NASA Administrator Calls for Space Privatization 112
According to this story on Wired News, NASA honcho Dan Goldin is now actively encouraging private companies to become more active in space research and exploration. In a speech he gave yesterday at the 8th annual Space Frontier Foundation conference, he is quoted as saying, "A partnership between NASA and the Space Frontier Foundation -- which consists mostly of aerospace companies -- will be the only way to make the new millennium the space millennium." For decades, NASA has seemingly done more to hinder than to help private industry get into space. Maybe this represents a long-overdue about-face. I sure hope so.
Re:Right Step (Score:1)
Probably that's why I avoid his website.
Re:Gee, they've done a great job so far... (Score:1)
I believe that what has changed is that the fire has gone away at NASA. People are treating it as their jobs, not as "I'm so lucky to be here. I'm going to do the best I can."
In the Apollo days, there was just as much if not more of people sliding by treating it as "just a job". Consider that at the height of the program there were 400,000 people working on it. Sure you get a lot of the gung-ho starry-eyed folks in there, but in that large of a population, you can't generalize that the attitude most folks had was "I'm so lucky to be here. I'm going to do the best I can."
Then and now, what you see as the "Type-A Go-Getters" comes from the Astronauts themselves and the few NASA employees you see on the TV.
The difference between then and now is that we've had 30 years to romanticize the Apollo days, in books, movies, TV shows, etc. None of the hum-drum everyday folks are the ones who got written about in books or dramatized in movies.
Probably the closest we've see to a view of what Project Apollo was like in all it's less exciting details was "From the Earth to the Moon". Becuase of the time they had (12 hours!), they could spend more than a couple token seconds on people like Joe Shea, Dee O'Hara, Geunter Wendt, etc. Even then, what you saw on screen was far more dramatized than it would have been in reality, becasue you were seeing actors, not real people. People in general going about their day-to-day jobs aren't that exciting to watch on TV.
And you know what? There were parts of that series that most people find extremely BORING anyway! None of my friends would watch it with me, becasue there were no explosions, car chases and such all the time. I was enthralled of course. What we saw was a unique product of an opportunity for Tom Hanks (a self professed space nut as big as any) to indulge himself and produce THE definitive account of Project Apollo.
What's happening now doesn't seem as special as Apollo precisely becuase it is what's happening now. We see today's space program on a day-to-day basis, not in a 30 year old history lesson. We're too wrapped up in it.
I guarentee if you could have watched day-to-day covereage of Apollo like we can with the present day program, it would have seemed just as routine, and it must have seemed that way to those directly working on the program.
Just so nobody gets the wrong impression, I'm about the biggest space fan there is. I watch NASA TV on realvideo every chance I get, and keep it running all day on my desk at work during shuttle missions.
Apollo 13 is my favorite movie. I've read "A Man on the Moon" more times than I can count and my copy is dog-eared enough to show it. I've bought about every major book in the last 5 years on Apollo and the space program (still need "Last on the Moon" and "Full Moon" though...) I watched all 12 hours of "From the Earth to the Moon" so many times my videotape is wearing out (need DVD!).
I built Space Shuttle models as a kid. I was traumatized by the Challenger accident. I was freaked out like you wouldn't believe at the funnies STS-93 had on ascent which I watched live in it's entirety and stayed up way too late on a work night to catch the post-launch press conference to hear what the hell happened.
I'm sure I just described half the readership of
So here's my perspective on what's missing in today's space program in comparison to Apollo:
What's missing is a singular purpose. We need a simple goal that can be stated in a simple sentence and everbody can understand.
"This nation should comit itself to the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth."
There it is, Project Apollo in one simple sentence. Actually accomplishing the goal was mind-numbingly complicated, and expensive, and dangerous, and involved the largest single concentration of human effort in history short of war. Getting from 1961 to July 1969 invloved 3 manned space programs, even more unmanned missions, and 30-some-odd billion dollars.
Despite all the complexity, people always knew what THE GOAL was and that has a tremendous psycological value. Don't forget the psycology of the Cold War either. The reason we were able to swing that kind of commitment in money and effort was that we had to beat the Russians.
There will never be another effort to match Apollo until some group of people feels as threatened as the Americans did by the Soviets. When it comes right down to it, people are more motivated by fear than by co-operation.
We need a clearly stated goal that can capture the imiagination of the world and compel us to action just like Kennedy and the Space Race proppeled the US forward in the 60's.
Is the goal a manned mission to Mars? (I think it should be)
If so, lay out the mission requirements. If the mission is going to require new technology, data, and skills like Apollo gong to the moon needed, then fine, fund whatever intermediate programs are required - but always know what you need to get out of that program to be a building block to the real goal.
Programs like the Shuttle and the Station were sold as being building blocks to Mars, but became programs unto themselves with no end in sight and no knowledge of what we'd want to have at the end anyway.
So more money and sponsorships and all the rest won't do it. We need a REAL vision of where we want to go in space or we'll never get there.
-James
Re:Pay down UN bills on earth, THEN explore space! (Score:1)
What does the name IRS mean? Internal Revenue Service, right?
Doesn't it seem logical that one could legally be External?
If you want to learn more, check out:
http://www.devvy.com/irsindex.html
http://www.nyx.net/~imschira/frogfarm/fffaq16.h
"Income is realized gain." Schuster v. Helvering, 121 F 2d 643.
http://workfromhome.virtualave.net/
Re:Space Exporation and who should do it (Score:1)
Of course, the software will have to be open source...
Re:Sorry, I'm in a cynical mood today. (Score:1)
Well, dude, as for your not being one of those people, last time I checked there was no astronaut draft, so whether you expose yourself to that risk is entirely up to you, even under the current system
I'm not going to argue the other points, except to say that I agree that privatization should give a more practical, ecconoical grounding to the space program. However, most major technological changes required some degree of government investment in order to get them off the ground, and the space program may still be in that stage. But, I think NASA should be doing everything it can to encourage private space programs, in order to get space travel out of that stage.
I agree with you, though probably for different reasons, that the ISS is a ridiculous project. It's just a bigger space shuttle, going in circles like we've been doing for the last 30 years. What we should be spending that money on is something truly new, like going to Mars, or a permanent manned Lunar station.
Re:Pay down UN bills on earth, THEN explore space! (Score:1)
Re:Headline not quite accurate (Score:2)
Don't mess with an AP US History student when you're giving wrong information about US History.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:The NASA's time is over (Score:1)
And they were developed because individuals thought they could turn a profit. Cars and planes were private, electricity was largely private, and computers, while they were government funded initially, didn't have much of an impact until private semiconductor companies started mass producing them.
Keep in mind that there is an infinite number of things that could lead to the benefit of mankind. Deciding which ones should be pursued is best done by the market. Space travel will continue without the government because companies need satellites. And when companies are paying their own way, they'll have more incentive to cut costs.
NASA is inhibiting progress by subsidizing space travel and thereby taking away the incentive for innovation. We would be better off without it. The military and limited space research can be taken into orbit on private carriers, and in the long run, the result will be lower costs and more activity in space.
So dismissing the field is not "naive." It's a recognition of opportunity costs. Yes space exploration is cool, but so are a whole lot of other things. As long as taxpayers are forced to pay for it, we cannot know whether space travel can be cost effective.
Re:Space Exploration and Private Industry (Score:1)
government funded and run UK National Health System. It provides
better care for less than the US system costs.
I heard that UK health gov't officials are very reluctant to give you any medical help. Which is only natural if they don't get money directly from you. I had personal experience with gov't medical system in ussr, which sucked too. Generally I think it's quite possible that businesses are more effective, especially small ones. But, as far as space exploration goes - this is probably a bad idea. Businesses must go for quick returns. A business cannot invest one billion of dollars even if it is fairly sure that in 200-300 years it'll be well worth it. Government has more freedom here - it won't go bankrupt (at least, it can afford way more spendings before it does).
Three things limiting space exploration (Score:3)
Lack of Volume & Scale - Spacecraft today are mostly made in ones and twos. Everyone in the industry knows that the key to reducing costs is through Henry Ford-style Economy of Scale. I've sat through dozens of "cheap spacecraft" seminars that each boiled down to, "...and by doing this umpteen zillion times we'll reduce cost to X".
