NASA Considers Privatizing Space Shuttles 307
panopticon was among the many who submitted a BBC story talking about NASA considering privatizing the space shuttles as a cost saving measure since those pesky shuttles cost $400M every time we throw one up into orbit. The article really doesn't say much beyond that.
First rule of government (Score:3, Troll)
Re:First rule of government (Score:2)
First off HMO's and NASA are rather different cases. Beyond that I don't think you can use HMO's as a "cover all" example of the efficacy of government involvement since the entire healthcare mess is largely the creation of government involvement.
Or are you simply providing your
Re:First rule of government (Score:2)
In reality, government buys whatever it wants because it can, and does, pay for anything on credit alone. Despite our taxes being so high, only a tiny fraction of the government's income is from taxes. Government spends on CREDIT, plain and simple.
Commercialization of government projects... (Score:1)
Re:Commercialization of government projects... (Score:1)
Is Considers? (Score:1, Offtopic)
How about "Slashdot Is Considers an EDITOR".
Or "All Your Grammar Are Not Belong to Slashdot".
Good idea. (Score:1)
And the risk of hijacking one and crashing into ISS... yikes.
Re: bad idea (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the plan is they sell it to the usual
suspect cost-plus contractors they work with already
like Boeing or LockMart and then buy back the shuttle
launches from them. This isn't going to save any
money, it's just an accounting trick.
It isn't even real privatization. It'll still
remain a government run and funded program after
it's done.
Re:Good idea. (Score:2)
Precisely NASA's problem. The damn thing was obsolete by the time it was built.
If I were the private owner of a space shuttle, I'd sell it for $5B to NASA.
I'd then use $1B to fire off 10 Discovery-class missions for the hell of it, and the remaining $4B in cash to develop a reusable launch vehicle that would show the world just how obsolete the space shuttle was. Result -- world has $1000/lb (or lower) cost of lifting things to orbit. Space hotels in 10 years. Lunar or Martian colonies in 20. And exciting jobs for the talented folks trapped in NASA.
Unfortunately, that's not on the table. What's on the table is NASA finding a sux0r to buy a $5B white elephant, and NASA spending the resulting $5B on shuttle launches to ISS. Result -- world has the same $10000/lb (or higher) cost of lifting things to orbit as it always did. But if it doesn't fall from the sky in 10 years, we have ISS, a $100B white elephant, to look at. And a bunch of frustrated, talented geeks, still trapped like flies in NASA's bureaucratic amber.
hehe (Score:3, Informative)
For all non-europeans here (quite a bit) this lead to the most HORRIBLE service ever.
Most horrible service ever? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:hehe (Score:2)
Not Interested. (Score:5, Funny)
"The SubtleNuance Statue Of Plutocracy"... A Monument to Capitalism and Entrepreneurial Spirit.®© Now thats a sure winner. God Bless America(TM)!
Privatize them! (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a good move in the right direction. As soon as someone works out a business plan that allows them to make a profit off of flying to the moon, Mars, etc., there will be all kinds of stuff in space. And this will of course drive costs down, just through volume and through increased R&D budgets. if this all goes according to plan, maybe one day there will be a permanent Lunar settlement with regular shuttles. This would be sweet...
Re:Privatize them! (Score:2)
On some weeks you can win that much in the UK lottery. Theres a lot of people with £20m, and if they do win it, after the first half million on car/house/holiday, if they want to go into space, why not?
Inherent flaws (Score:2)
In case you "could care less" about this, I would be quick to remind you that its your tax money (if you're indeed a US citizen) and this could potentially save quite a bit of it.
Danger Will Robinson
Re:Inherent flaws (Score:2)
How do you think the shuttle manufacturers source components?
I can see some advantages as long as things are executed
The lowest bigger who meets the specification. But remember NASA are the people who spend $10,000 to procure a hammer.
Re:Inherent flaws (Score:2)
"You really thing they spend $30,000 of a toilet seat, 20,000 on a hammer do you"
Re:Inherent flaws (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought the point is that it isn't our tax money. Instead, the launches will be privatized and the companies who use the services to lauch satellites etc will have to pay the full price. They will then take the risks involved in choosing one bidder over another, and the private organizations will come up with novel ways of increasing their payload/cost efficiency in oreder to maximize their profits or compete effectivly.
I'm not 100% certain that this is a good approach, however.It very difficult for me to understand the economic game plan of the current executive in this country. Subsidizing launches is good for the economy in the way that lower interest rates and tax cuts are good for the economy. It seems like they are pulling with one hand while pushing with the other. Then there is just the factor that spinning off a new industry while the economy is receeding just doesn't seem smart to me. If these were boom times, then I'd be all for it.
This *never* should have happened (Score:3, Insightful)
How did it ever get to the point where one of our greatest and proudest institutions needs to privitize one of their greatest resources in order to keep going? Americans everywhere should be ashamed at this rape of our space program, once the envy of the world.
No other country in the world comes close to the US in terms of economic might, and yet it is near-third-world nations like China that are now expanding their space programs as we are selling off ours. Hell, they're even talking about putting men on the moon, something we did once and then got bored with. As a nation we have the attention span of a four year-old child, and about as much forward-thinking. We'd much rather forget about the future (and everything else) and concentrate on our televisions and big honking SUVs, despite the fact that our initial lead in the space race could have been leveraged into an unassailable one.
No, this is just another symptom of the long, slow decline of the US into a narcissistic corporate paradise as the rest of the world forges on ahead of us into the future. It seems the only people here with any kind of enthusiasm are the ones that want to control your lives; everyone would rather let them get on with and have removed the intolerable burden of decision making.
Re:This *never* should have happened (Score:3, Insightful)
You talk about this as if it were a horrible thing. What exactly is the problem here? It seems to me that the main reason to have the government involved in the space race in the first place is that it was such a big enterprise that it was completely out of the scope of any type of private investor. Now that the technology has progressed to a certain point, it becomes cheap enough for a corporation to get into the game.
Two analogies: First, the simpler case of space travel, simply putting stuff into orbit. Think about it: as recently as 1957 (?), we were completely and totally amazed that the Russians could put something the size of a soccer ball into orbit for a couple of revolutions. Now, every little broadcasting company can put an intricate satellitein orbit which does any number of things. Unless you're claiming that the fact that we have private satellite communications is bad, this change to privatization of satellites has been very good for everyone.
Another example: transAtlantic boats. Columbus had to go begging to the government of Spain to get funding to send the first couple of boats over here,and they were putting them over here at the rate of about one every 2-3 years... But the mid-16th century, colonization was in private hands (in England and France, at least), and I'm sure you'll agree that transatlantic commerce got "a little better" as a result. Unless, again, you're arguing that Europe should still be sending boats over here at the rate of one every year or so...
