OT: Governmental Space Agencies or Private

[Tnarg]

I'm reading a great book by Dan Brown "Deception Piont" that talks about how NASA undermines private space orginaztions from accomplishing their goals into getting into space and exploiting the boundless resources there. Of course this is fiction, but it leads me to become curious.

I am now torn on wehter to support NASA and their budget to continue exploring origins theory and other explorations that gain no profit in an economic sense. The book talks about how NASA basically has a monopoly in space and imposes regulations that make it difficult for private organizations to capitalize in space. Reasons for doing this include the trashing of space, as many money hungry entrepreuners would quickly turn space into strip mines and glitzy hotels. Soon taxpayers would protest giving NASA the billions a year to explore space in a scientific nature and eventually the plug would be pulled.

So my real question is if the Private Sector where allowed to begin their capitaliztion of space, what do you think would really happen?

Personally I believe that it would be a radical jump to at least get us(the common person) up there soon. I am not sure what would happen to specific research such as the studying of the heavens without economic gain, but I am sure there would be leaps and bounds as far as technology and solar exploration in a relatively short time.

Again I am sure everything that I meantioned as far as what NASA and government does is fiction.
Just looking for additional input.

http://www.space-frontier.org/PressR...housevote.html

[ May 31, 2004, 21:33: Message edited by: Tnarg ]

[PvK]

I expect "private sector" would mean "megacorporate". More money for organizations that already have silly amounts of money, and maybe a bit for those with the excess money to invest in them. And (oh boy) creation of jobs (sigh). Seems mostly likely to be another irritating waste of resources aimed at multiplying the wealth of the already pointlessly wealthy, with scientific and useful gains only accidental side effects.

What I'd really hate to see would some of the intentional defacement projects some bozos have proposed. Enormous ads in space or on the moon, defacing the night sky. Or, "hey, conventionally illuminating the heck out of nighttime urban environments isn't enough - let's light up the planet from orbit". Dang fools.

PvK

[Gandalf Parker]

Actually there is alot of activity on the civilian side. Enough in fact that if NASA doesnt get new funding they could be "just one of the players" within our lifetime

www.spacedev.com
http://www.space.com/news/mojave_spaceport_040524.html
http://www.thespacereview.com
http://www.gofastsports.com/brand/rocketlaunch.html
http://www.miningweekly.co.za/min/ut...ch/?show=49819
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4694927/

[bearclaw]

In the late 1400's and 1500's only governments could finance ocean voyages to the New World and to Asia from Europe.

By the early to mid 1600's larger private fortunes could finance such ventures because the technology to build the ships nessesary and the medical technology to prevent things like scurvy made it more affordable.

By the 1800's just about any company could own a ocean going vessel and even poorer folks could buy passage across the ocean to get to better lands, so to speak.

Starting in the 1900's individuals could and did start with ships that could sail around the world.

As the technology improved, costs came down and IMO, the influance of private business made it happen even faster than if it had stayed in the hands of governments only.

I belive that the same will happen with space technology. Admittedly, there are MANY greater hurtles to overcome, but technology is advancing faster each year.

I, personally, am routing for the private space service to begin with full force. I highly doubt anyone would actually put an ad on the moon you could see from earth, but I do expect places that are already planning on becoming Space Ports to thrive a great deal in the next 50-100 years. Oklahoma has some impressive plans to turn an old Air Force base into a space port. And the Mojave Airport has actually put in an application to the US Government to be clasified as a Space Port. The reason being that the top contender for the X Prize is using the Mojave Airport to test it's entry craft the SpaceShipOne. While it hasn't achived orbit yet, they have set a new record for the highest non-governmental manned flight.

Check out X Prize

The key differance between space travel and ocean travel is that there were obvious financial benifits to traveling to the New World and Asia. Trade, gold, land, exotic plants/animals, etc. Without some sort of financial reason to go to space, all this could be moot.

[dogscoff]

The money for space exploitation in today's global economic climate can only ever really come from the private sector. Governments- even rich ones- are only prepared to put a very small amount of their cash in to such projects.

However, they MUST be tightly regulated in terms of safety, and in such a way that they can't just avoid the regs by moving their launches to some other part of the world. It's all very well cutting a few corners to return an extra few $$$$ to the shareholders, but something falling out of orbit can do a LOT of damage.

'Pollution' in space must also be looked at very carefully. Sure, space is ridiculously big, but Earth orbit isn't, and the planet's resources are also finite. We need to get off on the right foot and get ppl in the right habits from the start.

As for putting advertising on the moon- it would be the biggest PR botch any company could ever make.

[dogscoff]

I reckon the cost of developping and building a small orbital craft could be offset by using it to shoot the first ever zero-G pr0n flick. With the right marketting/ hype/ controversy it could make millions=-)

it would also create enormous demand for space tourism as couples suddenly find a reason to go into space...

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
I reckon the cost of developping and building a small orbital craft could be offset by using it to shoot the first ever zero-G pr0n flick. With the right marketting/ hype/ controversy it could make millions=-)

it would also create enormous demand for space tourism as couples suddenly find a reason to go into space...

Do a google for "space hotel" (include the quotes) there are both plans for utrning the mir into one, or building one with private funds. They have already sold reservations
SpaceFuture is a fun link
http://www.spacefuture.com/

[ June 01, 2004, 15:07: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[Narrew]

After reading a few books on space exploration, I tend to think that NASA has been a restricting force, intentionally or un-intentionally.

Robert Zubrin, you might have seen him on discovery type programs, he has written books on colonizing Mars ect...In one of the books of his I read, he gripes about the tunnel vision that NASA and space engine manufacturers have. Main thing there are ideas on the board that could turn one-time engines into reusable engines. Plus the lack of heavy lift engines.

Another author, Marshall Savage wrote "The Millennial Project". Discusses many ways for us to move out into space that have been on the books since the 60-70's.

Both seem to imply that we have went backwards space technology wise since we been to the moon. If we chart on a graph and projected where we would be today (based on conservative increase) from the moon mission days, we probably should have been on Mars sometime in the mid 80s *shrug*.

I doubt that NASA will be the leaders in the next wave of space exploration. It should be the private individuals. NASA is just too large, another bloated government agency. So my bet is on the private individuals.

[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
'Pollution' in space must also be looked at very carefully. Sure, space is ridiculously big, but Earth orbit isn't, and the planet's resources are also finite. We need to get off on the right foot and get ppl in the right habits from the start.

You mean like dumping it in a designated crater on the far side of the moon? Gravity will hold much of it in (may need containers for some things to prevent them from boiling off and landing in Earth's atmosphere); the whole thing's uninhabited (at the moment), so it won't disturb any current resident's view (and the dump could be made to pre-date any immigrants); there is no native life that can be threatened by anything that manages to escape the containers in a spill; it's a lot easier to put something in a crater on the moon than it is to drop it into the sun or send it out of the solar system; if push comes to shove, it can be retrieved (barring an unlucky impact); and if it fills up, well, there are lots & lots of craters on that side of the moon....

[PvK]

There's already a large amount of debris in low Earth orbit from all the human space activity so far. Dead satellites, and bits and pieces of various devices, floating around at orbital (read: very high) speed, providing obstacles for anything else that wants to operate in low Earth orbit.

Sending such stuff "to the Moon" isn't a practical or useful task at present.

PvK