http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/leadership/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=224400495

Will someone please explain to me why the Republican's want the US to go back to the Moon. We've been there, it's nothing but dust.

Why the hell do Republicans want to take the US backwards in time and learn the same failing lessons again?

From a strictly scientific and economic standpoint, Obama's approach is correct. From a jobs creation and political fallout standpoint, this could cost Obama in some key swing states (mostly Florida) that have major manned flight operations or that have manufacturing jobs tied to the manned flight program.

But, yes, going back to the moon doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The whole idea is that it is easier to launch a Mars mission from there, but I seriously doubt it when you consider what kind of resources and time it would require to set up a fully functional station there.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

And don't forget!
Attachments:

In other space news, Obama envisions people on Mars.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/leadership/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=224400495

Lopter86 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/lea
> dership/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=224400495
>
> Will someone please explain to me why the
> Republican's want the US to go back to the Moon.
> We've been there, it's nothing but dust.
>
> Why the hell do Republicans want to take the US
> backwards in time and learn the same failing
> lessons again?

Spoken like a true Deomcratic. JFK would be disappointed to see what his party has become. Where there is no vision, the people perish.

Going to Mars without mastering near space - IE the Moon - seems like going into an Apollo 13 scenario already knowing it is going to happen. As much as I would like to see them go to Mars someday, it honestly makes more sense to establish a manufacturing presence on the Moon first. We could discover more materials there that will allow for easier manufacturing of components, finding a source of water that we wouldn't have to "heavy lift" from Earth, etc. At best we have scratched the surface of the Moon, and never taken a hard look at deposits that are available beneath the surface. In the grand scheme of things there is no potential payback to a Mars mission other than research, whereas they can accomplish much more locally, with a lot fewer resources, and potentially position themselves for the longer term. It will also be much easier to launch additional Mars probes from the Moon in the future. Figure if they could establish a large solar collector site they could easily power a mag-assist rail launcher or any number of other facilities.

I don't get why everyone is so fixated on Mars. Yes, we need to eventually try and visit every planet with "life potential" in our solar system one day - but it doesn't have to be now. If we don't establish a presence on the Moon now, we will likely end up having to pay exorbitant rates to whomever does hold that card.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2010 11:16AM by Registered Voter.

slipstream Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lopter86 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/lea
>
> > dership/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=224400495
> >
> > Will someone please explain to me why the
> > Republican's want the US to go back to the Moon.
>
> > We've been there, it's nothing but dust.
> >
> > Why the hell do Republicans want to take the US
> > backwards in time and learn the same failing
> > lessons again?
>
> Spoken like a true Deomcratic. JFK would be
> disappointed to see what his party has become.
> Where there is no vision, the people perish.


There was always a fair amount of skepticism about the supposed need to go back to the moon. The argument that the moon has the resources necessary to build a vessel capable of going to Mars and that the lighter gravity on the moon would make a launch easier was pretty thin. The fact is it would be a heck of a lot more cost effective and practical to build portions of the Mars vehicle on Earth and assemble it in orbit. With the international space station, you don't need an orbiter fleet to accomplish this, either.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Here is who is in charge of Democratic Space Policy:


"The Congressional bonehead award goes to Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) who, on a visit to JPL, asked if Mars Pathfinder had taken an image of the flag planted there in 1969 by Neil Armstrong! Quipped Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) to the Washington Times: "We just don't teach enough science." Worse, Jackson Lee, who represents Houston, is a member of the House Science Committee's space subcommittee. Perhaps some committee reassignments are in order..."

Maybe she can play tip the island with Hank Johnson.

Earth to Republicans, WE NOW KNOW THE MOON IS A GIANT ROCK TRAPPED IN THE EARTH'S ORBIT.

I'm surprised Republicans aren't using the old "We never really went to the moon and now we need to go."

Could we send the Republicans to the moon? Would that make them happy?

Lopter58 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Earth to Republicans, WE NOW KNOW THE MOON IS A
> GIANT ROCK TRAPPED IN THE EARTH'S ORBIT.

