Was this supposed to make any sense?
Robert T. Bigelow, of Bigelow Aerospace and the Budget motel chain, believes he can build the space stations, and others will be able to fly paying customers, including NASA astronauts, into orbit—all for less money than NASA and other government space agencies currently pay to transport and host spacemen and spacewomen.
Truthdig is not entirely convinced this is such a good idea. In a year of oil spills, runaway Toyotas and toxic happy meals, we’re not so sure about turning over exploration of the final frontier—and transportation of our astronauts—to private profiteers.
Apparently the word “profit” remains a dirty word to some. Which is why it continues to amaze that this new policy came out of the Obama administration.
And of course, we know how scrupulous that “non-profit,” NASA is about flight safety. Why, it’s only killed fourteen astronauts in the past quarter century.
[Update a few minutes later]
The other dumb thing about this is the notion that any space activity is “exploration.” This is one of the ignorant straw-man shibboleths of the bashers of the new plan (notably, by the moronic commenter “DCSCA” over at Space Politics) — that “exploration” is being turned over to private enterprise, which they claim won’t work, because it’s not profitable. But all that the plan actually calls for is to get NASA out of the business of transportation to LEO, so that they can finally focus on real exploration.
Mentioning the number of astronauts killed is silly “quality of results” thinking. If that sort of argument worked the 100+ million killed by Communism would have had a persuasive effect. I mean let’s be realists, 14 just isn’t that many. It’s a small price to pay to keep space under government control.
Oooh . . . they’re “profiteers”! Merchants of Death, no doubt! We should protest, right after the demonstration in support of Sacco and Vanzetti.
I followed the link provided and read through the post. I then looked at some of the other posts and comments on that site. Truthdig is a total waste of electrons and hard drive space. Take a far left liberal, rip from him all remaining sense of logic and reasoning and you have the people who post and comment on that blog.
If LEO is exploration then walking to the curb to pick up the mail is prospecting — Look! “You may already be a Millionaire!”
…wasted the effort of ripping something from him that he never had.
Not that it makes a difference, but my reading of Bigelow is that this is about more than just money for him. Sure, he’d love to make another billion or ten doing this stuff, but that is almost besides the point. He’s a true believer who wants to become a real life D.D. Harriman.
“He’s a true believer who wants to become a real life D.D. Harriman.”
Finally! I’ve been waiting for this since my mid-teens.
What gets me miffed is when people claim that guys like Musk and Bigelow are “in it for the money” and expect to “make millions off of NASA”. As if they earned their money by being stupid. Spending several hundred million personal dollars to chase after tens of millions in long term profits makes sense to who, exactly?
I hope private enterprises colonizes the dark side of the moon and makes a Coventry for “liberals” and other thieves and theocrats who like forcing their will on others. They can tax and regulate each other to death . . . which they probably will. They’ll have free rein to build a society based on their economics, which will result in them starving to death.
Apparently the word “profit” remains a dirty word to some.
Yeah, and we all know that MSFC and KSC are staffed by volunteers. Oh wait.
They can tax and regulate each other to death
No because they covet what others produce.
Was this supposed to make any sense?
Where is bob? I bet bob can explain what oil drilling has to do with space stations. He’s probably even able to explain why happy meals (McDonald’s) is tied to to toxic stuff and not the movie industry’s (Dreamwork’s Shrek) promotional marketing directed at small children. Cause you know, BP and Bigelow are just in it for the profit, while Jeffrey Katzenberg just does what he does to raise the million plus dollars he contributed to the Democratic Party since 1978. In no way is Katzenberg’s $800 million from the creation of Dreamwork’s made on the back on advertising to children using toxic materials like cadmium.
Martijn,
The liberal definition of “profit” doesn’t include “wages.” A profit is something business does -> evil. Wages are something due to workers -> good. They’re perfectly happy lauding a major non-profit hospital – even when the head is pulling in millions as a salary/bonus package. “She’s working for a charity -and- doing well!”
There are a number of stupid memes that need to be quashed. “LEO access = exploration” is one of them. “NASA developing Ares = all of American manned spaceflight” is another. And those who think “profit = evil” should watch a youtube clip of Milton Friedman on the Donohue show.
The liberal definition of “profit” doesn’t include “wages.”
I know, but I think it’s a mendacious definition.
Leland, wrong as usual. I agree 100% with Rand on nearly everything regarding space commercialization, and I see no reason why any liberal Democrat would.
I differ with Rand on outer space in general only in that however interested Rand is in the following subjects, I bet I’m much more interested: 1) unmanned solar system exploration (although manned will be better), 2) extrasolar planets, and 3) astrobiology. I would support a big bucks unmanned NASA mission to TItan, but I do wonder how much the problems that this blog highlights regarding NASA’s manned mission apply to the unmanned side of things, and I wonder how much the solutions this blog highlighs could be applied to unmanned space exploration. Unmanned science missions cost a lot, and I really wonder how much of it is due to wasteful government spending.
would => wouldn’t.
I’d love to see NASA eventually make a Titan prize. If boats are involved, call it the Kraken Mare Cup.
The liberal definition of “profit” doesn’t include “wages.”
I also take exception to the misappropriation of the word liberal by socialists.
bob, I never said you disagreed with Rand. I suggested, you could probably explain the nuanced connections among otherwise disconnected concepts. I suppose I’m wrong, but I don’t have a problem with being wrong in over estimating you.
