Leave Outer Space to the Millionaires 487
tcd004 writes "Martin Rees, Britain's Astronomer Royal has an interesting article in Foreign Policy arguing that the future of manned space travel should be left to wealthy adventurers. He points to the fact that modern state-funded space disasters become national traumas, and argues that that gung-ho millionaires are more free to take risks because they 'don't represent a nation; [they] represent humanity.'"
Boy bands in space. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Boy bands in space. (Score:2)
Re:Boy bands in space. (Score:2)
A crew with the aptitude of monkeys that pay for themselves!
Just pray... (Score:5, Funny)
Kjella
Re:Boy bands in space. (Score:3, Funny)
"If we can send one man to the moon --- why not send them all?"
.
Re:Boy bands in space. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Send the spammers (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as the aliens are concerned, we're probably considered to be an entire planet full of spammers, blasting our radio and tv signals out into space 24x7.
Uh-huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh-huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh-huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
We still have the same shuttles because they are probably cheaper then building new ones. NASA was spawned from the Airforce and still is relient on military money for many projects.
Singular millionaries will goto space, because they want to, while most people are fine h
Re:Uh-huh. (Score:4, Informative)
Uh, no. It wasn't. NASA was born of NACA (the National Advisory Council on Aeronautics), and has been a civilian agency from the get-go. NASA's funding does not come through the DoD or the USAF, but directly from Congress.
Yes, a number of NASA Astronauts are either ex-military, or active duty military seconded to NASA, but this is a result of the requirements NASA places on shuttle pilots (mission and payload specialists OTOH tend to be civilian). Yes, NASA flew a bunch of DoD payloads on the shuttle, but this was a result of NASA essentially demanding that they be the only launcher for US payloads (this was the only way they could even come close to generating a flight rate that would justify the shuttle).
NASA is a civilian agency. NASA employees are civilian government employees.
Re:Uh-huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Uh-huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you realize how horribly complicated computers are? Less than 30 years ago it was almost incomprehensible that the things would someday become a household item. The same could have been said of automobiles at one point. Never underestimate the power of commoditization.
And these millionaires who are building reusable spacecraft are also not under the umbrella of the US government, which requires some form of safety/redundancy/reliability
And private industry *doesn't* require safety/redundancy/reliability?
Re:Uh-huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you realize how horribly complicated computers are? Less than 30 years ago it was almost incomprehensible that the things would someday become a household item.
Yes, and we all know how bug-free and rock-solid stable most instances of computers and operating systems are. The tolerance level for failure and breakdown for a machine designed for manned space travel is considerably lower than the tolerance level for a machine designed to browse the internet and help balance your checkbook.
And private industry *doesn't* require safety/redundancy/reliability?
Gee, heard any stories lately about pharmaceutical, biotech, or other high-tech industries cutting safety and reliability corners in their pursuit of the almighty better bottom line? Yeah, me neither. Corporations would never screw over consumers and try to cover it up to earn more profit. So let's go ahead and dump manned space flight entirely into the hands of private industry and the markets.
Re:Uh-huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA did do good work, 30 years ago, but they haven't done much of anything since. When NASA was founded in the 1960's (could be wrong, could have been in the 50's, so don't hold me to this), they went from capsule style launching to putting a man on the moon to shuttle launching in about 20 years. But since that time, they haven't done anything new. Sure, there have been plans to goto Mars, or build a habitat on the moon. But none of these projects were explored. So, instead of spending their budget on pushing further into space, maybe even grabing an asteroid for mining, they decided to stay at home, doing nothing more than launching expensive shuttles to perform some experiments. My tax dollars are higher because NASA has refused to scrap the shuttle. If they had actually spent the time to test/build some of these new designs, we would have much cheaper space flight.
Re:Uh-huh. (Score:3, Informative)
You realize how complicated the shuttle is, yet you think they disassemble the entire orbiter every single time? Also, do you know how much it costs
Re:Uh-huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is simply untrue. I have no idea where you think you heard this from, but the type of maintenance that you describe only happens when the engineers deem it necessary (usually every 8 to 10 flights.) They do not "rebuild the entire thing" every time a shuttle returns from space, and it is extraordinarily dishonest of you to propagate this.
