taking NASA out of the goverments hands

[yevaud]

"We will neither confirm nor deny the existance of this program." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

I would consider a black project as one that is launched publicly, but described as a military project, and in that case, the world was notified of a launch, and denied the details. These are limited to ballistics though, I think. We do not openly tell people that we are flying special unmanned craft over white sands. I would imaging that the FAA supervisors would not commit on military operations, or flat out lie when asked, but I wouldn't have a clue. Does anyone know what the procedure is on reporting about military operations to the public? <br /><br />In fact, some of these craft could operate at night virtually undetected.

 

[propforce]

You know, I've been told that the Russian fishermen mysteriously show up outside of Vanderberg AFB on time & everytime when there's a DoD launch.<br /><br />I didn't know that fish congregate outside the VAFB coincide well with launches <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Yeah, they do, and the Coast guard is watching. If NASA would take private funding, that would be cool too. I hope that China, Russia, and/or some other country will try to build a base first, so a little race will start. At least then, I would be almost guaranteed to see one before I leave this world.

 

[annodomini2]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I hope that China, Russia, and/or some other country will try to build a base first, so a little race will start. At least then, I would be almost guaranteed to see one before I leave this world. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />There is effectively, the Russians want to get their hands on Helium-3 for fusion technology (the moons covered in it, i believe there was an article on space.com this week?)<br /><br />The Chinese are looking at 2035 for a moon base <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mystex]

What we honeslty need is another space race. Course it'd be better still if we had a space race where it was the govts of Russia, the US, and China involved as well as the US Commercial sector. *evil smile* Who do you think would win? The governments or the private sector?

 

[rocketman5000]

At this point in time it would still be the goverments. There isn't enough demand for resources from space or travel through space yet. If there was a demand there think of the 90's dotcom race....

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Besides, I don't consider Lockheed, or Boeing working on government projects a public project even though NASA is supposed to be the medium.<br /><br />Research and development are costly; repetitive launch platforms are not. A lot of the data processing could be farmed out too.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />NASA does farm that stuff out....but since you don't consider major aerospace corporations to be private sector, I guess that doesn't count in your mind. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /><br />Of course Rosaviacosmos can charge for that stuff. They've got the legacy of communism, where the government runs the economy directly. We, on the other hand, have the legacy of capitalism, and if you go back far enough, laissez-faire capitalism at that. There's a substantial legislative obstacle to what you and others have suggested, and it shouldn't be underestimated.<br /><br />I'm a capitalist myself, actually, and although I'm generally a moderate, I have libertarian tendencies. This is why I am so opposed to the idea of the government competing directly with the private sector. I believe it would ruin the private sector, and frankly, I don't think that's what you want either if you think about it.<br /><br />Is the current set-up what we want? Probably not. The mega-mergers of the 80s and 90s have left the aerospace industry with a precious few behemoths lurching around the industry, squishing the smaller companies. That's not good. We need more "primes", companies big enough to act as prime contractors on things like launch vehicles or fighter jets, and we need them to stop wanting to buy up their subcontractors, because although everybody thought that was going to save them billions back in the 80s, the reality is that if you buy up too many of your subs, you end up too big to manage -- and you may end up managing businesses you don't fully understand. (After all, you contracted the work out before <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[propforce]

I guess you don't consider this as commercial project neigher, eh?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">NASA Seeks Proposals for Crew and Cargo Transportation to Orbit </font>/safety_wrapper> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mystex]

I've libertarian tendencies as well and personally I think the time of governent being a big player in space is past. Just as with the expansion and exploration of the western frontier, so it is now. Government can help but the real conquerers of this frontier will be the private individual and corporations. <br /><br />We need there to be pressure on the government from the private sector. Lets let the private sector embarass the federal government and see what happens.<br /><br />Lets start a race between government and the private sector and see who comes out on top.

