Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

Martian Republic · 2004-06-17 21:32:21

George Bush is a great privatizing advocate as President of the United States. He seem to want to privatize every thing from electricity with Enron to Gasoline.

Would you support Privatizing NASA which now seem to be on the chopping block?

What do you think it would do the U.S. space program?

Larry,

~Eternal~ · 2004-06-17 22:38:21

Interesting Idea, however who would take over?
Boeing?
Boeing in Control + People in league with Boeing(Can you say a communications module on the ISS by Virgin Wireles)

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-18 06:53:06

There are different types of activities that go on in space. NASA, as a government agency should be doing some, private industry should be doing others, and we're presently a little confused over which is which. Probes to Mars shouldn't be privatized anymore than government should take over satellite television.

We need to get NASA back to exploration, back to pushing the envelope, and privatize satellite launch services, space station supply and maintainance, things of that sort. It's not really an 'either or' problem.

Palomar · 2004-06-18 09:30:13

*Privatizing an icon institution like NASA -- the first agency to put humans on another celestial body? I sincerely doubt that will ever happen.

Of course, I could be wrong...but I really don't see it happening.

--Cindy

::edit:: whoops, used a wrong word...corrected.

BWhite · 2004-06-18 09:39:23

We need to get NASA back to exploration, back to pushing the envelope, and privatize satellite launch services, space station supply and maintainance, things of that sort. It's not really an 'either or' problem.

When did NASA last launch a communications satellite anyways?

ISS supply? That means the shuttle orbiter, everything else is Russian (and European after Jules Verne and Japanese once their ATV flies). Once the orbiter is retired, NASA wasn't going to be in the ISS supply business anyway.

Privatization is a nice buzzword, but what does that mean in plain English?

= = =

Private access to satellite imagery does create interesting security issues. bin Laden and al Qaeda have apparently sought to buy high resolution satellite images over the internet.

Ian Flint · 2004-06-18 10:04:54

There are different types of activities that go on in space. NASA, as a government agency should be doing some, private industry should be doing others, and we're presently a little confused over which is which. Probes to Mars shouldn't be privatized anymore than government should take over satellite television.
We need to get NASA back to exploration, back to pushing the envelope, and privatize satellite launch services, space station supply and maintainance, things of that sort. It's not really an 'either or' problem.

Holy crap!!! Can it be true? I actually agree 100% with Cobra's entire post! Somebody pinch me!

BWhite · 2004-06-18 10:23:28

There are different types of activities that go on in space. NASA, as a government agency should be doing some, private industry should be doing others, and we're presently a little confused over which is which. Probes to Mars shouldn't be privatized anymore than government should take over satellite television.
We need to get NASA back to exploration, back to pushing the envelope, and privatize satellite launch services, space station supply and maintainance, things of that sort. It's not really an 'either or' problem.
Holy crap!!! Can it be true? I actually agree 100% with Cobra's entire post! Somebody pinch me!

clark sent him some Kool-Aid.

clark · 2004-06-18 10:47:13

I am the fifth column.

When did NASA last launch a communications satellite anyways?

Obnoxious man says, "Mars Orbiter".

Once the orbiter is retired, NASA wasn't going to be in the ISS supply business anyway.

Not neccessairly, it would still have the requirement hanging over its head guiding their decision process. Stating emphatically that they will purchase this capability takes the issue off the table. We're starting to redefine the role of NASA in all things space, which is exactly what most space advocates have been clamoring for for years.

Privatization is a nice buzzword, but what does that mean in plain English?

NASA becomes a purchaser instead of a producer, which allows them to focus on research beyond what is already available. If a priavte interest can provide similar capabilities, NASA will buy from them, instead of controling the entire process from design to production to launch.

Gennaro · 2004-06-18 10:47:20

"What do you think it would do the U.S. space program?"

Ehum... end it?

clark · 2004-06-18 10:48:03

Ah, the bitter European speaks!

Gennaro · 2004-06-18 10:52:52

Yeah, there's a Gordon Gekko for you too! :;):

clark · 2004-06-18 10:56:45

I am not a destroyer of companies. I am a liberator of them!

The point is, ladies and gentleman, is that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good.

Greed is right.

Greed works.

Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.

And greed -- you mark my words -- will not only save NASA, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the Spirit of American Space Exploration.

Thank you very much. :;):

Gennaro · 2004-06-18 11:09:34

Ain't the man great? LOL!

Which supposedly would be the reason the US built federal roads, funded and then nationalized the railroads and generally has been one of the most protectionist economies in the world, especially during periods when it was as most renowned for its "evolutionary spirit".

The British on the other hand tried to sticking to the good old invisible hand and they lost an empire in the process.
Well done!

BWhite · 2004-06-18 11:09:51

NASA becomes a purchaser instead of a producer, which allows them to focus on research beyond what is already available. If a priavte interest can provide similar capabilities, NASA will buy from them, instead of controling the entire process from design to production to launch.

