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.

 

"A Private Space Venture IS NOT POSSIBLE" Only Government can do it!

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Private Capitalists will not venture into space until...

A.) the public sector, governments, has laid the groundwork for the infrastructure necessary to get us out there and maintain a colony...(IE moon bases and orbital stations)
B.) the public sector finds and begins exploiting mineral wealth from asteroids and other planets...
And C.) the public sector, governments, have set up a defensive grid to protect "Earth-Territory" from extraterrestrials.

Then, once all the hard work is done, Private Capitalists will sweep in claiming that they can do everything cheaper and better than the public sector...by cheaper, they mean creating greater profits for themselves by exploiting workers...by better, they mean creating more profit for themselves by ignoring any type of safety or environmental regulation they can get away with ignoring.




posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I'm with the private venture. I don't think Henry Ford or Thomas Edison would argue against it.
Maybe I am wrong but I thought private ventures actually made this USA?
Who made the landing craft for WW2? A Louisana man with his swamp boat creation, not the government.
I know Al Gore didn't create the internet as he stated. Coca Cola, Pepsi, the lists can go on.
Yes, the government has created some technology from the space program, but it still goes back to the individual that created it.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by mugger
Coca Cola, Pepsi, the lists can go on.
Yes, the government has created some technology from the space program, but it still goes back to the individual that created it.



The Sophists are good at doing To "Balance the Budget" cutting government healthcare and spending and slashing NASA's budget, to make the economy good again (Wealthy get wealthier and can buy more things.) And then the city (or country) rots, but hey you have achieved your goal of "balancing the budget." Coke products will sell that is how economy works, until the economy tanks and people can barely afford a bottle of coke. Without sycophanting or parasiting,, it comes down to you are a country that is attacked by another country, Do you feel safe trusting McDonald's —? A private corporation making a Mars Colony would be as rational as the Church of England making a country based on Muhammed-Allah worship.
edit on 5-1-2012 by MarkScheppy because: add



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MarkScheppy
 





Without sycophanting or parasiting the thread, comes down to you are a country that is attacked by another country. Do you feel safer trusting McDonald's or Coke to save you from getting bombed or putting trust in the government (of your country)? What do you believe tax dollars and your citizenry and voting supports?


I wonder how many of the 3000 people killed in the World Trade Center disaster trusted their government in protecting them from that attack? Sycophantic behavior is as sycophantic behavior does; ignoring any fact that undermines their sycophantic blindness.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by madhatr137
 



Private industry did not wait for government to build roads, streets and highways and freeways before they invented and developed automobiles, and private industry did not wait for government to create regulatory agencies regulating flight before airplanes were invented and developed, nor did private industry wait for government to pave the way for them in space. Indeed, the United States had no interest in space, or satellites until the Soviet Union launched Sputnik. Once Sputnik was launched, the arrogance of government claimed space as their domain, and in doing so slowed down space exploration, not sped it up.


For the majority of its history, space exploration in America has been funded privately. The trend of wealthy individuals, such as Paul Allen, Jeff Bezos, Robert Bigelow, and Elon Musk, devoting some of their resources to the exploration of space is not an emerging one, it is the long-run, dominant trend which is now re-emerging.


~Alex MacDonald~ quoted here.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by madhatr137
 



Private industry did not wait for government to build roads, streets and highways and freeways before they invented and developed automobiles, and private industry did not wait for government to create regulatory agencies regulating flight before airplanes were invented and developed, nor did private industry wait for government to pave the way for them in space. Indeed, the United States had no interest in space, or satellites until the Soviet Union launched Sputnik. Once Sputnik was launched, the arrogance of government claimed space as their domain, and in doing so slowed down space exploration, not sped it up.


For the majority of its history, space exploration in America has been funded privately. The trend of wealthy individuals, such as Paul Allen, Jeff Bezos, Robert Bigelow, and Elon Musk, devoting some of their resources to the exploration of space is not an emerging one, it is the long-run, dominant trend which is now re-emerging.


