Support NeoGAF

[Shorty]

it will become even more shit?

 

[Tideas]

Privatized Space Travel? *snort* For the rich, yeah.

you make it seem like you have any shot of space traveling in its current format.

 

[remnant]

They had a conversation about this on twit like 2 weeks ago. They were very much down on the idea, but didn't give a reason why. The past 3 or so decades have been nothing but government policies, initiaves and drive. We haven't acheived much.

Those criticizing Privatized space need a better argument than "Well it's privatized so it's bad."

 

[Karakand]

Well, we're going to be paying the Russians to take us into space. Sorta makes me wonder who really won the space race?

Unless you have very specific victory conditions it's hard to sustain a "NASA won" position; Korolev clowned the shit out of Herr Sturmbannfuhrer but guess who had better marketing.

Anyways, good luck to the new guys. Falcon 9 seems exciting despite its humble design purpose.

 

[iamblades]

They had a conversation about this on twit like 2 weeks ago. They were very much down on the idea, but didn't give a reason why. The past 3 or so decades have been nothing but government policies, initiaves and drive. We haven't acheived much.

Those criticizing Privatized space need a better argument than "Well it's privatized so it's bad."

What makes it more absurd is that i't already almost all privatized anyway at the basic level.

It's not like NASA or JPL personally handcrafts every component of everything they launch.

Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, and a whole bunch of other companies have been making large parts of nasa's spacecraft for years.

That's without even mentioning all the other miscellaneous stuff NASA contracts out, like the the mirror for the hubble space telescope that was made by Kodak(probably not the greatest example given they fucked it up, but still ). Also of course every microchip and wire and hose and fitting and nut and bolt that was either purchased off the shelf or manufactured to spec by private companies(which means probably 90%+ of everything NASA has ever launched).

Privatization has to happen to some degree, obviously, NASA can't afford to build every thing themselves, obviously. NASA doesn't have those kinds of manufacturing facilities.

The question of which level of privatization gets you the best result at the best price. It's entirely possible that by buying rockets in a package deal could allow competing rocket designs from different companies to be developed, leading to more efficient and better space travel, instead of NASA designing the one rocket design, and then contracting out the construction of each individual component. Makes it easier for NASA on the economic side because they only have to negotiate one contract deal instead of hundreds, and they get to pick from all of the commercially available options for each individual mission to find the rocket that best fits that particular mission instead of going 'well we have to use this rocket design or the space shuttle because it's all we have' even though they might be overkill for what they need.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

The realistic concept isn't all that dangerous, except perhaps to the occupants of a climber during a climb gone wrong. Even then, I'm sure early climbers would have some sort of reentry-capable escape capsule installed. Worst you get is some paper-thin ribbon wrapping around the planet, which I can't imagine would cause any major disasters. The Gundam 00 style super-elevators with massive superstructures including support for dozens of concurrently running bullet train climbers though...now that would be a disaster waiting to happen.

It's paper thin ribbon of a material orders of magnitude stronger than any known metal, moving at a speeds in excess of ten kilometers per second. A broken space elevator cable will effortlessly cut through just about anything it comes into contact with.

I will quote myself from a recent topic on space exploration to save typing it out again:

Space elevator concepts are certainly the best known cheap lift proposal, but it's far from the easiest or best. Laser ablative propulsion is arguably more promising, especially as it pertains to feasibility in the near future.

Essentially you have the underside of the rocket as inert propellant, which gets zapped by a large array of lasers. Layers of the underside become superheated and turn into a gas/plasma, which then act exactly like a conventional rocket, firing out the rear. The chief advantage is that since you don't take the engine with you on the rocket, you reduce the redundant mass you're boosting into orbit, and since it's operating from stations on the ground you can have the laser arrays be as large and powerful as you'd like.

Another proposal is essentially a giant magnetic levitation circuit, which would be hundreds of kilometers long. The cargo is raised to an enormous speed, and then the circuit shifts upwards to send it into an orbital trajectory.

My favorite proposal is to use underground salt domes (the kind used for underground nuclear testing), flooded with water. You dig a huge "gun barrel" up to the surface, and then at the bottom end of said barrel you strap your cargo. Then, you put a resilient plate on the side facing underground, and you set off a large nuclear device in the water-filled dome. The water superheats, and expands outwards, driving the cargo up out of the ground and into the atmosphere at huge speeds. The reason this is such a great proposal is because a single 10MT charge could put an estimated 280,000 tonnes into orbit, which is ~1,000 times the mass of the entire International Space Station. You wouldn't actually put anything fragile up there, but for boosting huge quantities of mass into orbit (structural materials that astronauts would actually put together in space) it can't be beaten!

