SWG Tales

I've noticed, when questions arose about the safety of Discovery, that once again people began to question why we are going to space any way. I for one believe that space exploration and eventual colinization of our star system is imperative and due to the fact we here are all playing a Star Wars game I believe the rest of you believe this too. I have noticed that durring these conversations some venture the idea that we privatives space flight. My question to you is what you think of the idea of allowing private companies to fund their own launches to conduct experiements that would result in new technologies for new product.

I believe this, "if" properly regulated, would be a good idea. The buracracy of government hinders space exploration and is costly. If a private company had to flip the bill the cost would go down, and inovative idea's would be tried. One big problem I can see for NASA, though I dont know it to be true, is that they avoid radically new idea's because they fear the politicians may question funding such endevors and cut funding. This in the pivate sector wouldn't be a problem. It would also be fessable to have any company that would take this up to have to sign an agreement that all inovations that they come up with must be shared with the government free of charge.

As for eventuall colinization. If you leave the construction of habitats on the Moon and Mars and allow them to sale these habitats to the UN or governments the cost of these habitats will be lower if they were built by the government.

Now let me remind you that everything the private sector would build would have to meet sertain safety standard just like the plane manufacturers have to. Even having to meet these standard the private sector would beable to do it cheeper than the government.

Jerrel wrote:My question to you is what you think of the idea of allowing private companies to fund their own launches to conduct experiements that would result in new technologies for new product.

Uh, my answer to you is "try to keep up."

Personally unless there is some economic return that can come from colonization I see no need to do it. Sure if we had another planet that could sustain life without having to construct some biosphere I am all about expansion. But until that time comes I see no reason for it other than people having set personal goals to push themselves beyond the norm. Someone is going to do it eventually.

There are people in the world that are always looking for the next great challenge. Mountain climbers probably being on of the first on the list to come to mind. There is always someone who wants to acheive something that few or no one has done before. In our limited view of the universe the depths of the ocean and space are our final frontiers to explore and colonize.

X'an Shin wrote:

Jerrel wrote:My question to you is what you think of the idea of allowing private companies to fund their own launches to conduct experiements that would result in new technologies for new product.

Uh, my answer to you is "try to keep up."

So far they're only looking to do comercial flights, nothing close to space experimentations that might yeild new tech. I will give the point that they may evetually do it but no company has said they will. Why would they do it anyways? They can get the results for the experiments from NASA without having to pay for the shuttle going up and running the tests

I should have, however, made myself more clear. What has been suggested is that NASA get out of missions like the Discovery flight and leave that level of experimentation to the private sector. The idea floating out there is to get NASA, and in turn the tax payer, from paying for the over buggeted missions. Personally I would rather see NASA continue these missions but only if they can considerably cut the cost without cutting safety. Some of the missions they run is important for the expansion of human knowledge and not very important for a bottum line. If companies took over NASA's role altogether we would see and end to those missions. IMHO it would be ideal if you leave NASA's the knowledge missions and leave missions that simply develope tech to the private sector.

Jerrel wrote:So far they're only looking to do comercial flights, nothing close to space experimentations that might yeild new tech. I will give the point that they may evetually do it but no company has said they will. Why would they do it anyways? They can get the results for the experiments from NASA without having to pay for the shuttle going up and running the tests

So wait, if you're saying that it's cheaper for them to get the results from NASA now, then how could it possibly be cheaper for them to do it themselves as you claim earlier? I mean, if it were cheaper, they'd be doing it themselves already.

Jerrel wrote:I should have, however, made myself more clear. What has been suggested is that NASA get out of missions like the Discovery flight and leave that level of experimentation to the private sector. The idea floating out there is to get NASA, and in turn the tax payer, from paying for the over buggeted missions. Personally I would rather see NASA continue these missions but only if they can considerably cut the cost without cutting safety.

By making yourself "more clear" you're only adding confusion to an argument that everyone is already on board with. I love that you think these are over-budgeted missions. You have a degree in accounting then? How much is a human life worth to you?

The prevaling fact that remains here is that NASA is woefully underbudgeted. The most recent shuttle launch had new environmentally friendly insulation on the main tank which was never actually launch tested because there wasn't any money to throw out on a test launch. Every single component used in a NASA piece of equipment from an instrument panel to the jet thruster is manufactured by a 3rd party private company and is paid for on a "lowest bidder" scale. There is no bloat to be had. I don't see anyone getting fat from their NASA paychecks or Enron scandals from people skimming off the top of their budgets.

The very notion that NASA does these flights for themselves is also erroneous, as many companies pay NASA to conduct the experiments. They're not paying for the results. They're contracting NASA to do the experiments themselves.

The idea that the privatization of space isn't already underway is a bit uniformed. The first google search for "private satellite launch" comes up with this wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_spaceflight

There's been numerous private satellite launches in the past two years already, with three private satellite companies offering their services, and the Russians have been contracting out their services for the past 10 years.

Thanks for the sermon, but you're a bit late to the party.

calm down x'an... count to ten.

have you ever heard of the $300 hammer?

Another point is that large companies will spend tons of money getting this stuff running too. Part of the problem with NASA, is that it costs WAY more to do things now, as opposed to 1960's. I could probably launch a Honda Civic into space with a few modifications. But, an organization as huge as NASA has a small budget, with a lot of mouths to feed. Me launching a Honda from my backyard only costs me and a small group that are specifically working on the project.

Space exploration makes a lot of sense to us geeks, but aside from it being "cool" what purpose does it serve?

There are several innovations that came from the early space program. As it stands now, there is not much to be gained. First you have to find a way to make a profit from going to space. If there were something of value on the moon or on Mars, perhaps a company could jusify going there. There is no return on the vast investment it would take.

