Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Gore Pushes for Private Investment in Space

Posted by CowboyNeal on Thu Oct 26, 2006 08:12 PM
from the sponsored-by-pepsi dept.
dptalia writes "Al Gore said in a recent speech that more private enterprises need to invest in space. Gore pointed to the successful growth of the internet as proof that private investment is faster than government. Not surprisingly, Gore also lambasted President Bush's space policy."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Politics: U.S. Announces New Space Security Policy 475 comments
hey! writes "The Bush administration has announced a new space security policy, which includes the statement that 'Consistent with this policy, the United States will preserve its rights, capabilities and freedom of action in space ... and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests.'" More from the article: "Eisendrath, co-author of a forthcoming book, 'War in Heaven: Stopping an Arms Race in Outer Space Before It Is Too Late,' says the United States is wasting its time. 'Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says we need to protect against a 'space Pearl Harbor,'' he says. 'But we're still the dominant power there.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • First Post (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26 2006, @08:15PM (#16603512)
    I have to agree with him. Private investment in space is the only thing that will change it from a huge, shiny waste of tons of money to a useful endeavor.
    • by Spetiam (671180) on Thursday October 26 2006, @08:34PM (#16603642) Journal
      AND we'll get to credit him with inventing space!
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Nah. Private investment is remarkably unwilling to lose billions of dollars on things like space exploration. They will let the taxpayers spend their money until some commercial reason to go to space has been found. When it comes to high dollar investments with vague or unlikely returns, the private sector finds something else more important to spend its money on like perks for CEOs. The private sector would never have built the interstate highway system, supersonic air travel, or funded the first steps

      • by Anonymous Coward
        I've always found it annoying whenever someone goes on about how the exploitation of space should be shifted TO private industry, but doesn't mention who it is that it should be shifted FROM. NASA isn't the one exploiting space, NASA doesn't even design most of the hardware being used in space.

        Almost all of the design and so forth are done not by NASA, but by NASA's private contractors. NASA acts as a funnel, pouring hundreds of billions of dollars of taxes into the high-tech research departments of thousan
    • There is not much stopping private space flight. Perhaps the whole reason that there is so little happening is because nobody has found a way to make it into a useful endevor.

      What exactly does a profit-driven private company get out of sending a probe/whatever to Jupiter/wherever to determine whether the air is purple/whatever?

      For all the flaws in military/governement expenditure, it is not limited by profitability.

      .

    • Re:First Post (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DerekLyons (302214) <fairwater@NOsPAM.gmail.com> on Thursday October 26 2006, @11:40PM (#16604972) Homepage
      I have to agree with him. Private investment in space is the only thing that will change it from a huge, shiny waste of tons of money to a useful endeavor.

      Private investors have been ponying up for space investments since the 60's - it's a myth of recent creation that such investment has only occurred with the X-prize and subsequently.
  • I'd love to see more invested in our space program - perferably by a Global Allied Space Association. I guess GASA doesn't have the same ring....

    But then again, at this point in time, we can't even solve our problems on earth... and running from earth is pretty expensive last time I checked. It makes me wonder... if all the cash that the current administration has invested in the war was put towards space, where we would be right now? Its very cool that we are getting all this info about Mars, but in r

    • A 'GASA' would be NASA with a different name. The US could not resist controlling it either via witholding funds or knowledge, and China and Russia would never tolerate being restrained in their pursuit of space technology in any measure by US influence.

      US interests are a poison pill that would smother a 'GASA' in its crib. Not to say other countries' politics are much better.
  • Just when you want to give /. readers more credit something like this comes up. That quote [snopes.com] has been debunked [cnn.com] more [washingtonmonthly.com] times [everything2.com] then I care to remember. But I guess for some n00blets its more fun reguritating something stupid then bothering to get it right.

    "Vint Cerf: I think it is very fair to say that the Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the vice president in his current role and in his earlier role as senator."

