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 ngchunter
Actually I feel innovation is only stifled when it's hamstrung by government regulations. Some businesses may be promoting those regulations because it stifles competition, but the free market in itself is not the problem; in fact it's what some larger corporations with huge lobbies (the largest corporate lobby is actually GE, believe it or not) are hiding from.
Actually spaceshipone is much closer to an X-15 than a space shuttle. The x-15 was another suborbital rocket powered winged vehicle that require a piggyback to a high altitude before launch and could reach the edge of space. NASA built the X-15 before we even had a single spaceflight under our belt (though it didn't reach the internationally agreed upon edge of space until 1963). Burt Rutan's accomplishment is incredible, but it is much more like the earliest days of NASA flight than it is modern orbital spaceflight. The reason the Ares program is taking so long has a lot more to do with the amount of funding than the tech. That said, I have little doubt that a private organization with the same resources could get it done better and faster. The sad fact of the matter is that there just isn't enough profit motive to go beyond earth orbit just yet.
Most innovative perhaps, but without a doubt the most difficult, complicated part were the massive engines. There has never been as powerful a booster as the Saturn V, from a payload standpoint. The little launch escape rockets alone were more powerful than the redstone rocket that made Alan Shepard the first american in space. The powerful F-1 engine of the Saturn V took 7 years to perfect. The completed rocket contained 3 million parts. The apollo guidance computer, although it represented a leap in technology, can be recreated in your own basement by yourself if you have the skill:
klabs.org...
Because the corporation's impetus is always profit rather than the good of the community or the health and well-being of its customers, the corporation must thus be "reined in" so they know where the "line" is and what the consequences of crossing it will be.
True, it's not "real" spaceflight, but the fact he was able to do what NASA seemingly can't (or won't) with a vastly larger budget (opening space to The People rather than keeping it sacred for a select few elites) is a huge accomplishment. Spaceship Two will have greater capability.
NASA isn't building this stuff on their own, either. They contract out the design and construction work, just as they did in the old days--most of the real work IS being done by "private" organizations (exactly how "private" a mega-corporation is is debatable). Funding IS a problem, yes, but how much is really needed and how much of the price tag is over-inflated by the contractors?
When political forces driven by corporate greed create what is, essentially, a monopoly, how do you know you're getting the best price for the work to be done?
If NASA hired Rutan for this project I'll bet we'd see a working spacecraft within two years at a vastly lower cost.
Understood. But again, you don't "lose" that knowledge. My point is, all the components we need to make this a reality right now are on the shelf, waiting to be used.
Originally posted by ngchunter
Because the corporation's impetus is always profit rather than the good of the community or the health and well-being of its customers, the corporation must thus be "reined in" so they know where the "line" is and what the consequences of crossing it will be.
I'm sorry but I don't agree with this. A corporations impetus is always to keep its stock price high. You do that by satisfying customers and guaranteeing future returns, not immediate profit by ripping people off. Companies that do the latter inevitably crumble when investors find out about it.
Originally posted by ngchunter
I didn't say it wasn't real spaceflight because frankly it is, but it's nowhere near the equivalent of orbital flight. He was able to do what NASA was already done doing 40 years ago. Spaceshiptwo will be able to carry more to a higher apogee, but will still be nowhere near orbital velocity. It's still the tourist's equivalent of the X-15.
This stuff isn't cheap. Look at the ticket price of a suborbital flight on the 100% reuseable spaceshiptwo if you don't believe me. Now imagine having to rebuild part or all of your spaceship for every single flight. Market competition for spaceflight contracts is precisely the reason we have the most advanced spaceflight program in the world.
There is no monopoly in the aerospace industry.
His spacecraft would need a piggyback just to reach suborbital heights. Sorry, that doesn't even come close to meeting the huge demands of orbital, let alone translunar, spaceflight.
