NASA is forbidden by law to supply services when they are commercially available. NASA is also bound by law to use commercial services when they are available.

B. the property has nothing to do with it. It is the work we are talking.

c. Gov't doing space launch is like the gov't running airlines.

subsidies have nothing to do with it.

Wrong. The analogy is the car (or truck) is the rocket. The payload is the passengers or cargo. This also works for a commercial launch vehicle with a NASA spacecraft (which is what is done)

The rocket is not part of the infrastructure, neither is the pad. The launch site is (like an airport). The rocket is a means of transport. There are already commercial companies operating these and no need for the gov't to duplicate. The gov't may want to set up a depot or base but it needs to use commercial launch vehicles to do it.

We need a space infrastructure. Some people want to claim that space vehicles are not a space infrastructure, but I disagree. If we use the analogy of a private car driving on public roads, then the launchpad, the rocket, the refueling depot and a moonbase or other locations is the road and it is only the payload that is the vehicle.

As Jim pointed out, the vehicle is not part of the infrastructure. Using your analogy, it would be appropriate for the government to run its own trucking company, railroad (don't get me started on Amtrak), airlines, etc.

Until the Carter administration, airlines were heavily regulated, including their choices of "fares, routes, and schedules" (http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...ereg/Tran8.htm), so it's arguable that the government was, to a significant extent, running the airlines. I wouldn't quite call this "running the airlines," but the history of airlines is such that it's probable that commercial air travel would not have become a major transport medium without organizations like the CAB ( http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...story/POL8.htm ) and its foreign equivalents.

Back to the basic topic, though, I do not think that any for-profit private enterprise would have any interest in any exploitation of space beyond geosynchronous orbit for the foreseeable future. Before something like mining asteroids would be profitable, we'd see much higher rates of material recycling (actually, something like 85% of steel is currently recycled; I would bet that the recycling rate for copper is higher) and increased use of alternate materials.

The European exploration and exploitation of the New World is not analogous to the human exploration and exploitation of space. First, there were known, valuable products that were already subject to trade from Asia. Second, Columbus' accidental* discovery of the New World excited interest in Europeans mostly because of rumors of gold and silver, which had roughly the same effect on many 15th Century Europeans as beer does to a bunch of frat boys.

The gov't didn't build, buy, maintain the planes nor trained the pilots. That is "running" an airline. Regulation is totally different.

NASA is not the CAB, NASA would be more like the USPS and airmail.

No, NASA isn't the CAB. On the other hand, I would consider fares, routes, and schedules to be fairly basic business decisions, all of which were set by the CAB. Airlines don't build -- or even have that much voice in designing -- aircraft. For why, check the brilliant success of the CV-880.

The way I see it, it doesn't boil down to something that simple. If it did, then some of the statements in the charter would be contradictory.

Here's the relevent parts of the charter that I see.
I can see how this urges them to use existing commercial products, but I don't see this specifically as a restriction.
I see this more as a "what to do in space" rather than a "how to get there".

So; in some form, they must have a platform for this experimentation. Now; starting with a base platform by contract is probably possible, but it must be open to be "tinkered" with.

This looks like a biggie in this discussion. I don't know how to interpret this as anything but NASA building rockets.

This also looks like a biggie, but seems contradictory to (3). It can fit anything from "build me what you got", to "you have the expertise for this piece".

Did I miss anything in there relevant to this thread?

I do want to repeat a previous comment.
They do contract out sending man to space in it's entirety to the only organization that is currently set up to do this.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

It has nothing to do with NASA's charter. There are separate laws that limit NASA. Among them is the Commercial Space Act.

1. I know that. That is why I said "buy". This is about launch vehicles and the builders and operators are the same company. I included "build" because the gov't doesn't do it, which is the point I was trying to get it across. I didnt separate the building and buying because thought people would be smart enough to not nit pick it since it is not pertinent to the point.

2. Wrong. Airlines have a big say these days. They are part of the design team.

So the charter is in violation of the law?
I had the courtesy to give reference to a valid document that forms my opinion, and spelled out my interpretation.

Again, what I get in return, is a sweeping statement.

I tried to search for what you are talking about, and can only come up with this.
It doesn't mention NASA and talks about the regulation authority of commercial operations.

I'm not saying you have no basis for your opinion because I have no idea what information you are using.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

No, a spacecraft meets that intent.

I am using professional experience and not an interpretation. Some of the "laws" are in appropriation acts.

This will make it clearer.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...zdEPb1:e36326:

that document does makes a good case for saying that NASA has no choice but to buy the launch of unmanned payloads. but for manned spacecraft this is not the case unless there is a provider that can show that they have a functioning manned launcher and capsule, That satisfy all the safety requirement imposed by NASA.
the catch 22 AFAIK is that there does not appear to be any independent set of requirements for how safe a manned launcher has to be. So we may have a case of NASA being able to move the goalposts if they feel like it.

Safety-requirements for manned launchers and in space vehicles should be standardized by an independent commission. That would give some stability of risk for businesses wanting to make manned space launchers.

__________________
Signature? Why?

Not when I get "Please resubmit your search".