Maybe we should offer advertisement on the surface of the moon... if only we could get the letters CHA off of there... (anyone catch that?)

warsloth wrote:have you ever heard of the $300 hammer?

Yes, I have, but using this as an example in this case illustrates a lack of knowledge as to why we purchased a $300 hammer. It doesn't fit the example of privatized space flight.

The hammers cost $300 because there was no COTS (Consumer Off The Shelf) version of a hammer that fit the military's very strict specifications. So they had to have a contracter design and manufacture the hammers.

For example, if the design and manufacture cost was $300,000 and all the military needed were 1000 hammers, they were required at the time to pro-rate the cost down to the individual item, thus, a $300 hammer. It didn't cost $300 to make the hammer. The military was budgeted $300,000 for hammers, and only needed 1000. If they had ordered 100,000 of them (which still would have only cost $300,000), they would have been criticized for having warehouses full of unused hammers.

Since then, the military has rolled on the idea that items as mundane as a $300 hammer and a $1200 ash tray are worth the cost of having them specifically designed, that there are in fact cost benefits to buying a COTS hammer and ashtray. This kind of procurement doesn't really exist to this rediculous level anymore.

A $2,000 coffee maker for a C-130? Well, that's a different story.

While $2000 may be excessive for a coffee pot can you imagine what would happen should said C-130 roll over during flight causing the hot coffee to spill out all over the crew. We all know what hot coffee did to some 90 year olds crotch at McDonald's. Now imagine that happening to the faces of a crew carrying 60 soldiers, and civilian contractors =), in the back of this C-130.

Personally I think the cost could have been less. But there were certain design criteria influencing safety that caused the expense.

And X'an is right about the COTS stuff. We bought a lot of stuff on a government credit card when I was in because it is definately cheaper than getting a contract.

I like it when the Pizza Hut logo is on the side of a Russian rocket...

http://www.space.com/news/spaceagencies ... 531-1.html

Makes me want to eat pizza.. Mmmm pizza.

Jabe

warsloth wrote:Maybe we should offer advertisement on the surface of the moon... if only we could get the letters CHA off of there... (anyone catch that?)

The Tick caught him.

here's the intelligence of some people...

/enter wayback machine

the day the last shuttle broke up, I was furloughed from the airlines and currently working in the shipping department for a local company that makes parts for ge/p&w turbine engines for airliners, other parts for airliners, turbine parts for the f117 and jsf, as well as humvee parts

so we're standing around trying to get info off the internets, etc...when I kept hearing over n over, "why are we going into space? we don't need to go there" in their fine redneck drawl

since I was plenty outnumbered, I was screaming in my head, "you fucking idiots!!! everything you make here has in some way been influenced by NASA, you fucktard!"



/back to the present

the shuttle won't be used to colonize the galaxy..it can barely keep up with making the ISS...the fact is it's OLD tech...how old?

so old that NASA searches ebay to find late 70's early 80's computer parts to buy to keep them running...this is not a joke

the shuttle and the nasa program real advances are from he experiments they run, that lead to advances in so many industries...bio-tech, medical, farming, aviation, mechanical, etc etc the list goes on...

a new vehicle is needed to put bases on the moon or mars, much less colonize the galaxy, which none of you will see in your lifetime...


in the meantime, I can't wait for nasa to send that explorer to Io, the moon of jupiter that is an ice ball, where they will land on it, melt down through the 2mile or so ice to the water underneath, then deploy it's submarine, and go cruising under the ice looking for life on another world...because where there's water, there's the greatest possibility of life

And is then eaten by such life because, "Hey, Earth submarines make tastie treats!"

It would be cheaper for the tax payer to have the companies do it, not cheeper for the companies, though the companies would do it more cost effectivly than the government.

And X'an this imaginary world in which the government is very cost effective is nice but just not true. Ask any teacher how much does it cost to buy a stappler. Here in California a 10 dollar stappler that one can run to Stapples and buy, when going through the approval process in the school districts, cost the state 50 dollars. Why? Beacuse when you count in all the paper work (the pay that went out to those who had to file that one paper), and the cost of the paper the cost of stappler is higher than if I went down the street and bought one.

Why does something like that cost so much? Its the nature of buracracy. Buracracies like every thing requesitioned and all forms filled out in triplicate and the time and money filling all of that out and processing all of that is counted into the cost of the item requested. See any where there the metion of Buracratic Fat Cats skimming off the top? No because there doesn't have to be any to make something cost way more than it should.

The cost of human life is pricless but if we made all desisions about whether we should do it or not based on the risk to some one's life than we still would be in caves. Our drive to explore and to expand our knowledge drives us to takes risks. If thats too much of a cost for you to pay then dont pay it, heck I wouldn't. I'm not explorer and although I value knowledge I still have a lot to learn from what we already know to worry about needing to find more. However, it is their choice to risk their lifes and I respect them for it.

From what I can recall on the cost of one shuttle launch, it costs about 1 billion to lauch the shuttle. I dont recall how much it cost those to get that privatly built spce craft into space but I'm pretty sure it was less than a billion. And X'an before you rant about me being off on the cost of a shuttle launch remember I did say that I heard, meaning I dont know this for fact, that it cost a billion.

Sai'nu wrote:And is then eaten by such life because, "Hey, Earth submarines make tastie treats!"

I would welcome that!!!

how awesome would it be to see some big ass creature swallow a submarine on a live feed from another planet????

Skorixor wrote:in the meantime, I can't wait for nasa to send that explorer to Io, the moon of jupiter that is an ice ball, where they will land on it, melt down through the 2mile or so ice to the water underneath, then deploy it's submarine, and go cruising under the ice looking for life on another world...because where there's water, there's the greatest possibility of life

I cant wait for that too. I think that it could be just another day of the most pivital day in human history