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">Lets start a race between government and the private sector and see who comes out on top. </font><br /><br />There is no need.<br /><br />Government has a very different role than the industry. Typically government develop the "infrastructure" as well as the technologies so to reduce the "cost of entry" to private individuals and/or corporations.<br /><br />For example, the building of roads, bridges, and interstates. The delivery of mails & packages, etc. Without these basic "infrastructure", the cost of entry for transporting the goods across country would be prohibitively expensive. Same thing for commercial broadcast of television stations, satellites, etc. <br /><br />Same analogy can be made during the WW-II, where the Army Air Corp. issued specification of new advanced bombers and fighters, the industry (who are motivated by revenues & profits) responded with products such as the B-17, B-52, and the P-51 mustang that helped the Allies to win the war.<br /><br />At some point, the government stopped being the sole operator of aircrafts and allow commercial ventures to take place. The government resigned their role as "adminstrative agency" and "safety oversight board", e.g., FAA and the NTSB. Likewise, we are beginning to see the government is doing that in the <i>un-manned launches</i>, aka the expendables, and handing the permitting and licensing responsibility to the FAA. We are, however; not there yet in the <i>manned spaceflight</i> arena, perhaps this will change with the space tourism business as a start. <br /><br />NASA has taken the first step by issuing a RFP for commerical payload launch contract to the ISS (which will include crew). Basically they are saying, hey I just want to buy a ticket for a ride. You'll build the vehicle and I'll pay for the "ride". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

I'd remind you, propforce, that the railroads were built with private money. The only help the government gave the railroads was the power to eminent domain anybody in their path, a significant subsidy, to be sure, but the risk was taken by the private sector, long before the government thought of an interstate highway system.

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">I'd remind you, propforce, that the railroads were built with private money...</font><br /><br />I don't believe I've mentioned railraods as an example.<br /><br />Point aside, do you not agree with my basic premise? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"At some point, the government stopped being the sole operator of aircrafts and allow commercial ventures to take place. "<br /><br />They did this with the Air Mail Act of 1925, and the Air Commerce Act of 1926. Well before the war.<br /><br />It would be nice if the next administration did the same with the space launch industry. Cut NASA's manned space flight budget immediately, and transfer all of the remaining space shuttle assets to USA, gratis. Europe and Russia can have the useless space station, just put all the parts yet to launch on a barge and leave it in the middle of the atlantic for whoever wants it to pick up. <br /><br />USA can then charge market rates (or alternatively completely suspend shuttle service) until someone more efficient comes along. With $8B pa in subsidy stripped from NASA's budget, I'm betting it wouldnt take Boeing, LockMart, SpaceX, t/space, or someone else more than 3 years to field a more economic replacement.

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">Cut NASA's manned space flight budget immediately, and transfer all of the remaining space shuttle assets to USA, gratis.</font><br /><br />That's a very unrealistic and dangerous proposition. You think private companies can do better in the manned space arena without NASA? <br /><br />If so, where are they now? Afterall, there's no law against any company (or nations) to launch man to space. The fact that there's NO PRIVATE EFFORT should tell you that there's no business case to be made in <i>manned</i> space, not at this time. <br /><br />NASA's primary objective, unlike private industries, is not to make profitable business ventures but to invest in the R&D of technologies so that in the future it will reduce the cost of entry to manned space for private industry. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">USA can then charge market rates (or alternatively completely suspend shuttle service) until someone more efficient comes along</font><br /><br />NO ONE will come along. Without NASA funding, USA will instantly bankrupt and lay off all its workforce. There's no viable business today with the manned space flight.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">I'm betting it wouldnt take Boeing, LockMart, SpaceX, t/space, or someone else more than 3 years to field a more economic replacement. </font><br /><br />Talk is cheap. Put up your money <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