Unfortunately, the sticking point is not that we need to figure out a clever way of engineering an assembly line (which we pretty much already know really well through the automotive industry) but in figuring out how to greatly increase the demand. Some people speculate that as costs lower, demand will naturally pick up. Maybe, but then you're stuck with the chicken and egg situation of needing to increase demand before the cost savings kick in.
Another problem is that it really isn't possible to design a Model T of spacecraft - each one is slightly different, and has slightly different needs. And with launch costs as high as they are, you really try to maximize the functionality you get from the mass you are allowed. This is the failing of _many_ spacecraft mass production schemes.
Risk Adversity (or, Politics & Regulations) - An incredible amount of money goes into making sure that a satellite will not fail. Most of this is plain old paperwork - tons of it. _Especially_ with expensive spacecraft. The cynic in me observes that this fear is driven less by the desire to avoid astronaut deaths or loss of expensive equipment, than the fear of having your career destroyed when something you're involved in fails - there is an incredible amount of shame associated with being involved in a failed spacecraft (or even a failed _test_!!). And this drives up costs a LOT. Build two, and if the first fails, fix the second and launch it.
Aerospace companies are so frightened about investing in a new piece of hardware, it makes me laugh that Golden expects them to invest in risky new space ventures! He's right, that NASA ain't the one to do it, but neither are the big massive aerospace companies. Way too much adversity to risk. $1B is a lot of money to be risking to a stray meteorite, when you could be putting it into internet IPO's. ;-)
Customization - Unlike cars, one satellite is not just like any other. Each one is custom tailored to meet particular needs.
Surprisingly, software is a major expense of satellite systems. It's very hand crafted. I would hope that some day someone abstracts the software for a spacecraft such that customization could be done via something like a config file, instead of custom low level hand coding.
Now, it seems to me that this need to customize each spacecraft could be addressed by making engineering software that is more dynamic and capable of doing most of the design customization automatically. But development of such software is beyond the ken of most aerospacers. The aerospace industry is still very much in the horse and buggy days when it comes to its design and analysis software. Most of it is in FORTRAN. That which is not, is often in Excel. But programming is considered to be monkey work, and is either given low priority, or inadequately funded (or both.) Smart, computer-literate kids like us end up quitting the aerospace industry and joining a dotcom.
Usually when I bring up the point that computers have gotten very powerful and can do a lot of the work that is currently done by hand, I usually get nothing more helpful than a "When I was your age, we used punch cards! And we liked it." 8-\ *Sigh* _ONE_ day someone will write a powerful, generalized and unified satellite engineering and design program and really clean up in the satellite business.
Anyway, I don't see these problems disappearing any time soon, and no matter how much NASA may wish for commercial companies to forge ahead in space exploration, it ain't gonna happen that easily. My personal opinion is that until a few more markets open up in space, commercial industry ain't going to be pushing us very far.
The next question is: How to build some new markets in space? That's the biggie that everyone is trying to answer. If you're curious of some of the many ideas people have thought of for getting started, check out www.asi.org [asi.org], an organization founded on the very principles of furthering exploration through commercial means.
Bryce
Re:Gee, they've done a great job so far... (Score:1)
This isn't really fair. Most of the time, I'm astonished that any space mission has ever succeeded. The design challenges are overwhelming. You've got a miniscule power budget, a small and inflexible weight allowance, few ways to change things once the mission is under way, and zero first-hand experience with the challenges actually facing you. On one hand, you can't be over-prepared; and on the other hand, you can't take all the precautions you'd like to.
What's changed is the nature of the missions that NASA undertakes. The deep space probes have relatively simple missions they need to undertake, and the manned missions always had the astronauts to handle the complicated tasks and try and patch problems. But the Mars Observer had a fairly complicated protocol to follow, and the Observer itself had to handle the whole procedure. One little hitch that no one predicted, and down the whole mission goes.
I believe that what has changed is that the fire has gone away at NASA. People are treating it as their jobs, not as "I'm so lucky to be here. I'm going to do the best I can."
Well, my experience with the people I've met at JPL is that, in fact, they are dedicated to the space dream, they just aren't being allowed to do what they want. They're scientists and engineers who came in with grand ideas of manned missions to Europa and deep space exploration, only to be told they'll have to be happy with satellites and space shuttles. Maybe if NASA was allowed free rein, or at least freed from incessant micro-management, there could actually be some progress.
Re:What does fascism mean to you? (Score:1)
Oh, I guess you probably don't vote. No wonder you're pissed off.
SFF is not "mostly aerospace companies" (Score:1)
I haven't attended any SFF conferences (such as the one wrapping up today in Los Angeles) but from what I hear from people who have, the organization is mostly individuals, who may be space activists, aerospace engineers, entrepreneurs, amaeteur rocketry enthusiasts (including competitors for SFF's CATS Prize [space-frontier.org]), and just about anyone else who wants to push beyond today's status quo. Of aerospace companies represented, startups trying to develop new ideas seem to be much bigger SFF participants than the big military-industrial-complex companies.
Most of my contact with people who participate with SFF is from my participation in an amateur rocketry project [erps.org] which is competing for SFF's CATS Prize.
To me it seems both a surprise and a good sign that NASA's Goldin even agreed to speak at the SFF conference.
Re:Exactly (Score:1)
Re:Competition and Govermental Authority (Score:1)
until after commercialization (although the
railroad may be the exception that proves the
rule: in both the US and Germany, the success of the rail industry was largely the result of
government intervention)
age of exploration happened largely as a result
of government interest: the exploration and
conquest of territorry was seen as part of
the political game of squaring off against other
states.
Maybe what we need is an unstable multi-polar
international system which uses space bases
as a form of low-grade vaguely unofficial
international warfare (like pirates in the 16th
and 17th centuries).
For the Love of a Job... (Score:2)
I believe you're pointing your critism in the wrong direction. You imply that looking at what you do as "a job" and a love for space are somehow exclusive to each other. Furthermore, you seem to be saying that the "in the trenches" workers are ineffective. I believe you're wrong on both accounts.
To begin with, most of those I've dealt with at NASA are very much into space. They like working for NASA. Its something special to them. If not, a good deal of the engineers (as well as those in other occupations) would do great bennifit to their salary by quitting NASA and working downtown. Many of them do. But, again, many of them don't. They're good at what they do. They work for less than they're worth. And they do it because they like, if not love, space.
So why refer to working at NASA as "a job"? To some, this is completely true - their job is "just another job"; interchangable with any other task that results in a paycheck. However, my experience at NASA has shown that this is a rareity. But let's not forget - even working at NASA is work. It is, in fact, "a job". Ask a professional soldier what they do and I'm sure you'll find enough that refer to their occupation as their "job". That's not to say that they've forgotten the unique nature of their job, nor the implications of their actions. The same goes for NASA employees. For many of them, their "job" just happens to be something they love doing. Its where they want to be. And they're proud to be there. But it's still work; it's still their job.
So why do we even talk about NASA's "drive", or a lack thereof? Why is NASA's history of the Apollo years refered to in the sense of past glory? Why isn't the NASA then the NASA of today?
It's not the people. It's the management.
You have to understand - that is an amazingly powerfull thing to say within NASA. It's also damning. NASA is an unltimate beuocracy. And true to the definition of a beuocracy, it has a management system that sometimes seems to be more about sustaining itself than performing the task for which the beuocracy was formed. Pointing this out brings instant doom to one's career.
I suspect its because the emporor, in fact, has no clothes.
If you truely want to know what is wrong with NASA, look deeply at Challenger. Look at the decission process that lead up to that tragedy. Even Slashdot has had some interesting things posted on it concerning this subject. The answer to why of today is not the NASA of yesterday is there.
Re:Space Flights (Score:1)
Currently they have a monopoly by law in the USA on supplying human-to-space transport, and I don't see anything in the article which indicates they are ready to hand over such authority to anyone else. Their idea of "privatization" has tended to be "We'll sell you a few kilograms of mass and a couple cubic feet to put a machine in, and have an astronaut push a button to start and stop it for you". Maybe they're thinking about allowing nominal control over parts of the space station where passengers they transport can work.
If making space transport cheap and common was their focus, the DC-X, based mainly on proven engineering, would be in full development instead of the "technology demonstrator" projects that got the money instead. NASA wants to need a zillion personnel for each launch, not to mostly disband while reliable automatic systems and a few air traffic controllers take over. D'oh!