~Alex MacDonald~ quoted here.



Jeff Bezos and Robert Bigelow are proof that space was slowed down because Government claimed space as their own domain based on arogance? Where do you have such a quote that one I would like to see more than the Rosetta stone, your non sequitur argument. The Wright Brothers were not wealthy individuals and they were the simple pioneers of flight. And without Federal Regulation are you saying you would feel comfortable flying in a plane.

You are working on a novel interpretation your faith-based anti-Government belief in their role in technology and industry. Nuclear power (like the Fast Flux test facility) is another one that requires Government regulation but private capital people hate Nuclear because it is efficient and it works. It isn't gross and sticky like our oil dependence. And I would optimistically hope you don't send me links from Silicon Valley gurus monkey trained at Oxford university. I would prefer a quote from Edison who at least admitted to stealing ideas from individuals for profit.
edit on 5-1-2012 by MarkScheppy because: add



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


To be fair, obsevatories are not exactly manned spaceflight projects. I am not aware of any privately funded manned spaceflight projects to date except for the new companies such as SpaceX and Bigelow Aerospace which are emerging just now.

For now, the ideal way for manned spaceflight is to take the best of both worlds - public funding + private execution (like NASA CCDev and COTS projects).



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by heyitsphil

What?

The only reason government GOT the human race to space is because the commercial and private industry simply was not ready for it yet, technology had not advanced far enough, and private industries weren't confident in putting men in to at that time an untested environement, and they especially weren't keen on butting in on the U.S Russia Space race. I understand your point that often profit does not bring the great visions of Armstrong jumping off the lunar lander and stuff, but you are not realizing that PRIVATE and GOVERNMENT space agencies are seperate. You cannot tell me it would NOT be beneficial to society to let the two work hand in hand, it would benefit fiscally as well as exploratory, not to mention the technology that would be introduced in to society.

Show me NASA or ESA's starship vessel? Seriously?
**BY ALL MEANS BUTT IN!! Should one believe that?!



Constraints aye, , Government bureaucracy and inefficiency of Government, but private industry could not build new alloys in Space that was proved with Skylab. If Private "industry" got to Space before Government, what would they do there? They could do nothing except plan on ways to bring down Civilization (they are doing a good job of that just on earth.) Space would offer a type of mission based reality to get away from Money, like in Star Trek as someone brought up.

With Bobby Braun's help of the StarShip (and the ESA) but they are having problems with the WIND tower mechanism. Not a lot of wind in space to power the drive (but the genies are devising solar panels that may or may not work), you must say "Hey Dude," while someone works the apparatus. American Imperialism, the hidden hand of the market will never do without the hidden fist. But even the fist is showing its limitations.
edit on 5-1-2012 by MarkScheppy because: add



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MarkScheppy
 





Jeff Bezos and Robert Bigelow are proof that space was slowed down because Government claimed space as their own domain based on arogance?


If your assertions have any validity then why are you so intent on engaging in logical fallacies? What do Jeff Bezos and Robert Bigelow have to do with my assertion that government slowed down our destiny to explore space? Are you purposely deflecting, or is it some other problem you're dealing with?

Here are some more facts for you to ignore:

Project Mercury (1959-1963) cost upwards of $277 million dollars.
The Gemini Program (1962-1967) cost upwards of $1.3 billion dollars.
The Apollo Program (1963 - 1972) cost upwards of 20.4 billion dollars.

These programs were nothing more than capsules placed on top of rockets and the astronauts that manned them were given tasks that monkeys did before them. Conversely, the North American X-15 (a direct result of the Bell X-1 series) has, to date, made two officially qualified space flights. The difference is that the X-15 can handle aerodynamics and fly in Earths atmosphere. Given that the X-1 series predated the space race and given their evolution has shown us that they certainly can fly into space, then it is logically argued that the 21.5 billion spent on Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo was nothing more than a very expensive dog and pony show and the money was better spent developing the X-class series jets...but that's government for you, always ready to waste billions of dollars for appearances while sacrificing accomplishment along the way.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.thespacereview.com...