    Al Gore

    • Ya, thats it. Cerf. Vint Cert.
    • Some people can't take a joke! Yeah I know who really invented the Internet - DARPA!
    • Maybe I'm reading a different summary and article than you did, but I don't see a reference to that misquote anywhere other than in your comment. Might want to have a neurologist look at that knee-jerk you're developing...
    • by Keebler71 (520908) on Thursday October 26 2006, @10:20PM (#16604262) Journal
      Actually - I've found it a pretty weak debunking. While it is true that he never said he "invented" the internet, he did say he "took the initiative in creating the internet". While his congressional record is noteworthy on funding the early net, he was clearly trying to imply that he "created" the internet.

      I am detecting a pattern here though... Al Gore seems to find a good idea in progress, champion it, and (at least awkwardly) take some type of credit for it... in this case he is a bit behind the X-prize foundation [xprize.org] and NASA with its COTS Program [wikipedia.org] and Centennial Challenges [nasa.gov]. (I'll leave out his recent championing of Global Warming since he has a pretty well established environmental record)

      • His wording may have been unfortunate, but I think its fair to say he was not confused about the creation of the internet and just about anyone who was has pointed out his role (as advocate).

        Its stupid that we still need to have this conversation.
      • Ok, I'll agree with everything you said.

        Then why is it in this story he give private industry credit for the internet?

        Private industry may well have enhanced, added to, and populated much of the internet, but they never, ever would have created it in a million years. The government laid all the foundations and Gore should know this.

        Personally I agree that private industry needs to get into the space business, but I don't think the profits are there yet to make that happen. We'll have to see what happens w
      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 27 2006, @03:46AM (#16606306)
        Actually - I've found it a pretty weak debunking. While it is true that he never said he "invented" the internet, he did say he "took the initiative in creating the internet". While his congressional record is noteworthy on funding the early net, he was clearly trying to imply that he "created" the internet.

        Funding the early net? That is an oversimplification of the facts and history of his involvement. The process of privatizing and building a national information infrastructure requires all kinds of government involvement (understandably). It especially requires someone to champion the idea to other members of government.

        All of the people involved with the evolution of the internet were important. Not just the Kahn and Cerf and the techies. It took a lot of people in a lot of different areas in order to evolve the way it did. It took Dennis Jennings and Steve Wolff at NSFNET (who helped NSFNET to make the decision on using TCP/IP and the infrastructure of DARPANET). It took a huge list of great contributors for it to come about as it did. In the realm of government (a crucial component to the NSFNET's policies and goals), it was Al Gore who was it's greatest contributor.

        The "internet" of the 1980's was mostly a collection of regional, small "nets". Many of them were purpose built and were incompatible with one another. NSFNET decided to use TCP/IP in 1985 (many thanks to Dennis Jennings for championing its use!). In 1986 Steve Wolff took over NSF and immediately saw the need for a wide area networking infrastructure. They took on DARPANET's internet infrastructure to encourage interoperability and scalability. The NSF then encouraged its regional (initially academic) networks of the NSFNET to seek commercial, non-academic customers, expand their facilities to serve them, and exploit the resulting economies of scale to lower costs. However, use of their backbone was limited only to use "in support of Research and Education". This is why you saw so very many "*NET"'s (PSI, UUNET etc). In 1988, they initiated a bunch of conferences in which they worked out this plan to privatize and commercialize the internet.

        The NRC produced a report commissioned by NSF titled "Towards a National Research Network" and presented it to Gore in 1988. This report had a profound effect on Gore, who took great interest in the subject and, became a champion of the cause.

        In 1991, he promoted legislation that would provide $600M dollars for high performance computing and for the creation of the National Research and Education Network. The NREN brought together industry, academia and government in a joint effort to accelerate the development and deployment of gigabit/sec networking. Also brought about by the bill was the NII (National Information Infrastructure), i.e. the "information superhighway". As a side note, the bill also wound up funding the development of MOSAIC.

        In 1992, we all got sick of the term "information superhighway" during the 1992 election season (perhaps foreshadowing another oft-repeated phrase used by Gore during the 2000 election season, "lock-box" ;).