What exactly does NASA produce now.

I thought operations were run by http://www.unitedspacealliance.com/]these people already?

How is the new privatization different from the old privatization?

In August 1995, NASA expressed its desire to consolidate the large number of Space Shuttle program contracts under a single prime contractor. The space agency initiated an open competition for a single prime contract to conduct Space Shuttle operations, and received responses from more than 40 companies.

I am not opposed, I just do not understand what will actually happen.

BWhite · 2004-06-18 11:14:44

Ain't the man great? LOL!
Which supposedly would be the reason the US built federal roads, funded and then nationalized the railroads and generally has been one of the most protectionist economies in the world, especially during periods when it was as most renowned for its "evolutionary spirit".
The British on the other hand tried to sticking to the good old invisible hand and they lost an empire in the process.
Well done!

Fact remains. Ain't nothing Delta IV can do that Proton/Zenit can't do, at a lower cost.

Lets talk free markets! ???

</grim wry grin>

clark · 2004-06-18 11:17:42

What exactly does NASA produce now.

Oh no, Bill wants to inject a lethal dose of reality...

If I have to take a guess here, I'm thinking that humans are launched by NASA. Cargo and non-human CEV modules are launched on EELV. NASA starts to purchase cheap flights (read international partnership opportunity) from the Russians (after an ammended Iran-non proliferation trearty) and Europeans.

Alt space is tapped to provide more services, thus expanding the private space industry (NASA purchases the data instead of producing it on its own- look to the Kistler deal as a model), hell, maybe NASA will buy a Bigelow hotel in the future.

The NASA centers become like JPL, which means a contrater runs the show.

Try out the Cenntinal challenges, and work to increase the varkious types of prizes and amounts available for private industry to compete for.

clark · 2004-06-18 11:19:47

Fact remains. Ain't nothing Delta IV can do that Proton/Zenit can't do, at a lower cost.

System integration will be far eaiser, and logistics will be easier, for a CEV on an American rocket. We have far more control over the rocket here in America than we would ever have with the Europeans or the Russians.

Numbers, yeah, it can't be beat- for now. But there are a few more details that change the final equation in determining what is the better deal.

BWhite · 2004-06-18 11:24:44

Fact remains. Ain't nothing Delta IV can do that Proton/Zenit can't do, at a lower cost.
System integration will be far eaiser, and logistics will be easier, for a CEV on an American rocket. We have far more control over the rocket here in America than we would ever have with the Europeans or the Russians.
Numbers, yeah, it can't be beat- for now. But there are a few more details that change the final equation in determining what is the better deal.

Shouldn't CEV be designed to allow easy "plug and play" into Falcon X or the Rutan-White Crusader or whatever?

What if systems integration favors Delta IV and an American company build a cheaper booster that cannot be mated with CEV?

Do we want an export market for CEV? If yes, compatability with Russian boosters would seem essential.

clark · 2004-06-18 11:31:15

Shouldn't CEV be designed to allow easy "plug and play" into Falcon X or the Rutan-White Crusader or whatever?

Yes it should, but the requirements as stated by NASA are that the CEV work with exsisting EELV infrastructure. Atlas or Delta are the requirements, not Zenit and Proton.

What if systems integration favors Delta IV and an American company build a cheaper booster that cannot be mated with CEV?

Then the company will have two choices, build their own version of a human rated CEV that will fit their rocket, or design their rocket from the get go to fit the exsisting CEV. As an example, Falcon is following Delta dimensions and specs.

Do we want an export market for CEV? If yes, compatability with Russian boosters would seem essential.

Why would we want an export market for the CEV? Now, if we want to sell them, it seems it might be a bit smarter to require that they fly on american rockets. Two fer one deal- kind of like the computer printer model- hey, buy a cheap printer, but we're getting an arm and a leg on the ink for that cheap printer.

Martian Republic · 2004-06-18 16:30:57

Ain't the man great? LOL!
Which supposedly would be the reason the US built federal roads, funded and then nationalized the railroads and generally has been one of the most protectionist economies in the world, especially during periods when it was as most renowned for its "evolutionary spirit".
The British on the other hand tried to sticking to the good old invisible hand and they lost an empire in the process.
Well done!
<grim wry grin>
Fact remains. Ain't nothing Delta IV can do that Proton/Zenit can't do, at a lower cost.
Lets talk free markets! ???
</grim wry grin>

Originally the rail roads were also owned by the government. As a matter of fact, it was the federal and state government that created the rail roads, before they got privatized or possibly piratized.

However, I do favor some private ventures in space like the tourist business and setting up a manufacturing sector in space, but how that going to happen is still unknown though.

