Two Anniversaries and Our (Private Sector) Future in Space

"Fifty-second and fifth. Those were the respective anniversaries
yesterday of Sputnik and the winning of the X-Prize. Both events shook
up the world of space policy and technology, each in their own way."

See:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/two-ann...ture-in-space/

wrote:
"Fifty-second and fifth. Those were the respective anniversaries
yesterday of Sputnik and the winning of the X-Prize. Both events shook
up the world of space policy and technology, each in their own way."

See:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/two-ann...ture-in-space/

So Rand ended up on Pajamas Media? Somehow that's no surprise, although
I doubt he and Charles Johnson spend much time shooting the breeze these
days. ;-)
Anyway, what the article misses is a basic fact about SpaceShipOne; and
that's that it cost far more to design and build than the prize money it
won... so it that's commercializing space, it's a very strange way to do
it, as it was a net money-losing operation.
I love this part of the article:

"Beyond that, it led to a new-found appreciation for the value of prizes
at NASA, though the potential has been held back by a penurious
Congress. Had the X-Prize not been successful, it’s unlikely that the
Centennial Challenges program, established a year previously (on the
hundredth anniversary of the Wright brothers’ first flight) would have
moved forward in the way it has. There are attractive purses for a
variety of useful aviation and space technology demonstrations."

So our capitalist space revolution consists of NASA offering "prizes"
rather than outright paying for R&D, as is presently done?
Wow, that's a wild concept! :-D



Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

wrote:
"Fifty-second and fifth. Those were the respective anniversaries
yesterday of Sputnik and the winning of the X-Prize. Both events shook
up the world of space policy and technology, each in their own way."

See:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/two-ann...ture-in-space/

So Rand ended up on Pajamas Media? Somehow that's no surprise, although
I doubt he and Charles Johnson spend much time shooting the breeze these
days. ;-)
Anyway, what the article misses is a basic fact about SpaceShipOne; and
that's that it cost far more to design and build than the prize money it
won... so it that's commercializing space, it's a very strange way to do
it, as it was a net money-losing operation.

I hate to break it to you Pat, but spending money to create what you
hope will make you money is pretty much par for the course.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Derek Lyons wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

wrote:
"Fifty-second and fifth. Those were the respective anniversaries
yesterday of Sputnik and the winning of the X-Prize. Both events shook
up the world of space policy and technology, each in their own way."

See:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/two-ann...ture-in-space/
So Rand ended up on Pajamas Media? Somehow that's no surprise, although
I doubt he and Charles Johnson spend much time shooting the breeze these
days. ;-)
Anyway, what the article misses is a basic fact about SpaceShipOne; and
that's that it cost far more to design and build than the prize money it
won... so it that's commercializing space, it's a very strange way to do
it, as it was a net money-losing operation.

I hate to break it to you Pat, but spending money to create what you
hope will make you money is pretty much par for the course.

What I'm trying to figure out a

A.) How exactly this is different from just giving government money to
an aerospace company to have them design and make something you want?

B.) What the hell is the point of the Lunar Lander challenge if the
companies involved aren't actually going to have their systems
incorporated into the Altair lunar lander or some sort of future
unmanned lunar lander?

It's like that Dante robot NASA had crawling down the inside of the
crater of Mount Erebus in Antarctica several years back...the obvious
question was: what particular space mission was this supposed to be
related to? Was NASA looking into putting a lander down on Io, and have
some sort of walking robot* head down the inside of a volcano?
Unless you intend to use the technology you are funding in some concrete
way, you are just wasting time, effort, and money.

*And despite all the fun with the walking robots, you will note that up
on Mars the present and future rovers get around via wheels, as those
make a lot more sense than legs from a simplicity, energy usage, and
speed point of view - for the same reason our cars and trucks don't run
around on legs like horses, and our aircraft don't flap their wings like
birds.

Pat