Re:This *never* should have happened (Score:2)
The "problem" is that, free-marketeer blustering aside, privatization of large government assets is just another form of Corporate Welfare.
Tax dollars go into developing an asset for pure research. Republicrats in Congress get tired of paying for it and raffle asset off to corporate friends/sponsors. Corporate friends make lots of money (at US Taxpayer expense mind you, since we paid for the initial investment) while killing initial purpose of the asset (since 'pure research' isnt profitable). Taxpayers get ZERO benefit from this unless they happen to be significant shareholders, which very few of us are.
At least with the current setup, NASA can function as a pure-research organization, with benefits available to everyone (including corporations which would like to exploit any developed technologies, using their own investment capital). Privatize it all, and the public benefit of the space program wont extend past cellphones and satellite tv. The space program, as science, will be dead.
The supposed "efficiency" of large corporations was one of the most pernicious myths of the 20th century. If Corporate America were so damn efficient at exploiting technical opportunities, I'd be able to book my Pan Am flight to the moon right now.
Still waiting...
:M
Re:This *never* should have happened (Score:2)
> off to corporate friends/sponsors.
Presumably, it will be auctioned to the highest bidder, not raffled off.
>Taxpayers get ZERO benefit from this
> unless they happen to be significant shareholders, which very few of
> us are.
If you're in the U.S>, s/very few/almost all/. The middle class, directly and indirectly, owns the overwhelming majority of the assets. Not typically as stock shares, but through mutual funds and retirement programs.
>If Corporate America were so damn efficient at exploiting technical
>opportunities, I'd be able to book my Pan Am flight to the moon right now.
If it weren't so damn efficient, you would have had to post in Russian. Assuming, of course, that the dictatorship had somehow collapsed without the U.S> on the outside, and that civil rights had somehow spread through the world, allowing access to such communications.
hawk
Re:This *never* should have happened (Score:2)
This is myth. Less than 50% of US citizens own any stock of any kind, even 'stealth' stock such as mutal funds and pensions.
If it weren't so damn efficient, you would have had to post in Russian.
Red-baiting. How 80s. This has nothing to do with my argument.
Chicago-school thinking did wonders in Russia in the 90s didnt it?
:M
Re:This *never* should have happened (Score:2)
> even 'stealth' stock such as mutal funds and pensions.
I generally don't bother even seeing AC's, but having seen this one on accident, I'll point out its there. He cites the 52% figure from the SEC. Your "myth" is itself a myth. Furthermore, that 52% understates the situation. Over the course of people's lifetime, far more participate--of the 48% not currently involved, some are retirees or near-retirees on older fixed-benefit plans, which are becoming extinct. Of the rest, most will move into the 52% long before retirement (and that figure can be expected to rise.
> Red-baiting. How 80s.
Trying to dismiss reality as "red-baiting." How pink . . .
>This has nothing to do with my argument.
It has *everything* to do with your argument. While it's not popular to admit among the loony left, the mainstream portions of the political spectrum do acknwoledge that the cold war as a struggle to the death. The USSR gave plenty of hard evidence that they meant to follow through with their stated goal of world conquest. Had our system not been vastly superior in its ability to produce, they would have eventually succeeded.
> Chicago-school thinking did wonders in Russia in the 90s didnt it?
We'll neve rknow. I'm no chicago-schooler, but I'll acknowledge that their proposals would work far better than the industrial feudalism is Russia today and in the 90's. The chicago school advocates both a free market and capitalism; neither of these are present in today's Russia.
hawk
Re:This *never* should have happened (Score:2, Flamebait)
Another example: transAtlantic boats. Columbus had to go begging to the government of Spain to get funding to send the first couple of boats over here,and they were putting them over here at the rate of about one every 2-3 years... But the mid-16th century, colonization was in private hands (in England and France, at least), and I'm sure you'll agree that transatlantic commerce got "a little better" as a result.
Interesting that you would use this example, since the very outcome of what you suggest was one of the largest documented instances of genocide. Colonization sounds so much better in the 4th grade history books, than say mass murder, rape, theft, broken treaties and enslavement.
Privitazation does not equal progress. We already see what happens when we have privatized airline security. Privatization is certainly useful for some things, like sanitation and road building. Privatizing NASA is pure corporate welfare giveaways.
A primary cause of NASA's huge expenses is the SAFETY measures they make. Nothing's foolproof, but NASA is responible for human life. Privatize them, and the resulting corporation will still put on a show they care about life... but it will be done through a filter called "risk assessment". Translated, that means "where is the sweet spot between protecting our personel assets vs. maximizing profit".
See you in hell.
Re:This *never* should have happened (Score:2)
Get your facts right. The knifes used in the attack was placed on the airline and never passed through airline security.
Oh PLEASE. Are you really claiming to KNOW how they got the knives on board? If you're just speculating, say so. If not, call the FBI with your "new evidence".
Even since September 11, there have been several cases of weapons getting by private security.
Re:This *never* should have happened (Score:2)
Question is, would federal security have done any better at stopping those knives? OK, a government security guard isn't concerned about profit and cutting costs. On the other hand (based on what goes on with other branches of the government) a government security guard isn't exactly worried about losing his/her job either.
True, but the police generally do a good job, and this is a police job we are talking about. This is not a "big unknown".
There are those that want to privatize the police forces also (which frightens the hell out of me!).
Re:This *never* should have happened (Score:2)
In this case, I think it is obvious the high costs are worth it, but you will agree that the costs will be higher?
Sure costs are generally higher if the government runs things. That needs to be factored into any decision for where jobs belong. OTOH, the government is *generally* preferred when it involves the PUBLIC TRUST (police, fire, food inspection, etc).
Government agencies tend to waste money, but so do private defense contractors. Accountability and protection for "whistle blowers" are key to preventing abuses in any situation.
Personally, airline flights are TOO CHEAP and too frequent. These planes are not filled to capacity yet they fly anyhow. That's a lot of pollutants going into OUR air (no matter where you live). The airlines are broke and only survive because their investors have the clout to shakedown the US taxpayers for $15 Billion (with nary a cent for the 80,000+ laid off airline employees).
I agree that privatization does not equal progress, in the same sense that giving people what they want is not always the best thing. SUVs are probably a good example of that.
How about space-bound SUV's?
Besides, I don't see how space can be fairly privatized. Who owns it, and who decides how the spoils are divided?
Seriously, I envision such a thing as a huge welfare grant to corporations. Who is the US government to start selling space rights? Is this a task for the UN? Whose national coffers will the taxes on profits go into (or more likely, there won't be any taxes).
