Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Wow, we finally see eye-to-eye on a subject, Zebo
America always wants to be the first/best at everything we do, which, in my opinion, drives innovation and productivity. However, the space shuttle, given the size of the budget and the inherent inefficiencies government bureaucracy places on the program, should be the one exception. The Japanese are looking to their space program to provide a cheap and efficient means to manufacture on the moon and in space in general. We, conversely, like to send the first African American to space, then the first school teacher, the first monkey, the first senior citizen, etc...given the cost of fuel, I believe we would get a higher return-on-investment leaving the astronauts (not monkeys and school teachers) in space for 6 months to 1 year, minimum...perform the tests they want to do...come home when the value of the data/experiments/testing outweigh the costs of deployment. In the private sector, this would be the case.
Originally posted by: XCLAN
I think thats is the first thing I have read from Galt that I agree with.....
While there is no denying that NASA overspends, private industry just isn't ready yet to do all our space work. It costs too much to start up in the business. As for leaving people up there for a year at a time, we have no idea what kind of effect that will have on human physiology (well, maybe some idea, but we're still trying to develop working countermeasures). Long term stays in space are one of the things being studied on the ISS, as well as methods for reducing the degradation astronauts experience. On top of that, space based construction is still in its infancy, and we haven't yet even begun to test manufacturing techniques. The only entity really capable of paying for these necessary types of research is the government. Call it scientific welfare if you want, but the government will always need to finance the projects with the really big price tags. IMO, space exploration and utilization will eventually pay itself off a thousand fold, so its worth the up front costs.Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Wow, we finally see eye-to-eye on a subject, Zebo
America always wants to be the first/best at everything we do, which, in my opinion, drives innovation and productivity. However, the space shuttle, given the size of the budget and the inherent inefficiencies government bureaucracy places on the program, should be the one exception. The Japanese are looking to their space program to provide a cheap and efficient means to manufacture on the moon and in space in general. We, conversely, like to send the first African American to space, then the first school teacher, the first monkey, the first senior citizen, etc...given the cost of fuel, I believe we would get a higher return-on-investment leaving the astronauts (not monkeys and school teachers) in space for 6 months to 1 year, minimum...perform the tests they want to do...come home when the value of the data/experiments/testing outweigh the costs of deployment. In the private sector, this would be the case.
. While this construct has always been the realm of sci-fi, its actually a very feasible possibility. NIAC has conducted a Phase I study, and is currently funding the materials science research necessary to make it a reality. Assuming that research pans out (and every indication so far is that it will), an operational space elevator capable of lifting 5 tons into orbit daily could be operational in about 15 years at a price tag of $10B. The price for getting a pound of cargo into orbit using this system is pegged at $100 (compared to $10-40K).
Originally posted by: amok
While there is no denying that NASA overspends, private industry just isn't ready yet to do all our space work. It costs too much to start up in the business. As for leaving people up there for a year at a time, we have no idea what kind of effect that will have on human physiology (well, maybe some idea, but we're still trying to develop working countermeasures). Long term stays in space are one of the things being studied on the ISS, as well as methods for reducing the degradation astronauts experience. On top of that, space based construction is still in its infancy, and we haven't yet even begun to test manufacturing techniques. The only entity really capable of paying for these necessary types of research is the government. Call it scientific welfare if you want, but the government will always need to finance the projects with the really big price tags. IMO, space exploration and utilization will eventually pay itself off a thousand fold, so its worth the up front costs.Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Wow, we finally see eye-to-eye on a subject, Zebo
America always wants to be the first/best at everything we do, which, in my opinion, drives innovation and productivity. However, the space shuttle, given the size of the budget and the inherent inefficiencies government bureaucracy places on the program, should be the one exception. The Japanese are looking to their space program to provide a cheap and efficient means to manufacture on the moon and in space in general. We, conversely, like to send the first African American to space, then the first school teacher, the first monkey, the first senior citizen, etc...given the cost of fuel, I believe we would get a higher return-on-investment leaving the astronauts (not monkeys and school teachers) in space for 6 months to 1 year, minimum...perform the tests they want to do...come home when the value of the data/experiments/testing outweigh the costs of deployment. In the private sector, this would be the case.
I agree with you totally that we should encourage private industry through undertakings like the X-Prize. While I doubt any revolutionary technologies will come of it (cost!!), there are definite possibilities for viable evolutionary tech.
Facebook
Twitter