I said:<br />I'd remind you, propforce, that the railroads were built with private money... <br /><br />Propforce replied:<br />"I don't believe I've mentioned railraods as an example. <br /><br />Point aside, do you not agree with my basic premise? "<br /><br />No, actually, because that isn't how history evolved at all. The first aircraft builders and operators were private companies: the Wright Brothers, Glenn Curtiss, the Lougheeds (what became Lockheed), Bill Boeing, etc. who built private planes for private people that just so happened to also be bought by the government for government reasons. It wasn't until WWI that strictly military planes were built here in the US, and after the war most of those built during it were sold as surplus (which may be what the other poster was referring to). There were privately funded trophies for advances in aircraft performance and design.<br /><br />ALSO: NASA was originally a PRIVATE organization: Glenn Curtiss and a bunch of others (not the Wrights) formed their association to solve many problems in flight design, propulsion, and control, and became NACA, which was a private Association long before it became an Administration or Agency of the government. One of the reasons they did this was to overcome the fact that the Wrights held the patent on the airplane.<br /><br />NACA was nationalized by a government act.<br /><br />Also: for a significant period in the late 1920's to late 1930's, privately built commercial passenger aircraft flew faster and higher than military pursuit or bomber aircraft in the US.<br /><br />WWII forced the benevolent fascist socialism of the New Deal upon the aviation industry, where it remained throughout the Cold War, not for any reason of economic advantage, but for reason of control of technology and strategic resources.

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"That's a very unrealistic and dangerous proposition. You think private companies can do better in the manned space arena without NASA?"<br /><br />They can't possibly do any worse than USA is doing under NASA bureaucracy at the moment. If USA/NASA had to compete with Boeing, Lockheed, and other private industry for the $8B a year in government funding they are currently enjoying a monopoly on, we might see some more progress. <br /><br />Promise a $5m per seat government subsidy (capped to $5B per year) for every US developed man-capable capsule or spaceplane launched and docked to the ISS and/or other US built space stations safely, filled or not, and let the operators sell those seats on the open market. Someone will step up to the plate.

 

[rocketman5000]

It is a very nice Idea. However with out NASA's buying power Boeing would not be in the space business. Remember that NASA is a customer, and if you want to sell something you need a customer. Until the private industry is much more robust than it is today. (ie. private citizens buying manned space hardware and not just selling it.) NASA will remain a neccessary evil.

 

[mlorrey]

NASA is the primary customer only because of expense: the power to tax means the actual payee (the taxpayer)has no control over price. A $20-$200 million price tag per seat means the occasional thrillionaire is the only other option to NASA as a customer. And who dictates what sort of launchers get built? Why, the same folks who are the primary customers... If NASA wanted to keep control over access to space by Americans, they could do little else but dictate that all launchers built in the US be built expensively and either single use or very hard to maintain reusable designs. The other governments have similar motivation. Allowing private citizens to gain free market access to space is the biggest threat to the trend toward ever greater government control and hegemony over private individuals.<br /><br />The facts are that if you build a launcher capable of $1,000/lb payload, with a ten passenger vehicle you are talking per person ticket prices of $1-$2million, depending on how heavy you want your orbiter.<br /><br />Lets look at some notional launchers: The CLV, for instance, is likely going to cost about $100 million/launch. The stock SRB costs $30 million per flight, going to a five segment SRB, and the upper stage and CEV should eat up the rest handily. Even if you went with Andrews Space's ten passenger layout for the CEV capsule, that is a price tag of $10 million per seat. Given that a $20 million ticket on Soyuz essentially pays for the launch (i.e. the other two guys in the capsule and the cargo brought up as well go for free), the true price of a free market Soyuz ticket would be $6.67 million, still 2/3 of the best possible ticket price on the CLV/CEV.<br /><br />Lets say we take a look at Aerojets original entry in the STS contract competition in the early 70's. It turns out that at the time, Thiokol's SRB entry came in fourth out of four contractors, by a wide margin. It was judged a terrible booster. Nixon, at the behest of the senior Senator from Utah, at

 

[tomnackid]

Newsflash: We IS the government. <br /><br />Remeber "We the people...yadda, yadda, yadda...bunch of stuff about rights...yadda, yadda. <br /><br />Bureaucracies flourish when citizens are apathetic.

