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: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I've went over the point too many times, there is no return of investment other than launching satellites into orbit for a private industry to meet quarterly projections. Only governments can take on the expense of paying private industries to develop the hardware and systems. Without a client Boeing would just make passenger airliners and military aircraft, for a profit. If you think you can just request and it can be built then I'm all ears.




posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


Yeah but you see it didn't and it can't. Not achieving orbital velocity means you need continuous thrust, no coasting. And no, if you shot a cannon ball 17,000 mph it will fall back to the ground, you're oversimplifying many variables, or misinterpreting some, maybe just for brevity. The problem is, what propulsion system on earth can slowly gain altitude, continuously out of the atmosphere and into space? There isn't one.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I've went over the point too many times, there is no return of investment other than launching satellites into orbit for a private industry to meet quarterly projections. Only governments can take on the expense of paying private industries to develop the hardware and systems. Without a client Boeing would just make passenger airliners and military aircraft, for a profit. If you think you can just request and it can be built then I'm all ears.


You are willfully, and of course you must necessarily ignore the reality of asteroid mining to make this tired argument. It really doesn't matter how many times you repeat a lie ( a lie of omission is still a lie) those who seek the truth will spot your lies.

Asteroid mining is the key to space economy, not taxing the crap out people.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


How do you get the cargo off of the asteroids and back to earth? On a tether? It would have to be some valuable stuff to be more profitable than mining on earth with railroad cars to haul the stuff or slow ships. That's pie in the sky fantasy, what's on an asteroid that isn't on earth? How do you determine what's on an asteroid TO mine? Wait around to catch a close flyby? When it takes corporations years and millions to survey our planet? Have you figured what the cost per kilo or pound would be to get stuff from an asteroid back for use on earth might be?

Something like a hugh diamond reserve is the only fathomable precious compound I could see ever worth the expense, and it never would be worth the expense if such a logistical infrastructure was in place to even imagine the notion of mining asteroids. I can see it now the, they blast a hole and all the fragments blast into space, or the backhoe rolls down a slope and achieves escape velocity dammit I hate it when that happens!



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Uh-huh. "Pie in the sky fantasies" was what people like you were telling the Wright Brothers.

If you represent the thinking found in government we will never escape the planet Earth let alone our own solar system. Your very narrow and limited thinking inside that tiny little box of yours is largely based upon your own smug refusal to do the research yourself instead of pretending others could never find answers to your silly questions. Because of this simple explanations such as gravity need be explained to you.

The gravity of an asteroid is no where near the gravity of Earth and even if we were to remain largely reliant upon your extremely narrow and limited world view insistent upon rocket and rocket fuel alone the cost of launching off of an asteroid would be dramatically more cost effective than launching off of this planet Earth.

Your willful ignorance of asteroid mining is due solely to your insistence of refusal to do the research. Hell this is what a simple Wikipedia article offers:


Some day, the platinum, cobalt and other valuable elements from asteroids may even be returned to Earth for profit. At 1997 prices, a relatively small metallic asteroid with a diameter of 1.6 km (0.99 mi) contains more than 20 trillion US dollars worth of industrial and precious metals.[1][2] In fact, all the gold, cobalt, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhenium, rhodium, ruthenium, and tungsten that we now mine from the Earth's crust, and that are essential for economic and technological progress, came originally from the rain of asteroids that hit the Earth after the crust cooled.


en.wikipedia.org...

In terms of cost, again your narrow and limited world view prices everything according to cost here on earth, and you certainly have not even mentioned and probably not considered other energy sources such as ion propulsion or Space Based Solor Power. You do not speak to these things, nor do you bother to do the research because arguably you know full well that the research would undermine your ill informed arguments and it is not truth you care about merely dogma.

Consider this tidbit from NASA



The comets and asteroids that are potentially the most hazardous because they can closely approach the Earth are also the objects that could be most easily exploited for their raw materials. It is not presently cost effective to mine these minerals and then bring them back to Earth. However, these raw materials could be used in developing the space structures and in generating the rocket fuel that will be required to explore and colonize our solar system in the twenty-first century.


There is a strange irony of NASA declaring asteroid mining "not cost effective" as if NASA itself is or the "space race" was, but even this government agency has more confidence in the reality of asteroid mining than its ignorant sycophants do. This is probably because people at NASA are more inclined to do the research than their Marxist dogmatic sycophants are.

Keep on defending your right to be ignorant. You certainly have that right just as people have the right to not at all be impressed with your exercise of the right to be ignorant.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by BelowPublicKnowledge
So what are you going to get at? Of course no private business will go into space to make money. Theres no one / thing in space to make money off of. You cant profit from going to space because I believe it cost anywhere from $10,000-15,000 to send ONE pound into space. Also you have to be very mentally stable to go into space to an extended amount of time because of the extreme isolation. Space isnt for profit, its for evolution.

Look up 'regalith' on google, see what riches it holds, well worth going to the moon once transport costs drop.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Your NASA link talks about asteroid mining for space fuel and structures. Yet there are no private ones except communication satelites, so the money would ultimately come from public sector, thats where the demand would be. And still, it is a science-fiction for now, and will remain so for decades.

Without public money, manned space exploration would be essentialy non-existent, that is a simple fact you refuse to recognize. There is no profit to be made without public money. No ion propulsion or space based solar power is going to change that anytime soon.

To paraphrase the title of the thread: "Only government can pay for it!".
edit on 7/1/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You still have to get your stuff OFF of earth, you seem to not consider. As far as your ignorance in ion propulsion goes, it has no effective electrical power for manned space flight, its used today for deep space probes, weighing in at fractions of manned crafts, not to mention all of this mining equipment you want to haul off of earth. So as far as getting things off of earth you have not indicated anything capable of achieving that other than rockets.

My comments are on the NOW, not some hypothetical future propulsion system we don't have.

Have you calculated the specific gravity of an asteroid only a mile in diameter? I believe if you have you may find that it's rotation could propel you fast enough to achieve escape velocity just trying to stand on it. Who cares how little energy one would need to launch off of an asteroid, the real challenge is NOT being launched off of an asteroid.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 



My comments are on the NOW, not some hypothetical future propulsion system we don't have.


The fundamental disagreements on this thread seem to be nuanced over what is possible NOW versus what MIGHT be possible some day. Private enterprise is motivated by the possibility of making a profit. As has been pointed out, at the moment this has limited its horizons to satellites and tentative space tourism. As the global economy changes, more venues might open up for private industry to explore.

Now, will private industry ever send a piloted mission to Mars purely in the spirit of exploration? Probably not, given the apparent lack of payoff as we see it today. On the other hand, might the National Geographic Society mount such an expedition with the help of corporate sponsorship? A three year reality show like that might make for good media exposure some day in the near future. Don't forget, in addition to the government and business, NGO's are capable raising the resources to explore outer space.



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by MarkScheppy
 

Actually, the fact that there's no compelling commercial reason to explore space privately is reason enough that we should invest less in NASA and more elsewhere (to protect our rights, for example). NASA is a big waste of money. It's an excuse to throw money at government.

Maybe if they talked more about how to commercially mine the moon or manufacture products in space or something of tangible benefit to our economy then I'd be a lot more receptive. At present, they only contribute in bits and pieces. Sure, the engineers can branch out after finishing with NASA and use their skills elsewhere. But none of that was free. We paid for it. Additionally, the technologies that NASA develops and hands over "freely" for public uses, were not in anyway free. That was paid for too. Again, you cannot escape these arguments by pointing to these bits and pieces. They're too small. You must establish that the very heart of NASA, the desire to explore and understand space, is a tangible and contributing endeavour that more than pays for itself. You can't point to some far off future benefit. You have to point to present reality.

This is why I think NASA is a bad idea. It can't be trusted to make a tangible contribution. The private sector is the best test of the "tangibleness" of an idea. The reason some people don't want space exploration moved to the private sector is because, deep inside their soul, they don't care about any tangible benefit. For them, the ends is the means. They only want to see us explore space, they have no care for how it's done. Fortunately, what goes around comes around. If NASA consistently is unable to output contributions with an equivalency equal to or greater than its input funding, then it will, foreseeably, fail to survive the test of time.

We will, of course, need a branch of the government to ensure that private exploration of space is done in a way that's lawful to the rights of all people. So some form of NASA will remain.

