What's Wrong With NASA?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Pax
IMHO,
There is too much emphasis on safety. If you want to go into space you should accept that there is a small chance you will DIE. I think that we would have moved further along the path of exploration if almost every aspect of space travel was not government controlled.

Yeah, like the American public would tolerate more disasters.

Originally posted by Pax
I also think that the U.S. should have a government space program that is not a monopoly.

What monopoly? The Europeans, Russians, Japanese and Chinese have space programs.

And there's nothing stopping the private sector from doing these programs, but the private sector won't do it because much of what NASA does is science with no immediate return and the private sector is not going to invest hundreds of billions of dollars into something that won't create a profit in the next quarter.

The private sector space programs being developed now are limited compared to what governments are doing, and based on a very small number of rich people with money to throw away.

[DanS]

The private sector space programs being developed now are limited compared to what governments are doing

I'm sorry but that's wrong with regard to human space flight. Flat wrong. In most respects, they are much more ambitious.

I can detail these efforts, if you wish.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DanS
Let me put it this way. If you want to do a scientific experiment on the Shuttle, then the waiting list is decades long. As a scientist, you can't do effective scientific research this way. You'll retire before making any headway. The results just aren't timely enough to be of any use.

And the reason why there is such a long list... Is because many scientists see the value, and want the oppotunity, to do these experiments so obvious there is a value and it is timely for those who get their experiments on the missions.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DanS


I'm sorry but that's wrong with regard to human space flight. Flat wrong. In most respects, they are much more ambitious.

I can detail these efforts, if you wish.

Go ahead. There has been one flight into the outer reaches of the earth's atmosphere.

The private sector is incapable of funding substantial space exploration.

[DanS]

And the reason why there is such a long list... Is because many scientists see the value, and want the oppotunity, to do these experiments so obvious there is a value and it is timely for those who get their experiments on the missions.

The demand might be there, but the supply of Shuttle research time is miniscule.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Tingkai

Yeah, like the American public would tolerate more disasters.



What monopoly? The Europeans, Russians, Japanese and Chinese have space programs.

And there's nothing stopping the private sector from doing these programs, but the private sector won't do it because much of what NASA does is science with no immediate return and the private sector is not going to invest hundreds of billions of dollars into something that won't create a profit in the next quarter.

The private sector space programs being developed now are limited compared to what governments are doing, and based on a very small number of rich people with money to throw away.

I'm saying that the Americans, the government and astronauts should all accept the risk/likelihood of eventual deaths.

All the space programs you mentioned are basically monopolies in there countries. At least, in america there are regulations and restrictions on information that would prevent most private corporations from attempting to get into space.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DanS


The demand might be there, but the supply of Shuttle research time is miniscule.

Only because there is a lack of funding.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Pax

I'm saying that the Americans, the government and astronauts should all accept the risk/likelihood of eventual deaths.

Yes, I think we agree that the idea of exploring space without accidents is stupid.

Originally posted by Pax
All the space programs you mentioned are basically monopolies in there countries. At least, in america there are regulations and restrictions on information that would prevent most private corporations from attempting to get into space.

But there is nothing stopping the private sector from developing space flight, except for the fact that it is not a profitable enterprise so the private sector won't do it. The lack of private sector space exploration has nothing to do with rules and regulations. It's just a function of the capitalist system. This is why we need government programs like NASA.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Go ahead. There has been one flight into the outer reaches of the earth's atmosphere.

The private sector is incapable of funding substantial space exploration.

Bigelow Aerospace is pursuing an R&D track of expandable space station modules. The near-term goal (~ 5 years) is to launch a $100 million module that provides on-orbit volume equal to the size of the ISS as currently constructed and is an order of magnitude safer. The R&D is fully funded to the tune of about $500 million.

SpaceX is pursuing a manned capsule capable of launching 5 or 6 astronauts at a cost of about $25 million a launch. This is expected by the end of the decade. The first round of R&D is fully funded to the tune of about $100 million.

These are not the suborbital efforts about which you are thinking.

[Pax]

My point Tingkai is that somewhere on a shelf is a design for a spaceship that works better than the current shuttle but we can't use that because it has not been approved by the government and in order to get approval it would have to go through this massive bureacratic gauntlet and to get funding for it we would have to subsidize farming in Iowa increasing the cost and safety changes would have to be made that would increase the weight of the ship, increasing the size, increasing the fuel requirements, increasing the cost and etc..
i'd rather allocate a region of desert that would allow the risk takers to experiment and die and discover. In the Spirit of Columbus and Magellan.

[DanS]

But there is nothing stopping the private sector from developing space flight, except for the fact that it is not a profitable enterprise so the private sector won't do it.

You're too late. They are doing it.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Pax
My point Tingkai is that somewhere on a shelf is a design for a spaceship that works better than the current shuttle but we can't use that because it has not been approved by the government.

Do you know that for a fact? If it is true, I'd like to hear about it.

[chequita guevara]

The reason why everythin is inventoried and tripple checked is because of anti-waste programs.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DanS

Bigelow Aerospace is pursuing an R&D track of expandable space station modules. The near-term goal (~ 5 years) is to launch a $100 million module that provides on-orbit volume equal to the size of the ISS as currently constructed and is an order of magnitude safer. The R&D is fully funded to the tune of about $500 million.

SpaceX is pursuing a manned capsule capable of launching 5 or 6 astronauts at a cost of about $25 million a launch. This is expected by the end of the decade. The first round of R&D is fully funded to the tune of about $100 million.

These are not the suborbital efforts about which you are thinking.

So after decades of space flight we have a couple of companies making a huge gamble, one that is likely to build on work done by NASA.

And where is the money coming from. Odds are that it is coming from billionares who have no real expectation of making a profit.

Again, it's not substantial exploration. It's simply the pipe dream of some billionaires and it is likely to end up like previous underfunded attempts at getting into space.

$100 million, or $500 million is piss in the pot when we're dealing with advanced technology like space exploration.

[DanS]

So after decades of space flight we have a couple of companies making a huge gamble, one that is likely to build on work done by NASA.

All things new require a large gamble. There is no shame in it. Also, there's no shame in building on the experience and mistakes of NASA.

And where is the money coming from. Odds are that it is coming from billionares who have no real expectation of making a profit.

On the contrary, they expect to make a profit. That might not be the primary reason they are doing it, but they know that if their programs don't make money, then their programs will not be sustainable.

$100 million, or $500 million is piss in the pot when we're dealing with advanced technology like space exploration.

Yes, it's not much money compared with what NASA consumes. That's the point. You can be rather more ambitious in what you want to do, if your costs are low. In any event, I'm afraid to say that this is all 40 year old technology. Hardly cutting edge.