In a planet that is rapidly warming, who is going to regulate how many space flights per year our atmosphere can handle? More likely, investors will argue the market will take care of pollution on its own.
We already can't manage our resources here. Most animals do not poo in their drinking water... we dump plenty of things in our rivers (or we have just recently stopped, depending where you live).
Space would be a dumping ground.
Expect space to be "auctioned off", just like the FCC auctioned off the airwaves, and kept the profits (this exceeded the FCC's mandate).
Sorry if this sounds gloom and doom, but I don't see anything in our past or present to indicate we are resposible enough for what's out there. We still fight over oil, fer christs sake.
Research (Score:2, Insightful)
A lot of the R&D that happens on board the shuttle is quite subsidized, and I'm afraid that corporations are not going to be as friendly to researchers. What that means is that possibly some research projects won't be able to afford execution in space. We may somehow lose out on valuable basic research, which would be a shame.
Perhaps the government could continue subsidizing research done on corporate spacecraft, through some extension of the NSF, or so.
Re:The private sector is inherently bad (Score:2)
Sharkticon simply makes no sense.
Absent a private sector, there are no consumers.
Remember the SAT test?
Q: Subject is to Government, as Consumer is to:
(a) Happy meal
(b) Automobile
(c) Business
(d) Jogging
Hmm... it's a hard one, I'll say! BTW, per gubmint bending over to corporate masters, you must be filing a different tax form than I am or must live in a different country. Please do tell, I'd love to move there.
*scoove*
Re:The private sector is inherently bad (Score:2)
Yes. Infinitely. I was there.
:Michael (feeling wistful...)
Re:The private sector is inherently bad (Score:2)
What a crock. Last time I went to the store to buy toilet paper (and the rest of my groceries), I stood in line for 15 minutes at least. And then I had to pay for the stuff on top of that!
And how about an even more egregious example as long as we're using anecdotal evidence to back up the pseudoscience of economics: I called my local telephone company a few nights ago-- a small company called Qwest-- to have some services I was no longer going to be using turned off, I had to speak with four different service persons and spend 27 minutes on the call. God bless that good old fashioned capitalism. Obviously questioning it means I'd rather stand in line, unlike now where I stand in lots of lines.
Sharkticon's confusion (Score:2)
Was ARPANet somehow better?
Interesting/excellent example. In 1991, I did a feasibility study for bringing Internet to a rural community in our parts. Everything looked good - Sun was going to donate servers, we had an expensive but tolerable loop cost for a fractional T1 (I worked for a carrier that helped discount the cost substantially), and the community was fully behind the project.
Then I got the Internet DS0/56 Kbps dedicated quote from our regional - MIDNET. They didn't have any model except for a dues basis, which their member universities paid annually. They calculated dues on the number of students you had and figured our town's population would be a great unit to use in the calculation.
The total cost for a 56 Kbps connection? $85,000/year, payable in advance. (Quick everybody: how much does your cable modem connection cost each month? Or perhaps a better comparison would be a single ISDN B channel).
Even then, I could have ordered a DS3 local loop for less (and if I paid in advance, I'd be certain to get a discount). What were they thinking?
I looked at MIDNET's organization and cost structure, trying to comprehend what I must have been missing. They had:
- free offices paid for by the universities
- employee benefits paid by the universities
- data centers paid for by the universities
- operations employees and network engineers that were on university payroll
- backbone links that were billed to the universities, that they put their own commercial traffic over (against NSFNET AUP)
and numerous other abuses. Oh, and they had 35+ PhDs working for them that required outrageous dues (cost divided by number of institutions served = dues, we later found out).
What did I do? Created the first ISP in the region and stole away most of their non-educational business. Drove the bastards into unemployment. I was proud to be one of numerous CIX members who drove that filthy, corrupt, good-old-boy NSFNET "Oh We'll Give the Internet to Baby Bells and ANS" scam out of business.
You should have read your Economics textbook more closely.
Debillitatus, I don't think they offer high school econ until at least 11th grade, so it's not fair to criticize him yet.
At the same time, he needs a stern warning that unless he opens his eyes and loses the angst-filled hate-focused upper middle class attitude, he's going to be another unemployed loser eventually bunking with a big furry guy named Bruno.
Then again, the Bruno's of the world
*scoove*
Re:More neo-liberal "economics" (Score:2)
> from a tightly-controlled economy to a completely unregulated free
> economy is dangerous.
This still misses the central problem with his argument. Russia does *not* have a free market under any useful definision, nor is it capitalistic at the moment.
A free market allows trade to occur, uhh, freely. Capitalism pays the output from resources (capital, labor, land, etc.) to the owner of that resource. While the two terms are often used interchangably, they're not.
The U.S., in general, both is capitalistic and has a free market. Russia has neither, and might better be described as industrial feudalism. Shareholders are unable to control the directors of business, who answer only to themselves. Successful business are still taken away by governments, other business, or the mob (and the lines between these aren't clear). Russia would benefit massively from free markets and capitalism, but it doesn't seem to be in their future.
hawk
Re:This *never* should have happened (Score:2)
As for the loss of US prestige and vision, well, we aren't making Hoover Dams any more either. We found out that they were destroying the environment and Glenn Canyon was the last such dam. Those building projects were from an era gone past, but despite the fact that that era was past, America had not run out of tricks. As Lake Powell, the lake which has drowned Glenn Canyon, was filling with water, marking the last gasp of the big government construction projects, we were putting men on the moon for the first time. And even as we were reaching the pinnacle of our space flight technology between 1969 and 1980, when the Shuttle program was really getting going, other men were working quietly behind the scenes trying out this silly little idea to create a nationwide network of computers.
If the US does drop the manned space program, would that not put more impetus into the X-prize? NASA's monopoly on American space resources might be due for phasing out. Let NASA go to an oversight role. Let real people get out there and take risks on the final frontier.
It may turn out that this is a bad idea, but the reason will be a technical one, not because of lost pride or enterprising spirit. I think America still has plenty of both.
Re: 777? (Score:2)
The reason a DC-8/747/777 got developed is because there was a huge *profitable* market for intercontinental flight. There is no corresponding market for space flight. There is a market; that is, people are willing to pay money to go into space. Unfortunately, it is not a profitable one. Not enough people are willing to pay enough to support the capital necessary to create the infrastructure.
There is a profitable market for satellite launches. By unmanned rockets, not by expensive Shuttle launchers.
The point is that you have to convince people with billions of dollars (for something on the order of a 777) to lend it to you so that you can design and manufacture the thing, with the idea that PROFITS from selling it will be enough to make it worth their while.