The government shouldn't be subsidizing either. The government is too big. Too much power. All of the tax money has gone to its head. We've convinced ourselves we NEED it.

We need it like a crack addict or a man that cannot unplug from his computer.

I'm convinced we need government to protect our rights. Rights to freely mingle and participate in the markets without fears of being harassed, murdered, cheated, or killed by pollutants or corporate recklessness. The EPA and police and military and FDA and other organizations are necessary as a means to pool our best knowledge so that we can use it to protect the commons, and thus, protect the people. But it has to be a democracy. The people must be involved. If they're not involved, then what will happen is that they won't protect our rights in meaningful ways. It might be underdone or overdone. Even a form of extortion like protection racketeering.

As for those arguments that mankind must move out into space to diversify and not put all of our eggs in one basket, I have need to only say that while people do consider the possibility of global catastrophes like asteroid impact or viral epidemics or alien invasion or solar storms or other such things in their risk assessment calculations, I think that the very immediate risks, like war or pollution or crime, are much more real and understood. After all, we will have hundreds of years to develop our technology and to expand our population to every corner of earth and outward into space. If a global catastrophe chooses to happen now, in the moments between planetary conquest and expansion into other places, then so be it. We cannot eliminate all risk. We only have so many resources to invest in our risk assessments and policing. We must pick and choose what we do. We SHOULD put some concern to these things, but we shouldn't overdo it.
edit on 7-1-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 





NASA is a big waste of money. It's an excuse to throw money at government.


Except that "the people" dont think so. NASA is among the highest-rated federal agencies and manned spaceflight is considered as important for the country by most. This is despite the fact that average Joe believes NASA budget is 20 % of federal budget (reality is 0.6 %) and NASA made some really bad decisions since Apollo, IMHO. Manned spaceflight is a hallmark of US might.

Then there is the claim that every dollar spent on NASA has earned even more in return. I dont know if that is true, but if not, funding manned spaceflight (NASA or privately-executed) is surely worth it just for the "cool" factor, I have no doubt about that.
edit on 7/1/12 by Maslo because: gbleh



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by madhatr137
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.


Because of that governments are more efficient at building Pillars (you hit the nail right on.) Government is doing something when Private Interest does NOTHING, then government is more efficient. Mercury-Redstone, they made an attempt and it failed. They did some modifications and tried again. Then put a monkey on it and succeeded. They didn't absolutely frantically rush but they got it right after about the fourth time and then launched Alan shepard. I doubt this Elon Musk his corporate employees are any smarter than project paperclip engineers.

The SpaceX company is the Pedestal of what you mean. Corporate built Trojan horse would have probably taken about ten years in itself to design and make a prototype and then a big wig would have scrapped the idea in favor of cutting costs. Moon Bases and Orbital stations who are we going to need to lead that? Kennedy right or someone with a mission-orientated investment (government) that would long-term be 25,50, and 100 years..
edit on 18-1-2012 by MarkScheppy because: add



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001


The fundamental disagreements on this thread seem to be nuanced over what is possible NOW versus what MIGHT be possible some day. Private enterprise is motivated by the possibility of making a profit. As has been pointed out, at the moment this has limited its horizons to satellites and tentative space tourism. As the global economy changes, more venues might open up for private industry to explore.



If Corporations are great why aren't they building Mag-lev rail systems and updating the waterways and cleaning the waterways for mariners. They are waiting for the government to do something, and Corporations know they don't have a clue as to how to get going on completing revamping an economy of infrastructure. Free Markets if you know anything believe in the principle of stagflation and exploitation and monopoly. Space and Asteroid mining has loads of potential for Corporate monopoly, sucks for them they can't get there nor do they have the impetus or resources to remotely get close to going to OUTER space!
edit on 18-1-2012 by MarkScheppy because: add



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Corperate enterprises are already taking steps and planning to mine Mars.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by hudsonhawk69
Corperate enterprises are already taking steps and planning to mine Mars.


What will the people be doing in those ten months besides suffering radiation and bone marrow loss? Corporate media loves the movies that show corporations excelling at things and phasing out government's role. Not amused by WEYLAND-YUTANI fantasy's that private comps has of wishing they could do things in space.
edit on 18-1-2012 by MarkScheppy because: add



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

There is a strange irony of NASA declaring asteroid mining "not cost effective" as if NASA itself is or the "space race" was, but even this government agency has more confidence in the reality of asteroid mining than its ignorant sycophants do. This is probably because people at NASA are more inclined to do the research than their Marxist dogmatic sycophants are.

