"Privatizing" the space industry. Yea or nay?

[feign_ignorence]

I'm not a fan of the rape and pillage of natural resources usually practiced by corporations here on earth, but when the government is being slow and useless as it is right now, somebody has to step up!

I'm sure if the public was as enthusatic about space as they are about american idol, religious beliefs, or football, we'd be going places pretty quickly; unfortunately science/space isn't 'cool' yet.

I can only hope it doesn't turn out like as envisioned in scifi novels; but once the world is united under one uniform dominion, who knows what will happen... totalitarianism, an idealic unity, or a huge mishmash of companies fighting for supremacy?

[Fact-Man]

Personally I think the Shuttle will be used beyond it's present "use before" date before Aries I/Orion is resurrected.

From what I've read this seems doubtful, NASA is already preparing one of the beasts for auction, and a second is slated for the treatment later in the year.

They do appear to be serious about making them INOP.

Development on Aries I and Orion is still taking place. A test flight of the first stage of the launcher-Aries 1 worked out fine and a test of the crew escape system rocket will also happen. Again personally I would guess Obama, when the budget runs out on present NASA R&D will quietly as possible make available funds for further development. AFAIK there is no other credible US domestic successor to Shuttle. AFAIK U.S. commercial alternatives to Aries/Orion aren't so much planned yet as not even on the "drawing board".

There are none that I'm aware of and if not by now, probably never.

Development work on Aries I and Orion will continue, as you note. There's not much choice in this.

Present Space Tourism plans outside of the Russian Soyuz alternative centre around shall we say a "creative interpretation" of what travelling in Space actually is. A high altitude flight in a specialised craft may be technically Spaceflight but it still isn't Orbit. Many miles too low and thousands of MPH too slow in my estimation.

In anybody's estimation. I don't think Rutan is an "in orbit" kinda guy, he won't go there, to do so he'd have to quadruple Branson's investment, at least and probably more. Branson's already in pretty deep.

They'll stick to their announced business plan and stay sub-orbital.

The only credible alternative to Soyuz/Shuttle manned spaceflight is the European (well, mostly French) ATV/Ariane V cargo transporter system. Although the first vessel was successfully launched and deployed much further work will have to be done to actually transport people with it. The launcher itself will have to be upgraded and a crew capsule and launch escape system will have to be devised. This might be achieved partly by NASA releasing some of the already developed Orion technology to us Euros. The second most likely outcome IMO.

That's a big job and if it meant spending US money in Europe and creating jobs there, it won't fly ... because the US is 30-40 million jobs short right now and creating jobs at home is where all the emphasis is. Long-term high unemployment seems to be the prospect and it scares hell out of the movers and shakers.

NASA ever created one new job in Europe, they'd catch Billy Hell.

NASA will buy rides on Soyuz until Aries/Orion are ready, seven or eight years from now, or ten, assuming the ISS is kept operational that far ahead, which it may not be.

[mark1961]

The only credible alternative to Soyuz/Shuttle manned spaceflight is the European (well, mostly French) ATV/Ariane V cargo transporter system. Although the first vessel was successfully launched and deployed much further work will have to be done to actually transport people with it. The launcher itself will have to be upgraded and a crew capsule and launch escape system will have to be devised. This might be achieved partly by NASA releasing some of the already developed Orion technology to us Euros. The second most likely outcome IMO.

That's a big job and if it meant spending US money in Europe and creating jobs there, it won't fly ... because the US is 30-40 million jobs short right now and creating jobs at home is where all the emphasis is. Long-term high unemployment seems to be the prospect and it scares hell out of the movers and shakers.

NASA ever created one new job in Europe, they'd catch Billy Hell.

NASA will buy rides on Soyuz until Aries/Orion are ready, seven or eight years from now, or ten, assuming the ISS is kept operational that far ahead, which it may not be.

I personally would like to see the ESA commissioning NASA to manufacture a crew capsule and escape system for ATV/Ariane 5. I doubt the French would allow it for the same reasons you stated.