If there were an argument to be made for this, then it would likely have been made already, and you would be worried about spaceport security these days. The fact that manned spaceflight is still not a commercial reality probably means it isn't going to be any time soon.
Why spend billions of dollars to make a unprofitable activity slightly less unprofitable?
Re:This *never* should have happened (Score:5, Interesting)
We no longer have the same urgent need for a space program that we had when we first developed it. NASA was never *just* about idle scientific curiosity. It was about developing the technologies needed for national defense and showing that technical superiority off to the rest of the world, for the sake of national prestige and it's accompanying international influence. When the Russians sent up Sputnik we were not shocked and dismayed because we thought that they might find out interesting facts about quasars before us but because they demonstrated the technical ability required to make *other* things like ICBM's, spy & communications satellites etc. We went to the moon to prove to ourselves and the world that we were capable of even more than the Russians - scientific exploration was a nice justification and byproduct. Today we have proven our technological, economic and military superiority, NASA no longer has those other more urgent (and more fundamentally related to the actual purpose of government) tasks and is left with the scientific exploration pretext and beaurocratic inertia.
No other country in the world comes close to the US in terms of economic might, and yet it is near-third-world nations like China that are now expanding their space programs as we are selling off ours
China is expanding their space program for the same reasons we no longer have. They are developing the technology to build ICBM's. Prior to the leaks of technology from western firms for the sake of the Chinese space program they did not have missles capable of hitting the continental USA - now they do. They are also concerned with proving their national greatness to placate their own populace and to increase their international influence. And finally as a very nice side bonus (and their pretext) they are acting as a private company would and seeking to make a profit. India wants to do the same things - particularly because of their rivalry with China.
No, this is just another symptom of the long, slow decline of the US into a narcissistic corporate paradise as the rest of the world forges on ahead of us into the future.
If the corporations can find a way to make a buck off of space we will far surpass the rest of the world in forging ahead into the future.
It seems the only people here with any kind of enthusiasm are the ones that want to control your lives...
In general it is government that *controls* your life - just think about what the word "government" means. In this example I as an individual may not WANT to support the space program but I am forced to by the government under the threat of fines, imprisonment and if I resist the ultimate force of government is the policemans gun. If I don't want to buy a Wintel computer I may forgoe using some computer programs and have occasional compatibility problems transfering files to other computers but Bill Gates can't put me in jail.
Again, you have it 180 degrees backwards. The private sector is generally a realm of many choices and lots of decisions. Government usually does not give you much choice. In the private sector I have a decision whether or not to support a non-profit scientific organization seeking to land on the moon. There may be many such non-profits to choose from or there may be any number of similar commercial projects whose products (space tours, astroid mined minerals, whatever) I have the decision to buy or not. If government decides to support such I project my only decision is whether I'm willing to go to jail to NOT support the project.
There are good arguments for government involvement in just about anything, but increased individual decision making and decreased control of the individuals life are most emphatically NOT among them.
Re:This *never* should have happened (Score:2)
True, that was its initial goal, goals change. We have ICBMs, we have spy satellites, we have gps and ways of communicating with troops via satellite. As new national defence issues arrise that need NASA then they have access to it, but instead of mothballing everything because NASA was originally created for military and defence issues ithas been able to adapt to become a huge foundation for scientific research.
The private sector is generally a realm of many choices and lots of decisions. Government usually does not give you much choice. In the private sector I have a decision whether or not to support a non-profit scientific organization seeking to land on the moon.
The problem is that funding fundamental reseach that does not have direct economic gain, whether through products or important patents, runs into the prisoners dilema. By having a government that forces us to pay for things that are benifitial for all of society, ie schools, infrastructure, fundamental reseach, so they actually move forward. It is the lack of having strings from the private sector attached to them that allows them to do an okay to excellent job. Sure some of these programs are not getting the desired results, but imagine the social retardation if public schools relied on private sector money with strings attached, like forcing advertisements in class.
Some things should not funded on the basis of whether they can turn a (short term) profit. With the exception of Watson Crick Labs, the amount of fundamental and theoretical science being done in the private sector is pathetic. The studying of quasars and black holes has no economic return until our society can actually go to those places. Poster sales of cool space phenominon will not fund the Hubble Space Telescope.
Turn NASA over to the private sector and space exploration will die until China or Russia shame our government into funding it. Unfortunately once that happens, there are several possibilites, none of which are very good.
The Libertarian view on scientific funding DOES NOT WORK because it relies on donations, which, even they admit, cannot drive an economy.
It is interesting that when most powerful societies start to crumble it begins with an usurping of power and quickly followed with not funding scientific research, espeically NON-PROFITABLE research. Let's see here, Bush stole the election, NASA thinking of privatizing, fusion energy research being cut drastically, and particle research begging for money.
Re:This *never* should have happened (Score:2)
Excuse me, but is research is "fundamental", it better have a direct economic gain. Otherwise, if it has no economic gain, then what is the point of researching, if not just for fun. Think about it, what is the point of just researching pure science, unless it will actually lead to something useful.
With the exception of Watson Crick Labs, the amount of fundamental and theoretical science being done in the private sector is pathetic.
Hmmm... I think that you forgot to mention pharmaceutical companies, as well as universities, computer companies, aeronautical companies (Boeing etc...) just to name a few. Sure, all of their research may not be "fundamental" science by its strictest definition, but their research does actually lead to products that are useful to all society (national defense from boeing, anthrax vaccines from phizer) If all research and development was done publically, we would find our country crumbling much like the USSR did.
Re:This *never* should have happened (Score:2)
Because space turned out not to be very important.
In the early days of the space program, space travel was seen as the Next Big Thing after air travel. It was expected that there'd be large-scale commercial and military space operations, and that those would develop about as fast as aviation did. But it turned out that space was about as important as artic exploration. There are still bases at the North and South Poles (the former USSR North Pole base is used for tourism), but they're not very important.
Re:This *never* should have happened (Score:2)
The answer was *so* obvious (Score:2)
Funny. The poster has the answer to his question in the next paragraph:
No other country in the world comes close to the US in terms of economic might
Bingo. Ever consider the reason for us being the greatest economic might could just be that we permit corporations to exist with only a moderate amount of governmental tyranny and confiscation?
Yet the poster gets lost in the next sentence - so close, yet...
and yet it is near-third-world nations like China that are now expanding their space programs
And you'd expect a totalitarian government to do otherwise?
Hell, they're even talking about putting men on the moon, something we did once and then got bored with.
Uh... you wouldn't have happened to notice that we've got:
1. a war going on that has been estimated to cost at least a billion bucks a month
2. a recession that is killing major sectors of business, leaving less companies for the government to tax/loot.
