It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: greencmp
NASA should just go dark and focus on military applications and leave space exploration to the private sector.
Source:
Commercial U.S. launch services providers compete domestically and internationally for contracts to carry satellites and other payloads into orbit using unmanned, single-use vehicles known as expendable launch vehicles (ELVs). However, since the late 1990s the global commercial launch market has generally declined following the downturn in the telecommunications services industry, which was the primary customer of the commercial space industry. Given this trend, U.S. launch services providers struggling to remain economically viable have been bolstered by the Commercial Space Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-303), which requires NASA and other Federal agencies to plan missions and procure space transportation services from U.S. commercial providers to the maximum extent practicable. In particular, the U.S. market for medium-class launch vehicles, which are suited for many NASA science missions, has suffered from lack of demand and foreign competition.
New launch vehicles in this class are currently under development as part of NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) Program, and NASA hopes to use these vehicles to resupply the International Space Station (ISS) on a
commercially competitive basis.
originally posted by: Esoterotica
NAZA is evil & shouldn't be involved in anything!
originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: greencmp
Until there is a viable economic reason for private industry to spend a lot of their own money in going into space (i.e., so they can get a return on their investment), government will be needed to help provide the "need" (and the money to pay for that need) for which those private companies can provide paid services and hardware.
Companies such as Orbital Sciences Corporation and Sierra Nevada Corporation were providing launch services for telecommunications satellites and such, but towards the end of the 1990s, that business was not as lucrative as it was in the past. One of the reasons NASA created the COTS (Commercial Orbital Transportation Services) program was to help keep those private space companies in business in the face of this downturn and to give a financial encouragement other private space endeavors -- such as SpaceX.
Here is an excerpt from NASA's Inspector General's Review of the COTS Program, and the idea behind NASA's acquisition of commercial launch services:
Source:
Commercial U.S. launch services providers compete domestically and internationally for contracts to carry satellites and other payloads into orbit using unmanned, single-use vehicles known as expendable launch vehicles (ELVs). However, since the late 1990s the global commercial launch market has generally declined following the downturn in the telecommunications services industry, which was the primary customer of the commercial space industry. Given this trend, U.S. launch services providers struggling to remain economically viable have been bolstered by the Commercial Space Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-303), which requires NASA and other Federal agencies to plan missions and procure space transportation services from U.S. commercial providers to the maximum extent practicable. In particular, the U.S. market for medium-class launch vehicles, which are suited for many NASA science missions, has suffered from lack of demand and foreign competition.
New launch vehicles in this class are currently under development as part of NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) Program, and NASA hopes to use these vehicles to resupply the International Space Station (ISS) on a
commercially competitive basis.
PDF File -- Review of NASA's Acquisition of Commercial Launch Services
NASA giving companies such as SpaceX a sound financial backing through giving them contracts for launch services and transportation services to the ISS puts money in the pockets of SpaceX that they might not otherwise have -- and the hopes is that money is used by SpaceX, Orbital, and Sierra Nevada as a seed for creating the next generation of space business that might begin to have its own economic returns -- such as (say, for example) asteroid mining.
When spaceflight becomes economically viable on its own, then I agree that NASA should just be the "exploration" people. That's what they mostly are now, anyway, with most commercial satellites already being launched by private commercial companies, not by NASA.
The hardware needed to make asteroid mining economically viable won't be created out of thin air. The R&D being provided by SpaceX, Orbital, Boeing, etc. with some of the money they got from NASA through providing COTS program services may one day lead to a private company thinking that asteroid mining may be an economically viable endeavor.
I suppose I am misdirecting my comments to you but, that's what bothers me about things like this. These filmmakers could have hired anyone they want as an outside consultant, there is no need to directly collaborate with a state agency. I kind of think of NASA like AMTRAK at this point, do we really need a state sponsored railroad monopoly in space?
What could possibly be more economically motivating than enough helium 3 to run the planet?
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: greencmp
There are at least a few big mining companies worth billions who could have individual space programs of their own.
Yes, but it is much more cost effective to mine in places like Australia and Siberia.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: greencmp
What could possibly be more economically motivating than enough helium 3 to run the planet?
First, the He3 reactions need to be proven to give off more energy than is put into them. Should this ever happen (it hasn't yet) the reaction will need to be scaled up and a means devised to turn the energy into a form that is usable.
originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: TrueBrit
There are at least a few big mining companies worth billions who could have individual space programs of their own.
They wouldn't have to rely on their own piggy banks. If they demonstrated capability, the capital is there searching for something worth investing in. Way more than NASA's budget.
SpaceX is an early adopter and pioneer, NASA is the problem.