|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
 Posted - 02/28/2010 : 22:49:17
|
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2010/03/01/AW_03_01_2010_p24-207699.xml&headline=Technology%20Would%20Shape%20New%20NASA
Any thoughts?
Even being somewhat of a capitalist, I question whether private industry can support space flight in the near future -- or if it can, it may require de facto public funding without the public oversight of NASA. For such a program to be viable for a private company, there would have to be enough financial incentive, which I am afraid will mean a less open scientific community -- i.e. if they are footing the bill for R&D, they will want to control any technologies relevant to space flight they develop.
Another set of issues are more immediate, but possibly temporary. There are expected to be some 9,000 NASA/contractor workers laid off in and around Kennedy Space Center, where the shuttles/rockets launch, which will certainly cause other job losses in the area for other businesses outside the industry in the area (Orlando's local news predicted 14,000 of those, however reliable that may be). Possibly the change is still a good move, and this is just a local loss that helps the greater well-being of the industry. Then of course there are expected to be more job losses in other locations, not sure of the numbers in those places (Houston, Huntsville Alabama, etc).
Beyond that, none of the private companies have actually have these vehicles yet, or tested much of anything. There are a few more manned shuttle launches planned, the last one being November of this year. So, between November and the development and testing of commercial alternatives, the U.S. will rely on the shuttles/rockets of Russia and some countries. (I don't mean to say Russia to convey any negative connotation, I just don't remember which other countries have suitable programs and Russia is one of the major ones.) This means perhaps an extra element of friction to scientific advancement in the near term.
The cost of cancellation of the program that was meant to be the successor of the current ones is expected to cost $2.5 billion in voided contracts and things like that, meaning a wasted $2.5 billion plus some portion of the previous investment in the program. (I would expect some of the costs already paid would at least be useful to the future efforts.)
|
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2010 : 13:35:34 [Permalink]
|
Bad idea. Private industry's sole goal is to make money. Inevitably, they will try to increase profit by cutting corners and lowering costs: subcontracting to the lowest bidder, hiring the cheapest labor, using cheaper materials, shortcutting quality control, etc. It's debatable whether airlines are able to make it work, with recent revelations of poorly maintained planes and the laying off of the most experienced pilots (i.e. "old") for the sake of hiring younger (i.e. lower annual salary) ones. Space travel has zero room for error and tolerances need to be exact. A malfunction that would be recoverable in a jetliner would be certain death for astronauts.
Additionally, space travel is a phenomenally expensive endeavor and I don't know how they intend to make money. Are they supposing that governments are their primary customers? |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2010 : 17:08:55 [Permalink]
|
| I'm in a rush so I haven't read it yet, but I always have to chuckle at the "Let private industry do it!" screamers. What's been stopping private industry? Nothing! Except the fact that they don't want to spend megabucks for very risky ventures with no guarantee of reward. You can't sell exploration for money, and you won't make much dinero selling bottles of 'Authentic Space Vacuum!' If there was any profit they would have been firing rockets off decades ago. |
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2010 : 18:25:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by The Rat
I'm in a rush so I haven't read it yet, but I always have to chuckle at the "Let private industry do it!" screamers. What's been stopping private industry? Nothing! Except the fact that they don't want to spend megabucks for very risky ventures with no guarantee of reward. You can't sell exploration for money, and you won't make much dinero selling bottles of 'Authentic Space Vacuum!' If there was any profit they would have been firing rockets off decades ago.
|
Seems like somewhat of an odd policy for Obama to propose, sounds more like something a more business-oriented Republican would want to do. The idea is for government to put a lot more money into the private companies which I assume is meant to increase their incentive. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 03/01/2010 18:29:26 |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2010 : 18:28:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Fripp
Bad idea. Private industry's sole goal is to make money. Inevitably, they will try to increase profit by cutting corners and lowering costs: subcontracting to the lowest bidder, hiring the cheapest labor, using cheaper materials, shortcutting quality control, etc. Space travel has zero room for error and tolerances need to be exact. A malfunction that would be recoverable in a jetliner would be certain death for astronauts. |
I don't see why private companies would be more apt to cut corners. Purely from a monetary standpoint, sending a failed rocket is not conducive to a good return on investment. They need to get some useful research results for it to be worth anything. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2010 : 07:42:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I don't see why private companies would be more apt to cut corners. Purely from a monetary standpoint, sending a failed rocket is not conducive to a good return on investment. They need to get some useful research results for it to be worth anything.
|
The exploding rear tank of the Pinto; the shabbily maintained JetBlue jet that crashed into a swamp; the auto companies that calculated that it would be far cheaper to pay out for lawsuits of wrongful death than to improve the safety of vehicles; all examples of corporate cost-cutting that was unconcerned with public image and ROI. I'm not saying that a company would intentionally send up a failed rocket. IMO, (and this is merely opinion), companies would be more apt to see how far they could cut corners and shave off expenses before it results in catastrophe
Regarding Dave's "lowest bidder" post: after I wrote my post, I did consider that, especially considering what Wally Schirra said at one point (at least I think it was Schirra; I've heard it attributed to others) when someone asked what he was thinking when a rocket started liftoff. His response: "Oh my God, this was built by the lowest bidder."
Perhaps the difference is that NASA, at that point, set the standards and kept tight oversight. Perhaps not. It could then be argued that the same procedure could be followed here. All-in-all, I still feel that public R & D is necessary (there used to be a ?National Science Foundation? (the name is probably incorrect) that would invent or discover a new technology then hand over the knowledge and rights for private industry to freely expand on it. I think 'open source' could be a good model. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2010 : 13:02:17 [Permalink]
|
One minor point I'd like to make is that the ballyhooed Virgin Galactic is in no way seriously into the space business. Their ships only plan to provide a brief foray for adventurous billionaires into what is technically outer space. They will not reach anything even approaching orbital velocities. They will achieve altitude, not speed.
I think there's a tendency for the public to assume that existing private enterprises provide an alternative for boosting people and cargo to orbit. They don't. For that, there's only NASA and the Russians. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/04/2010 13:04:24 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2010 : 00:28:31 [Permalink]
|
The thing everyone leaves off NASA's infamous "lowest bidder" contracts is that it should be "lowest bidder that can provide <insert technical specification here>". If it didn't meet the specs, they didn't buy/use it.
Also, private industry is not ever going to spend the kind of money required to start a space program. That is an investment only government level (OK, maybe Exxon/Mobil could do it...) entities can afford to make because there is almost no return on that investment.
Exploration is always an expense. Now, if there were some plan to boost a large asteroid into earth/moon orbit and harvest the raw materials, and if such an operation could be run for a profit... private companies would be all over a piece of that action. Too bad the initial tech development is out of reach unless you have billions of dollars you intend to initially lose.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2010 : 03:59:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
For that, there's only NASA and the Russians.
|
...and the emerging Asian giants: China and India.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2010 : 04:03:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Exploration is always an expense. Now, if there were some plan to boost a large asteroid into earth/moon orbit and harvest the raw materials, and if such an operation could be run for a profit... private companies would be all over a piece of that action. Too bad the initial tech development is out of reach unless you have billions of dollars you intend to initially lose.
|
Time to plug http://www.permanent.com/
P rojects to
E mploy
R esources of the
M oon and
A steroids
N ear
E arth in the
N ear
T erm
I'm not sure how serious they really are, but for a dreamer like me... I love to browse that site.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 23:23:25 [Permalink]
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/science/space/09nasa.html
Glad to hear Obama is planning a conference to discuss NASA's future next month, hopefully it isn't too politicized. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
NASA's "New Direction"