3. citizens overwhelmingly opposing new taxes [insidedenver.com], preventing the non-corporate tax base from being looted
4. a ton of baby boomers drooling about being non-producers and getting that retirement/social security.
And you want another moon project? And we keep wondering why liberals have such disasterous personal lives?
As a nation we have the attention span of a four year-old child, and about as much forward-thinking.
I'd say your dreams are about as pragmatic as a four-year-old. What's money anyways?
We'd much rather forget about the future (and everything else) and concentrate on our televisions and big honking SUVs
Ah, an ELF/ALF liberal. We call you a "target" in my parts of the country.
So what is the real, deep-rooted motivation of this poster and his kin?
It seems the only people here with any kind of enthusiasm are the ones that want to control your lives
He does seem so enthusiastic, doesn't he?
*scoove*
Re:This *never* should have happened (Score:2)
Each launch of the Space Shuttle costs $400+ million. The russians can launch about 5 times for that price, and launch 5 times as much stuff. And although the Russian engineers are much cheaper; the Proton vehicle was designed from the ground-up for reduced costs; whilst the Space Shuttle design was damaged early on from aiming for more launches than the budget could sustain, and it will never recover.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone except the goverment can afford it- and right now not even the government is willing to pay. The implication is that the Space Shuttle may very well be doomed.
Finally, one thing you might like to consider- NASA is part of the government. Governments very rarely expand; businesses usually do, or die. Should a Government or a private organisation be in charge of space? Do you want Space to expand or stay the same?
America doesn't need to privatise Space; but its a damn good idea... in many ways the question is moot already; industry is moving in.
The bottom line is that space is massively overpriced right now- even the best launchers cost $2600/kg. The best estimate is that the price is heading for nearer $10-50/kg. Governmental subsidisies aren't going to do that- only launching a LOT will do that.
Re:This *never* should have happened (Score:2)
> No other country in the world comes close to the US in terms of
> economic might, and yet it is near-third-world nations like China that
> are now expanding their space programs as we are selling off ours.
That, of course, is *entirely* why we're in this. Others have pointed out that NASA was not merely about technology, but it goes deeper than that. NASA was a front line of the Cold War. Even into the 1970's, there was serious concern that the U.S.S.R. actually would become more advanced and produce more than the U.S. There was concern about more countries falling into its orbit of slavery. NASA, the moon, and the shuttle were to demonstrate otherwise and win minds around the world.
We won the space race and cold war *because* of the economic might of our system. That is, it is because the private system uses resources more efficiently that we were in a position to win. If you take a step back, the irony of complaining that a state enterprise used to prove the superiority of private enterprise over state enterprise is being transfered from the state to that very private enterprise is more than a little amusing
hawk
I Think That It Is A Great Idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Remember how many people (including many
My only requirement for the company given the contract is that it have its headquarters in the U.S., because of security concerns and a respect for our national pride.
Next up (Score:5, Funny)
Kellog's US Navy
MSArmy
Verizon Air Force
Kotex US Marines
(And, no, I have nothing against any armed forces. Kotex Marines just sounded funnier than any other.)
Re:Next up (Score:3, Funny)
Microsoft is one step ahead of you there. Check out this article on Microsoft's Army [bbspot.com].
Re:Next up (Score:3, Funny)
Gives new meaning to the phrase, "We will insert our Marines into enemy territory soon."
Re:Next up (Score:5, Funny)
"Protecting you from enemy seamen!"
Not the first time.... (Score:5, Informative)
The reason no one bought them then, and the reason no one will buy them now, is the horrid expense of launching & reusing them - for example, on return to Earth, the Space Shuttle Main Engines are pulled, shipped to California, rebuilt to spec, and tested for ~75% of their design lifetime - any deviation during this test period results in the engine being scrapped. The Shuttle is an old design, and it wasn't efficient when it was new. Or consider the Solid Rocket Boosters, which actually cost more to retrieve and reuse than disposable boosters would.
The BBC quotes a figure of US$400 million, but the total development cost of the Shuttle program is *much* higher - some figures I've seen give a total cost per launch of over US$1.5 billion.
I think the solution to bringing down launch costs is to "open" the space program - let private companies build new launch vehicles, and have NASA test and certify them. This would allow NASA to perform more basic research, much like its predecessor the National Advisory Commitee for Aeronautics did from 1915 to 1958. This research, in turn, would lead to a new generation of launch vehicles.
I'm not a rabid NASA-hater like some out there, but I do think the agency has too much to do, with too many people, and too small of a budget.
Re:Not the first time.... (Score:2)
But I'm sure the illuminati already knows that... *loud ominious thunder*
Re:Not the first time.... (Score:2)
Excuse me? We've already got a monopoly in space -- it's called NASA. As for industry corruption, did you think NASA builds and repairs the shuttles themselves? Hell, no ... they're built by single-sourced aerospace contractors ... you can't get a better monopoly than that. Any sort of commercial competition for heavy lift capability would be an improvement over the current situation.
Re:Not the first time.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite. NASA, and it's budgets, are intensely political. The Shuttle camp were enormously influential, helped no doubt by political lobbying and kickbacks from key contractors and vendors, and hamstrung the various SSTO projects, which had the potential for cost effective shuttling between the ground and near-Earth orbits.
The solution is to move all space activity into the private sector. Break up NASA and sell it off if anyone wants it, in an open auction. By all means keep a Federal agency to certify space vehicles as safe to launch (if launches are on US territory), but all the activity carried out in the private sector. If there's a business case for it, we'll have a man on Mars decades before NASA's bureacrats have even filled in the paperwork for that mission.
Re:Not the first time.... (Score:2)
Re:Not the first time.... (Score:2)
That doesn't prove it can't be done. Just that NASA and its contractors seem incapable of getting it done.
Re:Not the first time.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not true for all situations - yes, as NASA and the majority of the aerospace industry does it, developing a resuable launch vehicle takes years and costs billions. But there are counter-examples. Take the DC-X (or Delta Clipper or Clipper Graham, whatever). It cost $60 million to build, and was finished on time.
The technology already exists to build a fully reusable LV, with long-life thermal tiles and engines. Such an LV could reduce launch costs by an order of magnitude or more.
Just because NASA can't operate a reusable LV doesn't mean it's "proven to be a mistake".
Re:Don't forget the X prize! (Score:2)
Still, it could be a good use of NASA's money to fund the prize, then back off and see what happens.
Re:Not the first time.... (Score:2)
The point is, any way you look at it, it's not economical.