NASA did do good work, 30 years ago, but they haven't done much of anything since.
Correct. Other than the Shuttle program itself (which is aging but still a marvel of human engineering) and all of the science that has resulted from it, the Voyager missions to explore the outer solar system, the Viking and Pathfinder missions to Mars (the latter of which involved JPL actually driving a rover around on the surface of the planet) and the resulting hundredfold increase in mankind's knowledge of Mars, the Galileo mission that spent years studying and providing unprecedented amounts of information on the Jovian (that's Jupiter) system, the Cassini mission that will do the same in the Saturnian system, the Deep Space 1 mission that involved an actual rendezvous with comet Borrelly, numerous Earth science projects that enable us to map this planet, monitor resources, respond to disasters, and deal with everything from famine to forest fires, the International Space Station, and the Chandra X-ray Observatory. Oh, and then there's that Hubble thing, which has expanded mankind's knowledge of the universe more than any other instrument in history. And I'm sure I'm forgetting several prominent projects (sorry, fellas.)
Other than that, yeah, NASA's been pretty much inert.
My tax dollars are higher because NASA has refused to scrap the shuttle.
Oh, for God's sake. NASA's budget is approximately one quarter of one percent of the entire federal outlay. If you pay (for example) $400 in federal taxes for each paycheck, less than a dollar goes to NASA. (And if you get paid every two weeks, this means that you pay about $25/year to NASA.) Even at the height of the Apollo program in the late 1960s, NASA's budget was only slightly over 4 percent of the national budget as a whole. If you want to complain about "your tax dollars", start pointing your fingers at certain Senators who order aircraft carriers that the military doesn't even want just so that a company in their Congressional district can land a lucrative contract.
If we could cut all of the self-serving pork out of the federal budget, we'd have enough money to fund ten NASAs.
Re:Uh-huh. (Score:3, Informative)
NASA has progressed much further then any wealthy millionaire. NASA has been to space a zillion times in the last 30 years. When was the last time a wealthy millionaires made it into orbit without the help of a big government?
Yes, wealthy millionaires are progressing, but right now they are far, far behind any of the major space agencies. The Xprize only requires their contestants to reach low orbit below the height needed for satallites, so don't ex
Re:Uh-huh. (Score:3, Funny)
Paul B.
Re:Uh-huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it took somebody with a huge expensive FAB to produce the Microprocessors, to bring it to 'everybody else.' All those dirty hippies in the garage couldn't have done shit without LSI semiconductors from big, expensive corporations.
Still, it's romantic to think that a few guys in a garage could change the world....
Re:Uh-huh. (Score:3, Informative)
Probably, but it's not either-or.
The problem with NASA (with all government space in all countries really) is that it's budget can't grow much. It can't grow because it is a government operation, and hence essentially can't make a profit, and therefore only grows as fast as gove
Re:Uh-huh. (Score:4, Funny)
What about their maids and butlers?
Now... where to get zero-G cooking and cleaning experience?
Re:Uh-huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you get to be a millionaire by SELLING the $16000 toilet seats.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Uh-huh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh yeah, and America/FAA takes responsibility for American citizens launching from anywhere in the world, and you have to jump through exactly the same hoops no matter what. (Some of the paperwork is easier to satisfy depending on where you are launching from though.)
Let's put it this way- XCOR have hired someone for the sole purpose of dealing with the FAA and other regulatory authorities.
Wow (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:4, Funny)
This hole is a par 5, 19km. The green is at 18.5km, and up 17 meters.
-moitz-
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Funny)
As opposed to what socialist nonsense?
Homer Simpson, "averagenaut"?
(Oh, and thanks for the setup. I'd have posted your comment anon just so I could post this reply. But I knew someone would come thru!)
Yep (Score:3, Funny)
To the extent that the world revolves around them...
Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
At least by using publicly funded sources for space travel, we can get a better guarantee that the results of the work will be held in the public interest, whereas by commercialization of space exploration and travel, we guarantee that the results will be held for private interests only.
