|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
LEO Industry vs Socialist Space Program WAS: ( Socialists in Space)
Geoffrey A. Landis wrote:
In fact, by your definitions the space launch record to date has been socialists 100, capitalists zero. Yes, and that's the reason for the extremely slow pace, if not stagnant, of human space travel. We're coming up on the 100 year anniversary of heavier than air human flight, which most definitely occurred under a capitalist system. We're also coming up on the fiftieth anniversary of human space travel. When you compare the two what do you get. In the first fifty years there were hundreds of companies producing thousands (probably tens of thousands) of designs of different aircraft. A broad base of a huge pyramid of capitalist endeavor, all trying to build a better aircraft. At the end of fifty years, commercial air travel was a reality and a thriving aerospace industry had developed. This huge base of a capitalist pyramid is what got us to where we are today. Many of the companies went broke, others merged, and some were bought out. Like a huge Darwinian evolutionary process, capturing the creativity and innovation of a thousands different people to go higher, faster, longer, larger, cheaper, safer. Now we compare this to our "Socialist" space programs. It's not a pyramid, but a tower, like the tower of Babel. It can only go so high before the base can't support the weight above. One design, built on the top of another, with only seven floors. In the first fifty years of human space travel what do we have? Four different US vehicles, two Russian, and one Chinese. You don't even have to use all your fingers to count them. All creativity and innovation stifled, in a Socialist bureaucratic maze where if you can't prove your concept to a hundred different mediocre people whose best skill is a social one (they've got great social skills to move up the bureaucrat ladder), it never gets tried. At best, it only gets studied for a little while. Why? Like the tower of Babel, all that can be heard at the top of bureaucratic heap is the roar of thousand different voices all trying to build the next floor in a different direction, pulling, pushing, twisting, shoving. Trying to get the attention of the person at the top of the heap, whose trying to decide how to build the next floor. But he's constrained by what was built before, we can only go as high as the very narrow base (of tax dollars) will support. Recently, I had the opportunity to visit Washington DC. First time in twenty years or so. If you walk around the Smithsonian Institute Air and Space Museum, you wom't see two of same aircraft anywhere. There are so many aircraft, they can't possibly display them all, let alone possess one of each. Then you look at human space travel. There is such a vacuum that the Smithsonian has to have two Gemini and two Apollo capsules. Two of the exact same thing, in the same building because there isn't enough variety to choose from. I also had the opportunity to attend a Senate Hearing. That was interesting too. The last speaker on the panel, when asked how we should respond to the first manned flight of China essentially said, "Should we respond to the Chinese socialist space program with our own socialist space program, or should we respond with a capitalist space program?" We've already got a socialist space program, and it's crawling along at a snails pace. NASA should get out of the business of going to Low Earth Orbit and buy tickets. Preferably from a thriving capitalist space industry where they have tens, if not hundreds of choices of vehicles to choose from. When astronauts returns from the Space Station, they should be filling out an expense report that contains the price of a ticket to go to and from the Space Station. Just like they do when they do when they go to Washington to lobby for more funding. Getting NASA out of the LEO business (not even an industry) would free them up to do the things that the American people want to see. Manned exploration, which could also be used to prime the pump to a future thriving LEO space industry (much larger than a space program). One that doesn't use tax dollars, but creates them. Craig Fink |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
LEO Industry vs Socialist Space Program WAS: ( Socialists in Space)
Craig Fink wrote:
When you compare the two what do you get. In the first fifty years there were hundreds of companies producing thousands (probably tens of thousands) of designs of different aircraft. A broad base of a huge pyramid of capitalist endeavor, all trying to build a better aircraft. At the end of fifty years, commercial air travel was a reality and a thriving aerospace industry had developed. This huge base of a capitalist pyramid is what got us to where we are today. Many of the companies went broke, others merged, and some were bought out. Like a huge Darwinian evolutionary process, capturing the creativity and innovation of a thousands different people to go higher, faster, longer, larger, cheaper, safer. You're ignoring the impact of two world wars, both of which resulted in huge advances in aerospace technology, primarily as a result of a deluge of government funding. To ignore the impact of government intervention (from establishing subsidies for air mail deliveries, land grants for airports and military airfields, research subsidies, etc) is naive. -- Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D. Reformed Aerospace Engineer Remove invalid nonsense for email. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
LEO Industry vs Socialist Space Program WAS: ( Socialistsin Space)
Craig Fink wrote: When you compare the two what do you get. In the first fifty years there were hundreds of companies producing thousands (probably tens of thousands) of designs of different aircraft. A broad base of a huge pyramid of capitalist endeavor, all trying to build a better aircraft. At the end of fifty years, commercial air travel was a reality and a thriving aerospace industry had developed. Don't forget how much of the drive to build better aircraft was driven by the desire to sell them to the military, and how much R&D money came from the government for that purpose, as well as the sales to the government that kept the companies in business. With the exception of Boeing, Ford and Douglas, the major aircraft companies were all dependent on military aircraft sales to maintain their existence. Then there is NACA- which was government funded, and did a tremendous amount of basic research that aircraft companies used in their new designs. (wing profiles, ring cowlings for radial engines, the area rule, etc.) Pat |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
LEO Industry vs Socialist Space Program WAS: ( Socialists in Space)
OK, I'm back again....