Re:How odd! (Score:2)
Maybe not a bad idea. (Score:4)
How many experimental craft have been 'scrapped' for 'budget cuts'- the government is a big, slow, uninteresting beast that plows over ideas. Whatever happeend to the dream of SSTO (single stage to orbit)?
Throw 'market share' and a chance for profit in, then you have some businesses interested. Contractors don't deliver on time? Dock them. Don't coddle them.
The moon was ours once... now every time I step outside at night and look up I see another example of failure.
Venimus, vidimus, fugimus
Profit??? (Score:2)
I don't credit US business with being sufficiently visionary to do anything with space. Space is a long-term thing, and a quarter-to-quarter focus just won't hack it. Space has 'worked' so far for business because the government has wanted stuff, and business will deliver it -- for a price.
I once read quite an analysis about why business would never develop a breakthrough launch technology on their own. It essentially works out to a combination of corporate and government business practices.
Maybe if we would allow someone to pull a 'Zephram Cochrane' and move their business off-planet to escape taxes and environmental reguations...
As for the Space Station, (and the Shuttle, for that matter) the thing that annoys me even more than the money waste by NASA is the government's response. "If you can't run this sprint, we're going to tie one leg and one arm behind your back, then expect you to run it faster." IMHO, the Space Station has been cut below viability. Unless we can get a re-entry vehicle and hab module up there, no science will get done because it takes the whole crew for maintenance.
Re:Profit??? (Score:2)
'a bunch of shirt-losing and money-destroying has already been done'
All techs start with lots of expense, lots of high prices and lots of money spent. The point is that is now past and there's lots of prior art- lots of books you can buy telling you pretty much what to do, and what not.
'I don't credit US business with being sufficiently visionary to do anything with space. Space is a long-term thing, and a quarter-to-quarter focus just won't hack it. Space has 'worked' so far for business because the government has wanted stuff, and business will deliver it -- for a price.'
'IMHO, the Space Station has been cut below viability.'
Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
Actually Boeing and all the other aerospace companies have been feeding at the government teat for decades now. The mother is showing signs of kicking the prodigal sons off- and they already learnt to feed themselves quite well thank you very much. Space industry is worth $100 billion worldwide. NASA only gives them $20 billion. You do the math.
The point is that the businesses won't create breakthrough launch tech without a good reason. They need a good reason. The market (and there is a space market now) is starting to give them a reason.
The costs of space access have a long way they can fall. Even with conventional rocketry costs down at $10/kg do not seem totally out of the question but are not in reach at the moment, and new launch tech can probably do even better than that.
Re:Maybe not a bad idea. (Score:2)
That isn't neccessarily a good thing... Would you want to ride into low earth orbit on top of hundreds of thousands of moving parts and tons of explosive chemicals assembled not only by the lowest bidder but by a profit-oriented lowest bidder with less internal supervision and more stakeholder driven profit incentive (i.e. greater incentive to reduce cost, even to materially inefficent extents)?
Not that NASA or their cronies have a great track record either, but still...
Re:Maybe not a bad idea. (Score:2)
Perhaps the failure is your own for not seeing that the moon has the same poetic beauty it has always had. Looking at the moon as another object of ownership is the exact point of contention with the privatization of space. Coca Cola has wanted to put an advertisement the size of the moon in space [seattleweekly.com]. That would be the day that I would officially become a criminal...
LS
It's been talked about before... (Score:4, Informative)
of Boeing and Lockheed Martin has approached NASA before about buying
or leasing a shuttle. I believe USA was particularly interested in
Columbia because it has the lightest schedule during certain phases of
Space Station construction. Outgoing NASA agency head Dan Goldin was
reported to be all in favor of going forward, but the center director
at JSC, one George Abbey Sr., was opposed and blocked the deal.
The new emphasis on privatizing the program is a push by the new Bush
administration, and was a bit of a surprise to many at USA. "Out of
the blue" is how it was described to me. However, USA does not expect
much to come of the new push anytime soon because three key positions
at NASA are now vacant: Abbey has retired at JSC, Goldin is on his way
out, and NASA Office of Space Flight assistant administrator Joe
Rothenberg has announced his retirement. USA execs are NOT actively
pursuing privatization discussions with NASA, and cannot realistically
do so until these positions are filled.
In other words, don't look for a privately owned or operated shuttle
any time soon.
Re:It's been talked about before... (Score:2)
Re:It's been talked about before... (Score:2)
Re:It's been talked about before... (Score:2)
>candidates (remember Jesse Helms blocking ambassadorial appointments?)
Now wait a minute. It's not, "Republicans such as Jesse Helms were obstructions for Democratic candidates." It's more like, "Jesse Helms is an obstructionist."
The current administration isn't having a much better time with him than the previous . . .
hawk
Security concerns and other misc. issues (Score:2, Interesting)
While the government has every right to keep sensitive information classified, they also have to keep the public informed (to a point) about what they're doing. If a private entity took over all the duties of deploying and maintaining the shuttles, would that entity be compelled to share as much information about what it's doing as the government currently does? How do intellectual property rights fit into this? Would a private entity at some point start claiming rights to knowledge derived from scientific activities that took place on one of its flights?
OTOH, a private entity that can't rely solely on federal dollars may have more incentive to find ways to drive down costs and streamline the whole process. But hopefully not at the expense of safety.
Read Feynman's report (Score:5, Insightful)
It costs so much for every flight because they basically have to rebuild the engine after every run. Parts that were not designed to wear fall apart or develop stress fractures in a single run.
I would support privatization 100% if they would give Boeing or Lockheed a contract to redesign the shuttle based on what we have learned from the current design and its flaws. NASA bureaucratic BS was responsible for allowing many of those flaws to exist. Feynman asked, "Do NASA managers even TALK to the engineers they're managing?" Privatization of maintaining the existing fleet wouldn't save nearly as much money as a new design would.
Re:Read Feynman's report (Score:2)
Competition (Score:2)
Perhaps sell off each shuttle individually? Or perhaps more realistically split the inventory between two operators.
NASA has always been about the pursuit of science. (Score:2)
Re:NASA has always been about the pursuit of scien (Score:2)
Apollo 11 had nothing whatsoever to do with science. It was a purely political move to thumb the American nose at the Ruskies.
Basically they have been living on the political goodwill and pork barrel politics ever since.
Privatisation would do one thing- it would allow space to grow. There are fairly good reasons to think that a ticket to space could reach as low as $10,000 per person in the long run. NASA can't do that as they are limited by their budget, and constitutionally are not allow to turn a profit at all.
Last year space was a more than $100 billion industry IRC. NASA cost maybe $20 billion.