 

[mlorrey]

We THINK we is the government. But really, we aren't.<br /><br />There are few people in government today who feel at all restrained by things like constitutions or natural rights of individuals. They get paid by special interests to accomplish things for those special interests.<br /><br />Take the new NASA plan, for instance. I can tell you exactly where that whole plan actually came from: Thiokol ATK. Thiokol funded the formation of a private group and website to lobby for the plan, and used their Senators from Utah to ram it down everyone's throat. They got the backing of Pratt & Whitney & Rocketdyne by including some of their products, and Lockheed's support through continued use of STS external tank manufacturing in Michoud. They also got approval of the government employees unions that control hiring at NASA through designing the system to be no cheaper, and take no fewer employees than the STS.<br /><br />The Vision, though, is entirely the child of Thiokol. They make it look "democratic" by leaving the decision over the CEV contractor to a competition, but every other component of the launch system is pre-determined so as to maximize future Thiokol business.<br /><br />This is how everything works with governments.<br /><br />There is nothing, absolutely NOTHING, that governments do that cannot be handled by some form of insurance market, better, faster, cheaper, and with more choices and price feedback by the actual consumers.

 

[mythrz]

Bah...the government will have their hand in it even if it is privatized. Privatize and it becomes "Capitolism". They will have their hand in it through regulations. I'll go which ever way takes me up their faster and safer!

 

[tomnackid]

"There is nothing, absolutely NOTHING, that governments do that cannot be handled by some form of insurance market, better, faster, cheaper, and with more choices and price feedback by the actual consumers."<br />---------------------------------------------------------------------<br />How would you defend your society against foreign aggression? Voluntary subscriptions to a defense company? Anyone without a subscription is expelled during times of war? But if they don't want to be expelled they will fight back--or fight for you enemies. What about a police force? Private security companies? Will someone have to show an ID card proving membership before a private cop will save them from a mugger? What's to stop the most powerful private security company from taking over everything? Firefighters used to work for insurance companies, but what happens when a fire at a subscribers house spreads to a neighbors who isn't a subscriber? Just ignore it? Fight the fire and bill them later? <br /><br />I'm definately not trying to say that government has all the answers, but there will ALWAYS be some kind of government to fill the vacuum. We used to have a system where everything was privately owned--it was called feudalism. unfortunately everything ended up being owned by about 1% of the population who felt little or no accountability to the other 99%. Feudalism is probably the most popular form of government ever concieved (evolved?) It shows up everywhere you have agriculture and little or no industrialization.<br /><br />Since some form of government will always evolve best to make sure it is accountable to and derived from the people and insures maximun freedom.

 

[mlorrey]

Tomnackid asks: "How would you defend your society against foreign aggression? Voluntary subscriptions to a defense company? Anyone without a subscription is expelled during times of war? But if they don't want to be expelled they will fight back--or fight for you enemies. What about a police force? Private security companies? Will someone have to show an ID card proving membership before a private cop will save them from a mugger? What's to stop the most powerful private security company from taking over everything? Firefighters used to work for insurance companies, but what happens when a fire at a subscribers house spreads to a neighbors who isn't a subscriber? Just ignore it? Fight the fire and bill them later? "<br /><br />This debate isn't proper for this particular forum, I'll just say that these and many other questions about living in an ungoverned way are answered by David Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom", which you can find online at Amazon among many other places. If you still wish to debate it, get a thread going in the proper place in another area of the message board...<br /><br />Feudalism is not the only form of private self governance.

 

[micro10]

That would not be that hard for Nasa to do" but Think about what would happen!!!! In order for Nasa to fund itself after this year of 2006 and on. It would have to Innovate products that would be more advanced to earn money. This in return would eliminate all of your jobs and a third of the rest of the worlds. So then how many times do you want to watch re-runs on TV or watch reality Tv. Hydro- Magnetic generators outside your houses(self supporting), eliminates energy plants, Cars and Trucks that run on Electric turbine engines- no fuel needed.( Yawn!) I would rather have Nasa Inventing these kinds of technology, you know the kind you all think that's going on at area 51" for itself to explore space outside of our solar system then show us these images...( Planet hopping ) OOPS! You have not invented these technologies yet..