As long we are pretending to give a damn about our fellow man, we might as well make a good show of it and keep the funding for exploration public. It could easily be funded by cutting the military back to basic killing-and-maiming stuff like guns and bullets instead of pie-in-the-sky advanced weaponry that's only 50% effective (Patriot missile system, for one).
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would argue the opposite. Perhaps millionaires are as good a representative of humanity as nations... it all depends what you mean by "representing humanity". Better to dispense with this vague notion and get on with the real matter.
I have high hopes for privately funded space programs. That doesn't mean that all public funding should be dropped, perhaps we'll even see jointly funded missions in the future.
As for the results of a commercial space program being for 'private interests' only: look at many of the privately funded endeavours of the past and present. I would argue that private enterprise has brought jobs, wealth and comforts, especially to the common people (while making a few individuals super-rich, yes). Many things like running water, air travel, cheap and ubiquitous communication and countless other things would be nonexistent today, or exist only as playthings for the very wealthy, if it wasn't for private enterprise.
I don't see why space would be any different. Sure, a guy like Branson might enjoy riding his very own rocket to the moon to enjoy the sights rather than to conduct science, but you can bet that he'll be lying awake nights figuring out how he can sell the rest of us tickets to the moon, for a million, $100k, or perhaps even $10k. Can you see NASA or the other space organisations showing even the slightest interest in space tourism? The very idea abhors them... It's kind of ironic that space commercialisation is pioneered by the ex-communist Russian Space Agency.
No sir... if you want to live to ride a rocket and see the moon for yourself, put your money on private enterprise and the likes of Branson, not on NASA.
Space should be left to corperations (Score:5, Interesting)
Anything else under the guise of "scientific research" seems like it will never take off... the quest for the allmighty dollar will always be stronger than furthering humanity
It's a sad but true state of affairs
Re:Space should be left to corperations (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that sad... profit is what this country's all about, and it's a GREAT motivator for innovation.
~Berj
Re:Space should be left to corperations (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Space should be left to corperations (Score:2, Interesting)
~Berj
Re:Space should be left to corperations (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Space should be left to corperations (Score:2)
Re:Space should be left to corperations (Score:5, Insightful)
Poorly designed, high-profit-margin SUVs.
Pollution (since being responsible with industrial waste costs money).
And, of course, Microsoft's monopoly. Or any monopoly.
That's just four off the top of my head.
Re:Space should be left to corperations (Score:4, Insightful)
DRM.
The Ford Pinto.
Any weapons research whatsoever (by a contractor, to satisfy the "for profit" condition).
Religion (and if you don't consider this either an "innovation" or "for profit", I have a bridge to sell you).
Lawyers.
Need I go on?
Re:Space should be left to corperations (Score:3, Informative)
environmental degradation and other "negative externalities" that allow people to offload costs onto third parties without paying themselves
aggressive marketing of addictive and unhealthy substances, especially to children
marketing of tinned milk as infant formula in the third world (think nestle boycott) and other attempts to profit off the information gap between cultures
But really the issue is how to define "counter-productive for humanity" --- what about products or actions that benefit some
Re:Space should be left to corperations (Score:3)
The rest of the world has it's act together on space exploration, with the European Space Agency, the International Space Station* and so on.
Maybe if NASA joined in more with the rest of us, we could get to Mars a lot quicker?
*clarification for Americans - the International Space Station actually is International, with other nations involved, not just mentioned in the name to sound impressive like the 'world series' sports competiti
Re:Space should be left to corperations (Score:2, Insightful)
The way we reach our goals in space travel is more important than when we do it, in my opinion. I think letting corporations run the show in this context would be the wrong way.
Re:Space should be left to corperations (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Space should be left to corperations (Score:5, Funny)
Tell me about it. (Score:2)
It is a 20 year-old girl that has me redoing the entire house...paint...everything... all by myself without a complaint. Such power.
Mike.
Re:Space should be left to corperations (Score:5, Funny)
Combine Research with Corporate Profit... (Score:4, Insightful)
For some unknown reason, many of us here in the US seem to think that if casualties are possible, it should not be done. This applies to warfare (Look at the furor over the ~100 killed in the recent Iraq skirmish), supersonic aircraft travel (Concorde; didn't stop flying until its one accident in 20 years), space travel (Columbia et. al). Letting a plutocratic clique explore and stake claims to space and the solar system prevents everyone else from getting a chance. If the success of the internet were translated to space, the international community would be very leery of one or even a handful of corporation controlling 95% of all space business.
Do we really want to see a potential case of three or four corporations (via wealthy individuals) dominating space? Would they then be allowed to restrict who travels into space and who remains on earth? It is unacceptable to allow a few individuals to set the pace for space exploration exploitation. Instead, I'd rather see either nationally-funded exploration of space or extraordinary tax breaks for companies great and small dedicated to getting into space. Space elevators are the key to getting up there IMO, so I figure chemical companies dedicated to polymers and their manufacture of such an elevator should be first in line. Combine a profit mechanism with the federally-subsidized R&D and allow the two to combine forces as a driving vehicle of space exploitation. A highly competitive commercial situation for getting to and exploiting space would also drive technology faster than a monopolized or oligopolized situation (look at operating systems). Just my 2c...
Re:Combine Research with Corporate Profit... (Score:3, Interesting)
Efficiency, mostly. The greatest problem with current rockets is that they have to lift several times their own mass in fuel and then spray it all over the place, wasting the potential energy generated by lifting the fuel. With a space elevator, this need is removed. Also, objects going down can be used to generate and store energy, instead
Anyone Else All For This? (Score:3, Funny)
Wait, let's make them pay for R&D on something to shoot them with when they're up there before we launch any of 'em.
Re:Anyone Else All For This? (Score:3, Funny)
Anyone else all for sending all these rich people into space (preferrably never to return)?
Wait, let's make them pay for R&D on something to shoot them with when they're up there before we launch any of 'em.
Yeah, let's have them pool all their resources to build three titanic colonizing spacecraft, and put them all aboard the first one we finish. We can call them the A, B, and C Arks, and put them on the B Ark ...
Interesting, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Besides, the point of NASA tax money is not to give the underprivileged 'some degree of personal fulfillment.' That's what welfare is for.
Riches don't necesarily alienate.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting, but... (Score:2)
And watching someone go up on there own dime allowing my tax dollars to go to such things as feeding the hungry, medical research, or paving roads inspires and awes me.
Don't get me wrong, its nice to have that "American Joe Blow from some Iowa farm" go up to space, but money talks and the economy is t
Privatize space. (Score:2)
People may argue that NASA hasn't been big lately but NASA has been far from silent. The ISS has be
Re:Privatize space. (Score:4, Funny)
Steve: "Hey Bob, what was the salt content of the water that you found buried a few feet below the Martian surface?"
Bob: "Let me see your 1040... You only made $143,000 last year. I'm not telling you anything."
Really? (Score:2)
So we shouldn't let someone do something because it might hurt someone's feelings?
>in equipment which your economic output has contributed to in some way, someone who represents what you feel you represent, that inspires and awes.
Inspires to do what? Pay more taxes?
Wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
If they represented humanity, then where's my money?
Virgin Space! (Score:4, Funny)
I vote for Richard Branson to be the first to cross the solar system in a nuclear powered balloon.
Yup. (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree completely (Score:3, Funny)
Nice little earner... (Score:2)
Great idea! But... (Score:3, Interesting)
What about national pride? (Score:5, Interesting)
He points to the fact that modern state-funded space disasters become national traumas
Ok...well what about national pride. I think there was a lot of pride in the USSR when they put the first satelite up. And in the US when we got on the moon. Let's not focus on the negative here people. "Disasters"...sheesh. I believe there was much more scientific discovery, national security innovations stemming from the race, and other issues that far outweigh the "disasters".
Plus...who cares if Joe Billionaire flies up there? What is he going to bring back? Pictures? Whoopty-freakin-do.
Even worse... (Score:2)
Oh wait, I think I meant "even better".
Re:What about national pride? (Score:2)
Now that the space race is over with both teams crossing the finish line, what's left for orbital manned flights to discover that we can't send a robot up to do?
Re:What about national pride? (Score:2, Funny)
The aquaduct. And sanitation. And the roads. Medicine. Education. And the wine.
Re:What about national pride? (Score:2)
What you are saying is its "National Pride" vs. "Individual Ego". But does it really matter, except in Internet flame wars about who's country is better?
Re:What about national pride? (Score:2)
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what will happen, don't you? (Score:4, Funny)
Next Slashdot Headline:Bill Gates on Mars (Score:2, Funny)
Gates seems to be considering the International Space Station as a passing thru competition just like the other space missions and that Microsoft are the ones that keep pushing new technologies to further space travel.
Re:Next Slashdot Headline:Bill Gates on Mars (Score:3, Funny)
and then two weeks later there will be an Open Source movement for space travel just to show Gates up.
It's a Win-Win Situation. (Score:2)
On NASA, and where we're going next (Score:5, Insightful)
I saw today some of NASA's plans for life beyond the Shuttle. In particular, their 'Space Plane', which looks, feels, and does the exact same thing the Shuttle does. Their 'next craft' may well have a mission 'well beyond Earth's orbit'.
Whoopie doo! What will that be, 2030? It makes me sick that NASA is willing to mortgage the future of space for 30 years because they're not daring enough to do something big right now. I'll be 65 in 2030. People don't live that long.
People die in space.
Craft are lost in space.
Space is a dangerous place.
If the most NASA believes space is good for is interesting ways to battle cancer using technology from the ISS, we do not have a real leader behind us in the space race.
Did I say 'space race'? There still is one, you know. Sooner or later, the Chinese will shoot a capsule to the moon, because they have a real interest in going there - and then America will sit back and suddenly realize that they have NOTHING that can do what the Chinese had just done. We'd have to create the Apollo program from scratch. SCRATCH.
The article makes a good point, that individuals can take more risk than a government institution. Government institutions value job security and predictability fostered by high budgets...not pure results. This is why the conclusions of the shuttle inquiry thus far have said 'That was bad. Well, back to the shuttles!' without real consideration of alternatives.
I wave my flag to the X-Prize and prizes like it that will come after. A random person will, someday soon, reinvent the Mercury program with a small group of people that NO government actually sanctions, and it is only then that it will be realized where the real advancements are being made.
Re:On NASA, and where we're going next (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree completely. Of course space is dangerous; new frontiers always are, until they're colonized. That's why we need brave/foolish individuals willing to take their chances and pave the way for the rest of us. I hope to take a vacation to the moon during my lifetime; that will not happen if NASA keeps their
The last great unknown....will this work? (Score:2)
while this is true, there is still a significant amount of risk in traveling in heretofore untested technologies. The types of low cost space plan
Space is humanity's future (Score:3, Insightful)
A couple of millionaires playing space cowboy won't get us there, corporate competetion would help, but the government myust lay the groundwork with technologies and basic infrastructure (a REAL space station would be nice, a moon colony, etc).
Rubbish (Score:5, Interesting)
True, there's not exactly a ton of economic use at the time for space exploration. So? Like many things, the more time and money and effort spent on exploring space, the better the technology becomes around it, technology which will find other uses. It will also increase our knowledge as a species, which is definitely a good thing (as opposed to those who increase their knowledge only to keep it secret, or those who think knowledge is bad)
Given the infrastructure it takes for space exploration of any significant magnitude, how many individuals are going to pursue it just because they can? I would suspect not many. Of course, that doesn't count all the issues that would come up when private individuals start creating craft able to launch itself (and cargo) into space.
We could just let all the corporations do the exploring. And let them own everything they touch out there, to pillage as they see fit. After all, if they're not allowed to do such things, what can they do to make money? They won't bother.
Re:Rubbish (Score:5, Informative)
The time frame is 100 years [bbc.co.uk].
I'll help (Score:2)
I volunteer to take care of their personal belongings (wallet, car keys,
I've got nice insulation foam to sell NASA, to keep the millionaires warm up there in space
History of Exploration (Score:5, Insightful)
Nations will send out explorers for God, Glory and Gold (or the modern version- you come up with some nifty alliteration).
Corporations will drive exploration as the profit is seen.
Individuals will push into space as they are able because we are wired that way. Of course right now and for a while that is going to be limited to those with the resources at hand to make the trips possible.
This is not new- it has been going on for quite a while and I am obviously not the first to notice this.
Either/or (Score:5, Insightful)
unreal - spelling errors abound. (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh yes, people who manage to over-charge their way into great, vast, mountains of wealth "represent humanity". It is the HEIGHT of existance to become rich. The rich are role models to be envied and emulated, bow down in respect for our new merchant kings. We should aid their rise into the HEAVENS as our ambassadors because of their righteousness.
please - I cant imagine a WORSE idea. rewarding people with respect, elevating them to roles of
And then they crash (Score:2, Interesting)
Tangent ... (Score:3, Insightful)
What makes someone "wealthy", is it net dollar value, ability to influence (power) or a mix of both? Are we to say that we are wanting to endorse a non-free capitalistic system that breeds greed and descent? What goals are there to have human kind in space?
Let's tackle the questions ... Wealth is decided on monetary value, but with monetary value comes power, so obviously it's a mixture of both, BUT you rarely see new money. Most "rich" people came from rich families and were given greater opportunities than those who weren't rich. So in essence we aren't supporting a capitalistic soceity per se, but a fuedal society. The problem with a fuedal society is that eventually the lessers will outnumber the eleet by so much it's simply a matter of time before a revolt or revolution. This brings with it pain and suffering and is always a step backwards.
Humankind in space poses a strange delimna. Is there a draw to join some type of universal collective of alien life? The most complex societies on this planet are not humans but are insect and plant collectives. Together the collectives strive to benifit the whole (which is why it's so hard to exterminate them) and that whole grows stronger through group motivated individual efforts.
So did Gene Rodenberry have it wrong when he created Star Trek? Absolutely not, until we as a society can think primarily about the group as a whole instead of personal gain we are destined to never rise above our own personal limitations. A new form of thinking and governing would have to be in place. Carl Marx had a theoretical governmnent system that would accomplish this, but disreguarded two key factors, the main drive for a human is personal gain and inherintly most people are lazy and will only strive to do what is the bare minimum, hence no bettering of the collective as a whole.
So should companies and rich people be the only ones who are allowed into space? If we want to not progress the human race, then yes. Sociologists and Historians note that it will take millions of years for humankind to evolve beyond their current limits and it's questionable if we will even surpass extinction. Just makes you wonder about the big picture I guess.
Sounds fine to me... (Score:2)
Once the millionaires manage to get a profitable program running missions to space on a regular basis, that is. Until then I'd like to keep my satellite television and GPS receivers, thank you.
Could be dangerous (Score:3, Insightful)
And we'll see corporate logos on the Moon... (Score:2)
Breaking the Light Barrier (Score:4, Funny)
Well, at least 20 minutes from Mars orbit. That is unless wealth also buys you exemption from the laws of physics
A better idea: Let Burt Rutan run NASA. (Score:3, Insightful)
Space is a long way from becoming a routine travel destination, and NASA needs to treat it as such, and stop with the friendly pussy designs, and get back to the business of exploration and pure scientific research. Taking people into space only to be spam-in-a-can for marketing purposes is a waste of our tax dollars. We need to stop treating space as cool until we can manage to put stuff up there without having to cross our fingers at the launch pad.
Put someone like Burt Rutan in charge or stop wasting my fucking taxes on studing how frogs behave in space, you bastards!
not yet (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides this, space travel is too expensive for individuals to undertake on their own - barring the Bill Gatesian megarich types. Similar historical endeavors that rich adventurers embarked on were nowhere near as expensive as space travel is today, even relative to the technologies and economies in their days. The current NASA budget (around $15B yearly) is enough only to launch a couple of probes and a few shuttles every year, and maintain the current meager rate of development of new flight technologies. Well-known pilots of the 20's had to hire small teams to design and build their plane, but not an entire aerospace corporation or two like you for any successful spacecraft built so far. No one tycoon is going to want to expend so many resources on one task (no matter how cool).