The Real History (Score:4)
See my congressional testimony [come.to] for some background on this space commercialization legislation.
Both of these laws were drafted, promoted and passed by citizen activists without "old boy network" lobbyists.
As evidenced by his long-term actions as well as his words, Goldin's idea of space commercialization is essentially the national socialist model of "free enterprise": The government works in partnership with elite private companies toward national goals.
There is a better way.
In the early 60's, NASA was prohibited from exactly one space technology: communication satellites.
Commerce has developed in exactly one technology: communication satellites.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that risk management is most properly done without government underwriting since such underwriting is inevitably targeted toward those with the most political clout -- a feature which is negatively correlated with technical ability.
Space Exporation and who should do it (Score:3)
NASA, IMHO, has a serious problem. It's employees are too busy focussing on past achievements, they don't have time to do the work they're supposed to be doing.
(This is the view of someone who has worked as a programmer, contracted to NASA.)
Private industry's view of space is the same as it's view of anything else. How to increase profits and reduce costs. Be honest, here! What are the largest genuinely successful, genuinely private projects that have happened in the space industry? About the only one I can remember is Coca Cola's advertising on the side of a rocket. Iridium has been a catastrophic failure, bankrupting one company and nearly taking out all the backers, too. Telecom satellites are OK, and all that (but notoriously unreliable - anyone remember the Great Shutdown, after one satellite failed?) and are hardly space research, these days. (In fact, if you read A.C.Clarke's letter in Wireless World, there wasn't much research TO do, past the 1940's.)
There isn't anything for private industry, in space. Not yet. The costs of launching are too high, the benefits of zero gee and extraplanetary work are far too low, at least from a marketing standpoint. As mentioned before, cheap, throwaway satellites that handle strictly marketable, terrestrial traffic is all they care about and all that there's any money in.
If NASA cuts out it's R&D, which is what it sounds like it's doing, I'll bet that Private Industry won't pick it up. Any R&D now is going to be with the amateurs.
ObPREDICTION TIME: Amateur astronauts, probably from Australia, though possibly the US, will be the first to reach Mars. NASA's planned flight will be cancelled, and the corporate markets won't care.
Proposal for those interested: The ball's been dropped. There is easily enough technical know-how on Slashdot to carry an amateur space program to Mars, or beyond. Who wants to give it a shot?
more $ (Score:1)
---
Jedi-Bene Gesserit
Re:My only concern about Space Privatization (Score:1)
Even so, if they can structure it so that basically the business's don't have too much control it should be could.
However, all you have seen species 2 (yes, you remember, five star entertainment. maybe), will know that the ship they used to get to mars was covered in advertising. I could see that happening (after NASA build some natty littel thing to take pictures of the outside with)
The movies slowly merge with reality.
Won't the others feel left out? (Score:1)
Of course, if all the other countries agree to it, then this is a moot point :) Though I suppose it depends on how NASA handles things. If they just allow/sell permission for private company trips/use of the station, and the other countries do the same, it'd be alright.
In general I'd like to see more private use of space...it increases the chance that I'll get to go before I keel over.
Ender
Re:Won't the others feel left out? (Score:1)
NASA is not the first to do this. Some of the other partners in the ISS have all ready started working on plans to lease access to the research space that they are entitled to. Canada and Spacehab announced talks on this a couple of months ago.
David Wetnight
We are going back to the Moon.....would you like to Join us?
Artemis Society International [asi.org]
Amen -- NACA vs NASA (Score:1)
JFK threw money at them and gave them the Apollo mission. The mindset changed to the bureaucratic stay in power syndrome they have had ever since.
What they need to do is get out of all commercial launches, get out of the shuttle business, go back to basic aeronautics and space research. Not science research that coincidentally "requires" them to have their own space fleet and just happens to crowd out private launchers, but space research. Deep Space 1 was a great idea -- ion engine, self navigating, etc. Delta Clipper, which could have been a wonderful X series into Single Stage To Orbit, was dropped.
There are several private efforts to create cheap launch services, yet they are not attracing funding. I believe a large part of that is the fear that NASA will get in the way yet again.
NASA has got to get out of the way of commercialization of launch services, and get back to basic research.
--
More coverage (Score:2)
NASA Chief Calls For Space Commercialization_ commerce_3.html [yahoo.com]
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/19990925/sc/space
Re:Competition and Govermental Authority (Score:1)
If government has the money to spend on the military, ie. Reagan era, the republicans should shut up on decreasing spending when it was a republican president which oversaw the huge deficit bulge in the 80s (think SDI).
Yes, we need a more streamlined (read, more efficient) government, more reform across the board and modern management techniques introduced in our institutions. However, that does not mean that cutting money for research is a Good Thing(tm). It is on the contrary.
Industrial research is primarily focused on technolgy, not pure science. One can look back in history to find a era which scientific research essentially disappeared. The Romans were very technologically adept; however, their mindset was not to advance learning, but rather for more pratical purposes, which pales in comparison to the achievement of the Greeks.
The privatization of NASA and space exploration in general does not need to be a Bad Thing(tm). Getting locked into the mindset that private industry will solve all the problems is. Do we really want to live on a mars owned by a for-profit company? Don't forget that most of the early expeditions to future european colonies were funded by the crown of their respective countries.
There *is* room for pure research and the non-profit/government funding that is usually associated with it.
If you think having scientific institutions funded by government is bad, wait to you see the tobacco institute. That's what happens when industries fund science, bending science to their advantage. That sounds like the church to me.
Space Exploration and Private Industry (Score:4)
I see that one of the biggest misconceptions of privitization is that business, especially big business, is inherently more efficient or effective. The idea is that by making everything private all the problems are going away. Yet evidence shows just because something is a business does not necessarily make it better. Take for example HMO's in the US. Have they made the American health system better? General opinion is no. I recently read an article stating that the cost for an HMO to provide health care is 27% and the cost for a government is 3%. Which is better? The best public health system in the World is the government funded and run UK National Health System. It provides better care for less than the US system costs.
How about an example closer to our hearts, Open Source. How many would of you would agree that much Open Source software is as good if not better than their closed source breathren? Does Microsoft produce better operating systems than the public Open Source developers because it is a business? Business is in a market for one and only one reason, profit. Everything and anything is suborbinate to that reason. To say otherwise is to deceive yourself. The point is that business (or the free market) is not always the best solution. It is not the panacea for all the ills of space exploration and development that so many advocates claim. That is not say that there is not a role for business in space exploration and development. It is just different from what a lot of people see.
Space exploration and development is unlike any recent projects. The scale and complexity relative to the time is immense. The best analog is the travels of the 15th century explorers who, you will remember, were mostly funded by the monarchs of the day. The state so to speak. The risk of the space exploration and development along with the large time before a return on investment is seen does not make it worthwhile for business to invest. It is simply not a sensible investment option.
The first moon base, the mars missions etc. will be carried out by some public organization. These missions offer little or no return on investment and so it is unlikely (if not downright improbable) that any business is going to front the money for no return on investment. The likely aerospace companies are not ones to wear costs if they can avoid it. The US aerospace companies continually jack up the cost of items to the US government instead of wearing the cost increases like any other organization would. Whether the public organization is NASA is not determinable at this stage. Remember, NASA is the United States only and such missions are, politically, better done as an international partnership.
What is the role of business in space? It has already started with the communications satellites. The next area is going to be SSTO RLV (single stage to orbit reusabel launch vehicle). I expect that the revolutionary engine (probably a Rocket Based Combined Cycle Engine, RBCC, for those interested.) will be developed at NASA or some similar public or non business organization. The worst thing for that organization to do would to license that engine technology to a single company will do more damage than good. Competition in the SSTO RLV will do more to advance the general use of space than any other initiative. Once the SSTO RLV market is going next will come space tourism along with the first faltering steps into large scale microgravity manufacturing etc.
The role of business will be to fill niche markets and routine work such as SSTO RLVs. The focus of government and public organizations should be on the programs that open the niche market, leverage techonolgies such as RBCCs (Yes I am a fan of RBCCs for the simple reason that they have the potential to give a 35% payload fraction. For comparison rocket techonoly can only give 10%.), scientific exploration and big missions such as the first lunar base and Mars exploration.