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I do believe that the X-series' primary mission was to develop an aircraft capable of exceding the sound barrier (initially) and testing the altitude limits of sucessive aircraft.

It was NOT to design future Spacecraft.

There is a world of difference between flying To space (and to be truthful, even the vaunted X-15 only made it to the "Edge" of space), and actually flying IN Space.

A dozen years ago I was part of a group of amature rocket hobbyists who, Privately, without government assistance (in fact with a good bit of government interference!) designed and built a vehicle capable of reaching the edge of Space. Look up the C.A.T.S. (Cheap Access To Space) Prize on Google sometime. You'll see that it doesn't take a government, or a mega-corporation, to achieve what your contemporaries claim is impossible.

This does not make us NASA.

This does not mean that private companies are the only effective, or efficient, means to reach orbit, either.


We saw a challenge, and like countless, curious, (semi-) hairless apes before us, we rose to meet that challenge.


If we humans want to go to Space, it is up to we Humans to figure out a way to do it.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 





There is a world of difference between flying To space (and to be truthful, even the vaunted X-15 only made it to the "Edge" of space), and actually flying IN Space.


If you're going to be truthful, then be truthful. "Flying" in space is something none of of the rockets of the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions did, they just glided through space to their intended trajectory.

I am not clear what your angle is in this thread created with the clear intent to dismiss private industry, but here is my angle of which you appear to have a difficult time grasping; private industry is nowhere near as inclined to waste money the way government does. Private industry can and will develop effective space ventures, particularly since we now know that the 300 plus near earth objects, such as asteroids, do indeed contain minerals and precious alloys beneficial to we humans here on earth. Private industry is far more likely to accomplish this goal in a cost effective way, and most importantly, without taxing the crap out of people....but hey, go ahead and keep ignoring that reality and pretend I am making some other argument.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I suppose alot depends on what your definition of "flying", specifically, "flying in space", is.

True, Mercury and Gemini were limited, by design, to little more than extended free-falls; such is the nature of a planatary orbit. But Apollo did do more than just orbit Earth; Apollo left Earth orbit and "flew" (yes, that is the technical term) to the Moon and back. For Apollo, at least, "flying in Space" is a term on a much more solid footing, since portions of its trek beyond Earth orbit were, indeed, under the power of its own motor, and there were instances wherein its course required correction by the astronauts onboard.

That's "Flying" in my book.


My "angle" as you put it is this:

Governments are not meant to be efficient, or profitable, or in any way, shape or form to be run like businesses.
They are not to be concerned with the "bottom-line".

At their barest minimum, Governments exist to provide for the welfare of their citizens: to protect, preserve, defend, and nurture the individuals who formed and maintain that self-same body we call a government.

At their Best, governments also represent and effect the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the citizens they serve.

Sometimes those hopes and dreams cost dollars and cents.
Sometimes they cost lives.

But if we are to be human (and humane) we must pay those costs.


Because if we are too cheap to spend for the Future, we likely wont have much of a future to spend.


Businesses don't work like that.

They can't.

Because, despite what the courts might say Corporations Are NOT People.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 





At their barest minimum, Governments exist to provide for the welfare of their citizens: to protect, preserve, defend, and nurture the individuals who formed and maintain that self-same body we call a government.


Dear Lord! You're "barest minimum" of government responsibility goes well beyond the bare minimum of governmental authority granted - at the very least - The United States of America.

Try this for an actual barest minimum: Governments should protect and defend the unalienable rights of the individual. Nothing more, nothing less. That's a bare minimum.




At their Best, governments also represent and effect the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the citizens they serve.


At their Worst, governments also oppress and effect the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of People regardless of their citizenship.