Keep on defending your right to be ignorant. You certainly have that right just as people have the right to not at all be impressed with your exercise of the right to be ignorant.






At a fraction of a cost (they can boast a bit) and actually do it, can they do it prove it with a capsule that can survive trials "Pie in Sky" without the government holding their hands. NASA and government (and I) are skeptical that they can do it and be safe and have faith that a corporation can meet quality standards. The Agency has a knowledge of asteroids, StarDust, Dawn, as they have sent many successful probes to them and to comets. Like Shoes, every asteroid tells a story.

(Anglo-. Elon Musk and Bigelow Aerospace are the only ones who have shown success in test flights. But they don't have any customers yet I am betting we are going to sit here and have this same conversation ten years from now knowing the futility of Private Corporation to get 'er done. Making rubber tires for a car is one thing, but how about making thermal insulated ceramic tiles for a space shuttle that can withstand heat of 1,650 °C (3,000 °F).
edit on 19-1-2012 by MarkScheppy because: add



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarkScheppy

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

There is a strange irony of NASA declaring asteroid mining "not cost effective" as if NASA itself is or the "space race" was, but even this government agency has more confidence in the reality of asteroid mining than its ignorant sycophants do. This is probably because people at NASA are more inclined to do the research than their Marxist dogmatic sycophants are.

Keep on defending your right to be ignorant. You certainly have that right just as people have the right to not at all be impressed with your exercise of the right to be ignorant.






You are figuring I am a sycophant because I present Private enterprise with a challenge, to do it and prove you can become more efficient and put up engineering challenges "Pie Sky" at a fraction of a cost (they can boast a bit) and actually do it. NASA and government (and I) are skeptical that they can do it and be safe and have faith that a corporation can meet quality standards. The Agency has a knowledge of asteroids, StarDust, Dawn, as they have sent many successful probes to them and to comets. Like Shoes, every asteroid tells a story.

(Anglo-. Elon Musk and Bigelow Aerospace are the only ones who have shown success in test flights. But they don't have any customers yet I am betting we are going to sit here and have this same conversation ten years from now knowing the futility of Private Corporation to get 'er done. Making rubber tires for a car is one thing, but how about making thermal insulated ceramic tiles for a space shuttle that can withstand heat of 1,650 °C (3,000 °F).
edit on 19-1-2012 by MarkScheppy because: add



You bet that you will be having this same conversation ten years from now?! Well if you were for Nasa, ESA, and other Governmental agencies wouldn't you think "The Agency" have achieved a higher level of success by 2022?



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by heyitsphil
Why can't government AND commercial industries do it?

I think its amazing that a few decades ago space travel was only conducted by nations, now, if you're considerably rich you can buy a seat on Virgin Galactic or hell, develop your own space program.


Orbital has been doing just that since 1982, and with a sounder mind than Virgin Galactic piggybacks with the Pegasus, granted it is small but takes 1,000 pounds into orbit, and any orbit the costumer needs. But alas, their client list, is all NASA and DoD.

In other words, without a client, you have no business, you have to pay people, and meet quarterlies, but to get on the Market, you have to prove something first. You don;t just buy up antiquated 747s from the junk heap, make them twice as big, and expect to have people waiting to shell out 7 figures to take near orbit for joy rides and make a viable business out of it.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MarkScheppy
 


What are you on about? The vast majority of space activity is actually done by private companies. EADS Astrium is a good example, but there are other private operators such as Sea Launch and Space X who provide launch capabilites to a number of private and public customers.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by MarkScheppy
 


What are you on about? The vast majority of space activity is actually done by private companies. EADS Astrium is a good example, but there are other private operators such as Sea Launch and Space X who provide launch capabilites to a number of private and public customers.


Corporations stub noses over Government and what they have accomplished (America and Russia mostly). Over long range success compared with bleak short run (activity) prosperity. The curiosity will be one that finds life on Mars!
edit on 19-1-2012 by MarkScheppy because: add



new topics




 
3
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join