 

[RoadHazard]

I've never cared much about being rich (although I've always thought it seems nice), but this thread makes me a bit sad that I'm not, since if I was I'd actually have a decent chance of launching off into orbit in my lifetime (and maybe visiting a space station/hotel). That would be amazing. Hmm, I need a get-rich-quick scheme...

 

[sans_pants]

I've never cared much about being rich (although I've always thought it seems nice), but this thread makes me a bit sad that I'm not, since if I was I'd actually have a decent chance of launching off into orbit in my lifetime (and maybe visiting a space station/hotel). That would be amazing. Hmm, I need a get-rich-quick scheme...

just live forever, send your brain into space will full vr

 

[wenis]

Before I die I will have orbited the earth at least once.

#3lifegoal.

 

[Acerac]

I hope the some rich Russian buys NASA just for the lulz

Pretty sure this is the best possible outcome.

 

[I H8 Memes]

I would prefer to just defund NASA completely right now before we start down this path. It is just going to result in private companies contributing (bribing) to politicians campaigns in return for favorable contracts. Finally after all these years we will see NASA's budgets grow, but only because private companies will be getting fat off of tax payer money.

I cant believe how naive any of you are who cant see that this is exactly what is going to happen. It is what always happens when corporations have a chance to make money from government contracts.

 

[Aselith]

What's the point from a NASA perspective if it costs the same?

They can divert the manpower that they'd use for the shuttle flights to working on other things. As you said, it costs them the same and they don't have to use NASA employees to do it when they could be doing more important stuff.

I would prefer to just defund NASA completely right now before we start down this path. It is just going to result in private companies contributing (bribing) to politicians campaigns in return for favorable contracts. Finally after all these years we will see NASA's budgets grow, but only because private companies will be getting fat off of tax payer money.

I cant believe how naive any of you are who cant see that this is exactly what is going to happen. It is what always happens when corporations have a chance to make money from government contracts.

Honestly, I'd rather have private companies trying to conquer space. They'll have the drive with the carrot of mining possibilities and lucrative tourism possibilities (even just a shuttle into outer space for a short trip would make BANK) and government contracts etc. If you think you'll ever be in space with only the government moving it forward, don't kid yourself. Money makes the world go round and "for the science!" ain't going to make cool stuff happen although it does make it POSSIBLE of course. Lots of money being thrown at space travel is very good thing.

 

[UltimaPooh]

It will be interesting to see how this turns out...

I suspect these people

will be wrong.

Of course they will be.

NASA is still working on VASMIR and options to get us to Mars, not to mention they are still exploring the Universe with unmanned satellites and rovers.

 

[Escape Goat]

I'm sure Russia is thrilled they have the opportunity to become a taxi service into space for the US.

 

[Wray]

its unlikely they will ever get made, they are extremely dangerous and carbon nanotubes cant be built into super long cables yet. some other form of propulsion will probably come along and make them unnecessary. but I do think they would be pretty cool

Teleportation will render the need for a space elevator obsolete within two centuries. We will have the tech to build a space elevator soon though, certainly before 2050. The question is, will the willpower to do it be there.

 

[sans_pants]

Teleportation will render the need for a space elevator obsolete within two centuries. We will have the tech to build a space elevator soon though, certainly before 2050. The question is, will the willpower to do it be there.

i once read an article stating a space elevator would only costs something like 8 billion(im guessing thats after the billions poured into research on carbon nanotubes)

should be a pretty easy sell

 

[Oblivion]

Finally. Now that big gubment decided to ease the stranglehold it had on the space exploration industry, the private sector at long last has room to compete.

 

[Aselith]

Finally. Now that big gubment decided to ease the stranglehold it had on the space exploration industry, the private sector at long last has room to compete.

I see you're being sarcastic but this is actually non-sarcastic correct. Competition for bucks and contracts and moving possible revenues forward will only help the future of space travel. Just like air travel and train travel and car travel. Money moves tech forward and brings it to the masses.

 

[remnant]

I've never cared much about being rich (although I've always thought it seems nice), but this thread makes me a bit sad that I'm not, since if I was I'd actually have a decent chance of launching off into orbit in my lifetime (and maybe visiting a space station/hotel). That would be amazing. Hmm, I need a get-rich-quick scheme...