Do you want to use 40 year old technology or do you want to do things right with modern designs and alloys that will be lighter and more reliable? Do you want people designing and building it who have worked on projects this large before or do you want to hand it off to a brand new company with an extremely short track record of accomplishments that are confined to the very beginnings of spaceflight?
Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
There is no real benefit in "men on the moon" except for propaganda purposes. Once USSR lost - why waste resources to come only second and in this way reminding who came first?
Just as in US moon landing is celebrated and burned in memory, in Russia it is the same with first cosmonaut. What would they achieve by sending men to moon? They send robots for data - cheaper.
Originally posted by ngchunter
Because the corporation's impetus is always profit rather than the good of the community or the health and well-being of its customers, the corporation must thus be "reined in" so they know where the "line" is and what the consequences of crossing it will be.
I'm sorry but I don't agree with this. A corporations impetus is always to keep its stock price high. You do that by satisfying customers and guaranteeing future returns, not immediate profit by ripping people off. Companies that do the latter inevitably crumble when investors find out about it.
Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Originally posted by ngchunter
I didn't say it wasn't real spaceflight because frankly it is, but it's nowhere near the equivalent of orbital flight. He was able to do what NASA was already done doing 40 years ago. Spaceshiptwo will be able to carry more to a higher apogee, but will still be nowhere near orbital velocity. It's still the tourist's equivalent of the X-15.
Stepping stones. The goal is a private, fully functional space station for tourism. From there it's just a matter of time before colonization takes hold.
But there's not as much competition as there once was. Where there were dozens of aerospace companies before, now there are a tiny handful. And that's not due to competition either--it has more to do with graft and corruption between industry and government than with any kind of "free market" force. I know you don't want to believe it but how else do you explain the consolidation of aerospace? General Dynamics is now owned by Lockheed. Is it because they had no product to sell, or theirs was any less effective than Lockheed's? No, it's because Lockheed used political influence and bribes to swing the procurement decisions in their favor, then extended an olive branch to their (now failing) competitor to buy them out.
This statement is laughable. Sorry, but true, there IS a monopoly. I dare you to try and start up your own aerospace company and compete for a military/NASA contract based solely on your product. You'd be bankrupt before the people in charge of procurement even finish laughing at you.
And for a long time the Shuttle was intended as a piggyback as well. It can and does work. Of course that's assuming the vehicle he built would be exactly like what he's doing now, which I doubt. If he was given the requirements and the contract I believe he could meet them better and at lower cost than the big guys.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. A rocket is a rocket is a rocket.
Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that, with today's technology, computers, and materials, that companies are incapable of building a cost-effective refridgerator that lasts 30 years?
No, I think the corporate examples from the last 20 years shows that you raise your stock price by ripping people off. Look at Enron. If they hadn't made some stupid, critical errors, they'd STILL be ripping people off, with none the wiser.
Here's two things that PC manufacturers know, but do not tell their customers. 1) If you put a PC on a battery backup (NOT a "power strip") it will last magnitudes of order longer before having a failure. 2) If you erase your hard drive, and reload Windows, that "old, sluggish" PC will perform amazingly fast. Those are FACTS. They aren't even up for debate. Since those are true, why don't PC manufacturers tell their customers this?
Could it be because they want to make even MORE PCs, and WANT your computers to fail earlier than they could be made to last?
Originally posted by magicmushroom
Orange, I think you will find that the Russian engines were and still are superior to the American ones. They developed a closed combustion cycle for their engines which the US never managed to do, the shuttle uses Russian engine technology to this day. Even at the height of the US rocket program Russian engines were far more powerful than the US counterparts.
Remember they knew about the radiation problem from their own rersearch and tests and the last thing they were going to do was fry their own crew on global tv.
No doubt all those involved were serious about their attempts to do the impossible but I'm affraid it was impossible just as it is today. If nothing else the Moon could be a massive reservoir of fuels, precious metals etc. every reason to get up there and colonise it but as far as we know were still stuck in near Earth orbit.
Soon enough we ourselves will not have sufficient industrial base to produce these accelerometers or other high tech goods.