Because if we are too cheap to spend for the Future, we likely wont have much of a future to spend. Businesses don't work like that.


Really? Perhaps someone should explain that to these businesses:


Top R&D Spenders Of The S&P Company Ticker R&D Expense (Last 12 Months)
Merck & Co Inc MRK 10,808.50
Pfizer Inc. PFE 9,264.00
Microsoft Corp. MSFT 9,043.00
Johnson & Johnson JNJ 7,259.00
Intel Corp. INTC 7,248.00
International Business Machines Corp. IBM 6,198.00
Cisco Systems Inc. CSCO 5,730.00
Eli Lilly & Co. LLY 5,042.50
Oracle Corp. ORCL 4,519.00
Google Inc. Cl A GOOG 4,505.00


These are just the top spenders in Research and Development. Research and Development; also known as R&D...quite a common practice among businesses, this Research and Development. Of course, I don't have to explain this to anyone who knows the barest minimum about business, only those who have no clue about how business actually operates.



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vardoger
Depends on which government.....

As was discussed in the Chinese space program thread not to long ago I think China would have a much easier time than say the US in space exploration. China would have less regulations and therefor could take more risks, for cheaper (due to basically slave labor). Human life wouldn't mean as much and if accidents happened there would not be the legal wall to slog through that would be built up if it were in a "western" country.

Of course that is just speculation/opinion.
Also if helium 3 becomes a legitimate fuel source I think you may see a lot more private sector businesses trying to mine the moon because there would be a ton of $$$$$$ in it.



Well the the majority of the population is in poverty and most of our high tech facilities have a big "Out of Order" sign on them due to neglect. We won't be any worse off than China's slave population within another eight or so years.

It is goofiness to believe that any of these market players could get anything done, besides rant like a Drunken mob. And who said Obama cancelled Constellation, his presidency isn't real. He is one of the corporate ones, they cancel Government programs to allow corporations do things "cheaper." China will get it done and go to Mars as the US continues to look in futility for WMD's in Iraq. Make jokes but this isn't controversy for someone who is friends more with the Constitution than corporations. Corporations are in the carbon swap system which is another looting form that is why Europe can't fix their sewers (trying to locate the China Space program thread, for hope.)
edit on 5-1-2012 by MarkScheppy because: add



posted on Jan, 5 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by MarkScheppy
 


Your mindless reification is the only goofiness this thread has produced. You can scream at the top of your lungs your anti-capitalism until the cows come home. Your consistent inability to back up your claims with anything other than your ill informed opinions is just tragically goofy.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 





These programs were nothing more than capsules placed on top of rockets and the astronauts that manned them were given tasks that monkeys did before them. Conversely, the North American X-15 (a direct result of the Bell X-1 series) has, to date, made two officially qualified space flights. The difference is that the X-15 can handle aerodynamics and fly in Earths atmosphere. Given that the X-1 series predated the space race and given their evolution has shown us that they certainly can fly into space, then it is logically argued that the 21.5 billion spent on Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo was nothing more than a very expensive dog and pony show and the money was better spent developing the X-class series jets.


No.. Just stop. You seem to know nothing about spaceflight and orbital mechanics. X-15 was a glorified plane, and had no potential to achieve real orbit with 60s technology. It was also not the goal of the program. From the point of manned spaceflight (in its real definition - stable orbit, not simple hops) it was a waste of money. We cant even make SSTO now!

Rockets and capsules are the way to go. Apollo and Saturn program was very promising, and if not terminated, we would be on Mars now.


NASA administrator Michael D. Griffin argued in a 2007 paper that the Saturn program, if continued, could have provided six manned launches per year — two of them to the moon — at the same cost as the Shuttle program, with an additional ability to loft infrastructure for further missions:
If we had done all this, we would be on Mars today, not writing about it as a subject for “the next 50 years.” We would have decades of experience operating long-duration space systems in Earth orbit, and similar decades of experience in exploring and learning to utilize the Moon.[27]


Private industry is indeed more efficient than government. But if private industry is doing nothing, then even inefficient government space program is better than nothing. That is no longer the case now, but it was just 15 years ago and earlier.
And private industry also borrowed from NASA developed technologies (Bigelow - TransHab).



