Capsules go up and shuttles come down!

Here's private enterprise doing space exploration for you;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5377958.stm

Are you going to rush out and invest in this company now?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Those are pretty optimistic timescales. Especially a lunar trip by 2020.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That doesn't matter. George W. has has his JFK moment promising a return to the Moon, and he won't be president in 2020, so he doesn't care if it happens or not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Things preventing privitization.

There are laws stating that space vehicles must be insured by a government, not a private institution. All crashes are the responsibility of the goverment.

Nasa is not a cash cow. If they were remotely near being in the black, it might be possible to privatize.

Privatization would make them MORE responsible for lives of crew members, the cost of machinary, etc and would lead to more problems with the space crap.

People can not sue the government, they could however sue a private nasa for negligence when it comes to the lives of their families (potential crew members, passengers, that a privatized nasa would have to rely on for income.)

 

Space exploration has always been dangerous whether the space agency is private or government!
Accidents do happen in the real world!

Remember NASA lost challenger and columbia too!

There wil never be a 100% safety record when it comes to going out into space!

 

A government has an easier time eating the cost of culpability than a private company. Governments can also afford to run deficits with programs that have no forseeable payout.

Why would I put my money in a company that *might* start making returns in 2100?

 

I agree completely and have stated just such an opinion in other threads myself.

I was just pointing out that space exploration has it's failures, and when it's NASA, it's public money, and the public have no choice to pay taxes, but when it's private, and there are failures, it dents the return, and the vigour of future investors.

So this was aimed at Vega, who was handwaving privatisation over NASA, as if that would make things better.

 

However if the public were given the option of deciding what the private firm should do with their money i.e public selecting what type of exploration they want to invest in, I guess more people like myself would probably see that as feasable despite the possible failures that could arise in the plan.

Making you decide what and how space should be explored might be a good opening initative for the people wanting to invest. Acquired space artifacts could be then by agreement given ownership rights to the investor therby giving the people more control and return from their investments

 

You don't seem to grasp the idea of 'public' and 'private'. You want a publicly funded funded body to act like a private one, and seek out profit, but be directed by the taxpayer? Jesus, sounds like a recipe for a racehorse that breeds camels.

 

not act like a private one ..but be one without the bureaucratic redtape that usually dictates to government agencies!

why can't the taxpayer play a role in this venture?
Think of It as a mutual investment scheme where you the taxpayer benefits as well as the private agency from advertisment revenue and exposure.

 

Hahaha, want to go get a beer sometime?

 

The closest agency I can think of to the one you describe is;

http://www.qinetiq.com

They are partially floated on the stock market. They sell their services to the Govt and Private Sector, and are involved in Aerospace, amongst other things.

You do, you pay your taxes. And the benefits from NASA for instance are delivered through it's educational programmes. The problem is that the taxpayers would never agree a course. I wouldn't want to fund manned space exporation, I think it's largely a waste of money. Now, we would be pulling different directions, wouldn't we? Someone has to be at the helm, and there are better uses for the democratic process than deciding which planet to send a probe to next.


.

 

I change my mind, no beer for you.

 

More for me then.......?

 

Nor for driving, bicycling, or walking to the grocery store.

 

That's sick and irresponsible!
Launching cremated remains into space?

A few questions spring to mind.....
do we want dead peoples remains in space?
isn't LEO cluttered enough? - 'dead mans urn kills 3 cosmonauts'
will they completely burn up in the atmosphere?
what's the point in that?

"The reason for the failure of Monday's launch is unclear."
Was it a beamer? (microwave burst thingy)

Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, call a spaceship a name that begins with the letter 'c'

 

They already are. They just happen to be shrouded in a little dirt and even less atmosphere.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If we set aside the possible hazards to low Earth orbit navigation, what is your objection to this practice? You appear to see it as somehow unethical; morally reprehensible; so bizarre, as to be seriously contemplated only by the mentally ill. If I am reading your opinion correctly, why do you hold that view? Would you also object to the practice of placing bodies in the open to have their bones picked clean by vultures? Do you object to cremation? To dumping bodies in holes in the ground, where worms and soil bacteria will consume them? What do you think is the correct way to dispose of the dead?

 

That is exactly what NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services project is about:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/news/COTS_selection.html

 

It sounds like a promising prospect!
Has Nasa got anymore suprises instore by the end of this decade?
I bet space tourism will be big money for Nasa if it takes off commercially!