New Heavy Rocket Bill vs commercial?

[hansolo0]

Sorry for another poll so soon folks , and the similarities, but the other poll did not really address this....

 

[hansolo0]

bump

 

[James_Bull]

How could it possibly help the private sector?!

 

[rcsplinters]

All this furor over government subsidy of private manned space flight is simply good lobby efforts and media manipulation. If there is a market for commercial manned space flight, it won't need any government pork to kick start it. If the government slush is essential, then what we know is the revenue is the slush, not the compensation for any product or service that industry might have to offer. I would be in favor of eliminating all government contribution to these start-ups. Let them compete for private investment capital and then we'll see whether these proposal are viable or not. If private funding is not willing to invest, then I see no reason to waste public funds on such risky investment.

 

[BrianBoru]

The so-called "commercial" sector should invest it's own money, or make an IPO to collect cash-flow.
When they have demonstrated that they can launch successfully, and repeatedly,
the orders for product will come from those that need or desire their services.

Wow ! What a concept. I think it should be called capitalism;

capitalism |ˈkapətlˌizəm|
noun
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.


So hands off the public's money, and do it yourself "commercial". :idea:

 

[hansolo0]

The results are surprising so far...

 

[menellom]

One could argue that the commercial industry needs these kinds of incentives (note, it's not just a giveaway, companies only get a decent share if they produce results) as a sort of initial investment.

Frankly, if a couple billion helps develop a genuine spaceflight industry in the US, I'd consider that to be a monumental return on a microscopic investment.

 

[EarthlingX]

IMO question is what do you want : be able to buy a ticket to the Moon, or watch astronauts on TV making giant leaps ?

www.thespacereview.com : Recasting the debate about commercial crew

by Jeff Foust

Monday, July 26, 2010

Since February 1, when the White House formally released its 2011 budget proposal for NASA, one of the hottest areas of debate about the agency’s future has revolved around the plan in the budget proposal to support development of commercial systems that can transport crews to and from the International Space Station, to the tune of $6 billion over five years. For commercial space advocates, the plan was welcome news, an affirmation of the growing capabilities of established and entrepreneurial space companies alike and the logical next step beyond ferrying cargo to the station. For others, though, the idea of turning to companies who have yet to demonstrate their ability to take cargo to the ISS—let alone people—seemed an unwise diversion from the tried-and-true path of government-operated systems.

 

[vulture4]

The real pork is the resurgent Constellation program, cancelled by the President and the NASA Administrator, but actually going full blast thanks to the power of its lobbyists.

Many on this forum seems to be worried about being "trapped in LEO". We're not trapped by technology, we are trapped by cost. Do any of you remember Apollo? We went to the moon. We had the technology to leave LEO 40 years ago. Apollo was much to expensive too be sustainable, and so is Constellation. Both cost billions to send a few people to some arbitrary point in space. Neither produces any practical benefits. Apollo was cancelled by Republican Richard Nixon in 1974 because of its cost. If we could not afford Apollo in 1974, when tax revenues were much higher, what on earth makes us think we can afford another Apollo today, even more expensive and producing nothing of practical benefit since there is no way to reduce the cost of its ancient SRB technology? Who will pay for Constellation? Will you? Should we borrow the money from China? How will our children pay it back?

In 1915, when NASA was created, the nascent US aerospace industry was already falling behind Europe. The Wright Brothers had left for France. The role of NASA from 1915 until 1960 was to support commercial aviation with R&D and technical support, including funding new prototypes, that the small manufactures couldn't afford, but which would allow them to be more competitive and eventually lead the world. Today, as a result of neglect of its role in supporting commercial industry, America has no commercial launch business at all. The people who might change that are visionaries like Musk and Rutan. NASA's role in human spaceflight is in helping them move forward as quickly as possible to establish new technologies and new markets.

 

[rockett]

In 1915, when NASA was created, the nascent US aerospace industry was already falling behind Europe. The Wright Brothers had left for France. The role of NASA from 1915 until 1960 was to support commercial aviation with R&D and technical support, including funding new prototypes, that the small manufactures couldn't afford, but which would allow them to be more competitive and eventually lead the world.

At least get your history right...

National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) - A brief explanation of NASA's predecessor
http://library.thinkquest.org/28017/naca.html

NASA History
"Since its inception in 1958..."
http://history.nasa.gov/

 

[tanstaafl76]

Assuming the NASA heavy lift vehicle will be infrequently used and primarily for interplanetary missions, I don't think it negatively impacts the commercial segment at all. I think it winds up being a good division of labor, NASA can focus on the big one-off missions, while the more-efficient, cost-conscious commercial endeavors can strive for becoming day-to-day orbital taxis for satellites/cargo and ISS crew.

 

[rockett]

Assuming the NASA heavy lift vehicle will be infrequently used and primarily for interplanetary missions, I don't think it negatively impacts the commercial segment at all. I think it winds up being a good division of labor, NASA can focus on the big one-off missions, while the more-efficient, cost-conscious commercial endeavors can strive for becoming day-to-day orbital taxis for satellites/cargo and ISS crew.

Thank you for the sense of reason. Many people just don't seem to understand that Congress intends to ramp up funding for commercial crew when they have the capability. But for now, there is nothing to fund as yet.

 

[vulture4]

We're not trapped in LEO by technology, we're trapped in LEO by cost. Apollo was much too expensive to sustain, probably by a factor of ten. How will Constellation be different? We're talking here about manned interplanetary missions? With 30-year-old technology? How many missions? for how many years? At what cost? What advantage would a NASA SRB-derived HLV have over an all-liquid fueled Delta-IV derivative, as originally proposed by Boeing? or a derivative of the Falcon? Let's look at the commercial side. The Congressional budget proposal cuts Obama's proposed budget for commercial development and reusable R&D at least cut in half. The other countries with major roles in commercial space launch rely on government partnerships with industry. We once led the world in commercial launches; now we have about one a year from US soil. Space. like everything else, must provide benefits that justify its cost.