Is the shuttle a "death march project" as defined by Yourdon

[j05h]

I like the idea of NASA as "insurance" against the failure of the private firms. This is the best way they can fufill their charter. It is also reflected in the technology transfers that happen, like how TransHab became Bigelow's Nautilus. More prizes would be great, too. <br /><br />I agree on getting humanity into space, somehow. I would like the US to be at the forefront of space development as well. If we fail to keep up, that is our own fault. I worry sometimes about lack of engineers here, but the limiting factor currently is financing and market. Who buys your Zero-G flights? Can people afford your Iridium phones? Etc. Figuring out how to make money off in-space products is the "magic step" toward sustained profit. There are products on the horizon and available (ISS hotel visits, Bigelow hotel, Zero-G and Virgin flights) that begin to cross this threshhold. An interesting point: beamed power and Platinum-group metals mining have proven the non-starters of space development (maybe later). Both have had more than a generation and not been developed. As services have grown in the US economy, so does it appear that "services" (ie. LEO hotels & barnstorming) are the current driving force in the new commercial space. This is looking past TV, phone and weather sats, of course. <br /><br /> />Am I now coming through clearly? <br /><br />Loud and clear. Just making sure we're on the same page! <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[kdavis007]

Yawn......

 

[mlorrey]

Insurance is a market that government shouldn't be in. Any time you see some activity that functions as insurance, you'll get mercantilist types lobbying for government subsidy to protect their market dominance. That is what "government insurance" is really about: using working people's tax money to minimize the risk of the investor class, and making private insurance artificially cheaper by subsidy of high risks. Subsidies always distort markets and scare capital away from ventures.<br /><br />I do give a hoot who gets into space in a big way. If it is the state doing it, then they'll use their leverage to extend their control and mercantilist anti-market games across the universe.

 

[frodo1008]

Whoa, Whoa! I was NOT stating literally that NASA should be insurance for failures of the purely private markets! True insurance companies don't build rocket systems! What I WAS stating (perhaps using the wrong analogy, and thus confusing the issue) was that we already KNOW that NASA has the ability to put people into LEO. It is a very real possibility, that the pure private efforts might temporarily have problems (look at spacex recent difficulties for an example), then ALL American access to manned spaced activities would NOT be cut off! How about, instead of insurance, we call it a backup operation, similar to the one any prudent PC user has for his hard disk?<br /><br />Would that clear the situation up better?<br /><br />Now, as to your second statement, in actuality, no government efforts are going to get large amounts of ordinary people (even the rich) into space. It IS just far too expensive for this relatively small portion of human endeavor to do this! In the long run the ONLY people that can do this are the private commercial interests, and then only when and if it becomes profitable to do so! When I said I didn't care who got humanity into space I was speaking in general terms, not specifically! Heck, it could even be private efforts of the Russians, or even the Chinese for all I care (although I would prefer both American government and private industry efforts lead the way)<br /><br />I know how enthusiastic you are for pure private efforts in this area, but would it be possible to tone down your anti government (and by implication NASA) comments? After awhile we begin to lose effort and time in just going back and forth on this kind of thing (similar to some over on the free space forum, and believe me we don’t want that here!). <br /><br />Besides I think we both have somewhat valid viewpoints, And both of these viewpoints will eventually get their day to shine. I think that right now, and until such efforts as Burt Rutan's and your own bear fruit