New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: As a reader of NewMars forum, we have opportunities for you to assist with technical discussions in several initiatives underway. NewMars needs volunteers with appropriate education, skills, talent, motivation and generosity of spirit as a highly valued member. Write to newmarsmember * gmail.com to tell us about your ability's to help contribute to NewMars and become a registered member.

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

Martian Republic
Member
From: Haltom City- Dallas/Fort Worth
Registered: 2004-06-13
Posts: 855

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

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,

Offline

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

~Eternal~
Member
Registered: 2003-09-25
Posts: 211

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

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)


The MiniTruth passed its first act #001, comname: PATRIOT ACT on  October 26, 2001.

Offline

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

Cobra Commander
Member
From: The outskirts of Detroit.
Registered: 2002-04-09
Posts: 3,039

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

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.


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Offline

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

Palomar
Member
From: USA
Registered: 2002-05-30
Posts: 9,734

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

*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  smile

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


We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...

--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)

Offline

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

BWhite
Member
From: Chicago, Illinois
Registered: 2004-06-16
Posts: 2,635

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

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.


Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]

Offline

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

Ian Flint
Banned
From: Colorado
Registered: 2003-09-24
Posts: 437

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

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!

Offline

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

BWhite
Member
From: Chicago, Illinois
Registered: 2004-06-16
Posts: 2,635

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

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.


Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]

Offline

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

clark
Member
Registered: 2001-09-20
Posts: 6,362

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

I am the fifth column.  big_smile

When did NASA last launch a communications satellite anyways?

Obnoxious man says, "Mars Orbiter".  tongue

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.

Offline

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

Gennaro
Member
From: Eta Cassiopeiae (no, Sweden re
Registered: 2003-03-25
Posts: 591

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

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

Ehum... end it?

Offline

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

clark
Member
Registered: 2001-09-20
Posts: 6,362

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

Ah, the bitter European speaks!  tongue  big_smile

Offline

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

Gennaro
Member
From: Eta Cassiopeiae (no, Sweden re
Registered: 2003-03-25
Posts: 591

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

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

Offline

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

clark
Member
Registered: 2001-09-20
Posts: 6,362

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

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.  :;):  big_smile

Offline

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

Gennaro
Member
From: Eta Cassiopeiae (no, Sweden re
Registered: 2003-03-25
Posts: 591

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

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!

Offline

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

BWhite
Member
From: Chicago, Illinois
Registered: 2004-06-16
Posts: 2,635

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

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.


Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]

Offline

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

BWhite
Member
From: Chicago, Illinois
Registered: 2004-06-16
Posts: 2,635

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

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>


Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]

Offline

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

clark
Member
Registered: 2001-09-20
Posts: 6,362

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

What exactly does NASA produce now.

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

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.

Offline

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

clark
Member
Registered: 2001-09-20
Posts: 6,362

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

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.

Offline

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

BWhite
Member
From: Chicago, Illinois
Registered: 2004-06-16
Posts: 2,635

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

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.


Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]

Offline

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

clark
Member
Registered: 2001-09-20
Posts: 6,362

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

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.

Offline

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

Martian Republic
Member
From: Haltom City- Dallas/Fort Worth
Registered: 2004-06-13
Posts: 855

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

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,

Offline

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

Bill White
Member
Registered: 2001-09-09
Posts: 2,114

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

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.

Offline

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

dicktice
Member
From: Nova Scotia, Canada
Registered: 2002-11-01
Posts: 1,764

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

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?).

Offline

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

ANTIcarrot.
Member
From: Herts, UK
Registered: 2004-04-27
Posts: 170

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

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.

Offline

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

Martian Republic
Member
From: Haltom City- Dallas/Fort Worth
Registered: 2004-06-13
Posts: 855

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

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,

Offline

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

C M Edwards
Member
From: Lake Charles LA USA
Registered: 2002-04-29
Posts: 1,012

Re: Privatizing NASA - George Bush Privatizing President

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.


"We go big, or we don't go."  - GCNRevenger

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB