Would you rather continue to pay, through your tax dollars, NASA to explore space or have it turned over to private companies? NASA hasn't given us much and the Space Station is a complete bust. The US is footing most of the money for the station as one country after another drops out.
Think carefully about your answer and consider the consequences of it going private.
I don't know the answer. One is just as bad as the other but if it were private maybe we would know more about space than we do now. Do we know everything that is out there or is there the possibility of cover ups?
When choosing between two evils, I always like to take the one I've never tried before.
I agree that there are pros and cons involved with making the space program private. But If I had to choose, Based on safety, I would let the private sector have it. I don't remember the exact details, but I've heard that when the govt is looking to send up a shuttle, that it take bids from anyone with the means to do so. The Private sector make their offer with a price needed to safely do so. NASA then Offers their service at a largely reduced price. To Stay within That price they Sacrifice alot of their Safety measures.
The poolhall's a great equalizer. In the poolhall, nobody cares how old you are, how young you are, what color your skin is or how much money you've got in your pocket... It's about how you move. I remember this kid once who could move around a pool table like nobody had ever seen. Hour after hour, rack after rack, his shots just went in. The cue was part of his arm and the balls had eyes. And the thing that made him so good was... He thought he could never miss. I know, 'cause that kid was me.
I think to put it simply there are things you can achieve in space expolaration using Public bodies such as NASA, [which actually has been a fantastic success and one of the most important scientific institutions ever (ever), its just that a lot of its achievements are well, scientific, and not that interesting to people not really interested or directly involved in science (but they have done some really excellent things NASA, they are much maligned if you ask me)]. But I also think that of course space should be available for private companies, governments don't own space so why shouldn't private companies get involved if they can do interesting things?, provide people and companies with access to space, and of course make a profit, I'm all for it.
Its not a zero sum game, there are things that NASA or ESA or the Russian government or whoever is involved in space will do that will not appeal to private companies, but there are obviously lots of things such as space tourism and commercial sattelite launches, that private companies should get invovled in if its profitable, perhaps in the future they will be mining the asteroid belt, building hotels on the Moon, doing exporations to Mars, its all good if you ask me.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
Sorry, I'm so late in getting back to my own thread but. . .
There is a company in Georgia that made plans to send up a mile wide mylar billboard in a low earth orbit that would reflect the suns ray at dusk and dawn. It would be an advertisement for Coca Cola or whomever had the money to pay for the billboard.
There are companies ready to send the cremated remains of your loved ones into space to orbit the earth for eternity. There are also companies ready to shoot our garbage into space to alleviate the need for landfills here on earth.
All sounds pretty good, huh? Maybe, until those urns or garbage hits a satellite or the space station and renders it useless. Or maybe hit an asteroid with just a pinch of force enough to alter it's trajectory enough for it to turn and hit the earth.
We can see what happens when advertising is allowed on the side of the roads or on the television, newspaper and radio. Aren't there some that just make you cringe? And aren't there some that make you wish they came with a disclaimer for children?
Imagine a giant billboard cutting across the sky at sunset advertising jock itch cream. How romantic would that be? :-6
When choosing between two evils, I always like to take the one I've never tried before.
911;451572 wrote: Sorry, I'm so late in getting back to my own thread but. . .
There is a company in Georgia that made plans to send up a mile wide mylar billboard in a low earth orbit that would reflect the suns ray at dusk and dawn. It would be an advertisement for Coca Cola or whomever had the money to pay for the billboard.
There are companies ready to send the cremated remains of your loved ones into space to orbit the earth for eternity. There are also companies ready to shoot our garbage into space to alleviate the need for landfills here on earth.
All sounds pretty good, huh? Maybe, until those urns or garbage hits a satellite or the space station and renders it useless. Or maybe hit an asteroid with just a pinch of force enough to alter it's trajectory enough for it to turn and hit the earth.
We can see what happens when advertising is allowed on the side of the roads or on the television, newspaper and radio. Aren't there some that just make you cringe? And aren't there some that make you wish they came with a disclaimer for children?
Imagine a giant billboard cutting across the sky at sunset advertising jock itch cream. How romantic would that be? :-6
I think that the attitude towards using the sky as advertising space should be the same as it would if (for example) Microsoft apptempted to engarve its logo on the bed of the grand caynon in mile wide letters, i.e. don't even try it buddy. Companies getting involved in space have to be completely scrutinised and any thing sent into orbit has to be OK'd anyway, as a lot of what goes up there comes back down. In terms of hitting asteroids, they are in an orbit beyond that of mars so sending anything there such as granny's ashes would be astronomically (Literally!) expensive, thats not going to happen, also the average mass of a sattelite compared to the average mass of an asteroid is very very small, and of course the liklihood of actually coming near to anything in space is very small unless you actually aim for it, as space is about 99.99999 percent nothing, and thats in the solar system, in interstellar space there really is a whole load of nothing, with the odd star every 40,000 years to keep you interested.
But back to the advertising thing I agree, no dice.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
Edward J Markey, State Representative of Massachuettes, proposed a bill in the House of Representative in July of 1993, making it illegal for ads to be taken into space. It was called the 'Space Advertising Prohibition Act'. It was sent to the President in hopes that he would talk to the other nations and stop this before it starts.
so sending anything there such as granny's ashes would be astronomically (Literally!) expensive, thats not going to happen
But it already has happened. They just didn't leave it there. I believe they brought it back. Wasn't it Carl Sagan's ashes or someone? I remember seeing it on the news. If there are people here willing to pay millions of dollars for a house, someone will pay to send granny's ashes into space. Oh, wait, let a movie star do it and them it become hip for everyone to do it. Want a child? Ask Jolee, she'll tell ya how to get one cheap.
As much trouble as NASA is in and as many failures as they have had, I don't want to see space become public frontier, at least not now. Maybe in 50 years when the next generation comes around and has a little more sense.
When choosing between two evils, I always like to take the one I've never tried before.
But it already has happened. They just didn't leave it there. I believe they brought it back. Wasn't it Carl Sagan's ashes or someone? I remember seeing it on the news. If there are people here willing to pay millions of dollars for a house, someone will pay to send granny's ashes into space. Oh, wait, let a movie star do it and them it become hip for everyone to do it. Want a child? Ask Jolee, she'll tell ya how to get one cheap.
Yes they are doing it, and its a bit silly and kitsch, but these have all beeb put in low earth orbit, which is (relatively cheap to do), they are not near anything important like a proper satellite, or the space shuttle, and these little "urns" burn up in the upper atmosphere after a short time, I was referring about your worry that these "urns" would hit an asteroid, the asteroid belt is beyond the orbit of Mars, and only a handful of very very expensive probes have ever gone that far, to send a satellite into such an orbit would cost at the least hundreds of millions of dollars, its not going to happen. I'm not for one second saying that there such be unregulated or unscrutinized access to space, just that in general, space does not belong to anyone (which is of course proper and correct) so no one has the right to stop public access to it, a simple principal.
As much trouble as NASA is in and as many failures as they have had, I don't want to see space become public frontier, at least not now. Maybe in 50 years when the next generation comes around and has a little more sense.[/QUOTE]
NASA has had failures, but when you consider the technical difficulties in what they do, and what they have achieved in 50 years, NASA is actually an outstanding and brilliant organization, responsible for the greatest human achievement of all time, and a huge amount of incredible sucesses, you should as an American be extremely proud of what NASA has done, I would be. I also don't think that anyone is proposing that NASA and similar organizations such as the European Space Agency should stop doing what they are doing, simply that there are other things that can be done by others, its not a zero sum game.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
Galbally;448315 wrote: I think to put it simply there are things you can achieve in space expolaration using Public bodies such as NASA, [which actually has been a fantastic success and one of the most important scientific institutions ever (ever), its just that a lot of its achievements are well, scientific, and not that interesting to people not really interested or directly involved in science (but they have done some really excellent things NASA, they are much maligned if you ask me)]. But I also think that of course space should be available for private companies, governments don't own space so why shouldn't private companies get involved if they can do interesting things?, provide people and companies with access to space, and of course make a profit, I'm all for it.
Its not a zero sum game, there are things that NASA or ESA or the Russian government or whoever is involved in space will do that will not appeal to private companies, but there are obviously lots of things such as space tourism and commercial sattelite launches, that private companies should get invovled in if its profitable, perhaps in the future they will be mining the asteroid belt, building hotels on the Moon, doing exporations to Mars, its all good if you ask me.
911;451572 wrote: Sorry, I'm so late in getting back to my own thread but. . .
There is a company in Georgia that made plans to send up a mile wide mylar billboard in a low earth orbit that would reflect the suns ray at dusk and dawn. It would be an advertisement for Coca Cola or whomever had the money to pay for the billboard.
There are companies ready to send the cremated remains of your loved ones into space to orbit the earth for eternity. There are also companies ready to shoot our garbage into space to alleviate the need for landfills here on earth.
All sounds pretty good, huh? Maybe, until those urns or garbage hits a satellite or the space station and renders it useless. Or maybe hit an asteroid with just a pinch of force enough to alter it's trajectory enough for it to turn and hit the earth.
We can see what happens when advertising is allowed on the side of the roads or on the television, newspaper and radio. Aren't there some that just make you cringe? And aren't there some that make you wish they came with a disclaimer for children?
Imagine a giant billboard cutting across the sky at sunset advertising jock itch cream. How romantic would that be? :-6
I thought you were only questioning which should handle the exploration/science area of space.
