EPTNASA and the Private Sector - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Keep debates civil. | ||
|
Gryffes
United Kingdom763 Posts
| ||
|
andrewwiggin
Australia435 Posts
I'm not even AMERICAN, and I realise that NASA's technologies need to be protected at an extremely high level. And that's not really going to happen so well in a private company is it? | ||
|
GertHeart
United States631 Posts
| ||
|
Suisen
256 Posts
SpaceX uses engineers that were trained by taxpayer money. Their salaries are also partly government funded. But the profits of course will be completely private. Just go through the list of Fortune500 and see how many of them were completely saved from going bankrupt in the past. And I am not talking just about the last financial crisis. Defense spending spinoff is so huge. The pentagon spend huge amounts of money on for example computers. Bill Gates got rich because he used Pentagon funded technology he didn't have to invest in and created products for people. That's why he got so humongously rich. You can only do that in such a government funded market. And now people complain that in the US the richt pay too much taxes. Where do you think their money comes from. Yes, it comes from the taxpayer. The investments are public, the profits are private. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
On April 24 2011 19:39 GertHeart wrote: I remember reading an article that NASA spent around 1 or 10 million dollars to develop a pen that could write in space. Russia solved this issue by just using a pencil. Food for thought. Other than that. SpaceX seems like a much smarter company so that's why it's able to save a lot more money in this, just too many scientists that don't know jack sheet in NASA. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fact-or-fiction-nasa-spen Should research your stories before believing in them. "Pencils may not have been the best choice anyway. The tips flaked and broke off, drifting in microgravity where they could potentially harm an astronaut or equipment. And pencils are flammable--a quality NASA wanted to avoid in onboard objects after the Apollo 1 fire." "According to an Associated Press report from February 1968, NASA ordered 400 of Fisher's antigravity ballpoint pens for the Apollo program. A year later, the Soviet Union ordered 100 pens and 1,000 ink cartridges to use on their Soyuz space missions, said the United Press International. The AP later noted that both NASA and the Soviet space agency received the same 40 percent discount for buying their pens in bulk. They both paid $2.39 per pen instead of $3.98." | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On April 29 2011 07:01 On_Slaught wrote: I'd like to think the people at NASA do what they do because they love it. That would surely change if space exploration was privatized. Its hard to put into words what would be lost, but no doubt something would be... Well it's not really a versus situation, considering NASA has helped fund some of these private ventures. They gave $500 million a few years ago and just gave another $269 million last week. | ||
|
ThaZenith
Canada3116 Posts
The more efficiently and cost effectively we can get into space the better, and that can only be accomplished by companies aiming for profit, not one funded by taxpayers. | ||
|
pt
United States813 Posts
| ||
|
0mar
United States567 Posts
| ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
The scale of what NASA is looking to do in the long run is far beyond the scope of any private firm, and that's what's important about it. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On April 29 2011 07:20 0mar wrote: If history has told us anything it's that the private sector cuts corners as much as possible in order to maximize profits. I certainly don't see them making their space vehicles double or triple redundant like NASA does. NASA doesn't have a spotless record, but when they have failures, it's not due to cutting corners on safety. Yeah because it makes total sense that risking a ship blowing up and killing people is much more profitable than adding redundancy. Those greedy profiteers will stop at nothing.... On a serious note, I'm pretty much always in favor of privatization if it is feasible. If space exploration can be profitable in any way, even through tourism, then it will get us further than endless subsidies will. If not, then I would question why we are investing so much resources into it to begin with. The cutting edge of technology is not being found in NASA, it's likely in your own smart phone. | ||
|
Pufftrees
2449 Posts
On April 29 2011 07:25 Whitewing wrote: Problem is that the private sector is only interested in profits, whereas with NASA, we can invest in something that won't show a return for an extremely long time, but is essential to the development of our species in the long run. The scale of what NASA is looking to do in the long run is far beyond the scope of any private firm, and that's what's important about it. You are painfully jaded. NASA is all politics, it was a near disgrace working there. Every one from a researcher to the project managers complained how terribly innefficient everything was run because of the government and political impact. Space-X is going to kick the shit out of NASA. Edit: Just to give a small example. New president comes in, changes policies and budget. Project Orion and other multi multi million projects that have been in the works for 8 years are SCRAPPED, yes scrapped, and a new change in direction. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On April 29 2011 07:20 0mar wrote: If history has told us anything it's that the private sector cuts corners as much as possible in order to maximize profits. I certainly don't see them making their space vehicles double or triple redundant like NASA does. NASA doesn't have a spotless record, but when they have failures, it's not due to cutting corners on safety. The problem I primarily foresee is the littering of space in orbit near the satellites. It is a physical fact that even small objects can do damage to spacecrafts, because of the shear velocity of the speceship. Imagine how bad it can get with junkships that cut too many corners and ended up in orbit. What a waste we can get if the area is not sufficiently regulated like mining from other planets etc. Could end up with so much junk, that it gets very dangerous to try and leave the atmosphere and what will we have earned then? Accumulation of even more junk in orbit! | ||
|
Nizaris
Belgium2230 Posts
On April 29 2011 07:28 jdseemoreglass wrote: Yeah because it makes total sense that risking a ship blowing up and killing people is much more profitable than adding redundancy. Those greedy profiteers will stop at nothing.... he's right. look how BP turned out. They seem to be doing alright still. And what they did wasn't any better then killing ppl in a spaceship. Not that the biggest english company going bankrupt would have done any1 any good so what exactly do they have to lose ? It's still a good idea, the government certainly wasn't doing it very well. And i like the idea of space tourism honestly. I'd risk it. That video with the top gear dude, amazing. | ||
|
Ruscour
5233 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — China’s space industry remains hopeful it can do business with the U.S., despite a renewed chill in relations. But executives at China Great Wall Industry Corp. are finding it hard to believe that California-based Space Exploration Technologies Inc. (SpaceX) is offering lower launch prices than they can. Lei Fanpei, vice president of the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corp. (CAST), told the National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs April 14 that despite the U.S. policy shift in 1999 that effectively shut down U.S.-China trade in space products, China is still open for business. “Committing to peaceful uses of outer space, CAST is willing to stress exchanges and cooperation with various countries in the world transparently and with [an] open mind,” Lei said through an interpreter. “I believe the China-U.S. space cooperation, once initiated, will certainly bring immediate results to the two countries’ space industries, providing more choices for customers from different countries all over the world.” Lei did not take questions, and declined an interview request. But colleagues from China Great Wall, the marketing arm of CAST, say they are opening a one-person office in Washington this summer to push Chinese space products, including solar arrays. Source | ||
|
Joementum
787 Posts
| ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
There is no monetary incentive to put a man on Mars so we shouldn't abolish government space agencies wich can undertake important missions like that without having to end up making a netto profit. Putting a man on Mars however is a goal for all of humanity and i think it is only fair if more countries contributed to such an undertaking. A private space sector isn't a bad thing at all but there are many things that carry little economical value but should still be done imo. For that we have a government run space program. | ||
| ||
