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.

 

NASA Should Have No Involvement In Any Science Fiction Movie

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

NASA are a civilian agency. The military have their own space programs. What is wrong with a private-public partnership? Wouldn't that be a good way to get the most out of tax dollars?




posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

It's a matter of principal across all of government for me. There can be no such thing as a public-private partnership.

NASA makes significant military contributions and it can be argued that they are already primarily military in nature.

The private sector will always outperform state programs and their failure (or success) must remain private.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
NASA should just go dark and focus on military applications and leave space exploration to the private sector.


NASA has worked with the private sector since the beginning to provide the hardware and support services required for space missions. Companies such as Boeing, Douglas Aircraft Corporation, Grumman, North American Aviation, and many others were contracted by NASA to design and build the vehicles that went to the Moon.

Today, NASA is using a slightly different contract delivery method than it did during the Apollo era for its new contracts to provide cargo supply and crew services to the ISS -- and that's where companies such as SpaceX, Oribital Sciences, Sierra Nevada Corp, and Boeing step in. NASA was still contracting with private industry in the past, but the contractual methods used today differ from those past contracts.


As for "going dark", as DJW001 mentioned above, the military already has their dark space programs (spy satellites and even more clandestine operations). Let's leave NASA as the civilian program.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

For me, it's about making progress.

Allowing NASA to retain the monopoly on space exploration is detrimental to human spacefaring.

As you indicate, all of the technology comes from the private sector anyway. Allowing companies to compete for access to resources will accelerate our advancement into the solar system. Leaving the status quo in place is simply a cronyist life support system. I am afraid SpaceX is falling into the gravity well itself.

We need to do it and we aren't doing it. How much longer will we wait? How much longer can we wait?



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   
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:

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.
Source:
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.


edit on 1/31/2016 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Movies come in different shapes and sizes.

Take the movie Erin Brockovich, for example. That movie would have been a hell of a lot easier to script, cast, shoot and direct, with the assistance of those characters around whom the story revolved. The Dambusters, another movie which was ably assisted by the input of people who were there at the time of the events depicted on screen. I love that movie. Now, both of those, I grant you, are movies about things which had happened already, things which were current at the time of their making or culturally important at the time of shooting.

Yes, Kubrick had a different film on his hands in the shape of 2001: A Space Odyssey . But two things must be born in mind when one thinks about that film. First, it was written by a man who is considered by many, and with good reason, to be the godfather of modern thinking on space. He was once chair of the British Interplanetary Society, and also proposed a satellite communication system in 1945. The first launch of such a systems merest components was not until 1960. The man was also an explorer and inventor, futurist and wonder weaver of the highest order.

When you have work by such a man as your initiating motivation, it is imperative that you seek out those best able to make what is written on the page, look and feel like something real, because to do anything less with such a work of fiction, would be to render a disservice to the book, the author, and for that matter, ones own trade. Put another way, if Kubrick had failed to make such an amazing film with the material he had to work with, he would have been a laughing stock in mere weeks from the release of the film.

NASA being involved was natural of course, because they wanted people interested in the space race, in the concept of travel and working in space, they wanted the young and able to have their imaginations fired into near earth orbit, to ride at the shock front of possibility, because by so doing they could secure themselves and the space program a flourishing future.

Personally, I think that it is great that they shared that involvement, and that they still, to this day, involve themselves with any movie production house that wants some expertise to round out the look and feel of their work. It is great publicity, it is great for the movie, for the space program, and for the viewer as well. You only have to look to the success of the movie, The Martian, to know that this relationship is still alive and well today, and working for the mutual benefit of both the space program and the viewing public. When a martial arts movie is made for serious buffs of the genre, one consults with master martial artists and fight choreographers. When a movie about racing cars is made, one consults famed drivers, observes races, gets friendly with pit crews and their managers, with the owners of teams. When movies about gangsters are made, actors might, if they are of the method school, become acquainted with underworld figures for a time.