About now some readers are going to be wondering whether I know about the Artemis program. Yes, I do and it is not a business. It is a public organization. Its' goal is the settlement of the moon, not to make a profit. The difference between Artemis and other projects is that it seeks to fund the program through the free market rather than the government. This does not make it a business. It is not trying to make a profit for the company owners. Artemis project seeks the settlment of the moon.
The thurst of this comment has been that business is unsuited to space exploration per se. Business is not going to front up and fund a lunar base or Mars missions. They will only come when it is a sensible invesment option and they can make money from it. They are not going to make money from a lunar base or Mars missions. At the moment space is not a sound investment option for most companies. It will become better once the SSTO RLV market is alive and kicking.
Strangely enough, the companies that are likely to put in the first major funding for big space projects such as a follow on lunar settlement and asteriod minning are going to be the big Japanese companies, the mining companies such as BHP and property development/construction companies. Not the major aerospace companies. These companies are use to large long term investments that take 5 to 10 years before payoff. The aerospace companies do not have that long term view. In other words, don't join an aerospace company if you want to go to space anytime soon.
Simon.
P.S. Lunar materials are not economically viable at this stage including He3. He3 fusion has to be proven to work before one can say that can be mined and sold for profit. It is all conjecture.
Re:Of Course ! (Score:1)
We don't have private enterprise up there because the bureaucrats beat them to it and tied up space with rules and regs that make it impossible to do the long term profitable things (profitable colonies, etc) that would really make a difference to a company's bottom line.
TML
Give us a new homestead act! (Score:1)
We should be doing great things, but what we shouldn't be doing is retreading the methods of the pharohs and enslaving people for fancy projects.
Given the right legal framework, private investment in space would take off and we would have permanent colonies on the moon and in orbit inside of ten years. But the legal framework of the UN precludes private land ownership out in space.
Give us a homestead act where somebody who lands on an asteroid, moon, or planet, stakes out a defined small area and creates value for 3 of 5 years gets to own the land. It could be agriculture, mining, science research, or any of a number of other useful initiatives. But grant a title at the end of the process and you will find that people will jump for the chance to own a piece of the moon, mars, or just a big iron asteroid.
Any one agency, no matter how good (and NASA's not the best possible) isn't going to beat out the combined efforts of many organizations, all competing for the prize of the solar system land rush that a new homestead act would bring.
TML
Re:Headline not quite accurate (Score:1)
In any case, "Gentlemen unaccustomed to working with their hands" or not, the attempt to substitute group responsibility (read: no responsibility) for the production of essential resources for individual responsibility was the real problem.
Re:The moon is an untapped jewel!!! (Score:1)
This message brought to you by:
Offtopic useless info inc.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Daniel Golden has been incredible for NASA (Score:2)
[many things that are so flattering of Goldin, he might as well have been paid for writing them]
Goldin has taken a decade to be humbled to the point that he'll accept even the slightest hint of returning NASA to its original purpose, the same one it serves in the aeronautics industry: fostering new technologies and assisting industry in achieving what it's actually best at.
The most important thing NASA does, period, is space exploration via planetary probes. The "better faster cheaper" program in that area is a response (a good one) toward brutal budget cuts he backed.
The program Goldin loves the best is astronautics, in the form of the Shuttle and International Space Station. These are program which cost many billions of dollars, yet will achieve negligible science results. The lower flight rate of the shuttle in the post-Challenger era has only led to higher per-launch costs. "Privatization" in the form of the United Space Alliance is a figleaf for the benefit of Congress; it hasn't changed shuttle management, goals, or procedures much at all, and hasn't lowered costs except at the expense of personnel. We've seen the outcome of that policy in the wiring problems aboard the shuttle fleet.
Private business has never been charged with planetary exploration, so your comparison is pointless. If you look at what the private sector HAS accomplished in space, you will find hundreds of communications, weather, and imaging satellites, none of them put there by government programs.
As long as Goldin is running the space agency, we will continue to see many billions of dollars poured down the hole of the ISS program, and more billions spent dithering with "future technologies" intended to build massive public-works corporate welfare like VentureStar to keep Lockheed Martin in business
Almost everything that you praise Goldin for accomplishing, has instead, been accomplished IN SPITE of his administration.
Effective exploitation of near-Earth space will never be accomplished by a government program more interested in providing pork-barrel projects for Congressman and standing in for foreign aid to Russia. That's what Dan Goldin stands for, and if you don't see it, I'm sorry for you.
For a more clear-headed approach to thinking about Goldin and NASA, visit NASA Watch [reston.com]. Though sometimes attitude gets the better of them, they offer a welcome antitode to the "company line" of pro-NASA boosterism. And if you still aren't convinced, read Dragonfly [givequick.org], and be enlightened.
We're pretty happy with Mr. Goldin's remarks (Score:1)
By way of introduction, I'm the Space Frontier Foundation's Chairman. As a quick correction, we are NOT comproised "mostly of aerospace companies"; entrepreneurial aerospace people were well represented at the just-concluded conference, but the Foundation itself is made up of a broad spectrum of people. Me personally, I'm a sysadmin and systems analyst, as an example.
We were MOST pleased with Mr. Goldin's remarks. We could have written a large portion of his speech ourselves. Commercializing Station and Shuttle, as well as generally getting NASA out of the "Near Frontier" has been stated Foundation policy for years. It's nice to see the message getting through.
We divide space into the "Near Frontier" and the "Far Frontier" for convenience. The "Near Frontier" is everything this side of (and including) the moon. It's places we've been, and know how to get to and work in. NASA shouldn't be spending resources doing operational activities in the Near Frontier. Governmenbt (not necessarily NASA) should be purchacing data and services it needs commercially in the Near Frontier. They do that currently with non-shuttle launches, and there is some data purchase activity going on, but shuttle and station privatization and commercialization are the KEY to getting NASA off the Near Frontier and back to it's proper role. That would be moving out to the Far Frontier, exploring Mars, asteroids, outer planets and their moons, looking for signs of life elsewhere in the universe, etc.
The nice thing about this breakdown into Near Frontier/Far Frontier is that we can keep moving the boundary outwards as private-sector capabilities are created ever farther from Earth.
I'd also like to agree with another post I saw elsewhere in this thread - Mr. Goldin has done an outstanding job as Administrator. He hasn't been able to do as much as we'd like for him to have done - but in fairness, he hasn't been able to do as much as he'd like to have done. Given the constraints put on him by COngress and the White House and some institutional inertia that he's needed to overcome in-house, I'd say he's done a fantastic job as Administrator. We'll need to build on his successes in the coming years.
----
Michael K. Heney
Chairman, Space Frontier Foundation
Re:An alternative explanation (Score:2)
If anything, NASA is trying to get away from the commercial aspects of space and get back to research and exploration. This was even stated during the award of the CSOC contract to Lockheed/Martin (CSOC manages operations to include Mission Control). I would suspect this is the motivation behind NASA's "turn around" towards private space interests.
Donate a buck or five! (Score:1)
Dangerous Competition. . . (Score:1)
Re:Give us a new homestead act! (Score:2)
Re:Give us a new homestead act! (Score:1)
The only places where this is not true is where government has monopolized the area, like space technology.
If you can earn a living in space there will be many who want to and the efforts of those many will drive costs down to the point where somebody can make money farming in zero G or wildcatting for mineral resources where the big corporations (who will also be there) haven't gotton to yet.
Take a look at the Internet. Do you think that
TML
Space Flights (Score:1)
Headline not quite accurate (Score:4)
"For I know a change has got to come...oh yes it will." (Sam Cook)
An alternative explanation (Score:2)
Congress has done nothing but hinder this country's space exploration.. and shame on them for that. This may simply be a move of desperation - they know that there's little chance of doing anything important left. The Apollo program is long dead, the Mars missions are tapering off.. and MIR is going to be crashing back to earth soon. What's left?
--
Re:Headline not quite accurate (Score:2)
Aside from this, I think that it is a public responsiblity to explore space, and that putting the whole responsibility for space exploration on corporate shoulders is wrong, because they won't do anything that's not profitable. Science is sometimes expensive, and no one has a crystal ball that will tell them when something is likely to prove profitable in the future. Therefore, if something is scientifically signifigant, public institutions are the appropriate ones to study it. Of course, if corporations want to, they can study it too, but you can't rely on them to do things 'cause it's right.