EARTH TO FERDINAND AND ISABELLA. WE KNOW COLUMBUS DISCOVERED A NEW CONTINENT PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN TO THE EUROPEANS. NO NEED TO GO BACK.

> I'm surprised Republicans aren't using the old "We
> never really went to the moon and now we need to
> go."

Well, according to Democrats an astronaut already planted a flag on Mars, so no need to go back there, right?


Are all Democratics as shortsighted as you, or do you just overcompensate in an attempt to make the rest look more intelligent?

Well we at least need to go back and build a moat around the U.S. flag and maybe make a few Space Ants honorary U.S. enlisted soldiers, to guard the moat and flag till we get around to making a space station there.

We either go back to the Moon, and build a base there for once-and-for all, or the Chinese beat us to it. You tell me, what's the grandeur in having planted the first flag there, if the Chinese then end up with the first actual outpost?

Also, we need the Moon as a launch point for Mars, and beyond. You only need a fraction of the thrust necessary on Earth, in order to leave Lunar orbit, and therefore it will be a refueling station for outer Solar System exploration missions. There are a multitude of reasons to get back to the Moon, all of which are worthy, and realistic.

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From a strictly scientific and economic
> standpoint, Obama's approach is correct. From a
> jobs creation and political fallout standpoint,
> this could cost Obama in some key swing states
> (mostly Florida) that have major manned flight
> operations or that have manufacturing jobs tied to
> the manned flight program.
>
> But, yes, going back to the moon doesn't make a
> whole lot of sense. The whole idea is that it is
> easier to launch a Mars mission from there, but I
> seriously doubt it when you consider what kind of
> resources and time it would require to set up a
> fully functional station there.


At the very least, people need to think of the Moon as a KC-135 Stratotanker, and an outer Solar System bound spacecraft as a B2 Bomber. Without the mid-flight refueling capability, our range is extremely limited, and thus by default so are our missions.

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> At the very least, people need to think of the
> Moon as a KC-135 Stratotanker, and an outer Solar
> System bound spacecraft as a B2 Bomber. Without
> the mid-flight refueling capability, our range is
> extremely limited, and thus by default so are our
> missions.


Using your analogy, planes out of Andrews AFB are refueling over the Chesapeake Bay for trips to Russia. It's a huge commitment of resources for a very marginal return. It would make more sense to assemble the vessel in Earth orbit where materials can be sent to it in a matter of hours from the Earth versus spending decades trying to make a moon base capable of supporting the construction of such a large project.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ThePackLeader Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> > At the very least, people need to think of the
> > Moon as a KC-135 Stratotanker, and an outer
> Solar
> > System bound spacecraft as a B2 Bomber. Without
> > the mid-flight refueling capability, our range
> is
> > extremely limited, and thus by default so are
> our
> > missions.
>
>
> Using your analogy, planes out of Andrews AFB are
> refueling over the Chesapeake Bay for trips to
> Russia. It's a huge commitment of resources for a
> very marginal return. It would make more sense to
> assemble the vessel in Earth orbit where materials
> can be sent to it in a matter of hours from the
> Earth versus spending decades trying to make a
> moon base capable of supporting the construction
> of such a large project.


Only if it takes an entire tank of fuel to lift off from Andrews is YOUR analogy even close to correct.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

This is cool technology.

3-D Printing Device Could Build Moon Base from Lunar Dust
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/3-d-printer-moon-base-100416.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+spaceheadlines+%28SPACE.com+Headline+Feed%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

How NASA Hopes to Mine Water on the Moon
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/090930-tw-tapping-moon-water.html

Moon Dust Could Be Used to Build Lunar Lodgings
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080604-lunar-concrete.html

It's amazing how much has already been invested in this effort - and now we just want to walk away from it and risk everything on a high(er) risk flight to Mars.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

This is why politicians shouldn't be allowed to determine priorities. They're fucking morons.

The problem isn't getting back to the moon. The problem is how we get into orbit. It's too expensive at $10,000 a pound to put anything into orbit. Even the private companies working on this problem haven't reduced the cost by much. You'd need to get down to $1,000 or $100 a pound before you can get any kind of real economic value out of going into space.