The involvement of NASA with films about space and space travel is as natural as seeking out a professional in any other sphere to bounce ideas off of, during a movie production requiring specific knowledge in order to pull off correctly and in a way which gels with audiences, and inspires them.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Esoterotica
NAZA is evil & shouldn't be involved in anything!


Would you care to elaborate?



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I don't begrudge the filmmakers (and certainly not the authors). I don't even blame the scientists themselves, they have no frame of reference with respect to this issue.

I'm just pointing out that we would be much further along by now if we had open skies.

If seafaring had been restricted to a government agency, how far along do you think we would be as a seafaring race?

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?

For all I know, they are already unionized against us.
edit on 31-1-2016 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   

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:

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.
Source:
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.



What could possibly be more economically motivating than enough helium 3 to run the planet?

It will fuel our expansion into the solar system and, by our, I mean companies and ultimately, people.

Is NASA supposed to become a mining company? Let the big mining companies compete.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Well, with regard to that, I can see what you are saying. It would be a fantastic experiment, to have any old Tom, Dick, and Harry launching rockets willy nilly, but I rather think that space travel and the infrastructure to allow it to occur, has some fairly important differences, when compared to something as relatively simple as moving across a body of water.

For a start, the risk factor. If you say to me "TrueBrit, today I am going to take to the open ocean in a craft of my own devising, which I will steer from one side of the sea to the other." I would simply wish you the very best of luck, ensure that you have taken the precaution of having enough rations and communications options available to you, and send you on your way! And why not? It is your life to do with as you please! The worst that can happen if you go to sea, is that you get yourself killed in a freak wave, or captured by pirates, or sunk by a whale or what have you. You only risk yourself.

However, even to send a single human being into orbit requires that a fairly huge risk be taken not just with your own life, but with the lives of others too. Ground control, fuel loaders, engineers near the launch pad just for starters, not to mention anyone who might be hit by debris in the event of a failure, or a crash landing...remember, space flight, even the sort of thrust required to launch a single human being into actual orbit, requires huge amounts of extremely volatile material. The research and development of engines for a new craft, the fuel mix, not to mention actually having that fuel be lit, and flown over the planet, presents huge potential for harm to other humans, both from accidental ignition of the fuel in storage, and indeed during flight.

When the work you want to do poses little to no risk to any but yourself, that is one thing. But space rockets are basically bombs which never hit ground unless something goes wrong. If a failure were to occur, a steering jam or something like it, then there is a very real risk of ploughing a bomb capable of levelling a city block, into a habitable area. It happened in Russia, rocket test went wrong, slammed into a town, chaos ensued. It is dangerous work.

That being said, this is hardly the time to be complaining, because this is the era in which space travel has been privatised to the degree that two organisations have not only launched but landed test vehicles for reusable rocketry. This is the future you have been so upset at seeing held back!
it only gets more awesome from here!



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   
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.
edit on 31-1-2016 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp


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?


In addition to a few advisers from NASA, Kubrick also had input from IBM, Westinghouse. General Mills (space food), and several other corporations which had been doing research on the future of exploring space.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

They were all operating under the umbrella of the government monopoly. What other client were they anticipating?

There is a great book by Anastacia Marx de Salcedo called Combat-Ready Kitchen: How the U.S. Military Shapes the Way You Eat.

The space food was actually developed for rations and I'm not blaming computer companies for selling computers and software to NASA.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   

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.


Mining helium 3 that is, which isn't here.
edit on 31-1-2016 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   

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.


That's a given, we have done it. There is more than enough energy and aneutronic fusion is containable, we just don't have affordable fuel.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   

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.

Mining companies don't have expertise on how to go to, and work in, space. That's where the commercial space firms come in. Those fledgling commercial space firms need capital and a viable economic reason (even in the long-term) for continuing with pioneering the next steps into space.