They are effectively private already (Score:2)
For years, a private company called United Space Alliance [unitedspacealliance.com] has held the contract for space shuttle operations. USA is a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, the contractors responsible for constructing most of the space shuttle hardware.
This was our idea (Score:2, Insightful)
If you take this out of the hands of the government then you can reduce the amount of interference it gets. By all means we should support government interference (in the public interest, of course) during development, but when a technology is well established it should run OK. Leaving it in government hands lays it open to streams of politicians who just can't resist fiddling.
Let's face it - there already is competition in this market. That's why the Russian rockets and Arianes and so on are getting so much of the launch traffic. That's also why people are thinking of building new launch [space.com] facilities [space.com] commercially.
Maybe if there is a profit motive behind it for someone, the shuttle will realise its original objective of being a low-cost launch vehicle.
more on the original story here [space.com], BTW
Go Further: Treat Space Launch Like a Utility (Score:4, Interesting)
The more important step is to keep NASA from screwing up the next generation of space launch vehicles. Remember, the Space Shuttle was supposed to be cheaper than conventional rockets, but thanks largely to NASA it wound up being more like an order of magnitude more expensive.
I believe it is crucial for the US to move our space launch development from a beaurocratic process to a market-based process. I feel it will lower the cost of launch, and provide impetus to try alternative approaches that have been ignored by NASA.
I'd treat space launch capability like a utility. Just as the government must buy the electricity that people generate back into the power grid, I'd mandate that the government must buy a certain number of flights from all qualified vendors within a certain time frame after they come on line.
Specifically:
Yes, if enough companies came forward and built working launch systems it might cost more than, for instance, the two billion NASA has spent on X-33. But we'd have many times more working launch systems! As X-33 so amply proved, we cannot expect a beaurocratic approach to give us even one working next-gen system for the same amount of cash.
Jon Acheson
What am I missing here? (Score:3, Funny)
1 NASA finds shuttles expensive to maintain.
2 They find it so expensive because shuttles expend $400M of non-recoverable fuel, components and morons per flight.
3 NASA might want invest in a project with higher construction costs but lower maintenance costs.
4 BUT NASA has canned the X-33 and X-34 programs [slashdot.org].
5 This means NASA is NOT interested in a project with higher construction costs but lower mainenance costs.
Right. Incidentally, since NASA is not interested in space flight anymore (it seems), Bruce Willis is not going to save us when the big one hits. That means the Empire State Building will very soon be hit by a meteor. Poor NYC.
Re:What am I missing here? (Score:2)
Nitpick: If shuttle launches actually expended morons at NASA (assuming the morons were either unrecoverable or NASA decided not to recover them), then shuttle launches would be a lot cheaper by now.
Because competition is good. (Score:2)
Also, when you have multiple teams competing, people have no ability to hide their own failures by saying "well that was clearly just not possible," because chances are, the other team is doing it and getting it to work.
Jon Acheson
Whats old is new again (Score:3, Interesting)
These days Lockheed handles most of the service & maintainance contracts on NASA facilities with NASA oversight. Turnaround time remains months and flights are steadily being reduced due to budget constraints. Low cost has also not been realized, certianly not within an order of magnitude of the original predictions.
Of course the STS fleet remains an experimental one. These are the first generation designs developed in the 1970's with only upgraded subsystems since then. The logical next step of a second generation applying the lessons learned isn't even being discussed much less implelemented leaving the the aging (though refurbished) four orbiters the US's only manned spaceflight capability.
Statistically more accidents must be anticipated reducing the program 25% each time. With R&D not even begun in an organized fashion a replacement generation is itself at least a decade off even if fast-tracked. I fear it is not a promise of a bright future the US sees but a slowly dwindling legacy.
Indeed NASA just released a report calling for reducing staffing & facilities on the ISS (angering it's internationial "partners" who weren't even given copies of the report in advance of the press conference in spite of their own considerable contributions to the project.)
Elsewhere the USSR is actively looking for any partners with which to continue it's own program, the ESA has it's own launcher and program along with involvement in the ISS, the Japanese projects slowly advance, and China is reportedly almost ready to launch it's first manned orbital mission and has published its goal of going to the moon.
Like so many other areas of endeavor the US seems to pioneer then not follow up on it's advances. With realistic possibilities of power generation and manufacturing now becoming a possibility it seems the US is content to allow its manned spaceflight programs slowly wind down.
-- Michael
ps Many could argue that outsourcing STS operations would free up NASA funds and personel for producing a follow-up program. Were this the plan this would all be a good thing but no such intentions have been announced nor does there appear any support for such.
Space: the final bankrupter (Score:3, Insightful)
Of these projects, only Kistler is still standing.
Meanwhile, the joint TRW / LMT / Alenia "AstroLink" project has quietly died. This project was to bring advanced broadband technologies into reality, building a constellation of communications satellites. The decision to terminate this project must be seen as an entirely rational one, in light of falling prices in global telecom capacity.
NASA's Space Shuttle, contrary to public opinion, is not the reason that access to space is expensive. In fact, the Shuttle is not even a market consideration because no commercial entity has the slightest bit of interest in launching payloads on Shuttle.
I'm not sure what will be accomplished by spinning Shuttle off to private enterprise. Here are some hypotheses:
It's probably the right economic decision. NASA cannot hope to make progress on affordable access to space until they can establish a firewall against that drain of money and talent. It is my hope that NASA's space research programs will turn away from operations (missions) and will start research on basic technologies such as materials, propulsion, rail launchers, etc for 'affordable' access to space. Just as NACA's airfoil research laid the foundation for a vibrant and competitive aircraft industry in the 1930's, NASA should develop the foundations of a vibrant and commercially competitive launch industry.
However, I fear for the Shuttle Astronauts. Although NASA's safety record has been good under Goldin, the Shuttle program is already stretched too thin on safety and maintenance. It's an amazing vehicle which requires a standing army to launch it safely.
Re:Space: the final bankrupter (Score:2)
Get rid of them. There is no benefit to putting people into space.
What about sponsorship? (Score:2)
What about Corporate sponsorship, though? How much would Pepsi pay to have their logo on the space shuttle wing? How much would Nike pay to be the Official Footware of the US Space Program?
Bad cost figures (Score:2)
See SPACE SHUTTLE MISSION COSTS [faqs.org] in the sci.space FAQ controversy section.
What about the infrastructure (Score:2)
Who would want to? (Score:2)
Second, how many non-government entites out there could run the shuttle fleet if they wanted to? Boeing, Lockheed, and GE are the ones that come to mind that have the size to handle it -- assuming that it would be a US-based company to take them over.
Nice idea in theory, but it probably won't happen to the current fleet. Hence, since there is no replacement under development, it probably won't happen at all.