Re:Space Flights (Score:1)
--
Matt Singerman
Right Step (Score:2)
The biggest problem that NASA has historically had is that it was originally set up for a specific "big push" task. (Beat the Soviet Union to the Moon.) Once that was over, the standard bureaucratic disease set in. (Justify my Job!) Once that happened, the shuttle appeared.
We need a viable SSTO craft, and I think that it will be a cold day in hell before the U.S. goverment allocates the money to build one that really works.
Jerry Pournelle has a lot to say on this issue. Check it out over at: http://www.jerrypournelle.com/
Lotek---
Gee, they've done a great job so far... (Score:4)
HOWEVER, if we look a little farther back, we find the Apollo missions. This is quite possibly the United States's crowning achievement. They reached the moon. No one else has ever done anything like this before or since (from our planet ). What has changed??
I believe that what has changed is that the fire has gone away at NASA. People are treating it as their jobs, not as "I'm so lucky to be here. I'm going to do the best I can." Maybe by taking the space program private would help in this regard. But, I'm not entirely sure. If people really, really truly love space, they will work for any amount of money to be close to their dream. The only thing privatization (which I can't spell) achieves is the fact that they could lure "better" people with their better pools of money. Not sure that that will help at all...
OTOH, if the private companies find people who want to work in space-related fields for about what NASA is paying them, with their high financial resources, they could very well spend more on the actual missions (i.e. state-of-the-art equipment). At the risk of sounding foolish, I think it would be quite cool if NASA would allow sponsors to their missions. You could have the Yahoo! mission (paint the shuttle purple and gold like the cabs). This could be a really cool infusion of cash to help NASA out. =)
IMHO, our government needs to restore funding to NASA so that they can return to their peak. Private industry is shaky in this aspect. A unified space project is the only way to go...
Justin
My only concern about Space Privatization (Score:3)
The Mars Hydroponics Institute (Score:1)
Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship 'Enterprise'. It's continuing mission: to explore strange, new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilizations; to boldly go where no one has gone before!
Picard: Number One, you have the bridge. That tea has gone right through me.Captain's log, stardate right after lunch:
Mr. LaForge has just completed a routine diagnostic on the Improbability Drive and we are now prepared to travel,
once again, in search of a plot. In the meantime, Spot, Data's cat, has been set loose inside the ship, which I'm sure
will have bearing on this story somewhere.
(Wanders off to ready room) Riker: (Staring straight forward, one elbow on knee, rises, sticks out chest, keeps nose in air, sits in command
chair in exact same dramatic pose as before) Worf: Sir, incoming alien vessel of unknown configuration. Riker: On screen. (Raises an eyebrow) (Ugly, lumpy, yellow ship appears) Wesley: It looks like a huge snot! Data: We are being hailed. Riker: On screen. (Raises other eyebrow) (Ugly, lumpy, green creature) Vogon: Ilb jelt men gowf lort rezch pit... Crew: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH
(Raises shields, red alert lights blink, Data closes channel) Crew: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH...... (All collapse) Data: Was that not enjoyable? Riker: (Dramatically picking self off floor) It was pure hell, Data. Data: But that is how you react to my poetry and you claim to enjoy it. Picard: (Running from ready room, zipping pants, kicking toilet paper off shoe) What was that? Riker: Pah...poh...puh...poetry? Picard: Get out of my chair you idiot. (Explosion noise, everyone leans left, then right) Crusher: (Dons dancing shoes) One two three and lean, and one two three and lean. Geordi: (From engineering) Sir, the reality warp coils are down. We need a cold shot of reality,
so I'm manually tying them to the Clinton inauguration. Picard: Make it so. Worf: Sir, they've fired two missiles at us. Picard: Maximum power to shields. Wesley: (Sneaks out from under console) Why not hit this improbability thingy? (Slaps switch in front of Worf) Worf: No! The reality balance isn't even! There are no safety shunts! (Grabs Wesley and snaps his neck. Crew politely applauds) Computer: Warning, we have a plot complication, warning, we have a plot complication.
(Blinding white flash. Light fades. The bridge is covered in fun-fur and several shaved animals are running about) Arthur: Hello, what's this? (Wearing Riker's uniform. Has a bone in beard) Picard: What the hell? (Has full head of hair and aussie accent) Worf: (Surprised to see he is holding an electric razor, starts shaving down the tactical station. Even more surprised to see he
is wearing a cute dog sweater)
Sir, the missiles seem to have turned into a bowl of petunias and a sperm whale. The yellow ship has vanished, but has been replaced
by an expanding unsolved Rubik's cube. Picard: Mister Data, location! Marvin: (From conn)Oh, do this, do that, get me some tea. Here I am, brain the size of a planet... Picard: Who are you? Marvin: Call me Marvin, call me stupid, call me to do your laundry. Picard: Computer. Computer: Hey, call me Eddie, I'm your shipboard computer and I'm just waiting for us to have some serious trek-type fun. Picard: Somebody take us out of here. (Stalks off to ready room) Door: (Opens) Thank you for making a simple door very happy. Marvin: Oh shut up. (In ready room) Picard: Tea, earl grey, hot. (Door opens) Door: It gives me great satisfaction to open for you, and close again with the knowledge of a job well done. Arthur: Did I hear you say tea? Picard: Yes. (Replicator panel reads Sirius Cybernetics Nutri- Matic Drink Dispenser, which Picard just now notices. Tastes the tea)
Ewww. (Looks at brown, sickly fluid then back at Arthur) Will, is that you? Arthur: 'Well is that you'? Of course it's me, what kind of silly question is that? Picard: Good, it would seem a series of highly improbable events have happened thanks to Mr. Crusher. In fact,
I have this urge to take the Captain's yacht out for a spin. Heineken, terribly cold.
(Beer appears on replicator. Runs fingers through hair)Well, I'm off then, Will, you have the bridge. (Leaves) Arthur: Why does he say 'well' so much? (Leaves to bridge) (On bridge, Troi stops Arthur at door, which is mumbling. Picard has Beverly hefted over one shoulder and leaves. Beverly aims tricoder at Picard's butt) Troi: Will, I don't remember you having such a large bone. (Smiles) Arthur: Well. (Fingering bone in beard) Neither do I. Marvin: Gurgle gurgle. (Head in a bucket of water) Worf: (Interrupting the two) It appears, sir, that Data now has emotion, except he is a manic depressive who demands to be called Marvin. Arthur: So I'm in charge here? Worf: Yes, sir, who else? Arthur: Well, er, I think I'll get some tea. Marvin, you can have the bridge.
(Heads into ready room. Troi prances behind, both hit head on speaker hanging from door) Worf: What shall we do now, Commander...Marvin? Marvin: Oh, what does it matter? Whatever makes you happy I suppose. Not that I can possibly know what that feels like. Worf: Very well. (Ties Wesley's body to wall, practices phaser) (Elevator opens, Geordi steps out, doors slam shut, elevater audibly drops in fear) Geordi: (Ripped uniform) Geez, what'd you guys do? All the girls in engineering have been all over me. Worf: Do not ask. It would appear Commanders Riker and Data have gone insane, Troi is...occupied, Wesley and Tasha are thankfully dead,
Picard and Beverly have gone to where no one has gone before, (pauses) and you are wearing a Subaru air filter on your head. Geordi: No, I've always had that. Computer! Computer: Hey guys, Eddie here, how can I be of service? Geordi: Are there any main characters left? Computer: Ensign Ro is currently bitchy, Chief O'Brien is trapped in a spinoff phenomenon, and Spot has evolved into a well-dressed dude. Worf: Very well, send Ensigns Expendable, Throwaway, Disposable and Agrajag to the bridge. (Licks lips) Also, send Spot. Computer: Hey, wow, sounds like a happenin' party. By the way guys, that Vogon you destroyed has become a giant Rubik's cube. Worf: The Borg!! (Ship rocks, red alert) Marvin: (Bucket spills) Oh, how typical. (Picard transports to bridge with a bra on his head. Crusher appears behind him, limping) Picard: Hey, thought I recognized you guys. Remember me? It's Locutious, or whatever. (Com screen activates) Robot: (White gleaming robot holding a club) We are Krikket, you will be assimilated into the game. Count off by two's.