I tend to see the development of space travel as being more like that of seagoing travel in the West. Early on, trading centered around Europe, especially the Mediterranean and Northern Africa, and didn't really spread much. Who could forget Columbus' famous trip to "India," paid for by the Spanish gov't of the time? It took a while before permanent settlements and serious commercial operations got set up across the Atlantic, which unlike (nearby) space least leads to places with a breathable atmosphere. So... it may be a while before we have a serious extraterrestrial presence, is there really a rush? (Besides the small but ever-present possibility of asteroid impact, that is...)
Represent humanity? (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when has any gung-ho millionaire ever represented humanity? Millionaires don't become millionaires that way. It requires seeking profitable returns in everything and looking beyond the effect on the humans involved in achieving those profits. Who cares if there are layoffs as long as the owner's bank account has grown?
Regressive Progress (Score:5, Insightful)
This story is disturbing on so many levels.
The first is spending wealth and resources on an endeavour with no contribution to mankind other than giving us the satisfaction that yet another person has been in space. Wealth does not correlate strongly with the skills necessary to perform meaningful science in space.
Even more disturbing is, that the separation between the rich and poor in our society is so great that individuals are on the threshold of being able to afford space flight, while at the same time the real hourly wage of the average American worker fell 14% since 1973 [valdosta.edu]. The richest Americans are now able to do for leisure, what once only an entire nation could afford!
(Here's hoping that my moderator is not a billionaire who dreams of space flight).
Michael. [michael-forman.com]
NASA, the wrong stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
x-33 - Cancel it
SRV - Cancel it
Saturn 5 - Cancel it
Shuttle - Build it as a bastardization of the Dynasoar (which would hhave been flying by about 68-70.)
Space Station - Overpay contractors and then retreat from space and fix the permanent crew at 3 instead of 7...oh, did they mention that there will be absolutely no science in a station manned by 3. It takes 3 just to keep it maintained? Our "scientific" space station isn't very scientific is it? $60 bill down the tubes.
Frankly, I would be willing to bet if we gave 4 billion a year each to Rutan and Orbital Sciences and told them they would get a $1 bill prize for the first to put a permanent station on the moon, it would be there in 5 years. Let them hire millionaires if they want, just PLEASE don't let me see NASA start and cancel another program after blowing 2-3 billion on it.
Human Space Exploration rules, NASA sucks.
Shoul leave space to *? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have seen:
I don't think space should be left to any specific group. Everyone should be trying a hand at it or every possible type of available clientele, investors, researchers etc. should be in. Not left to any one of them.
Who knows which method is going to bring about innovations, spur the space industry etc.
IMHO, state or state sponsored agencies (who might depend of corporations on clientele etc.) has many important roles to play: following tracks that 'profit-only' corporations or entreprenurs won't go or try to pioneer, being one of them.
Again, IMHO, filthy rich billionares could provide a source for exta bucks to fund the programmes of NASA et. al. or the corporations involved.
Similarly, corporations could jump in to exploit the markets that pop up in the field.
Leaving space to one particular group may not be the best idea.
Thank you.
GrimReality
2003-07-02 01:01:13 UTC (2003-07-01 21:01:13 EDT)
Re:That is... (Score:5, Insightful)
I feel obligated to point out that people starving is usually not a matter of money, but a matter of politics. Take Zimbabwe, for instance, where the US now sends half a million tons of food aid, when the country used to be a net food exporter. Why? Because President Mugabe seized the most productive farms in the country because they were owned by whites. And now those farms lie fallow and the people starve.
Political causes are at the root of famines in Ethiopia [oromoliberationfront.org], China's "Great Leap Forward" [ucsd.edu] (The worst famine in recorded history), and even the Great Irish Potato famine, where there was actually enough food even after the potato crop failed, but the other crops were taken to port under military guard and exported to other countries.
Throwing more money at the famine problem is not likely to solve it, despite what Sally Struthers et. al. would like to have you think.
Yeah Gates in space Re:The RIGHT Stuff? (Score:3, Interesting)
"Isn't going into space if you have enough money" atleast a great leveller- if you want to go, and you have the dosh, you launch.
And there's also the point that all new technologies start out expensive and get cheaper over time- ca