        In 1993, Clinton and Gore submitted a report entitled "Technology for America's Economic Growth". Gore championed and expanded these ideas in speeches that he made at UCLA and to the Telecommunications Union in 1994. In addition, he "became the first U.S. vice president to hold a live interactive news conference on an international computer network".

        Also in 1994, an NRC report, entitled "Realizing The Information Future: The Internet and Beyond" was released. This report, commissioned by NSF, was the document in which a blueprint for the evolution of the information superhighway was articulated and which has had a lasting affect on the way to think about its evolution. It anticipated the critical issues of intellectual property rights, ethics, pricing, education, architecture and regulation for the Internet.

        In 1995, NSF's privatization policy culminated with the defunding of the NS
  • Me too! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by maxume (22995) on Thursday October 26 2006, @08:38PM (#16603688)
    I also support private exploration of space.

    My guess is that this post will be just as effective as Gore in promoting investment.
  • by merc (115854) <slashdot@upt.org> on Thursday October 26 2006, @08:41PM (#16603708) Homepage
    ... that the dangers we face from ManBearPig are only exacerbated by a lack of private investment in space. He concluded his speech by asserting that he was quite "serial".
  • by jmorris42 (1458) * <jmorris.beau@org> on Thursday October 26 2006, @08:48PM (#16603774) Homepage
    Ok, somewhere in there is a pitch for somebody to do something in space, but I'm damned if I can find it amongst the whinging about global warming and Bush Derangement Syndrome filling most of the wordcount.

    The problem is Gore was speaking at an X-Prize function and the article is at space.com so they had to either spin some message about space out his drivel or write an article tearing him a new one for misuse of the speaking slot. Being good Democrats they opted for #1.

    Yes space is good, private industry should, and is, working on the problems. Gore and government are no longer needed, and in fact only slow things down.
  • Ok, I'm all for private money vs. public funding for projects.

    The question I'm still wondering about is whether or not funding more projects that burn fuel and pollute our atmosphere are really worthwhile? I'm sure this would help all kinds of corporations, but will this really do anything to solve any of the problems we currently have? We still face problems of undereducation, unemployment, civil unrest, disease, starvation, and international strife. Can't we put money into private enterprise that might s

    • Re:Space Case? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by phantomlord (38815) <phantoml.rochester@rr@com> on Thursday October 26 2006, @09:21PM (#16604002) Journal
      We still face problems of undereducation
      Throwing more money at it won't fix the problem. We've spent hundreds of billions in new funds on top of what we were going to spend in the last 15 years and test scores are virtually unchanged. It is a social problem caused mostly by parents who don't care.

      unemployment
      What are we supposed to do, write everyone who gets fired a check for a million bucks? I know a LOT of people who've gotten fired and layed off and they wait until their benefits are about to run out before they start a serious crunch of a new job. Besides, we're at 4-5% unemployment, not 20%, there are MUCH bigger economic problems to worry about than that.

      civil unrest
      Yeah... everyone is rioting in the streets right now. There is always going to be a certain level of civil unhappiness, you can't eliminate it all without eliminating humanity.

      disease
      Cure every disease out there and watch another even nastier one creep up.

      starvation
      Generally not a major issue in the US. If you want the US to solve the starvation problems in the world, just let me know when you want to start overthrowing every 3rd world despot out there with our military. The problem isn't lack of food, it's lack of distribution.

      international strife
      See civil unrest... only there are very few bonds tying us together as an international community. There can never be perfect international harmony because somewhere out there, there will be at least one person who isn't happy and wants to lead a rebellion to overthrow it.

      You have a low uid so I'm assuming you're not 15. I'm sorry that you still live in this happy little utopia where you get visted by Santa and the Tooth Fairy but the real world doesn't work the way you want it to and it never will. There will never be perfect harmony and happiness because each human is an individual with their own desires and viewpoint. With more than six billion people on the Earth, you're never going to get all of them to agreee on any single issue, much less the big picture.
      • Throwing more money at it won't fix the problem. We've spent hundreds of billions in new funds on top of what we were going to spend in the last 15 years and test scores are virtually unchanged. It is a social problem caused mostly by parents who don't care because they are too busy working two-and-a-half jobs paying for rent, heat and food.