Also to change the subject somewhat Aries I looks like being, if it's ever developed, possibly, a very capable satellite launcher. Maybe with even lower running costs than commercial alternatives. All the more reason why it's possible competitors might not like it much. Allowing what is effectively a state-run alternative to private enterprise compete with them. Another political/ideological consideration which I guess is a big reason why. Like the Russians with Soyuz NASA has had a very long history of running the SRB. Which is fundamentally what the first stage of Aries I is. The second stage engine has a legacy which stretches almost as far back as Soyuz itself.

Just hinting here with weasel words. I apologise.

[Fact-Man]

The only credible alternative to Soyuz/Shuttle manned spaceflight is the European (well, mostly French) ATV/Ariane V cargo transporter system. Although the first vessel was successfully launched and deployed much further work will have to be done to actually transport people with it. The launcher itself will have to be upgraded and a crew capsule and launch escape system will have to be devised. This might be achieved partly by NASA releasing some of the already developed Orion technology to us Euros. The second most likely outcome IMO.

That's a big job and if it meant spending US money in Europe and creating jobs there, it won't fly ... because the US is 30-40 million jobs short right now and creating jobs at home is where all the emphasis is. Long-term high unemployment seems to be the prospect and it scares hell out of the movers and shakers.

NASA ever created one new job in Europe, they'd catch Billy Hell.

NASA will buy rides on Soyuz until Aries/Orion are ready, seven or eight years from now, or ten, assuming the ISS is kept operational that far ahead, which it may not be.

I personally would like to see the ESA commissioning NASA to manufacture a crew capsule and escape system for ATV/Ariane 5. I doubt the French would allow it for the same reasons you stated.

Also to change the subject somewhat Aries I looks like being, if it's ever developed, possibly, a very capable satellite launcher. Maybe with even lower running costs than commercial alternatives. All the more reason why it's possible competitors might not like it much. Allowing what is effectively a state-run alternative to private enterprise compete with them. Another political/ideological consideration which I guess is a big reason why. Like the Russians with Soyuz NASA has had a very long history of running the SRB. Which is fundamentally what the first stage of Aries I is. The second stage engine has a legacy which stretches almost as far back as Soyuz itself.

Just hinting here with weasel words. I apologise.

Well, one thing seems clear, the US space program is going to be in a state of flux for some time to come, probably with its share of fits and starts. It'll also be among the top candidates for outright amd wholesale cancellation should the country's finances get much worse or if a dolt like Sarah Palin should win the White House in 2012.

It's bound to be a rocky road ahead for NASA, which is of course unfortunate.

But it might be one of the prices America has to pay for continuing to operate its 17th century economic system, which should have been replaced with something more, ahem, modern 80 years ago.

High tech and 17th century economics go together like oil and water. NASA is learning this the hard way.

[Deep Sea Isopod]

What would everyone say to some kind of world-wide space agency and every country who wishes to take part gives 1% of their national budget to the agency. Just a random idea that popped into my head.

You'll need 100 countries co-operating to get a full budget.

Why's that? NASA is only about 1% of the U.S. budget alone (the total budget, including Medicare, etc.). Imagine if 50 countries were throwing 1% into the pot alongside the U.S.

That would total 50% of the budget needed.

[eXcommunicate]

What would everyone say to some kind of world-wide space agency and every country who wishes to take part gives 1% of their national budget to the agency. Just a random idea that popped into my head.

You'll need 100 countries co-operating to get a full budget.

Why's that? NASA is only about 1% of the U.S. budget alone (the total budget, including Medicare, etc.). Imagine if 50 countries were throwing 1% into the pot alongside the U.S.

That would total 50% of the budget needed.

1% of their national budgets.

anyway, I found this pic on Reddit. Thought I'd share! *sigh* right-click -> View Image

[Fact-Man]

anyway, I found this pic on Reddit. Thought I'd share! *sigh* right-click -> View Image

Looks to me like a photo of RDNet's forum.