Clearly I was mistaken. If these were the Private companies that would Take over, I would have to take another look at my position on the subject
The poolhall's a great equalizer. In the poolhall, nobody cares how old you are, how young you are, what color your skin is or how much money you've got in your pocket... It's about how you move. I remember this kid once who could move around a pool table like nobody had ever seen. Hour after hour, rack after rack, his shots just went in. The cue was part of his arm and the balls had eyes. And the thing that made him so good was... He thought he could never miss. I know, 'cause that kid was me.
I don't see Space exploration being on the list of endeavors from private companies anytime soon, or even in the near future for that matter. Mostly because, quite simply, there isn't any profit in space...at least not from a marketing standpoint. I don't see a great demand for "Moon rocks", or any other material in space that would profit any given personal business that would ultimately have to be significantly higher than their own expenditures...unless of course you start talking about space travel for common citizens, and even then you would need a high enough demand in conjunction to an affordable price that would continuously keep up with the amount of business needed to sustain a legitimate profit. That is of course if the government would even allow it. (My opinion)
I honestly don't see that happening within hundreds of years...but who knows...
K.Snyder;452736 wrote: I don't see Space exploration being on the list of endeavors from private companies anytime soon, or even in the near future for that matter. Mostly because, quite simply, there isn't any profit in space...at least not from a marketing standpoint. I don't see a great demand for "Moon rocks", or any other material in space that would profit any given personal business that would ultimately have to be significantly higher than their own expenditures...unless of course you start talking about space travel for common citizens, and even then you would need a high enough demand in conjunction to an affordable price that would continuously keep up with the amount of business needed to sustain a legitimate profit. That is of course if the government would even allow it. (My opinion)
I honestly don't see that happening within hundreds of years...but who knows...
Richard Branson and the Virgin group have already formed a company to do this - they see enough money in space tourism to fund a next generation HOTOL craft.
Bryn Mawr;453604 wrote: Richard Branson and the Virgin group have already formed a company to do this - they see enough money in space tourism to fund a next generation HOTOL craft.
I honestly don't see it being profitable...
They would have to target the middle class working family, and quite simply, if lack of confidence doesn't dictate their interests, lack of funds will.
Obviously they would have to make it affordable in association to willingness, which I believe may prove to be insufficient as far as demand is concerned.
I just don't see it happening.
(Well - I should say in my life time -- Which is what really my entire point is based on...considering I won't give a rats arse if space travel is introduced when I'm dead)
K.Snyder;453613 wrote: I honestly don't see it being profitable...
They would have to target the middle class working family, and quite simply, if lack of confidence doesn't dictate their interests, lack of funds will.
Obviously they would have to make it affordable in association to willingness, which I believe may prove to be insufficient as far as demand is concerned.
I just don't see it happening.
(Well - I should say in my life time -- Which is what really my entire point is based on...considering I won't give a rats arse if space travel is introduced when I'm dead)
All I can say is that he make a profit at whatever he does.
He already has enough people signed up to fill flights for years after the service starts.
As it is fully re-usable with a turnaround time of a couple of days the cost per flight is comparatively low.
Fibonacci;451973 wrote: I thought you were only questioning which should handle the exploration/science area of space.
Clearly I was mistaken. If these were the Private companies that would Take over, I would have to take another look at my position on the subject
Yes, that really was my question. Which would you rather see take over the space program, NASA or private companies?
Both are expensive, as any space travel would be or dealing with anything in outer space, but the private sector would probably be cheaper. But in my heart, I feel NASA would be safer and would probably trust them more although we, as the public, may learn more from he private sector.
But, all in all, I would rather see the space program stay with NASA.
When choosing between two evils, I always like to take the one I've never tried before.
Galbally;451654 wrote: I think that the attitude towards using the sky as advertising space should be the same as it would if (for example) Microsoft apptempted to engarve its logo on the bed of the grand caynon in mile wide letters, i.e. don't even try it buddy. Companies getting involved in space have to be completely scrutinised and any thing sent into orbit has to be OK'd anyway, as a lot of what goes up there comes back down. In terms of hitting asteroids, they are in an orbit beyond that of mars so sending anything there such as granny's ashes would be astronomically (Literally!) expensive, thats not going to happen, also the average mass of a sattelite compared to the average mass of an asteroid is very very small, and of course the liklihood of actually coming near to anything in space is very small unless you actually aim for it, as space is about 99.99999 percent nothing, and thats in the solar system, in interstellar space there really is a whole load of nothing, with the odd star every 40,000 years to keep you interested.
But back to the advertising thing I agree, no dice.
Not as expensive as you might think and in some cases, cheaper than a funeral and you can go forever into deep space or just be thrown out onto the moon.
So, I suppose if private companies are allowed to do this and should this turn out to be a real success, are we going to need space traffic controllers as we do for aircraft (air traffic controllers)?
When choosing between two evils, I always like to take the one I've never tried before.