        See? Fixed that for you. Besides that though, (and a small quibble about your unemployment statistic being based upon a reality-denying formula the government invent

    • Re:Space Case? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Quadraginta (902985) on Thursday October 26 2006, @11:01PM (#16604614)
      will this really do anything to solve any of the problems we currently have?

      No. But the difference between the problem of getting men to Mars and the "problems" you mention -- and you could just as well have added the "problems" of the inevitability of death, taxes, and bad luck -- is that the former can actually be solved.

      I think space exploration is a worthwhile endeavor, but AFTER we make life a little better for the next generation.

      Some of us feel that space exploration is how we make life better for the next generation. We leave them a more exciting future, a new frontier to conquer, new adventures to motive them, and new technology to serve them. We tend to feel that throwing vast amounts of time and money down various rat-holes, by trying to "solve" insoluble problems that have been with us unchanged since the birth of Christ is much like the ancient Egyptians building enormous pyramids to please nonexistent gods -- a foolish and futile waste of our childrens' inheritance.
  • How much of the millions he made in the Google IPO will he invest in such ventures?
    • No, see, he wants OTHER people to do it. Just like he buys Co2 offsets. He pays other people not to pollute in lieu of not polluting himself.

      It's great to attach your name to grand causes, whilst only taking token actions in helping it.
  • by Attaturk (695988) on Thursday October 26 2006, @09:08PM (#16603930) Homepage
    You know what this means. In years to come people will say that Al Gore invented commercial space travel. Of course we'll tell our kids that really all he did was use his position of power and influence as a means to assist in its growth. ;)
  • by hsmith (818216) on Thursday October 26 2006, @09:33PM (#16604078)
    if 40% of our income wasn't stolen by the gov't each year.
  • by GorgarWillEatYou (523390) on Thursday October 26 2006, @10:09PM (#16604182)
    The former U.S. Vice President said his personal cause is to change the public's mind about "this planet crisis" to make it a top priority. The term "crisis" in Chinese is represented by two symbols together, he advised. "The first means danger...the second means opportunity," Gore said.
    I call it crisitunity
  • by Half-pint HAL (718102) on Friday October 27 2006, @06:44AM (#16606992)

    Accelerating a large chunk of metal to its escape velocity releases a massive volume of greenhouse gas.

    HAL

    • by orcrist (16312) on Thursday October 26 2006, @08:50PM (#16603798)
      Not that I trust Mr. Gore to shrink the federal government.

      Why not? He already did more to shrink the federal government as Clintons VP than any of these lip-service Republicans since they've been in power:
      • Reduced the size of federal civilian workforce by 426,200 positions between January 1993 and September 2000...The government workforce was for the first time the smallest it had been since the Eisenhower Administration.
      • Closed nearly 2,000 obsolete field offices and eliminated 250 programs and agencies, like the Tea-Tasters Board, the Bureau of Mines, and wool and mohair subsidies.
      • Procurement reform led to the expanded use of credit cards for small item purchases, saving about $250 million a year in processing costs.

      source: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/whoweare/append ixf.html [unt.edu]

      Not that the mainstream "liberal" media covered this. sigh.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        It didn't get covered because most of those were pushed through by a Republican congress.
          Ooops. Truth bites again.
        • Considering that it has been basically the same republican congress that we have had over the last 6 years, but with a different whitehouse, is a joke. The reality is that Clinton cut the same deal with Greenspan that greenspan had with bush (I will lower the interest rate if you lower the deficit). Clinton, like poppa bush, complied and paid attention to gov. deficits.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            "The reality is..."

            Well, as a fiscal conservative, I happend to like having a budget surplus, smaller government, negative national debt accumulation and a reduced deficit in addition enjoying record economic growth and the the largest real and relative redistribution of wealth in recorded U.S. history. Far from perfect, but the 90s had things headed in the right direction, economically speaking.