Oh, ok, let me try to not disappoint you. I do agree with Rand that the comment doesn’t make any sense. Profiteers have built and will continue to build the world we all enjoy.
But I think I can highlight a difference I have with Rand, and more importantly, I can make you happy. So, lets see: oil spills, runaway Toyotas and toxic happy meals. Ok, what those three subjects have in common is social responsibility. As has been discussed here before, private industry will have to held to responsible non-destructiveness by government in space just as it needs to be held to those standards on Earth.
On any world, rare irreplaceable resrouces could be squandered, and priceless scientific evidence could be lost in the process. The ultimate nightmare would be that the coming of humans causes an extinction level event for extraterrestrial life. Pollution control, responsible resource utilization, and conservationist astrobiological standards will have to be enforced by governments or else space exploitation will end up like a runaway rocket-propelled RAV4 which flips over and leaks its fuel, creating a happy but ultimately toxic meal for the denizens of Kraken Mare. There. Happy now?
(I guess that’s the penultimate nightmare. The ultimate nightmare would be that extraterrestrial life causes an extinction-level event for us. Only governmetn regulation can protect you from ET!)
Brock, you do not need to talk about the dead due to Communism. Just the way they mismanaged their oil pipelines when they were in power is enough. I still remember the Soviet state oil company solving an oil pipeline leak problem by increasing pumping pressure: if you increase the pressure *some* oil will get to the other end, pipe leaks, oil lakes, and all! 🙂
The fact is people (unfortunately) are kind of insensitive to death tolls. I was talking with someone who should know better (a college student around the time of the Cultural Revolution) and he only described Mao in a positive light. People forget easily, especially if it is an event which happened in the other side of the world. Give it another century or two and people will see Hitler, Stalin, Mao in the same light as a Napoleon or Caesar today.
Only government regulation can protect you from ET!
Yes. The catch is, it will also prevent you from leaving the planet…
The fact is people (unfortunately) are kind of insensitive to death tolls.
Too bad that’s not the case when it comes to spaceflight…
“Pollution control, responsible resource utilization, and conservationist astrobiological standards will have to be enforced by governments or else space exploitation will end up like a runaway rocket-propelled RAV4 which flips over and leaks its fuel, creating a happy but ultimately toxic meal for the denizens of Kraken Mare.”
As the myriad government regulatory agencies prevent oil leaks in offshore oil drilling? Yeah, that’ll work.
No system is perfect. In the Health Care Reform debate, it is common to compare our system to the more socialist-leaning democracies of Europe. I haven’t seen a similar comparison for oil drilling. Do the oil producing states of Europe have stricter regulations, and if so, does such regulation lead to less pollution?
No system is perfect.
I didn’t know you were a libertarian!
All three of the “woes of the free market” listed would be handled under straightforward liability law. As long as someone (government, trade organizations) sets a standard “Thou shalt not have more than XX g/m3 of Cd!” you end up with both punishment of the offenders and caution in the actors involved.
Amusingly, I think there’s actually a regulation that limits BP’s liability.
“As has been discussed here before, private industry will have to held to responsible non-destructiveness by government in space just as it needs to be held to those standards on Earth. ”
It isn’t government that holds private industry responsible, it is the market itself – and it does so quickly and decisively. If a company does something stupid or irresponsible, investors bail in a hurry. Just compare BP’s stock value before the spill with BP’s stock value today to see that this is so.
Let’s start by assuming that NASA, by some miracle, follows the basic newSpace road map and ends up building and filling a depot at L2.
How big of a unmanned Titan lander mission could be launched for roughly equal dollars to Cassini ( current max sized mission)? I think it is fair, in this analysis, to assume that the depot cost, and the upper stage cost are sunk costs not charged to the mission (left overs from manned space). Fuel costs at the L2 depot would be included in the cost.
I would love to know the answer to your question Fred. I don’t want to discourage any further discussion on that topic, but it is an unfortunate truth that launch costs are only a small fraction of an interplanetary science mission.
I highly recommend the following blog for more dicussion about this subject: http://futureplanets.blogspot.com/
I also recommend the forum at http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com
And by the way, astrobiologist Chris McKay recently posted:
“Have we discovered evidence for life on Titan?”
http://www.ciclops.org/news/making_sense.php?id=6431&js=1
(Something is absorbing hydrogen and acetylene at the surface of Titan. Five years ago, McKay speculated that methane-based life on Titan might be detected if hydrogen and acetylene were anomalously depleted, so this latest finding arouses his interest!)
not the case when it comes to spaceflight
What’s the saying?… one lost life is a tragedy. A million is a statistic.
Thanks Bob,
You make a good point that unmanned spaceflight costs are dominated by the huge expenses of the custom designed, one-off space craft.
–F
I just wonder if government adds bloated costs to these beautiful machines, and whether private industry (no doubt working with academia) could lower the cost if there was an incentive.
Amusingly, I think there’s actually a regulation that limits BP’s liability.
There is a law that limits their liability, but only if they didn’t violate any regulations. Regulations are so complex that the chance they violated none of them is essentially zero, however, so the liability limitation is meaningless in practice.
The same law that provided the fake liability limit also expanded who can sue beyond those directly damaged. The potential liability (from hotels that lost business, from their suppliers, and so on) could be enormous. Indeed, the difficulty of determining when this diffuse damage doesn’t count is why courts previously limited liability to direct damages in such cases.