At $10,000 a pound it costs billions to put a crew, their equipment, and their ship into orbit. And that's not counting the cost of doing anything. You're already billions in the hole and you haven't actually done anything yet.

Even if you found a supply of the most valuable substance known to man floating in space, it wouldn't be worth what you paid getting into orbit, getting to and from the spot, and then getting it back down to earth.

Bring it down to $100 a pound and you're in business.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2010 07:50AM by boredom.

boredom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is why politicians shouldn't be allowed to
> determine priorities. They're fucking morons.
>
> The problem isn't getting back to the moon. The
> problem is how we get into orbit. It's too
> expensive at $10,000 a pound to put anything into
> orbit. Even the private companies working on this
> problem haven't reduced the cost by much. You'd
> need to get down to $1,000 or $100 a pound before
> you can get any kind of real economic value out of
> going into space.
>
> At $10,000 a pound it costs billions to put a
> crew, their equipment, and their ship into orbit.
> And that's not counting the cost of doing
> anything. You're already billions in the hole and
> you haven't actually done anything yet.
>
> Even if you found a supply of the most valuable
> substance known to man floating in space, it
> wouldn't be worth what you paid getting into
> orbit, getting to and from the spot, and then
> getting it back down to earth.
>
> Bring it down to $100 a pound and you're in
> business.




THE MYTH OF THE $10,000 PER POUND LAUNCH COST

No matter who is the service provider, space launch costs are staggeringly high. Driving down the cost of launch has been the subject of a host of studies and government panels, and the buzzwords of many a corporate business presentation to meetings and seminars. It was the idea behind the X-33, X-34, and the Space Launch Initiative (SLI). It drove the Air Force from heavy-lift reliance upon the Titan IV to the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle. And so far it has eluded every effort (the Delta IV and Atlas V may mark major progress in reducing launch costs for cargoes, but both vehicles have yet to fly and the Delta IV has been delayed until May, 2002).

But new data published as an appendix to a military space study done by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments suggest that, while expendable launch costs are indeed high, they don't fall in the $10,000/lb + range-at least not to low orbit (GTO, well that's another case as we shall see). In the study entitled The Military Use of Space: A Diagnostic Assessment analyst Barry D. Watts reviews a host of technological areas needed for the U.S. national security space interests. He quotes data compiled by Greg Lucas and Charles Murphy in Appendix 4 of the study (contact the center at csbaonline.org or 202-331-7990 to get a copy). Here are the data as published, broken down by 16 LEO-capable launch vehicles and 10 GTO boosters, in ascending lift capability order:


CURRENT COMMERCIAL LAUNCH COSTS TO LOW EARTH ORBIT*
(As published by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments)


LAUNCHER LBS TO LEO RANGE OF LAUNCHER COSTS PER LB MIN/MAX
PAY.COSTS
Proton 44,200 $75-$95 M $1697/$2149
Ariane 5 39,600 $150-180 M $3788/$4545
Sea Launch 35,000 $75-$95 M $2143/$2714
Zenit 2 30,000 $35-$50 M $1167/$1667
LM-3B 29,900 $50-$70 M $1672/$2341
Ariane 4 21,000 $100-$125 M $4762/$5952
Atlas 2 19,050 $90-$105 M $4724/$5512
Delta 3 18,280 $75-$90 M $4103/$4923
Soyuz 5,400 $35-$40 M $2273/$2597
Delta 2 11,220 $45-$55 M $4011/$4902
LM-2C 7,040 $20-$25 M $2841/$3551
Athena 04,350 $22-$26 M $5057/$5977
Rockot 04,100 $12-$15 M $2927/$3659
Taurus 03,100 $18-$20 M $5806/$6452
Pegasus 03,300 $12-$15 M $3636/$4545
START 01,543 $5-$10 M $3240/$6481

Republican desires to go the moon is merely a jingoistic response to the Chinese desire to do so. We certainly wouldnt want the Chinese to bask in international admiration for such an accomplishment.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

And, "Sorry boredom", you are the perfect example of why you should COMPREHEND BEFORE YOU POST.

The figures you quoted are for costs to reach Low Earth Orbit. LEO is otherwise defined as any space mission that does not pass beyond, approximately, 2,000km from the surface of the earth.

If you had bothered to post the remaining figures from the Spacelift Washington article (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=301), you would see that the cost to reach Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit, which you would have to do (and move beyond) in order to reach the Moon, Mars, any neighboring asteroid, is between $9,243 and $11,243 per pound.

AKA, what you'd have to do to make any sort of profit, mine any minerals, plant anything on the moon, mars, etc.

So again, saying, "$10,000 per pound" is a ballpark figure that quite obviously understates the true cost of getting BEYOND Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit.

There are figures that currently place the cost per pound of getting to the moon and back with rock samples falls at a cost of at least $3,000,000 per pound.

You are correct in that the cost to get into low earth orbit is well below $10,000 per pound, but it is still, on average, far too expensive.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2010 11:57PM by boredom.

The last time I watched the NASA channel it took two hours to remove a screw from the space station. I can only imagine how long it would take to build something on the moon.

Apollo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The last time I watched the NASA channel it took
> two hours to remove a screw from the space
> station. I can only imagine how long it would
> take to build something on the moon.

I'd love to sit down with an astronaut and ask them about that kind of thing. Is it the suits that make work difficult, the environment, the tools, some arbitrary safety policy where you have to move really really slowly, or is it really a case of "if you make even a slightly overpowered move, you're going to lose control"?

They bitch about spending and now they want to fly to the moon?

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is cool technology.
>
> 3-D Printing Device Could Build Moon Base from
> Lunar Dust
> http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/3-d-printe
> r-moon-base-100416.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_
> medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+spaceheadlines+%2
> 8SPACE.com+Headline+Feed%29&utm_content=Google+Fee
> dfetcher
>
> How NASA Hopes to Mine Water on the Moon
> http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/090930-tw-
> tapping-moon-water.html
>
> Moon Dust Could Be Used to Build Lunar Lodgings
> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080604-lunar
> -concrete.html
>
> It's amazing how much has already been invested in
> this effort - and now we just want to walk away
> from it and risk everything on a high(er) risk
> flight to Mars.


Think for a minute what it would take to build a base on the moon that is capable of making the material to build a spaceship capable of going to Mars. You have to have digging equipment, equipment capable of processing what has been dug up, machinery to fashion these materials into a spacecraft, etc. You talk about the cost of getting water into space. What's the cost of getting enough oxygen to the moon to run the kilns needed to process the material we dig up? It would be 50 years of work to get to that point. How many Congresses and Presidents are going to be tempted to cut funding over that time?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Syphilis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They bitch about spending and now they want to fly
> to the moon?


+1

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This is cool technology.
> >
> > 3-D Printing Device Could Build Moon Base from
> > Lunar Dust
> >
> http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/3-d-printe
>
> >
> r-moon-base-100416.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_
>
> >
> medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+spaceheadlines+%2
>
> >
> 8SPACE.com+Headline+Feed%29&utm_content=Google+Fee
>
> > dfetcher
> >
> > How NASA Hopes to Mine Water on the Moon
> >
> http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/090930-tw-
>
> > tapping-moon-water.html
> >
> > Moon Dust Could Be Used to Build Lunar Lodgings
>
> >
> http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080604-lunar
>
> > -concrete.html
> >
> > It's amazing how much has already been invested
> in
> > this effort - and now we just want to walk away
> > from it and risk everything on a high(er) risk
> > flight to Mars.
>
>
> Think for a minute what it would take to build a
> base on the moon that is capable of making the
> material to build a spaceship capable of going to
> Mars. You have to have digging equipment,
> equipment capable of processing what has been dug
> up, machinery to fashion these materials into a
> spacecraft, etc. You talk about the cost of
> getting water into space. What's the cost of
> getting enough oxygen to the moon to run the kilns
> needed to process the material we dig up? It would
> be 50 years of work to get to that point. How many
> Congresses and Presidents are going to be tempted
> to cut funding over that time?