Jumping to conclusions... (Score:2)
The USPS has been semi-independant from the federal government since 1971. The Postmaster General is no longer a cabinet position, so they don't have to directly deal with whatever political party is in power in Congress. They're now self-sufficient, supported only by the income they make on the fees they charge and not by federal tax dollars. And yet I have yet to see any corporate logo on any mail trucks, nor have they been bought out by UPS.
So what's the problem if we set up the shuttle fleet the same way?
Insights from Nasawatch (Score:3, Informative)
This one was noted on it back in September:
Word has it that Ron Dittemore, Space Shuttle Program Manager at JSC, will be holding an all-hands meeting today to discuss "shuttle commercialization".
According to NASA sources, Dittemore will be discussing an NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) concept that has been developed that would operate the Space Shuttle program. This concept has been under development for the last 9 months. Dittemore will reportedly pitch this concept as being seamless as far as civil servants are concerned with equivalent benefits, significant sign-up bonuses, and guaranteed job security. Dittemore has reportedly expressed personal interest in heading this new organization.
Behind the scenes there is little interest among Dittemore's crowd in actually saving the government money. Rather, this is simply seen as a way to lower the number of federal employees involved in America's civil space program.
Update: Note from someone@jsc.nasa.gov:
"Mr. Dittemore spoke about a "concept" where a private company would run the Space Shuttle Program. It was not commercialization, but "privatization". It has nothing to do with saving money. It will probably cost the government more money. He said it was in the interest of safety.
Since NASA cannot hire new people and grow them to be managers/engineers, there is no one to run the program safely in the future. That is true since most of the shuttle program folks came from MOD which is mostly all contractors now. This "concept" will work only if all the right people
with the right job skills needed to run the program safely, accept the offer to move over. Highly unlikely. We are talking about mission operations, flight design, flight directors, astronauts, program/project managers, ground operations, aircraft operations, launch operations, etc. Only the civil servants in the Engineering Directorates appear to be spared from this excercise in futility. He said it would happen in 2 years. That's unbelievable, the way the government works!"
The fate of the russian space shuttle (Score:2)
that's a little too late (Score:2)
I think privatizing significant parts of NASA doesn't make sense at all at this point. But if people are going to attempt that, they'll have to come up with a better proposition than this. The time to privatize is before the design begins, and you have to make sure that the private entity actually bears the launch costs: only then will rational self-interest result in cost-effective designs.
Instead of going overboard... (Score:2, Insightful)
Or, if you don't want to use russian launchers, why not try the Ariane 5 (the biggest, current one, IIRC)?
What I am trying to say is that:
(a) you don't need to privatize the quasi-30 years old (ack!) shuttle to save money to put ISS components in space;
(b) unmaned launchers are cheaper than the shuttle;
(c) russian launchers are cheaper than american launchers (I remember an order of less than half the cost, if I heard correctly).
If you push this kind of logic a bit further:
(d) why not pay for a 2nd Soyouz (??) to be used as additionnal "emergency return space" instead of developping the costly X-3whatever?
(e) and why not use a modified Leonardo/Donatello cargo module as living quarters? I'm sure the ESA could finance one or two such modules -- no?
(f) etc.
The ISS cannot provide any ROI if you stunt its development. Some significant R&D could be achieved, even some *industrial manufacturing* could be provided (zero-g must be a God-send for something, I'm sure of it) if all the facilities are sent up there. You could even do satellite repair if there were enough facilities *AND* personnel (how much does a satellite cost and how much does it cost to put it in orbit?).
So we need the additional lab space as well as additional personnel: right now, the current crew is more busy keeping the place going than performing any "real" experiments.
As long as no short-sighted so-called cost-cutting measures are acted upon, the ISS could become a very valuable asset for everyone. You only need some common-sense in management of this project, which starts with finding a cheaper way to send all the necessary bits and parts in orbit.
Think about it: not only the US would save money, but the russians could use the additional revenue to finish their part of the ISS. Two birds with one stone!
Pizza Hut (Score:2, Informative)
Better yet,... (Score:2)
The plain, hard truth is that nationalism is the only justification for the shuttle program.
Commercial applications? The killer app is communications satellites. Nope, there are not people aboard them.
Science? The ISS's science program has been scaled back to essentially zero. Probes do lots of good science, without having humans aboard. The shuttle program is scientifically useless. There's a reason why NASA's science programs are never expected to go head-to-head with other science programs in a peer-reviewed competition for funding: it's because an honest scientific peer review would never fund what NASA does.
Military applications? Satellites without people on board do a good job of surveillance. If the military needs to send up a satellite, the space shuttle isn't their cheapest option.
Space tourism? Cool application! Note that NASA acts allergic when anyone tries to talk to them about this, which is currently the only valid reason humans should be going into space.
Re:Corporate Sponsorship! (Score:2)
How about we paint the external fuel tank to look a big trojan condom? .. Or atleast a couple cans of coke..
Re:Federal Government - Big Corporation...Differen (Score:2)
Your 'New World' analogy seems to indicate that we should accept more risk to human life... doesn't that undercut your argument about the Apollo Astronauts?
I would say that the Challenger accident was more like the type of bureaucratic lack of concern you mention. Happily, that type of thing is behind us.
Most employees of NASA and its contractors also want desperately to engage in a vigorous exploration program, but Shuttle/Station is the only game in town (at least for manned exploration). Even a bad game is better than no game. If NASA's goals were set by a democratic vote among NASA and contractor employees, we would likely have a very different space program. Unfortunately, Congressional pork barrel politics determine policy. Hence, instead of exploring the vast reaches of our Solar System, our space program is designed to occupy the vast reaches of Congressional districts.
Re:Larry will pay for this (Score:2)
> Houston: Unknown craft, you are clear to land. Welcome to earth!
> Ellison: Fuck that, I'm a billionaire!! I'm landing first!!
> Houston: Ellison, watch your flight path! NOOOO!!! KABOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!
Radio Transmission received years later: We got rid of Larry Ellison for you, what more did you want, unicorns?
Re:opposite of everything else in the wake of 9/11 (Score:2)
That's just stupid. First of all, I don't care who you are if you spend $5 billion on a piece of equipment you are going to secure it properly. Contrary to popular belief corporations that risk billion dollar assets do not last long. I guarantee you that the space shuttle is not going to be guarded by $5 rent-a-cops anytime soon.
Secondly, if terrorists did get on board the space shuttle what makes you think that they will have any idea how to lauch or fly that bad boy. It's not like the space shuttle is equipped with a "crash into New York" auto-pilot button.
Re:Useless Trivia of the Day, #1! (Score:2)