You sound like someone from the 1930's who thought poor-middle class people would never fly.

Why do you think the government will put your broke ass in space anytime soon?

 

[iamblades]

It's paper thin ribbon of a material orders of magnitude stronger than any known metal, moving at a speeds in excess of ten kilometers per second. A broken space elevator cable will effortlessly cut through just about anything it comes into contact with.

I will quote myself from a recent topic on space exploration to save typing it out again:

There are plenty of ways to safely engineer it though.

Worst case scenario, you have an explosive charge 100 miles up on the cable that cuts the cable if it's orbit becomes unstable, everything above would burn up on re-entry. You have the cable moored in the middle of the pacific and worst case scenario is causes a small tsunami.

Those other options you listed are viable for lifting things to orbit(although the nuclear option is probably best suiting for space mining operations, don't think the environmental costs would be acceptable for earth launches), but they all require you to accelerate the payload to escape velocity within the atmosphere, which will always pose problems for fragile payloads. The atmospheric friction can be just as dangerous on the way up as it is on the way down.

With a space elevator you can go up as slowly as you need to be safe, so you can lift very fragile payloads.

Also worth noting that a space elevator on mars would be much easier to construct and could be much shorter due to gravitational differences. Which is another reason why we need to establish permanent colonies on mars. We could build and launch much larger and more complex space craft from mars than we can from earth.

 

[Bebpo]

So can someone hire NASA to fly them to the moon and let them build their base on the moon and take it over? Or would they need government permission to take over the moon? It's not like anyone owns the moon.

 

[sans_pants]

So can someone hire NASA to fly them to the moon and let them build their base on the moon and take it over? Or would they need government permission to take over the moon? It's not like anyone owns the moon.

if i was a private spacefaring company my number one goal would be to plant my flag on the moon, then try and beat the us to mars

 

[Aselith]

So can someone hire NASA to fly them to the moon and let them build their base on the moon and take it over? Or would they need government permission to take over the moon? It's not like anyone owns the moon.

Well, America did plant out flag there but I believe space was proclaimed a territory free zone wasn't it? Meaning it can't be annexed by any nation? Not sure if that would extend to terrestrial companies as well.

Edit: Here we go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space

Legal status

Main article: Space law
The Outer Space Treaty provides the basic framework for international space law. This treaty covers the legal use of outer space by nation states, and includes in its definition of outer space the Moon and other celestial bodies. The treaty states that outer space is free for all nation states to explore and is not subject to claims of national sovereignty. It also prohibits the deployment of nuclear weapons in outer space. The treaty was passed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1963 and signed in 1967 by the USSR, the United States of America and the United Kingdom. As of January 1, 2008 the treaty has been ratified by 98 states and signed by an additional 27 states.[38]
Between 1958 and 2008, outer space has been the subject of multiple resolutions by the United Nations General Assembly. Of these, more than 50 have been concerning the international co-operation in the peaceful uses of outer space and preventing an arms race in space.[39] Four additional space law treaties have been negotiated and drafted by the UN's Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. Still, there remains no legal prohibition against deploying conventional weapons in space, and anti-satellite weapons have been successfully tested by the US, USSR and China.[40] The 1979 Moon Treaty turned the jurisdiction of all heavenly bodies (including the orbits around such bodies) over to the international community. However, this treaty has not been ratified by any nation that currently practices manned spaceflight.[41]
In 1976 eight equatorial states (Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Congo, Zaire, Uganda, Kenya, and Indonesia) met in Bogotá, Colombia. They made the "Declaration of the First Meeting of Equatorial Countries," also known as "the Bogotá Declaration", where they made a claim to control the geosyncronous orbit corresponding each country.[42] These claims are not internationally accepted.[43]

It's even more interesting because the only thing really protecting your property is the government or your own force of arms. If that weren't modified somewhat it would effectively make owning anything in outer space be like the wild west for perpetuity with only your own force of arms protecting it from seizure.

 

[Karakand]

I would prefer to just defund NASA completely right now before we start down this path. It is just going to result in private companies contributing (bribing) to politicians campaigns in return for favorable contracts. Finally after all these years we will see NASA's budgets grow, but only because private companies will be getting fat off of tax payer money.

I cant believe how naive any of you are who cant see that this is exactly what is going to happen. It is what always happens when corporations have a chance to make money from government contracts.

Delta IV isn't operational still because it's an excellent piece of hardware.