Larry,

Bill White · 2004-06-18 17:02:32

Shouldn't CEV be designed to allow easy "plug and play" into Falcon X or the Rutan-White Crusader or whatever?
Yes it should, but the requirements as stated by NASA are that the CEV work with exsisting EELV infrastructure. Atlas or Delta are the requirements, not Zenit and Proton.
What if systems integration favors Delta IV and an American company build a cheaper booster that cannot be mated with CEV?
Then the company will have two choices, build their own version of a human rated CEV that will fit their rocket, or design their rocket from the get go to fit the exsisting CEV. As an example, Falcon is following Delta dimensions and specs.
Do we want an export market for CEV? If yes, compatability with Russian boosters would seem essential.
Why would we want an export market for the CEV? Now, if we want to sell them, it seems it might be a bit smarter to require that they fly on american rockets. Two fer one deal- kind of like the computer printer model- hey, buy a cheap printer, but we're getting an arm and a leg on the ink for that cheap printer.

Why sell them? To spread the R&D over a larger number of units.

Build 12 and the R&D gets divided by 12. Build and sell 24? Then the R&D cost per unit gets cut in half.

If the value of CEV is great enough to persuade folks to buy Delta & Atlas just so they can get a CEV, go for it! No objection here. However it also makes it harder to sell any.

= = =

I sure hope Falcon V is ready before the CEV contracts are let. That would solve many of these concerns, IMHO, if Musk gets the CEV contract from the get-go.

dicktice · 2004-06-19 10:10:20

The N.A.C.A. was started by the government to do scientific research into aerodynamics, resulting in e.g., the Douglas DC-3 transport airplane being engineered and produced commercially. The N.A.S.A. should do the same for interplanetary space, resulting in (to be continued?).

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-06-19 10:55:16

Privatising (in England at least) was in large part about removing government control and responsibility for any given organisation. Hence the decisions are made by board members whose key skill is running large organisations, as opposed to a bunch of politicians whose key skill is winning popularity contests. Yes American can be thought of as a 'large organisation' but if it was a company it would have been forced to declare bankruptcy, and if any Records company tried to run itself democratically the distribution-pirates would rip it to pieces.

NASA has little control over it's own budget. They can't make sensible decisions without congressional approval, and congress is rarely sensible. Certian types of privatising would, at least in theory, solve this problem.

ANTIcarrot.

Martian Republic · 2004-06-19 12:35:48

Privatising (in England at least) was in large part about removing government control and responsibility for any given organisation. Hence the decisions are made by board members whose key skill is running large organisations, as opposed to a bunch of politicians whose key skill is winning popularity contests. Yes American can be thought of as a 'large organisation' but if it was a company it would have been forced to declare bankruptcy, and if any Records company tried to run itself democratically the distribution-pirates would rip it to pieces.
NASA has little control over it's own budget. They can't make sensible decisions without congressional approval, and congress is rarely sensible. Certian types of privatising would, at least in theory, solve this problem.
ANTIcarrot.

The point is, each one has there advantages and disadvantages to the other one. They each have there place where they work better than the other system and also have a place where they don't work as good as the other system. So you have to pick and choose which one will works best for each individual situation. NASA should never function like a Corporation and we don't want private Corporation trying to act like NASA, it just won't work.

Larry,

C M Edwards · 2004-06-19 15:10:06

NASA today acts more like a foundation than a laboratory, manufacturer, public works, etc. And, like many foundations (private, corporate and otherwise), it has suffered from substantial mission drift. It has diversified so greatly and altered its purposes so often in the pursuit of revenue that there is no longer a consensus about what that purpose is. The problem which started out as a lack of money has become a lack of vision. At several points during the past decades, NASA repeatedly faced the same choice: follow its mission, or follow the money.

NASA has chosen to follow the money.

Privatization alone will not cure this. Private foundations are just as prone to this problem, if not more so. A restructuring of NASA is required. Programs and whole departments need to be given over to other agencies, phased out, or simply cut loose. The kind of restructuring required may call for a new National Space Act or equivalent.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-06-17 21:32:21

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#2 2004-06-17 22:38:21

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#3 2004-06-18 06:53:06

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#4 2004-06-18 09:30:13

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#5 2004-06-18 09:39:23

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#6 2004-06-18 10:04:54

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#7 2004-06-18 10:23:28

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#8 2004-06-18 10:47:13

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#9 2004-06-18 10:47:20

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#10 2004-06-18 10:48:03

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#11 2004-06-18 10:52:52

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#12 2004-06-18 10:56:45

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#13 2004-06-18 11:09:34

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#14 2004-06-18 11:09:51

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#15 2004-06-18 11:14:44

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#16 2004-06-18 11:17:42

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#17 2004-06-18 11:19:47

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#18 2004-06-18 11:24:44

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#19 2004-06-18 11:31:15

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#20 2004-06-18 16:30:57

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#21 2004-06-18 17:02:32

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#22 2004-06-19 10:10:20

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#23 2004-06-19 10:55:16

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#24 2004-06-19 12:35:48

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

#25 2004-06-19 15:10:06

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

Board footer