NASA wants to sell part of KSC lands to new.space companies

..

NASA wants to sell part of KSC lands to "new.space" companies:

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbc...WS02/802170349

that's nearly (or exactly?) what I've suggested (one week BEFORE them)
in my "Yahoo to Space" article:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/024yahoospace.html

and something many sci.space.policy users have stated as "IMPOSSIBLE"
just a week ago:

http://groups.google.it/group/sci.sp...5e15ee89e08c81

..

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 07:40:41 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
gaetanomarano made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

.

NASA wants to sell part of KSC lands to "new.space" companies:

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbc...WS02/802170349

It says nothing in that article about NASA "selling" land.

On 18 Feb, 16:56, (Rand Simberg) wrote:


It says nothing in that article about NASA "selling" land.

it's unclear, but "sell" or "rent" the KSC lands doesn't change so
much

the point is that Yahoo and other companies CAN buy/rent a KSC land
only IF their owner (NASA or the US gov.) sell/rent then... and NOW we
know they WANT (then, the CAN)

after all, rent/use the lands costs LESS to privates, so, they can
invest more on rockets than on infrastructures and (maybe...) have
enough money to buy/rent NASA or part of NASA facilities...

..

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:03:57 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
gaetanomarano made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On 18 Feb, 16:56, (Rand Simberg) wrote:


It says nothing in that article about NASA "selling" land.

it's unclear, but "sell" or "rent" the KSC lands doesn't change so
much

Yes, it does. It's an entirely different thing than was being
discussed previously. This is not "privatizing NASA" in any way.
It's simply a (presumably) low-cost lease of useful real estate to
allow private corporations to provide services to both the government
and commercial customers.

On 18 Feb, 18:22, (Rand Simberg) wrote:

Yes, it does.

only the price changes, "rent" is better and cheaper

It's an entirely different thing than was being
discussed previously. *This is not "privatizing NASA" in any way.
It's simply a (presumably) low-cost lease of useful real estate to
allow private corporations to provide services to both the government
and commercial customers.

every journey starts with the first step...

.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:33:16 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
gaetanomarano made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On 18 Feb, 18:22, (Rand Simberg) wrote:

Yes, it does.

only the price changes, "rent" is better and cheaper

No, there are fundamental differences between selling, and leasing.

On Feb 18, 12:03 pm, gaetanomarano wrote:
On 18 Feb, 16:56, (Rand Simberg) wrote:



It says nothing in that article about NASA "selling" land.

it's unclear, but "sell" or "rent" the KSC lands doesn't change so
much

the point is that Yahoo and other companies CAN buy/rent a KSC land
only IF their owner (NASA or the US gov.) sell/rent then... and NOW we
know they WANT (then, the CAN)

after all, rent/use the lands costs LESS to privates, so, they can
invest more on rockets than on infrastructures and (maybe...) have
enough money to buy/rent NASA or part of NASA facilities...


Once again you try to spin a story to fit your incorrect view of the
situation.

The Atlas V, Delta IV and spacex pads are leased from the USAF.
The same thing for LC-20 and LC-46.

As for NASA, KSC leases land for oranges groves.

again NASA is not selling anything, especially the infrastructure.

In fact, NASA has been demolishing facilities because no one wants
them. Hangar L, SAEF-2 and the VPF

On 18 Feb, 19:08, wrote:


again *NASA is not selling *anything, especially the infrastructure.

just wait, the story is going very fast..


no one wants them

privates want the BEST things not the old relics

.

On Feb 18, 2:36 pm, gaetanomarano wrote:
On 18 Feb, 19:08, wrote:



again NASA is not selling anything, especially the infrastructure.

just wait, the story is going very fast..


no one wants them

privates want the BEST things not the old relics


As usual, you are clueless and have no idea what you are talking
about.

Everything is a relic. Other than land, the only other stuff KSC has
is shuttle equipment. No commercial company would want it

On Feb 18, 7:40 am, gaetanomarano wrote:
.

NASA wants to sell part of KSC lands to "new.space" companies:

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbc...20080217/NEWS0...

that's nearly (or exactly?) what I've suggested (one week BEFORE them)
in my "Yahoo to Space" article:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/024yahoospace.html

and something many sci.space.policy users have stated as "IMPOSSIBLE"
just a week ago:

http://groups.google.it/group/sci.sp...hread/thread/0...

Are we talking ebay or craigslist?
.. - BG