Sure, and what will happen with one mission to mars where everyone dies?

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Republican desires to go the moon is merely a
> jingoistic response to the Chinese desire to do
> so. We certainly wouldnt want the Chinese to bask
> in international admiration for such an
> accomplishment.

Wiki Jingoism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingoism

Quote

In practice, it refers to the advocation of the use of threats or actual force against other countries in order to safeguard what they perceive as their country's national interests, and colloquially to excessive bias in judging one's own country as superior to others – an extreme type of nationalism.

Explain again how going to the Moon is aggressive foreign policy? Maybe you should just STFU as usual when you throw words out Vince. Fucking idiot.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2010 03:33PM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
How
> many
> > Congresses and Presidents are going to be
> tempted
> > to cut funding over that time?
>
> Sure, and what will happen with one mission to
> mars where everyone dies?


Please point to the data that show that a manned mission is more prone to fail if it launches out of Earth orbit versus from the Moon.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

What I think is funny is all of these Republicans screaming that private companies can't do space shots. Because, you know, only the government can succeed where the free market will fail. Fucking socialists!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I think is funny is all of these Republicans
> screaming that private companies can't do space
> shots. Because, you know, only the government can
> succeed where the free market will fail. Fucking
> socialists!!


+!

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

i think we need to start colonizing the moon, so when we eventually blow ourselves up, maybe the human race can survive.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I think is funny is all of these Republicans
> screaming that private companies can't do space
> shots. Because, you know, only the government can
> succeed where the free market will fail. Fucking
> socialists!!

Which ones are saying private companies can't do space shots?

curious cat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


>
> Which ones are saying private companies can't do
> space shots?


All of the ones that have NASA operations in their home districts or states.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> curious cat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> >
> > Which ones are saying private companies can't
> do
> > space shots?
>
>
> All of the ones that have NASA operations in their
> home districts or states.

Do you have any articles? I am not trying to play gotchya, I am interested in the subject and haven't read or seen any info on that. Thanks

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I think is funny is all of these Republicans
> screaming that private companies can't do space
> shots. Because, you know, only the government can
> succeed where the free market will fail. Fucking
> socialists!!

+2

The construction of an outpost on the moon reminds me of Alcatraz.

Alcatraz was a very effective prison for holding the nation's worst criminals, but it was too damn expensive to operate because it was on an island. That island was *only* one mile from San Francisco. If that makes it too expensive to maintain something as simple as a prison, how the hell is the moon going to be a cost effective outpost for anything?

IMO, there is no reason to attempt to build a moonbase unless we find some great resource up there. In the absence of that, space funding is probably best spent setting up things like satelites, telescopes, and robotic missions. We're generating a lot of great data out of these instruments.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> How
> > many
> > > Congresses and Presidents are going to be
> > tempted
> > > to cut funding over that time?
> >
> > Sure, and what will happen with one mission to
> > mars where everyone dies?
>
>
> Please point to the data that show that a manned
> mission is more prone to fail if it launches out
> of Earth orbit versus from the Moon.

I'm not. I am saying we don't have the technology to do this with any chance of a significant return. It would be different if they could go out there with a cargo hauler, and come back with tons of samples and materials - but all it will be is a fly-by, maybe a landing, and then a return. The chance for failure on that long a trip is MUCH more significant than any Earth-to-moon transfer.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I think is funny is all of these Republicans
> screaming that private companies can't do space
> shots. Because, you know, only the government can
> succeed where the free market will fail. Fucking
> socialists!!

That isn't why they are downplaying private companies WTL. Space right now, especially for basing and manufacturing, is almost inherently a military operation. A private contractor might get up in space and setup a base - are they considered US property (assuming a US company)? Where do they fall territorially? Does a private company just land, setup shop and say "Mine!"?

It is great that private companies are involved in competing for the technology, and also for new space-planes and ground to orbit/re-entry vehicles. The problem really comes in what happens once a base is established.