Surely, the reason for the boom in flight was that applications could be seen for the technology, and the development costs were seen as OK for the potential returns. In the space arena, some commercial space involvement is profitable after all, the comms sats are nearly all commercial. Commercial enterprises will cherry pick, you won't find them doing science for its own sake, and sadly men in space has yet to have a cost effective use as far as the bean counters are concerned, so end of story. Brian -- Brian Gaff.... graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: __________________________________________________ __________________________ __________________________________ --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free, so there! Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.547 / Virus Database: 340 - Release Date: 02/12/03 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
LEO Industry vs Socialist Space Program WAS: ( Socialists in Space)
Herb Schaltegger lid wrote in message ...
To ignore the impact of government intervention (from establishing subsidies for air mail deliveries, land grants for airports and military airfields, research subsidies, etc) is naive. Which is precisely why, if NASA is going to continue to exist, they should be buying launch services from private companies rather than building their own spacecraft... provided that can be made to work without it becoming a welfare program to current aerospace companies. Mark |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
LEO Industry vs Socialist Space Program WAS: ( Socialists in Space)
In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote: Surely, the reason for the boom in flight was that applications could be seen for the technology, and the development costs were seen as OK for the potential returns. Less so than you would think. The US airlines and aviation industry were jump-started by government air-mail contracts, which were explicitly meant to encourage the advancement of aviation -- there was not that much actual customer demand, at the start, for really fast mail delivery. (Some, but not much.) Beware of thinking that because an application seems obvious now, it was equally obvious and immediately marketable then. History is full of cases of markets that were obvious only in hindsight. Nobody thought there was a market for shipping Texas cattle to Eastern stockyards by rail, until Joe McCoy tried it and discovered that the biggest problem was getting railroad cars built fast enough to match growth in demand. The application which could be seen for flight technology -- the reason why the US government wanted to encourage its advancement -- was military. Likewise for the Interstate Highway system: there was little commercial market for long-range road transport -- long-haul freight and passengers went by rail -- but the military wanted a national transportation system that was less vulnerable to air attack than the railroads. -- MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. | |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
LEO Industry vs Socialist Space Program WAS: ( Socialists inSpace)
In Mark wrote:
Which is precisely why, if NASA is going to continue to exist, they should be buying launch services from private companies They do. rather than building their own spacecraft. Spacecraft and launch vehicles are two different kinds of objects, of course... but NASA buys both commercially. -- Geoffrey A. Landis http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
LEO Industry vs Socialist Space Program WAS: ( Socialists inSpace)
Geoffrey A. Landis wrote:
rather than building their own spacecraft. Spacecraft and launch vehicles are two different kinds of objects, of course... but NASA buys both commercially. NASA buys both via the Government Procurement Process, from for-profit companies. 'commercially' is ... not right. -george william herbert |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
LEO Industry vs Socialist Space Program WAS: ( Socialists in Space)
In article ,
Geoffrey A. Landis wrote: Which is precisely why, if NASA is going to continue to exist, they should be buying launch services from private companies They do. Sometimes, and sometimes not. Shuttle launch is quite attractive to projects within NASA, even when there is nothing in the project which requires manned presence, because full costs are not charged back (and are difficult even to determine). Witness plans for shuttle launches for things like Triana and X-37. The proposal is that NASA should buy *all* its launch services from outside suppliers. rather than building their own spacecraft. Spacecraft and launch vehicles are two different kinds of objects, of course... but NASA buys both commercially. Sometimes, and sometimes not. Even when NASA does buy them, the process is semi-commercial at best, with "qualified supplier" rules often limiting bidding to the government's captive design bureaus. -- MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. | |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
LEO Industry vs Socialist Space Program WAS: ( Socialists in Space)
"Geoffrey A. Landis" wrote in message
... In Mark wrote: Which is precisely why, if NASA is going to continue to exist, they should be buying launch services from private companies They do. rather than building their own spacecraft. Spacecraft and launch vehicles are two different kinds of objects, of course... but NASA buys both commercially. -- Geoffrey A. Landis http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis NASA is supposed to develop technologies that aren't yet economically profitable. Which they WOULD do, if they ever finished a program they started. Patrick |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
Boeing Establishes Orbital Space Program Office | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | November 3rd 03 10:23 PM |
Chinese Space Program and Muslim World | James Oberg | Space Shuttle | 47 | October 22nd 03 08:17 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |
The Life and Death of Russia's Space Shuttle Program , from Pravda | Locz | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 4th 03 02:49 PM |