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 





No.. Just stop. You seem to know nothing about spaceflight and orbital mechanics. X-15 was a glorified plane, and had no potential to achieve real orbit with 60s technology. It was also not the goal of the program. From the point of manned spaceflight (in its real definition - stable orbit, not simple hops) it was a waste of money. We cant even make SSTO now!


No...you just stop. Just how deceitful do you guys intend on being? The X-class series goal was not space travel because the Bell X-1 predates the so called "space race"...but you know this and are just being deceitful. It is beyond laughable to call the X-15 a glorified plane when the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo were all nothing more than capsules placed upon rockets. The "astronauts" had to fight NASA just to get a window for Christs sakes! But, you know this too, and have some other insidious agenda going on!

Let's be clear here, I did not start a thread bashing government and asserting that only private industry can handle space exploration. Quite the opposite, but you know this, don't you? Just stop it!

It is just patently absurd for you to declare the X-15 a glorified plane and then pretend that capsules on rockets "is the way to go".



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


The X-15 could never reach orbit because it couldn't carry enough fuel to do so, and I believe it topped out at around 4,500 mph, under a third of the speed to get in orbit. Astronaut wings and orbit are to greatly different things, 62 miles up is far from orbit, and you realize the lower the altitude the faster the orbital speed burden is, so what would be the equivalent of 17,000 mph at 220 miles up if you are only 62 miles up to achieve orbit? Quite faster, plus all of the atmospheric drag make the idea of any X-plane achieving orbit ludicrous. BTW the miniature X-43 achieved over 7,000 mph.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
You can get into orbit with a speed of 10 miles per hour. The 17,000 number is an impulse speed. What that means that if you accelerate an object to 17,000 mph, it will have enough velocity to escape the Earth's gravity even if no more energy is added to it. If you shot a cannon ball with a muzzle velocity of over 17,000 mph it would not fall back to Earth. If the X-15 had carried more fuel and had a heat shield, it could have achieved orbit.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


What the hell is wrong with all of you people? All four of you are deflecting and for no good reason at all. I never claimed the X-15 could travel space, what I am asserting is that the X-class series were piloted flights that showed promise in the development of piloted space travel. Indeed, the X-15 of which you disingenuous posters feel so compelled to dismiss was a seminal experimental aircraft that helped to develop the Space Shuttle


The X-15 was a research scientist's dream. The experimental, rocket-boosted aircraft flew 199 flights with 12 different pilots at the controls from 1959 through 1968. It captured vital data on the effects of hypersonic flight on man and machine that proved invaluable to the nation's aeronautics researchers, including NASA and developers of the space shuttle. "That first powered flight was a real milestone in a program that we still benefit from today," said Engle.


I am not advocating any vehicle that is so heavily dependent upon the highly unstable rocket fuel. The X-class jets only came up because the O.P. felt compelled to dismiss my assertion that the politics of a "space race" only slowed space exploration down not sped it up.

If we are to meet our destiny as humanity to seed the stars, we must move beyond rockets and find a much more viable way of traveling the stars at length. We must find ways to build vehicles that can travel off of sources available in space and not remain so reliant on a fuel, that at this known point, is inherent to Earth alone. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. It probably takes much more than the mediocrity of government lackeys to accomplish this.

This thread is not about the strengths or weaknesses of one single experimental aircraft. This thread is a misguided attempt to dismiss the clear and obvious strengths and benefits that private industry brings to space exploration. If you believe private industry has no value in this regard then make cogent arguments to that instead of being disingenuous and pretending this thread is all about the X-15.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join