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.
Send out a design competition to the major companies to come up with a new shuttle design and then, ACCEPT THE PROPOSAL. Let them build it and quit worrying about the costs. NASA has over-spent what private companies would have by tens of times higher. Contract out the next shuttle and long distance interplanetary ship and get it over with and launch the sucker
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
......and why on earth should I entrust a part of my security to private companies by leaving them to command such a strategically important arena?
Does no one even consider that kind of thing?
[edit on 26-1-2006 by sminkeypinkey]
Originally posted by BigTrain
You entrust them with your life in airplanes, cars, and electricity. You entrust private companies with everything you own.
The reason private companies are better is because they have RESPONSIBILITY. Look what happens when airlines lose a plane, they get sued and go out of business, TWA, Pan Am, etc etc.
Private companies have liability, seems to me that todays day in age, governments do not.
Originally posted by nullster
Whatever ones take on Burt Rutan, he and other small aerospace upstarts are a wake up call for NASA and other Space agencies.
Or better put Wake Up for the Aerospace companies that produce hardware for NASA.
What Burt Rutan accomplished was two fold. First: That a Government funded Space Agency is not the only viable answer for space exploration/study/travel.
Second: That private enterprise beyond large Aerospace concerns (Boeing/Lockheed etc) are fully capable and up to the task to help forward public investment interests in commercial space ventures.
Now Boeing and Lockheed want to work together instead of compete for the future government launches and may include interests in the Shuttle replacement. Talk about competative lockout.
How are two behemoths in a non compete design process going to produce a cost effective replacement?
I was glad to read that NASA's Administrator Michael Griffin will consider outside proposals for shuttle development.
Closely held Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) of El Segundo, California, a rocket startup, has sued Boeing and Lockheed, charging they conspired to corner the market on U.S. government launches, and sought to block the merger.
SEE LINK
Send out a design competition to the major companies to come up with a new shuttle design and then, ACCEPT THE PROPOSAL. Let them build it and quit worrying about the costs. NASA has over-spent what private companies would have by tens of times higher. Contract out the next shuttle and long distance interplanetary ship and get it over with and launch the sucker
Train
Originally posted by BigTrain
Ya, you guys are right, without the big bad government funding, where would we be today, gee, i guess cars would have never been invented, computers, mp3 players, i wonder why lightbulbs ever made money, didnt candles work?
Every single thing we have today came from a private company.
Remember, this is a capatilist society.
Private companies would easily make a profit on space if the government didnt regulate it and not let them go up there.
Originally posted by BigTrain
Ya, you guys are right, without the big bad government funding, where would we be today, gee, i guess cars would have never been invented, computers, mp3 players, i wonder why lightbulbs ever made money, didnt candles work?
Every single thing we have today came from a private company.
Remember, this is a capatilist society.
Private companies would easily make a profit on space if the government didnt regulate it and not let them go up there.
Train
Originally posted by orca71
What makes us different from the old soviet union and much more successful are 1) are vastly superior natural resources and preexisting capital per capita
Originally posted by Simon666
Originally posted by orca71
What makes us different from the old soviet union and much more successful are 1) are vastly superior natural resources and preexisting capital per capita
Actually the old Soviet Union was better positioned in natural resources than the US, which is one of the reasons why many expected the USSR to last longer than it did and why few people saw the fall of the Berlin wall coming. Take oil alone, the motor of all economies, the USSR exported it and Russia still exports it, the US needs to import ever increasing percentages.
Originally posted by nullster
Here's something to chew on.
How much would it have cost the government to produce Spaceship 1?
Anyone who would say the same or less would be kidding themselves.
I had a very interesting conversation with a Boeing engineer about a specific Space Station component in 1999. Without repeating the whole discussion, there was a comparison with the Soviets engineering and their lack of budget for the same component. They had to produce something that worked the first time and get it into space.
In short, the US aerospace concerns are encouraged to produce multiple plans, variants, changes, and test models that ultimately drive the costs upward. Then after a dissaster strikes, the redundency elements are added and cranked up again. The $500 hammer really never dissapeared. If you knew the amount of people involved in paperwork generation per component you would faint.
Private industry does not have the volumes of personel and financial resources to prop up diversified risks and multiple redundant production paths. With limited resources these companies build a focused commitment that it has to work right the first time. That is something lost in Government funded programs. That is something that needs to change fast unless we want to cede space innovation to other nations.
[edit on 30-1-2006 by nullster]
Originally posted by Nacnud
Launch is on for 8th Feb.