(Beverly aims tricoder at screen) Picard: Mr. Worf! Full torpedo spread! (Explosions rock cube, flowers bloom from holes) 100,000 Random People: WHOP! (White robots appear on bridge. Worf deftly hops panel with phaser, gets quickly clubbed into Wesley's body in back wall) Picard: Can't get me!!! (Runs into ready room) (In ready room) Troi: (Sitting) No, hit your chest, then look at the ceiling. Arthur: (Hits chest) *threep* (Looks at ceiling) Hello? Can you send up some tea? Picard: Out! Out! Out! (Punches Arthur) Arthur: Hey... (Faints. As he hits floor, phaser goes off in pocket, fires through door and hits and kills Ensign Agrajag) Troi: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
Oh the pain. Krikket Robots: Yes? (Quietly sobbing. Beverly aims tricoder at robots) Marvin: You know, they even made me try to stop a tank once? Geordi: Quick, Worf, while they're distracted!! Worf: Engaged. (Blinding white light. Light fades. Bridge is covered with potted ferns and a spiral staircase that leads nowhere,
a fire hydrant sprouts from the tactical display. Krikket robots are replaced with puddles of Tang) Picard: (Steps out of ready room) My God, I have two heads! Worf: Yes, sir, and you're bald again. Riker: Get me out of here!! (Stuck in wall in extremely silly position. Beverly aims tricoder at him) Troi: Will! You look so... undramatic, so silly. Riker: I know. Kill me. Kill me, now. Picard Head 1: (Hits communicator) Picard to Riker. Riker: (Trying to reach patch and look at ceiling) NOOOOO! Picard Head 2: Cut that out! Data: It would appear, sir, that you will be unable to do the saxophone duet with Mr. Clinton this Friday.
(Polite applause from bridge crew) Geordi: Hey guys, I can't see that well... Troi: You're wearing a dryer filter on your head. Perhaps you and Will will need some counseling. My fees are reasonable. Picard Head 1: Mr. Data, set a course for the Restaurant at the End of the Universe. Reality warp factor reeaally big. Data: Course set, sir. Picard Head 2: Engage. Picard Head 1: That's my line. (Shot of Enterprise outside. Resembles a large hubcap with a wire extending out of the top) The End
NASA Wanted to get somewhere (Score:1)
NASA looked to other countries for help (International Space Station), but we all know that they weren't very responsive, either.
I think that they're now looking to private companies to help them in the exploration of space. They've finally realized that they can't do everything on their own, and they can't really advance that quickly... mostly because they're government funded.
I also think that they want to see the exploration of space and possible colonization of the Moon and/or Mars sometime in our future, and NASA's future doesn't look very bright.
Julian
--
For Sale: (Score:1)
Fixer upper.
AC/HEAT, on board computer, labratory, docking station.
Solar power battery backup.
1 Bath
GREAT views of the ocean !!!
For more information, contact the Russian Space Agency
Re:Headline not quite accurate (Score:2)
Well, the Earth is no less scientifically interesting than Mars, and people own parts of it. I agree we have a chance to rethink property law before launching out into space, and perhaps it needs it, but the reality is that old laws will likely be stretched to apply to new circumstances. That is, the first people to get some place and make use of it own it -- as long as they can defend it. For a long time to come cutting off supplies from Earth will be very difficult to counter, so law may well be imposed from here. But eventually, those places will make their own laws and define their own notions of property, as best suits their own circumstances and culture.
Aside from this, I think that it is a public responsiblity to explore space, and that putting the whole responsibility for space exploration on corporate shoulders is wrong, because they won't do anything that's not profitable.
The problem is that the government has proven it's unwillingness to fund a real space program. Change that if you can, many have tried and failed. So, if you want to get into space, perhaps it's worth harnessing some corporate greed. The internet started as a publically funded resource, and has now transited to a privately funded one. We'd all agree it's lost much in the transition, but at least it's here and there's hope for its future. It is *still* used by idealists and academics, even though it's privately funded.
Once goverments were mighty things, but the power is shifting to corporations. Already many have remarked that Microsoft is better funded for the anti-trust trial than the U.S. government. If you want to do something expensive you have to work with the folks who have the money. You can either work for radical change or do your best to make sure that idealists and academics still get access to a space program funded by corporations.
Re:NASA Wanted to get somewhere (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Add this to the list... (Score:2)
also
"But I believe that when NASA can creatively partner with you, all of humankind will reap the benefits of access to open space."
So we're pretty much looking at a future like a cross between Alien and Star Trek? Maybe throw in a bit of Dune? At least making it profitable to travel in space will pump a lot of money into the idea. Not to mention alternative fuel research, fusion and such. And a big rise in star gazing. They'll need good pilots. Stable computer systems. Most likely a lot of embedded systems. And really cool admins. (hehe)
Re:Daniel Golden has been incredible for NASA (Score:1)
Re:Headline not quite accurate (Score:1)
Re:Pay down UN bills on earth, THEN explore space! (Score:1)
privatization? (Score:1)
People, one person or even one group of people cannot conquer the depths of space. If you sit on your couch and watch tv, you're not helping technology progress (unless you have a neat little webTV thingy and can do research while you each chips). So when NASA makes an effort to actually open the space program to private industry, welcome it.
Would anyone really want humans to be the last beings into space simply because someone that read a book on facism makes a parallel from the comfort of their workstation? Think for yourself. Be human. Go where you want. Remember, the astral bodies await those interested.
Re:Gee, they've done a great job so far... (Score:1)
Good God that scared me (nt) (Score:1)
Not Exactly (Score:2)
Not to disagree, or at least not entirely, with the basic sentiment, but I have to call you on this: your use of the term "strip-mining" stikes me as a cheap rhetorical device. It invokes images of the destruction done by evil corporations as they strip the surface off huge patches of land because it's a cheaper way of getting at the ore than digging a little, etc. However, does this really apply to the moon, which has no ecosphere? I.e., there's nothing to destroy. Really, how could you even tell if a piece of the lunar surface had been "strip-mined"? Moreover, who would care? The emotional appeal regarding the badness of "strip-mining" is meaningless.
By the way, according to Strangers From the Sky, (I know, the books aren't "official") we actually encounter Vulcans some twenty years before the Amity incident -- one of their scoutships crashes on Earth and, though the whole incident is covered up, Kirk and friends, who, through one of their little accidents, just happen to be around, help them get home. Please don't say your entire knowledge of Star Trek history is based on that TNG movie.
David Gould
haha (Score:1)
Re:Three things limiting space exploration (Score:1)
it would greatly cut cost to have off-the-shelf items for most of the sats....
even the comm equipment could be plug-n-play components....need to send video from one place to another, use this dish plus this receiver and transeiver, connect via internal fiber bus, etc...
Perfect (Score:2)
This will add new life to the space industry (actually, it will create the space industry). If space truly does become a place for private industry, then all industries will benefit from this (the chemists and pharmicists will be able to do thing in almost 0G and the tourist industry will make a killing on `moon trips' and the like, perhaps plants grow faster (and year round) in space, this would benefit the farming industry exponentcially, and, well, you can figure out many more for yourself).
This might also solve (ok....maybe a little premature, but, hey, we can talk a few decades down the road) the over population problem. Suppose that we bulit moon bases (hey, another industry, the mining industry (new elemants, new products, new profits)) and they had millions of people in them, that could take a burden off 6 billion people on 1 planet.
Ok, in conclution, I say that the privatzation of space is good and we should be glad that it is happening. It's time we looked past NASA, the ESA and all the other space agencys and started developing space ourselves.
That's my 1/50 of $1.00 US
JM
Being in the 1% (Score:1)
It took some courage for AC to post his (I believe sincerely held) opinion that this news is not good. The only two other such opinions I saw were rated -1. Granted, s/he posted anonymously and his tone is bitter and condescending. But your caricature of him isn't any better, IMO.
I would feel better about the world if there were fewer space missions and no ``space privatization'' (whatever that means). I'm not sure I can explain my uneasiness in terms acceptable to Slashdot, but the feeling is strong.
Not to drop cold water on all the the fun, but.. (Score:1)
However make sure that the Hardware you are sending up is of Lesser Capability than any thing they or the USAF has already up there.
