POLL - Who Should Build Big Space Rockets?

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

Who Should Build Big Space Rockets, NASA or the Private Sector?

  • NASA needs more funding so it can continue to lead the way and maintain total control.

    Votes: 19 38.8%
  • NASA should move aside somewhat, use funds as incentives to spur commercial competition.

    Votes: 27 55.1%
  • Time for NASA to step aside completely and let private enterprise compete boldly.

    Votes: 3 6.1%

  • Total voters
    49
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CosmicGas

Guest
Regarding Hogan-314
"If there were diamonds on the moon, it does you no good if you can't go get them" its been said.
John Lewis' (Mining the sky) and others have detailed the vast incredable wealth of the astroids and outer solar system. However for economic feasability you have to subtract out the cost of logistics. It would be extremly expensive to go mine astroidal bodies and return any resources.Right now there is nothing on any drawing boards to go do that. In the not too distant future when our capabilities reach that point and infastructure is set in place, we could reach a break-even point. Delta-v costs are so high some advocate not bringing back space resources to earth at all, but only using them locally. Inother words, moving and living there.

The one element of Constellation, (ISRU) in-situ resource utilization, with a base on the moon extracting oxygen and water could be a first teaching step in that direction. Even that seems to be on the chopping block under the current political enviroment.
 
B

bdewoody

Guest
Most of the hardware for the space program is built in many states. Nasa wasn't stupid. Building the components in many states means they have a better chance of getting the funding they need. The rockets are only assembled here in Florida. They launch from Florida for several reasons. Initially there was very little development around Cape Canaveral so if a rocket failed there was less chance of endangering humans. Launching from the east coast means the initial lift off phase is out over water in case of some major failure.
 
A

astc

Guest
spaceman57":1at5p6ft said:
heroineworshipper":1at5p6ft said:
Gee, that's not an unbiased poll. Elon Musk has been working on the Dragon for 10 years & he still says he's "3 years" away from getting humans in orbit if he gets yet more unspecified funds. We've already paid him $1/2 billion on electric cars he hasn't delivered. A "commercial system" would be nice, but it's in your dreams.
Holy cow, hw, why did you make up this misinformation? SpaceX was formed in 2002 after Elon Musk sold his company (Paypal) and received the funds to do what he had intended to do from early adulthood, to create a company whose goal is to help humanity become a true spacefaring civilization. Dragon was designed from the beginning to become man-rated, no one (NASA) has asked him to make it so yet. The three years timeframe is not based on Elon's engineering, but is based on how long it will take for NASA to set up and run their required tests to certify the Dragon as "man-rated". Why would Elon spend the money to man-rate it unless there was a known, paying customer waiting at the end of the lengthy process? That's Business 101 stuff. And Tesla Motors has already delivered over 800 cars to date. "We've" LOANED him 465 million dollars as part of the Department of Energy’s Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program which is designed to accelerate the development of alternatives to today's combustion engine.
u sure sound like someone who work for space X, but please get real, the real boys are Boeing/eads/lockheed. Elon is a good salesman imho.
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
astc":bgwr2iq1 said:
u sure sound like someone who work for space X, but please get real, the real boys are Boeing/eads/lockheed. Elon is a good salesman imho.
While your "real boys" are waiting for the government to decide what to do, Mr. Musk is busy building private human spacefaring capability...mostly on his own dime. Mr. Musk wants to go to Mars. LockMart, Boeing, etc., officials just want to make it to a stockholder's meeting with profits in the annual report.

If Mr. Musk does nothing more than motivate your "real boys" into some action he will have served a useful purpose.
 
S

spaceman57

Guest
No, astc, I'm a computer company CEO based in Raleigh, NC that just happens to be willing to take all of four minutes to research facts rather than spew misinformation for some unknown reason. Is there some fact I presented that is in error? If so, I'm always willing to learn something new (in fact I thrive on it. Hence, my choice of work to spend my time in...).
 
M

mj1

Guest
SpaceForAReason":wt4ucmxp said:
NASA does build rockets. I don't see anybody else building rockets the way they do. And not one company other than NASA would be fool enough to buy them.
Dude, you might want to take a look at SpaceX's launch manifest at http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php. They have a whole bunch of "fools" including NASA already in line for launch services. The list does not even count the soon to be available manned capability that SpeceX is quietly working on.
 
S

SpaceForAReason

Guest
mj1":3telobuv said:
Dude, you might want to take a look at SpaceX's launch manifest at http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php. They have a whole bunch of "fools" including NASA already in line for launch services. The list does not even count the soon to be available manned capability that SpeceX is quietly working on.
The part of the whole equation I find the most foolish is the fact that the cost per launch was not reduced. In fact, the cost to go to the moon will be comparatively more expensive per pound than the Saturn launches were. Anyone who runs a business is going to be interested in keeping costs down. Our government does not seem to be driven by the same motivations.

Back in the 1970's Toyota came out with small trucks that out-lasted the domestic ones. Most americans snubbed Toyota during that time because they associated the lower cost with shoddy work. As soon as the trucks started rolling over 200 and 300 thousand miles, while domestic trucks were already in the bone-yard, everyone started paying attention. "Hey, Toyota is pretty cool after all..."

Lower cost per launch does not mean the technology is not worthy of our attention. That is precisely the direction we need to go. Even NASA cannot afford its new vehicle. To my knowledge, if SpaceX is successful, they will have a vehicle that is orders of magnitude cheaper than Ares. Bless them for being foolish enough to try.
 
A

astc

Guest
they are trying to get as many jobs, so when they list in 2012 it would be well accepted.

well, my money is on Boeing :) and EADS
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS