private finance that is capable of demonstrably bringing about economic advancement.
EPT![[image loading]](http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/files/2011/01/cost.jpg)
