EPTHaving a proven working docking system is the first step for the construction of a chinese space station.
NASA and the Private Sector - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Keep debates civil. | ||
|
Desti
Germany138 Posts
Having a proven working docking system is the first step for the construction of a chinese space station. | ||
|
jbee
35 Posts
| ||
|
Nayl
Canada413 Posts
On September 27 2011 08:19 jbee wrote: Why spend money on NASA? Seems so pointless to me. Because NASA will do things for sake of science and discovery, where as private sector will not do something that cannot be monetized. Something like Hubble space telescope and numerous probes sent to discover characteristics of our solar system would not happen with Private sector because they have no incentive to do so. NASA is also ideal organization to initiate projects that are good for the greater good, such as monitoring the solar activity for possible solar flares. | ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On September 27 2011 08:19 jbee wrote: Why spend money on NASA? Seems so pointless to me. Because investing in science of any kind leads to a myriad of discoveries which usually have far wider reaching applications that what was being studied in the first place. War research led to civilian developments like the internet and GPS. Here's an interesting list of things NASA had a helped develop(directly or indirectly) Most aren't closely related to spaceflight. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/50-years-50-giant-leaps-how-nasa-rocked-our-world-879377.html | ||
|
jbee
35 Posts
| ||
|
Gamegene
United States8308 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On September 27 2011 10:08 jbee wrote: Yeah, because that list of things (that may have still been invented) was worth 471 billion dollars spent from 1958 to 2008. I should have expected people to just list the benefits (as few as they may be) rather than say why invest in NASA. Government has a role, just like corporations, to play as well. You could have given that money to Africa if you were truly worried about the well-being of people. People care more about having a job ( or surviving famine ) than they do about about space exploration. 471 billions over 60 years is pretty small given that you spend more than that on your military in one year... And they came up with a lot of stuff - although simple minded people can't appreciate scientific advancements. But the fact that your military is much more expensive (excessively so) doesn't justify the spending. What does is that well, someone has to do it. Will private companies do it? Sure - slower, they will. The problem is that there's no easy immediate money to make out of exploration and discovery. Sure you can make a buck shipping rich people into space but that just doesn't compare. A private company wouldn't have worked on Hubble because the simpletons aren't interested in pictures of the universe 14 billion years ago. People weren't interested in the physics that cause a television to work, but they certainly liked the TV. The government has more means than private companies and that's why they should fund long-term projects that private companies wouldn't because the profits are too far down the line. | ||
|
JamesJohansen
United States213 Posts
NASA lost their way a long time ago. Some time in the 80s and maybe before then, it was less about innovation and more about political pandering. Now, its a shadow of its former glory in its ongoing attempt to be crowd pleasing. Obama had a speach not too long ago about reaching out so more minorities feel included in space exploration. Is this what it's about now? Some sort of vehicle for political correctness? And being a government organization, its plagued by beurocracy and can't function as the organization it once was. Hopefully in my lifetime, things will turn around and the private sector will usher in a new age of space exploration. My hope is that one day they will find economic benefit to space travel. I've read articles talking about the wealth of the correct isotope of helium on the moon that could fuel fusion. Something like this that will make traveling to space worthwhile could change the way we see things. Think of it like exploration to the Americas a couple hundred years ago. It developed its own economic values and people flocked to the new world to grow cash crops and make their living off of new endeavors. I'm hopeful we are coming to a new age where we witness this sort of progress again. | ||
|
BeJe77
United States377 Posts
On September 27 2011 10:08 jbee wrote: Yeah, because that list of things (that may have still been invented) was worth 471 billion dollars spent from 1958 to 2008. I should have expected people to just list the benefits (as few as they may be) rather than say why invest in NASA. Government has a role, just like corporations, to play as well. You could have given that money to Africa if you were truly worried about the well-being of people. People care more about having a job ( or surviving famine ) than they do about about space exploration. Yes, Yes, who cares about NASA, I mean after all, the only thing they did was inspire generation after generation of people to do great things, broadened our knowledge and pushed science to the limit. Not to mention of course the numerous inventions and creations they've made being used in the commercial sector. People seem to be missing the purpose of NASA, which is to broaden knowledge and understanding. They are not a corporation, corporations only invest into things that generate profit, if everything was run with such a model, we wouldn't have half the knowledge we have today, because guess what? It' can't generate profit! Also, what does giving that money to Africa solve? That is way off the train tracks for what this topic is. , | ||
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
I think it's more than NASA vs private sector, it may be state funded agencies vs private sector, as NASA is becoming more and more tied with roskosmos and the european space agency and hopefully all of them will keep merging into an immense structure where all discoveries shall be used for common good (for ex: it's a waste for every space agency to work on engines, it's smarter for one to work on engine, one on capsules, one on other tech etc). | ||
|
lefix
Germany1082 Posts
But i think we really need to be exploring space at a faster rate if we want the human race to survive. We need to find solutions to our energy problems, and start colonizing other planets in the near future. For example. If we gathered Helium 3 from the moon, 1 cargo load of the spaceshuttle would be sufficient to generate enough energy for the US for a whole year. One of worlds most overlooked problems is population growth. Earths population was about 2.5 billion in 1950. Today there are more than 7 billion people on this planet. It is only a matter of time until we run out of space and resources, until we have damaged our planet to a point where it can no longer recover. | ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
Anyway, I guess space exploration isn't dead after all. | ||
|
N.geNuity
United States5112 Posts
On September 27 2011 18:38 lefix wrote: It seems alot of people consider space flights a waste of money. But i think we really need to be exploring space at a faster rate if we want the human race to survive. We need to find solutions to our energy problems, and start colonizing other planets in the near future. For example. If we gathered Helium 3 from the moon, 1 cargo load of the spaceshuttle would be sufficient to generate enough energy for the US for a whole year. One of worlds most overlooked problems is population growth. Earths population was about 2.5 billion in 1950. Today there are more than 7 billion people on this planet. It is only a matter of time until we run out of space and resources, until we have damaged our planet to a point where it can no longer recover. the DT fusion reaction is more promising than using He-3 mined from the moon (D + T -> He-4 + neutron + 17.6 MeV, use use the neutron to "breed" tritium by n + Li -> T + He-4 + 4.8 MeV. deuterium is essentially free forever as it's in sea water, and tritium is what is rare. But by breeding tritium from lithium shielding, we can create the tritium easily, and there is enough lithium to use for breeding to power the entire world on DT fusion for ~1000 years). anyways, back on the bumped topic, I personally don't really see a need for manned exploration ever again in space exploration. Nor is colonization particularly compelling/necessary. I'm 100% for NASA but programs like a manned mission to mars or to go back to the moon with humans really doesn't do anything for advancing scientific knowledge. That leaves NASA to pursue scientific knowledge, and the private sector wouldn't really be too interested in sending out space probes or things like hubble as it has no commerical applications to really make money. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
"Today, SpaceX announced it has successfully completed the preliminary design review of its revolutionary launch abort system, a system designed for manned missions using its Dragon spacecraft. This represents a major step toward creating an American-made successor to the Space Shuttle. NASA's approval of the latest design review marks the fourth successfully completed milestone under the agency's Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program and demonstrates the innovation that's possible when NASA partners with the private sector." Source | ||
|
Setev
Malaysia390 Posts
On September 30 2011 00:36 N.geNuity wrote: anyways, back on the bumped topic, I personally don't really see a need for manned exploration ever again in space exploration. Nor is colonization particularly compelling/necessary. I'm 100% for NASA but programs like a manned mission to mars or to go back to the moon with humans really doesn't do anything for advancing scientific knowledge. That leaves NASA to pursue scientific knowledge, and the private sector wouldn't really be too interested in sending out space probes or things like hubble as it has no commerical applications to really make money. Yes, I agree. Space exploration should be done by more durable beings - robots. However, one can argue that manned space exploration will trigger development of practical manned space vehicles, which will be my area of interest and ambition if I get my finances right... | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
LAS CRUCES, N.M. (Reuters) - A start-up space company building inflatable habitats for commercial and government lease has laid off half its staff because of delays developing space taxis needed to fly people to the outposts, the company president said on Wednesday. Robert Bigelow, a hotel entrepreneur and founder of Las Vegas-based Bigelow Aerospace, had hoped space taxis, also needed by NASA to fly astronauts to the International Space Station, would be available by early 2015. NASA is backing development of commercial human spaceships by four firms, including Boeing Co, Bigelow's partner in its space habitats program. Those spacecraft, however, are not expected to be ready to fly until at least 2016, extending the amount of time the United States is dependent on Russia to fly crews to the space station, at a cost of more than $50 million per person, and delaying the debut of Bigelow's commercial outposts, which need spaceships to ferry customers to and from orbit. The company plans a series of inflatable space habitats that can be used for research, tourism, manufacturing and other activities. Source | ||
|
Setev
Malaysia390 Posts
| ||
|
Galaxy613
United States148 Posts
On September 27 2011 08:19 jbee wrote: Why spend money on NASA? Seems so pointless to me. And this is why it's up to the private sector now. On October 22 2011 00:17 Setev wrote: US forced to rely on a vanquished opponent's ride to get to space... Do Americans feel bothered by that fact? I know the Cold War is long over, but I'll still feel uneasy about it if its up to me. Pretty much, I hope China's space program has loads of success and makes people elsewhere think "Why aren't we doing that?" | ||
|
CCitrus
Canada164 Posts
| ||
| ||