Canada has been told no by NASA several times.
(Last time was over Mapping Sat.)
What makes Companies so sure that NASA will not play Favorites with Hughes and others...
I cannot see the USAF or others with fingers placed firmly in the Butts of NASA's Directors allowing anything that will be of any VALUE sent up by NASA.
I hope I am Wrong and they[NASA] learn to do better.
What does fascism mean to you? (Score:2)
A "partnership" between the state and private industry usually (not necessarily in this case) spells facism.
Well, maybe it spells "fascism" to you, but you may wish to look the word up [dictionary.com] first. Generally, it involves government telling industry what to do, rather than asking industry what it can do for them.
NASA already acts as a "partner" for the aeronautics industry; what we need them to do is graduate to the same role for the space industry. Up until Challenger, the mission creep at NASA had turned them into the biggest competitor for the commercial satellite launch industry; since then, they've had to find other missions, such as the space station. Right now the entire commercial launch business *is* privatized. What Goldin is proposing is getting business to take over a vast array of government pork barrel projects that are not profitable.
Re:Daniel Goldin has been incredible for NASA (Score:1)
I agree with you on the ISS/shuttle bloat factor. The Shuttle has been going up and down into LEO for almost 20 years now (half way to anywhere, but in itself not a real destination, heck, even Gemini was more exciting). It costs a heck of a lot of your money. The ISS is a political dead horse that a lot (but not all!) of space enthusiasts are too afraid to call for it's cancellation. The best we've really gotten out of manned space exploration this decade are some complex telescope repair missions (would sending up a replacement have been cheaper?), and some ethereal political gains with Russia, about which the Americans are all glowy, and the Russians don't appear to care...
Would it be better if ISS or the Shuttle programs were cancelled? NASA's budget would probably get creamed. Yes, there might be about double the budget for unmanned missions, but I think there would be a lull in interest not seen since the post-Challenger era. (Well not quite true, at least Mir was being constructed in the late 80's, now we wouldn't even have that) It might take a long time (and perhaps the Chinese) to get the Americans interested into going back to space again. Or perhaps the dream of manned spaceflight is truly dead, and we're just wasting our time dreaming of a more exciting yesteryear.
Goldin is first and foremost a PR man, I'll grant you that. But I don't think anyone placed into his position could have called for the dismantling of ISS or the Shuttle (And all those jobs) without getting sacked pretty fast. Low cost alternatives (better, faster, cheaper, safer manned spaceflight) frankly are still on the drawing board. Yet Goldin has managed to get planetary exploration up and running again (as opposed to a decade ago). For that, I will praise him. Not that he's Claudius or anything, I just think the space program is a hell of a lot better now than before.
And I hope the person who replaces Mr. Goldin can make the existing space program look "as exciting as a trip to Pittsburg".
-- TrevorB, a Canadian who wishes the CSA was half as cool as NASA, but perhaps without the tacky bus tour. At least we got a cool robot arm!
Re:What does fascism mean to you? (Score:1)
arrogant? (Score:1)
-----
Re:There will be more consequences... (Score:2)
True, but the airline industry went through this and continues to face it every day. Their safety record is pretty amazing, I think, even compared to almost any government funded project.
Daniel Golden has been incredible for NASA (Score:5)
Can you remember this may active spacecraft ten years ago? (There are ten [nasa.gov] right now, alright, so I'm counting Voyager 1&2, the greatest missions ever, which are still alive and kicking 7 billion mies away [nasa.gov]). Half of these active missions are the new "better, faster, cheaper" created under Goldin's regime. Two missions to Mars every two years? The man has this incredible ability to convince the American public that science and space exploration are a good use of American tax dollars...
Goldin's ultimate goal it seems is to build a mega-telescope, most likely a huge interferometer, that could image the surfaces of planets in other solar systems, generating an Apollo 17 like image of an extra-solar Earth like planet to inspire the next generation. Deep Space 3 [nasa.gov] should be a good first test of space formation flying and interferometry.
Of course, NASA sounds like they're getting more cuts. One of those few instances where I guess you Americans would want Newt Gingrich, who was a big NASA fan himself, back where he was... OK, perhaps the only instance.
At any rate, I hope Goldin gets to keep hold of the helm for a while, or that private industry manages to gain some of the public's interest in space. I don't want to see a return to the late 80's...
Of Course ! (Score:2)
Private companies aren't in danger of being cut off from the government, and rely on private funding. If enough people participate (and more private ventures spring up), NASA could quite possibly get more accomplished then they would have with just Government Funding.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Re:Gee, they've done a great job so far... (Score:5)
The only thing that the Apollo missions accomplished on a practical scale was to demonstrate that the equipment could be built to go to another astronomical body. However, the research that NASA has done since Apollo has benefitted mankind in the form of new medical research, new materials for production and the like. All we got out of the Apollo missions were a bunch of moonrocks, and some equipment that is no longer in use.
I'm in no way deriding the Apollo missions. Yes it was quite an achievement. Humankind set a new distance from home at around 380,000 km. Sure, it helped to prove something. But first and foremost it was a political rivalry that had more to do with beating Russia to the moon than real science (and their reasons for going there were just as shallow as ours). When we accomplished that task, no more Apollo program. Seems like a real dead-end deal to me.
The loss of the Mars Climate Observer is not evidence that NASA is inept at implementing a program, since we don't have a clue if it was lost due to: operator error, poor engineering, or a simple hyper-velocity meteor striking the beast sending it hurling into the surface of the planet.
Despite setbacks, I'm all in favor of the smaller, better, cheaper approach that NASA has been implementing. We've had a real good showing with the Pathfinder mission to Mars. Real Science, and much cheaper than prior missions. Another key thing that NASA has been working on, ISS, is pivotal if we are to have a future in space. The only holdup there is that the Russian space program can't pay the bills and is holding up the project. If they can't get their act together, they really don't deserve to be part of the project as a main partner.
I'm in Huntsville, AL (the TRUE first piece of ISS, the Unity module, was manufactured here), but for political reasons, Zarya (the first Russian module) was called the "first," even though it was launched several months after Unity, and relied heavily on US money. If anything will kill ISS, it will be politics.
I'm all for privatizing NASA if it's feasible. The problem is, that it's not "commercially viable" except for reasons of research, which in and of itself does not generate revenue (and that is what companies are in the business to make). Business is always short-sighted and out to make a quick buck. Business doesn't want to dump millions or perhaps billions of dollars into something that they won't see immediate returns on. That's why privatization of NASA won't work right now. Maybe in the future, but I doubt it will happen very soon. If it did, it would set the space program further back than the recent rash of spending cuts have.
The best solution for NASA at this point is to get a leader in office, like Reagan, who understood the value of space. Also, a restructuring of the program to "trim the fat" probably wouldn't hurt from all the stories I've heard from friends that work at NASA.
Re:The NASA's time is over (Score:5)
Just because developing a technology may be extremely expensive initally, doesn't mean that it is a worthless technology. Space travel is a very advanced technology that will require a LOT of research and a LOT of money to develop. When computers were first produced, they cost a LOT of money, were impractical (no, a computer that is several tonne is not practical) and weren't very effective.
Also, space travel will provide spill over technologies in other industries as it is developed due to the new way scientists will solve problems. (I admit teflon sucks rocks though!).
It is extremely naive to simply dismiss an entire field of technology because of its expense. The results of this field could be incredible, given the money and resources required.
Oh, and NASA spends much less that the USA defence forces, so i can complain that USA spends 600 billion dollars (last time i checked) a year developing and using technology designed to kill people in a variety of ways, while keeping the technology secret so it cannot be used in other industries.
I hope you realize that... (Score:2)
way is not the way to go at slashdot.
Actually, if humanity always dropped something
that isn't practical, and shut down all of this
kind of research, we would get nowhere.
Besides we spend billions on sports, beer, music
etc. Although I find these good purposes, it just
goes to show that the world can afford some research that some people find unnecessary.
Competition and Govermental Authority (Score:2)
NASA is such an institution. (Granted, NASA took us to the moon and lifted us out of the Atmosphere, but what ELSE has it done?)