The other problem with private companies doing space orbit vehicles is controls on technology, and the potential for orbital ballistic flight launch systems (weapons) getting out of the hands of the military. No one is saying private companies should not do them because of the costs.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> That isn't why they are downplaying private
> companies WTL. Space right now, especially for
> basing and manufacturing, is almost inherently a
> military operation. A private contractor might get
> up in space and setup a base - are they considered
> US property (assuming a US company)? Where do they
> fall territorially? Does a private company just
> land, setup shop and say "Mine!"?
>
> It is great that private companies are involved in
> competing for the technology, and also for new
> space-planes and ground to orbit/re-entry
> vehicles. The problem really comes in what happens
> once a base is established.
>
> The other problem with private companies doing
> space orbit vehicles is controls on technology,
> and the potential for orbital ballistic flight
> launch systems (weapons) getting out of the hands
> of the military. No one is saying private
> companies should not do them because of the costs.

First, no one is saying private companies are going to the moon. The issue is that Obama wants to use private companies for orbital launches and maintenance flights. Second, it's not about weapons systems either.

The proposal is to have private companies take over the responsibilities of the space shuttle. Republicans are all up in arms about this, but the fact is the shuttle hasn't been improved upon since the 1970s. Because of NASA, our space program is actually BEHIND where we were when we landed on the moon.

By using private companies to do some of this work, you may see the innovation you saw when private companies jumped into the Internet (which had been set up by the government). The big beef of Republicans is supposedly that private companies can't handle the work. But they won't be able to...EVER...if they aren't given the opportunity.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First, no one is saying private companies are
> going to the moon. The issue is that Obama wants
> to use private companies for orbital launches and
> maintenance flights. Second, it's not about
> weapons systems either.
>
> The proposal is to have private companies take
> over the responsibilities of the space shuttle.
> Republicans are all up in arms about this, but the
> fact is the shuttle hasn't been improved upon
> since the 1970s. Because of NASA, our space
> program is actually BEHIND where we were when we
> landed on the moon.
>
> By using private companies to do some of this
> work, you may see the innovation you saw when
> private companies jumped into the Internet (which
> had been set up by the government). The big beef
> of Republicans is supposedly that private
> companies can't handle the work. But they won't be
> able to...EVER...if they aren't given the
> opportunity.

What does this have to do with the moon or mars again? Sure, they can use private companies for some of the work. And we aren't behind BECAUSE of NASA - we are behind because of the funding issues NASA deals with on launch vehicles and systems. The constant back and forth on their budget doesn't really give them a lot of money to "innovate" like they used to do in the old days when Kennedy, LBJ and others gave them massive funding. Right now they can go to ESA or Russia for launches - which they are doing. When a private company shows they have the lift capability with low failure rates, then sure, give them contracts. Right now they haven't really gotten there yet have they? The way you are talking, we should provide more government money to private companies then for developing a commercial product? Otherwise we already have lifting bodies for putting shit in orbit.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Yeah, Bush had the "war on science."

>
> What does this have to do with the moon or mars
> again? Sure, they can use private companies for
> some of the work. And we aren't behind BECAUSE of
> NASA - we are behind because of the funding issues
> NASA deals with on launch vehicles and systems.
> The constant back and forth on their budget
> doesn't really give them a lot of money to
> "innovate" like they used to do in the old days
> when Kennedy, LBJ and others gave them massive
> funding. Right now they can go to ESA or Russia
> for launches - which they are doing. When a
> private company shows they have the lift
> capability with low failure rates, then sure, give
> them contracts. Right now they haven't really
> gotten there yet have they? The way you are
> talking, we should provide more government money
> to private companies then for developing a
> commercial product? Otherwise we already have
> lifting bodies for putting shit in orbit.


Imagine that, give a Govt Agency with a steady fat budget and they innovate effectively. What a concept! We should try that with the supposed "entitlement" programs. The fact is NASA always used commercial firms to perform the critical portions of their mission...design..construction. They were in effect largely contract administraators. In the early days there was no commercial demand for space airlift...now there is a ton. So now it is time for the Govt to get out of the earth orbot space business. Obama has laid out a plan for space exploration and NASA will lead that effort.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2010 05:34AM by Vince(1).