SpaceX is an early adopter and pioneer, NASA is the problem.

NASA isn't holding SpaceX back. In fact, through the COTS program, NASA has provided some of the capital that SpaceX is using to take the next private industry steps into space.

That is part of the plan for COTS: Not only does NASA get a real service that they need (transportation services of cargo and crew to the ISS), but in the process, the firms involved are encouraged to use the profits from COTS for further R&D.

Elon Musk formed SpaceX in no small part because knew that NASA was going to begin to turn to private industry to provide launch services and space transportation services. Granted -- Musk is a visionary, but he is also a businessman who needed a little monetary encouragement for that vision. He knew that if he could successfully compete for the Money NASA would be giving out to private industry for space services, then he could use that money to help fund his vision.



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

BHP Billiton could buy SpaceX (and NASA if it were for sale) and there are many others who would get into the game.

The only remaining argument is whether you want the federal government to control the future energy supply.

I think it would benefit us all to have the mining companies compete with the oil companies and anyone else who wants to ante up.
edit on 31-1-2016 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

I really could not disagree more.

NASA is but one of a plethora of space agencies dotted all over the world. The Russian Roscosmos is another. They only seem to have a monopolising effect on space matters, because governments tend to have more money than companies.

Most of the people who really want to be involved with moonshot thinking, are not fantastically wealthy, or capable of gaining huge funding independently. The cost of doing business in rocketry and space travel is literally astronomical, and without such sums as would make a millionaires head spin, being available to insure against failure, perform research and development, test launch new vehicles once prototyping has reached a certain stage, and so on, you are talking about billions of dollars of investment.

Space X and others, are only possible because of two very interesting and recent developments. First, the rise and rise of geniuses in their fields, learning not only how to be fantastic dudes and dudettes, but also learning how to make money doing it. Elon Musk, for example, is (and I use this phrase in the absence of one more appropriate) a "totally radical dude". Unlike most of the tiny percentage of people on the planet rich enough to get something off the ground in the field of serious space flight, he is far less interested in what he stands to gain from his work on space, than he is in what the human race has to gain from the ability to launch, land, launch, land and launch again, without wasting money on replacing perfectly good and very expensive material. His every effort, no matter whether we are referring to his drive to solar power entire nations in a few decades from now, or to his efforts in space, will drive our species forward and outward.

Previous to personages of his ilk coming about, there were not vast reams of people queuing up to spend money on space, because there were not enough people around who could afford it. Frankly, old beardy Richard Branson was on to something with his Virgin Galactic experiment, but it was small thinking, designed as a mere fancy, for the fantastically wealthy to go and be weightless for a little bit, and then sink back into the arms of gravity a short time later. It was not going anywhere.

The combination of scientific understanding, genius inventiveness, and vast wealth is not a common thing to find in one individual. Most of the worlds billionaires are little more than sociopaths who got lucky. Trump, for example, even if he had the money for a space project to bear his name, would be more interested in the fact that having ones name stamped down a gigantic phallus shaped object, one end of which is going to be on fire, is a pretty badass thing to have on ones resume. Frankly, space can do without his sort messing it up.

Now, this is the age in which there ARE genius inventors who have managed to succeed well enough, and early enough, that they can dream and make their dreams reality. Musk is such a man. That is why he has a shot at changing the way space travel gets organised and administrated. The list of such persons is ENORMOUSLY SMALL, and was even shorter than it is now, ten years ago. Twenty years ago, there pretty much was no list. It is only the economic circumstances in which the world finds itself today, and the drive and determination, not to mention brass nuts of the few investors with a) money to burn and b) enough of it to power a rocket, which makes private industry in space possible.

Before these things became possible, the only outfits with the money and resources to make anything happen in space worth a gold plated crap, were governments and their departments responsible for space travel. To blame that situation on NASA, is somewhat like blaming Alan Turing for the many faults of Microsoft products.







 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join