Back in the day, when a new technology was created, it wasn't the "inventor" that banked off of it. See the Lightbulb, the Printing Press, the Railroad, the automobile..., but rather it was commercialized industries and markets that not onlky banked on the invention/discovery but made measurable advancements on those inventions and discoveries, and would reap the benefits and latter discoveries of such ventures.
Commercial industries would find ways to make the same product, perform better, with less cost. That is what they do. Because it's their money.
As opposed to NASA which has a budget of someone else's money, mainly the American Taxpayer.
Being a scientist, I've always applauded when the Republican Congress cut funding for NASA and SETI, because frankly, I don't like seeing a scientific institution under the control of a civil authority, there are too many parrallels of when the Roman Catholic Church controlled the scientific institution, and things like a geocentric universe were upheld as truth.
But that is another dissertation.
But try an imagine a world where privitized organizations are using space technologies, which are made more availiable, or even "Open Source" for all to use, if they have the means to do so, where they reap what they sow, (meaning if they do it well, they profit, if they do it poorly, they fail) where they consumer decides.
If that was the case, we'd be colonizing Mars by now. (If you doubt, remember that North America was initially colonized for economic gain.)
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
Sorry, I'm in a cynical mood today. (Score:2)
The robotic exploration of space has been successful, educational, and fun for the whole family. Seriously. So NASA should remain in the unmanned probe business, which they're pretty good at. In fact, they should expand the unmanned program. Astronomy is Good!
On the other hand, privatizing the manned space program would be wonderful, because then I would be allowed to opt out.
Some people, including the ones who think Star Trek is a documentary, would spend billions of dollars trying to reach the mythic Final Frontier. But I wouldn't care, because none of the dollars would be mine.
People would die from launch vehicle failure, explosive decompression, radiation poisoning, lack of exercise, and accidental collisions with the millions of bits of debris that are already in near-earth orbit. But I wouldn't care, because I wouldn't be one of those people.
Astronauts would land on Luna, or Mars, or Europa, or Charon, where they would spend hours engaging in the only profitable activity I can think of -- autographing souvenir rocks. Then their companies would go bankrupt. But I wouldn't care, because I wouldn't invest time, energy, or money in frivolous tourist flights.
Well-heeled hobbyists would have a lot of fun, flying through space. That's good! I don't begrudge anyone their fun. I myself would love to fly on the space shuttle... if I could afford it. But I can't justify asking my neighbors to pay for it. There's a difference between a fun hobby and a public good. Manned space flight is a private hobby, like hang gliding, or yacht racing, or climbing Mount Everest.
The best thing about privatization: there is no for-profit company dumb enough to build a colossal white elephant like the "International" Space Station. Unfortunately, it looks as if Goldin's "privatization" plan won't kill the ISS.
Re:Pay down UN bills on earth, THEN explore space! (Score:1)
Incentives (Score:3)
Suppose you are IBM, and one day you are approached by NASA to "participate" in a "people" mission to Mars. Now, participate, in this setting, means commit a large number of resources and money to the project. You're (IBM's) task is to design the workstations, servers, and communication networks. You would undoubtedly use the expertise of 3com or one of the other networking companies to provide that aspect of the project, but for the sake of argument, let's say that you are providing that as well. You spend several million dollars on R&D. You monopolize the time of certain core groups of engineers in your company, taking them away from "profitable" endeavors. You involve the reputation of your company in the project... this is something that is rather "high stakes", since if it fails, everyone will know about (imagine losing some/all of the astronauts due to a malfunction in one of the systems you designed). The mission and people would have no doubt had full insurance coverage before departure, but it is still a large risk for a company to take on (for some, their business is tied intricately to their reputation).
So I wonder, What is the "payoff" for a company like IBM to partner with entities like NASA?
Incentives: I can foresee a time when NASA (the US Government) will sign a contract with a private company guaranteeing them mining, land, mineral, etc rights to a particular chunk of Martian real estate. Now, this opens an interesting and probably contentious debate (if not wars) about who can make those dispersals of "property" that technically no government owns.
IMHO, The real space race might be the huge land-grab of the next century where multinational corporations are in a race to claim as much Martian "property" as they can for future terraforming (mining).
Re:Pay down UN bills on earth, THEN explore space! (Score:1)
how to read this post... (Score:1)
Listen, whoever wrote that post, grow up. If you want to better the world, then try to be helpful. What you posted was mass of dung that has no point and will not further anything except your own ethnocentric ego.
Voyager, the greatest spacecraft ever. (Score:2)
Voyager is undoubtedly humankind's greatest acheivement in unmanned space exploration. Two quickly prepared spacecraft to take advantage of a rare solar alignment tha only occured once every 175 years, the "Solar Tour" trajectory. Both Voyager 1 traveled to Jupiter and then to Saturn. Since these mission were never planned to last longer than these two planets, the mission planners decided to leave the Uranus/Neptune option to Voyager 2, and do a closeup flyby of Saturn's moon Titan to check up on that atmosphere of hydrocarbons and hope for a "break in the clouds" (thier words). Hopefully we'll learn more with the Huygens probe with Casinni in 2006. Unlike Galileo's Jupiter probe, Huygens may actually land on the surface and record data for up to 30 minutes! That may be really cool... Let's hope it lands on "land".
Voyager 2 went on to be the only probe to explore Uranus and Neptune. Quadruple planetary gravity assist! By the time Voyager 2 reached Neptune, it's arthritic camera (I'm not kidding, it's motors were pretty shot by that point), managed to keep the cameras on Neptune for the 30 seconds requried to gather enough light for a single photo...
And now Voyager is headed for the interstellar void. JPL *Still* has a 30 year plan. The nuclear RTGs on board will be powering Voyager equipment until 2017! The Voyager team still puts out Weekly Status Reports [nasa.gov]
I remember reading the sci.space.* newsgroups about 10 years ago. People were discussing mass-producing a thousand Voyager class spacecraft and sending about 5 of them to every object in the solar system. Sure, the failure rate would be atrocious, but think of the science! That sounds a bit like NASA's new "Discovery" program.
As for MCO, we're just learning how to produce spacecraft with all the bang for 1/10th the price. Give them a chance, they'll work out the bugs in the system.
Re:NASA Wanted to get somewhere (Score:1)
What the space program and NASA did allow government to do, and one of the reasons it was so popular with the military, was have an at-any-cost R&D setup. If you don't think the space program and NASA were a diversionary way to fund advanced weapons technology research (even to the point of dupeing scientists and technical people who otherwse would NEVER work on weapons of mass destruction) then you're reading way too many SciFi novels with warm-fuzzy critters in them.
The "challange" of going to the moon wouldn't have carried as much weight in government as it did if there weren't important 'challanges' like dropping megatons on Moscow behind it all.
Complacent civil servants are part of it... (Score:1)
Re:The NASA's time is over (Score:5)
The fact is that a nation should stand for something, and NASA is one of the few things that the government spends money on that is not just a transfer of wealth from high income to low income people.
Thank god.
Re:NASA Wanted to get somewhere (Score:1)
Re:Headline not quite accurate (Score:2)
Re:Headline not quite accurate (Score:2)
I don't expect corporations to be lining up to get in on this at all. That will come later after someone with vision gets rich. Costs of transport make mining anything, including pure platinum, economically ridiculous right now. The major opportunities are in research towards microgravity industries, solar energy, possibly lottery ticket tourism, and probably earth observation. Stuff you can send back as 1's and 0's, or is just along for the ride.
Corporations are very shortsighted in terms of return on investment right now, and space looks like 10-20 years out there for a real profit, with a gargantuan initial investment. Give them a top level domain,
Re:NASA Wanted to get somewhere (Score:2)
One big source of revenue on the moon is Helium-3 which can be used for clean nuclear energy. http://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.html Lunar Helium-3 as an Energy Source.
The problem with space now is that people just aren't excited enough about it. If we had the kind of public outcry that we had in Kennedy's time so many exciting things would happen.
Just imagine what would happen to the president or leader of business that got us to the moon for economic reasons. What about getting a person to Mars. It wouldn't matter what else they did. they would be remembered forever in history.
Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain are mostly known for their helping of Columbus. That was their claim to historical fame. For many people this is the only thing they know of these people. The fact that they were also leaders of the Spanish Inquisition, while still important, has been overshadowed by their funding of the discovery of the New World.