Station to be abandoned?

In message , Rand Simberg
writes
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 14:42:51 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Christopher) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Uh, NASA is a gov't agency. What part of that don't you get? The gov't is
not in the business of making profit. I'd go on, but my head is about to
explode.

So. A lot of British industy was owned by the government, but it was
all disposed of and privatised by the conservatives, in the teeth of
oppositiation from the unions.

That's because they were *industries*, many of which had previously
already been private prior to nationalization, and ones that are
private in other, less socialist countries.

NASA is an R&D organization. It is not privatisable, because there's
no private demand for its "services" or "products."

You mean like the Forensic Science Laboratory in the UK, which is facing
privatisation under an allegedly socialist government? The government
doesn't own anything, of course.
--
"Roads in space for rockets to travel....four-dimensional roads, curving with
relativity"
Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome.
Or visit Jonathan's Space Site http://www.merseia.fsnet.co.uk

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 16:19:19 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 16:14:25 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Christopher) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

That's because they were *industries*, many of which had previously
already been private prior to nationalization, and ones that are
private in other, less socialist countries.

True, but NASA is a nationalised space industrial enterprise

No, it's not. "Nationalised" means that you took an industrial
enterprise that was once private, and put the government in charge.
NASA is not, and never has been an "industrial enterprise," and it has
never been private. It's always been a government R&D agency.

In your counrty maybe, nationalised here means the government controls
it as the government controls the purse strings, which is my argument
that NASA should be cut loose, it then has to swim or sink.

It is not privatisable, because there's
no private demand for its "services" or "products."

Then what did Boeing spend all that money and effort developing the
Delta rocket?

I don't know which "Delta rocket" you're referring to, but the only
Delta that Boeing developed was the Delta IV, and that had nothing to
do with NASA.

True, but Boeing dosn't need to suck on the governt breast to get
funding.


Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 17:50:39 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
wrote:

(Christopher) wrote:

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 15:28:38 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

It is not privatisable, because there's
no private demand for its "services" or "products."

Then what did Boeing spend all that money and effort developing the
Delta rocket?

Because Boeing does something that NASA doesn't; sell launch services.
(Other than Shuttle launches, NASA buys launches from commercial
providers. These same providers also sell launches to other
customers.)

Then Boeing should bypass NSAS and offer a full service, and use a sub
contractor like sea launch till Boeing builds its own launch complex
with its own tower(s).


Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

In article , Christopher wrote:

No, it's not. "Nationalised" means that you took an industrial
enterprise that was once private, and put the government in charge.
NASA is not, and never has been an "industrial enterprise," and it has
never been private. It's always been a government R&D agency.

In your counrty maybe, nationalised here means the government controls
it as the government controls the purse strings, which is my argument
that NASA should be cut loose, it then has to swim or sink.

You must be living in a different country from me - actually, now I
think about it, you probably are, you keep saying "England". Even the
Americans tend to get that one right these days. Perhaps your economics
education went the way of your geography?

I can't offhand think of a UK "nationalised" industry/service which
wasn't once private - in some cases, things which were never
nationalised in the first place (eg/ parts of DERA) were privatised, but
the nationalised stuff was once private to at least some degree (many
organisations expanded vastly after nationalisation, of course).

British Rail is, of course, the classic example - perhaps you'd care to
look at where the names of GNER or FGW came from. British Gas was
nationalised in 1949; British Telecom in 1912. That's what
nationalisation means; the dictionary gives a few definitions (it also
covers, eg, an immigrnt becoming an nationalised citizen, used in some
circumstances instead of naturalised) - and none of them mean
"government owned" in vacuo - they mean "*converted* into government
owned".

--
-Andrew Gray

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 19:01:49 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Christopher) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

No, it's not. "Nationalised" means that you took an industrial
enterprise that was once private, and put the government in charge.
NASA is not, and never has been an "industrial enterprise," and it has
never been private. It's always been a government R&D agency.

In your counrty maybe

In any English-speaking country.

I don't know which "Delta rocket" you're referring to, but the only
Delta that Boeing developed was the Delta IV, and that had nothing to
do with NASA.

True, but Boeing dosn't need to suck on the governt breast to get
funding.

It does for rockets. The Delta IV was paid for by the Air Force.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

(Christopher) wrote:

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 17:50:39 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
wrote:

(Christopher) wrote:

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 15:28:38 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

It is not privatisable, because there's
no private demand for its "services" or "products."

Then what did Boeing spend all that money and effort developing the
Delta rocket?

Because Boeing does something that NASA doesn't; sell launch services.
(Other than Shuttle launches, NASA buys launches from commercial
providers. These same providers also sell launches to other
customers.)

Then Boeing should bypass NSAS and offer a full service,

Oddly enough... Boeing already does this.

and use a sub contractor like sea launch till Boeing builds its own launch
complex with its own tower(s).

Which would accomplish what? (You do realize that NASA doesn't have
anything to do with the launch complexes that the Boeing currently
uses, don't you?)

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 19:03:24 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Christopher) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

It is not privatisable, because there's
no private demand for its "services" or "products."

Then what did Boeing spend all that money and effort developing the
Delta rocket?

Because Boeing does something that NASA doesn't; sell launch services.
(Other than Shuttle launches, NASA buys launches from commercial
providers. These same providers also sell launches to other
customers.)

Then Boeing should bypass NSAS and offer a full service, and use a sub
contractor like sea launch till Boeing builds its own launch complex
with its own tower(s).

Do you know *anything*, about anything? I'm really curious, and
amazed at someone who gleefully flaunts his ignorance on every subject
imaginable in a public newsgroup..

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

That's what
nationalisation means; the dictionary gives a few definitions (it also
covers, eg, an immigrnt becoming an nationalised citizen, used in some
circumstances instead of naturalised) - and none of them mean
"government owned" in vacuo -

Along the Texas-Mexican frontier, it also refers to getting motor vehicles
licensed for export from one country to the other

In message , Christopher
writes
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 16:19:19 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

I don't know which "Delta rocket" you're referring to, but the only
Delta that Boeing developed was the Delta IV, and that had nothing to
do with NASA.

True, but Boeing dosn't need to suck on the governt breast to get
funding.

You have to be joking. How much of Boeing's profits comes from military
contracts?

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 23:40:54 +0100, in a place far, far away, Jonathan
Silverlight made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I don't know which "Delta rocket" you're referring to, but the only
Delta that Boeing developed was the Delta IV, and that had nothing to
do with NASA.

True, but Boeing dosn't need to suck on the governt breast to get
funding.

You have to be joking. How much of Boeing's profits comes from military
contracts?

He's not joking. He's just ignorant.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: