![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Rand Simberg wrote:
I have some more commentary on the Gehman report, and why we should not build "the" next generation launch system. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95930,00.html While I agree that a thriving commercial launch industry is far better than a single government funded vehicle, I'm less in agreement that the government should be out of the business entirely. It seems to me (rightly or not) that the *current* state of human space presence is more like shipbuilding than anything else. I'll leave out the shipbuilding editorial and state only that the US government specifically subsidizes US shipyards to keep them in business in order to assure US shipbuilding expertise is not lost. With no current demand for *commercial* human presence in space, there is, correspondingly, no current demand for commercial launch vehicles. While a significant argument can be made for the idea that there will never be commercial demand as long as the government is in the business, an alternative argument can be made that the government really needs to maintain a guaranteed human access to space. If that means a much scaled back NASA, performing pure research ONLY (no commercial stuff - let industry spring up to satisfy that need), then I'm all in favour of it. As long as we have guaranteed civilian access. --buck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Charles Lindbergh: Aviation, the Cosmos, and the Future of Man | Kevin Alfred Strom | Space Science Misc | 0 | February 16th 04 12:03 PM |
Past Perfect, Future Misleading | Hop David | Space Science Misc | 67 | September 11th 03 07:25 PM |
Past Perfect, Future Misleading | stmx3 | Space Shuttle | 10 | September 8th 03 11:00 PM |
Past Perfect, Future Misleading | Hop David | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 28th 03 08:20 PM |