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

bingo

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...he4BOb:e36326:

H.R.1702

Thanks;
I get the same impression as Antice did.
They say payload, but I really don't see whether or not that includes human cargo.
Now this bill is back in 1998, and steps from earlier acts. It's also been amended with HR3245(2003) and HR5382 (2004) which seems to change the playing field a bit with some re-wording.

In particular, the latter adds language for human spaceflight, but I admit I have a hard time matching up the "replace this with that"s with what the final version would look like. But, I get the general impression of human flight, flight safety, and regulations being in the future or not yet matured.

So; what you say may be true, I don't get that impression. So; let me toss that aside for a moment.
Now I'm left with the question of why congress would authorize constellation with this in place by them.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

A. There are weasel words in it which NASA used to go forward with Ares.

b. The FL, AL and UT congressional delegates have some pull.

Not needed. The FAA only requires informed consent. It has no manrating requirements. The issue is NASA and who it lets play in its sandbox

NASA will have mud on its face when Spacex and ULA launch manned spacecraft, but NASA won't let its astronauts fly on them.

I really believe it had to be more than just some fast talking that pushed Ares forward, especially with a lot of the detail that is used in these bills, and the potential for aerospace lobbyists to chime in on it.

Is NASA stopping anyone from developing manned orbital capabilities?

Time will tell with Dragon, and others. I'm not sure they are going to have something with the capabilities of Ares I (that is, higher than LEO on it's own), but in LEO or in conjunction with a HLV I'm sure there's going to be equal footing.
Why? I think NASA is chomping at the bit to get someone to take care of LEO transportation and move on to higher aims.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Ares I doesn't have beyond LEO capabilites. The performance margins right now will barely make it capable of lofting Orion to LEO.

For the same cost as conducting the Ares I-X flight, SpaceX has formed the company, developed and launched Falcon 1 & 9 rockets with required infrastructure, and is developing the Dragon capsule. For the quoted $35 billion price tag to develop the Ares I booster alone (let alone the cost of the Orion capsule), you could create about 70 SpaceX companies. That in a nutshell is the difference between letting NASA develop their own boosters and letting private industry provide the services.

If and when SpaceX is ready to send humans into space, I'd love to see congressional hearings into why it's costing NASA so much more time and money to do the same thing.

They haven't launched F9 yet. Other than that your point holds, apart from the fact that the total development cost likely is/will be over $450 million, probably closer to $600 million (out of thin-air figure).

My understanding was that there were different "flavors" of Orion that will change dependent on the mission.
I can see the issues they are having, but I'm also trying to stay optimistic that it's the development stage that's making it seem worse.

Actually; with such a disparity between what SpaceX is projecting, and what NASA is doing, I would like to see the hearings earlier. It might actually explain more about what NASA is doing other than the narrow minded PR items that I see and the NASA bashing articles in the press.

There's got to be some reason for such a big difference without someone in congress raising a big red flag and hitting someone over the head with it.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Either way, it's strictly a LEO vehicle and in that sense is no different than EELV Heavies in capability, yet an order of magnitude more expensive to develop. Ares I doesn't get you out of LEO, that was always the role reserved for Ares V. Which goes to say Ares I has no such capabilites you spoke of in your previous post that for example ULA lacks.

You mean like Fire and Police Departments, or NOAA/National Weather Service. The anti-gov't nonsense is what is dangerous--as per posts on the accuweather bill

http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-18837.html

See here:
http://www.betanews.com/article/Bill...ata/1114178376
http://patrick.wagstrom.net/weblog/2...eathersellout/

These are examples of how private interests can harm the public.

Naturally since you would like to put them out of work and have ULA unilaterally make decisions extra-democratically--Santorum style. Weasal words Jim? I think the engineers supporting Ares deserve a little more respect, esp since EELV/Depot plans will cost more than HLLV development.

Quote originally Posted by Antice
So we may have a case of NASA being able to move the goalposts if they feel like it.
And private industry has never pushed the goal posts back, right?

Similar threads on space commerce:
Privatization of Space
Economics of Private Corporate Spaceflight

Isn't that the thrust of the Augustine report? To hive off the 'taxi service' to a commercial outfit like Space X and leave NASA to focus on the deep space missions with the Ares V variants?

You mean like Fire and Police Departments, or NOAA/National Weather Service. The anti-gov't nonsense is what is dangerous--as per posts on the accuweather bill



Police and fire departments don't build their own equipment. It isn't anti-government to point out that NASA is spending way too much to accomplish too little. Government has it's place but building boosters isn't it. It's time to insist that government agencies actually be wise stewards of the taxpayers' money for a change. NASA's mindset is a holdover from the "Waste Anything But Time" mentality of the Apollo era. Only, today they're also wasting time.

Furthermore, exercising my free speech rights is not dangerous. Trying to suppress the free speech rights of others is.

Police and fire departments don't build their own equipment.

They just use tax-payer money to pay for it.

"Government has it's place but building boosters isn't it."

The success of the arsenal method proves otherwise

NASA's mindset is a holdover from the "Waste Anything But Time" mentality of the Apollo era. Only, today they're also wasting time."

Ares I boilerplate launched five years after the concept was laid down. I think that's pretty good for something closer to Saturn I than Little Joe.