            That it all happened under the watch of a democrat should tell you all you need to know about the utility of pol
      • by b17bmbr (608864) on Thursday October 26 2006, @09:41PM (#16604118)
        which is exactly why I don't understand the liberal love fest for clinton. he signed welfare reform and balanced budgets and yes, cut government. sure it took divided goverment, but still, the current occupant the white house has been a huge disappointment. of course, he never claimed to be a reagan/goldwater disciple and he sure has been anything but. clinton was more a moderate republican than democrat. it's hell for libertarians like me. what the hell ever happened to Article 1, Section 8?
        • what the hell ever happened to Article 1, Section 8?

          Totally! I've no idea how to go about applying for a Letter of Marque. Lazy bastards.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        This is old news. NASA Adminstrator Mike Griffin is using half a billion dollars to invest in private industry to spark this.

        Um - hello? How exactly is spending tax money "private investment"?
    • Good thing we didn't elect him in 2000 then, or else he would run up record budget and trade deficits with his liberal spending.

      Gas would be $3/gal under Gore due to his taxed on the oil companies, while cutting taxes for his liberal Hollywood buddies. He would cut student loans and military hazard pay (students and soldiers emit CO2). He would starve science, education, and research investment of this country.

      There would be massive unemployment because all the jobs would be outsourced to non-Kyoto countrie
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        ...torture random people suspected of driving an SUV...


        Well, at least he would've done one thing right!
      • As stupid as it is to judge someone by what someone they know did, if you actually believe these kids or their political parents did something wrong, please don't play the "Clinton did it, too," game. The world will be a lot better off if that crap dies with W's presidency.
    • First he paints a doomsday scenario if we don't cut our greenhouse emmissions, now he's encouraging fouling the air with lots of space launches. On a per-event basis, perhaps nothing fouls up the air (especially upper atmosphere) as fast as a space launch. The only mitigating factor is that there are so few. If there were a hundred times as many launches as we have today we'd probably see significant environmental impact.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Is Gore really encouraging "fouling the air with lots of space launches"? Or could one of the overriding goals of privatization be the development of more economically feasible, and environmentally friendly space technology? The status-quo sure isn't working out for the best... so lets just think about it. The internet for example, did not just expand with more and more people using out-dated technology--but rather, with more people, internet and computer technology has grown leaps and bounds while drastica
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        First he paints a doomsday scenario if we don't cut our greenhouse emmissions, now he's encouraging fouling the air with lots of space launches. On a per-event basis, perhaps nothing fouls up the air (especially upper atmosphere) as fast as a space launch. The only mitigating factor is that there are so few. If there were a hundred times as many launches as we have today we'd probably see significant environmental impact.

        Nice! This is an excellently crafted little comment. I disagree with all your asser

    • No, what you would see would be a private Mars homestead, with a corporation doing deep research with the hopes of making a profit of this big chunk of rock. It would be more chaotic and misdirected, but in a much higher volume so that overall the end result would likely be more research being done, self sustaining Mars industry, and a taxable revenue source instead of a tax funded revenue sink.

      Remember that every industry not in the private sector is a double cost... first, you no longer get the taxes fro
    • that is soo messedup... capitalizing on what is not ours... unfortunately it's the American way... but not the EARTH's way!

      Um... What is the Earth's way, and how do you know it? And what's "gross?"

      "capitalizing on space" means trying to do something useful with it, as opposed to taking some photos and going home. I see the first option as a good thing.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Actually,when I think of Al Gore I don't think of the typical rants. I think of the PMRC [wikipedia.org]. If you recall, Tipper (Al's wife) was a founding member. From wikipedia, "The mothers claimed that popular music, especially rock music, was partially responsible for the (at the time) recent increase in rape, teenage pregnancy, and teen suicide.". Umm...considering how many slashdotters are gung ho about private rights not being revoked I'm surprised more people don't mention this.

        Now, these people also testified be