Yes, privatize, and try to make a profit?

That has worked well with all sorts of things, eh? (dripping sarcasm, this sentence).

I know, gov't bloat and all that, but come on, you really think taking such a huge enterprise private is going to help matters?

As it is now, the only way it's where it is, (even given the shuttle's age) was huge amounts of gov't money. That doesn't come from thin air. Ok, well, maybe it does, but you really think any investor is going to dump billions into this?

NASA is the gov't's way of putting capital into research. It's a subsidized way of pushing the economy, for one thing.

NASA doesn't make a profit, so what's in it for any investors to look for?

As it is, even the X project, with that Rutan guy, he and others dumped millions into it for a paltry price of 1 million $, or whatever it was? Guess where the prize came from? NASA. Think that's going to happen if you privatize NASA?

I just don't think so....

 

Reasons to privatize:

1.Safety: NASA has no competition right now. The only reason that have to advance on safety is to cover their own butt. If there was competition, safety would increase because each private company would be against its rival to have the safest space-travel system.

2.Money: Right now, NASA has government funding. Look at how many millions of dollars it takes just to transport the shuttle across the country. That money could be going to other more useful causes, such as protecting America's border, our language, and our culture. The money used to fund private space travel would come out of the company's pocket, thus saving the government billions of dollars per year.

3.Technological Advancement: As I mentioned before, NASA has no competition. Just imagine how much more space-travel technology we would have right now if there were private companies striving to come up with better, more efficient ways to travel to space. Each company would want to be the best.


Just imagine if the only vehicles on the market were Chevy and they were owned by the government.

 

Actually, it wasn't my idea. I think I was just the first guy to bring it up on the forum.

 

F15090300, that's what I meant to post.

 

Yeah, I guess I am pretty smart for my age...

 

I think you'll find that NASA will have some competition coming right-quick here in the new future. In this case, I'm not sure privitizing NASA is the right idea.

 

i heard about that. they piggyback it back to florida on a special airliner. so count on two million at current gas prices. they say delta is gonna go broke if this keeps up. oh wel. last time i flew delta i didn't get my complimentary playing cards so screw them.

 

That sounds better than them being the only agency. At least they will have competition, even if it isn't from private business.

 

A private company will be trying to make a profit. Competition doesn't mean safety when it comes to exploration. Read up on Apollo 8(?) and how "competition" with the Russians didn't help a whole lot in terms of safety.

And what company in their right mind is going to pour billions of dollars into the problem when any supposed profit will come decades down the line?

The only entity that has gone out of their way for technological advancement and not kept the technology for themselves: Gov't funded operations. Read up on ARPANET. That's the only reason the Internet exists today. And it's still not "privatized" in the real sense of the word.

As for competition, remember the Soviet Union? The only reason we got to the moon. Private companies wouldn't have bothered... the cost of mining or doing anything on the moon far outweighs any monetary rewards,even in the long term.

But a Chevy doesn't cost billions to develop and operate.

I'll grant you, NASA was supposed to forge ahead, come up with new technologies and private companies were supposed to follow. That hasn't happened, because there hasn't been enough reason to. The Rutan guy and his ilk will sell high-priced rides to millionaires for the next few decades, it seems. So what? That doesn't amount to anything even NEAR what NASA has done in the last 40 years.

 

It doesn't cost NASA nothing. It's our taxes at work (I think).

Last time I flew, the plane had seats 4 wide and 4 propellers (DC6?).

 

True, however, these are new times, where safety is of the essence for companies to stay away from lawsuits.
But now since we have the technology, shouldn't it be passed around for everybody, and not kept for the government to control.
That's wasn't the point, it was an analogy, injected to cause a mild chuckle.

 

Gov't entities using Air Force pilots do not care about lawsuits ... and for private companies, how much is the liability insurance for space shots?

Kept for government to control? What? All the cool ceramics they used for the space shuttle tiles? Been used by plenty of companies... Tang? Thermal blankets? Silicone adhesive? Solar cells?

Name ONE THING that NASA has developed and not released to the public domain.

OK, got the joke

 

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

Read and be glad you are a taxpayer!

Boltgunner
Engineer, NASA JSC Aircraft Operations

 

I'm just thankful they all came home safe. Welcome home guys and gals. It's good to have you back.

-1bigsteve (o:

 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/apollo.htm