(What you're hand-wringing about has always been a drag on NASA.)

 

[I H8 Memes]

Honestly, I'd rather have private companies trying to conquer space. They'll have the drive with the carrot of mining possibilities and lucrative tourism possibilities (even just a shuttle into outer space for a short trip would make BANK) and government contracts etc. If you think you'll ever be in space with only the government moving it forward, don't kid yourself. Money makes the world go round and "for the science!" ain't going to make cool stuff happen although it does make it POSSIBLE of course. Lots of money being thrown at space travel is very good thing.

Then private companies can do it themselves without our help.

 

[Norml]

This actually doesn't sound so bad now and will bring better competition to build the best and cheapest way to low orbit, while NASA designs for deep space.

 

[Aselith]

Then private companies can do it themselves without our help.

Even if the arrangement we've made is mutually beneficial?

 

[AniHawk]

and nothing can possib-ly go wrong.

 

[I H8 Memes]

Even if the arrangement we've made is mutually beneficial?

I'm sure the contracts that the military has with contractors would be considered mutually beneficial as well. We see how that has turned out. In general I want private corporations, and in particular publicly owned corporations, to have as little access to public funds as possible.

But those are just my thoughts. Put it to a vote and I would vote in favor of private companies having access to as much tax payer finding as possible. I decided 3 years ago that I will always vote for whatever politician, proposal, or amendment I think is worst for the country. I have kept to that and I always will keep to that.

 

[Deku]

and nothing can possib-ly go wrong.

NOPE NOTHING

 

[mcrae]

Privatized Space Travel? *snort* For the rich, yeah.

well... duh?

 

[mr jones]

I still don't get how privatization the space program works.

Once its privatized, there has to be a method for profit. I mean, just going by simple economics, that's the driving factor. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Orbital Sciences, etc., all were in it for the rocket and missile contracts that they'd get between NASA and government military. Without that, I don't see where the profit is. What is the motivation for a company to sink billions of dollars into a vehicle to get astronauts to an orbital station or the moon? As of right now, there's no public information about usable minerals on the moon that would be worth the drastic costs needed to mine it and transport it back to Earth. Unless there is a breakthrough in manufacturing where it's cost effective to make products in a near-zero G space fabrication plant, I just don't see how moving the space program almost entirely to the private sector is beneficial.

Can someone help me to understand this?

 

[Deku]

The privatization aspect is mostly for NASA to contract with a commercial carrier to send astronauts into low earth orbit.

But there's also a parallel track developing space planes that can get into LOE.

NASA's specs will obviously be far more rigorous, as most LOE touristy stuff are still talking about Alan Shepard level of 'a few minutes' in space sub-orbital trips

 

[eastmen]

I see you're being sarcastic but this is actually non-sarcastic correct. Competition for bucks and contracts and moving possible revenues forward will only help the future of space travel. Just like air travel and train travel and car travel. Money moves tech forward and brings it to the masses.

Air travel , you mean the industry that we gave 18B to cause they were failing and since 2001 service has only gone down while prices have gone up ?

Yes just wnat i want to see.

Lets face it , Nasa was our best hope because they would do the work even when it didn't make sense. All these companys will charge us an arm and a leg to do anything in space .

 

[RobertM]

We need serious advances in our methods of propulsion through space. We can't be resorting to burning large quantities of fuel--a limited resource at that--in order to travel at fast enough rate to get through the atmosphere. That's not progress, and we are desperately in need of alternative methods; anti-gravitational propulsion comes to mind, but who will be the first to come up with it?

 

[gdt]

This strikes me as super sad. Seems like we should be looking forward. Nothing is more important than exploring the rest of the universe. We live on a tiny speck, there's so much out there to see. Who knows when we'll get to Mars.

The idea that we hand this mission off to profit focused private companies (it's not wrong that they're profit hungry lol) makes me, and my childhood self, sad.

 

[eastmen]

We need serious advances in our methods of propulsion through space. We can't be resorting to burning large quantities of fuel--a limited resource at that--in order to travel at fast enough rate to get through the atmosphere. That's not progress, and we are desperately in need of alternative methods; anti-gravitational propulsion comes to mind, but who will be the first to come up with it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion

oh look they came up with it in 1947

 

[Aselith]

Air travel , you mean the industry that we gave 18B to cause they were failing and since 2001 service has only gone down while prices have gone up ?

Yes just wnat i want to see.

Lets face it , Nasa was our best hope because they would do the work even when it didn't make sense. All these companys will charge us an arm and a leg to do anything in space .

We didn't give them 18B because we love charity case companies. If the space flight industry can make themselves half so necessary as the airlines, they'll never be poor.

 

[besada]

Obligatory post noting that SpaceX is already two years behind the schedule included in their original contract, and haven't approached the ISS or tested their docking.

We need serious advances in our methods of propulsion through space. We can't be resorting to burning large quantities of fuel--a limited resource at that--in order to travel at fast enough rate to get through the atmosphere. That's not progress, and we are desperately in need of alternative methods; anti-gravitational propulsion comes to mind, but who will be the first to come up with it?

No, what we need is to quit launching from the bottom of a gravity well. Nearly all the new propulsion technologies suck for launch, and are fantastic for space travel.

 

[eastmen]

We didn't give them 18B because we love charity case companies. If the space flight industry can make themselves half so necessary as the airlines, they'll never be poor.

Air lines obviously aren't important if they can't support themselves . High speed rail could take off if the goverment didn't keep artificaly proping up a failing industry .

 

[antonz]

VASIMIR seems like the best solution on the table but it still requires Nuclear power to power the engines system.

VASIMIR could cut a trip to mars from 6 months to 39 days.

 

[Aselith]

Air lines obviously aren't important if they can't support themselves . High speed rail could take off if the goverment didn't keep artificaly proping up a failing industry .

:/ You're trolling?

 

[Norml]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion

oh look they came up with it in 1947

Orion was so cool.

 

[Xavien]

We need to start building some space tethers, then some space-based factories, build spacecraft in space, would solve the gravity problem.

Don't really need to strap big rockets to payloads to get them into space.

 

[Scrow]

ultimately i think this is a good thing for space travel

 

[eastmen]

:/ You're trolling?

No please tell me how airlines are important ?

The vast majority of air travel in the past decades is done by busnies men. With the internet and video confrencing this is becoming less and less important.

After that i'm sure its lesuire trips for vacation. Planes travel about 300-600mph. Trains are hitting 360mph .

With an investment in high speed rails we could replace much of the remaining air travel inside of this country.

Infact it would be much better for all of us , Modern trains cause less polution , they are less dependent on weather , they use less fuel for the same distance traveled and your going less than 600miles you will get there faster with a train than air craft.

For the people traveling its also a much nicer experiance. Instead of sitting in cramped seats and limited room , trains can house many cars and feature nice dining cars and even shoping cars while traveling.

 

[Aselith]

No please tell me how airlines are important ?

The vast majority of air travel in the past decades is done by busnies men. With the internet and video confrencing this is becoming less and less important.

After that i'm sure its lesuire trips for vacation. Planes travel about 300-600mph. Trains are hitting 360mph .

With an investment in high speed rails we could replace much of the remaining air travel inside of this country.

Infact it would be much better for all of us , Modern trains cause less polution , they are less dependent on weather , they use less fuel for the same distance traveled and your going less than 600miles you will get there faster with a train than air craft.

For the people traveling its also a much nicer experiance. Instead of sitting in cramped seats and limited room , trains can house many cars and feature nice dining cars and even shoping cars while traveling.

Lots of our freight is shipped in the air especially time-sensitive stuff and while trains may be getting close to matching low end jet speed, they are still confined by geography and planes can travel as the bird flies. Additionally, again planes are faster and passengers on leisure and business trips won't want to take the extra time without a major downgrade in price which doesn't seem likely to me.

Fact is that maybe a lot of meetings ARE being replaced by video conferencing but that's not going to help the high speed train industry any more than the air industry and when you need a man on the ground high-speed rail won't cut it for time savings except in short hops.

Obviously, you can forget rail for international except North America.

I'm sure it would be a good thing to invest in high-speed rail but it's not a cure-all and you'll only make both industries smaller. Better to bet heavily on the most generally useful rather than a very situational one.

Also, people don't want comfort for the most part when they're travelling. They want speed . They want the travel part done with asap. Comfort is a nice extra.

 

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

I haven't been keeping up with this drama but... is the space age dead?

 

[Aselith]

I haven't been keeping up with this drama but... is the space age dead?

Why we still got spacesuits?

 

[Norml]

I haven't been keeping up with this drama but... is the space age dead?

http://themetapicture.com/media/funny-man-evolution-astronaut.gif[/IMG[/QUOTE]
Nice,but I think a robot would fit better at the end.