MODERATOR INTERJECTION: New thread created from posts on this thread due to the change of subject. If any of the participants have a better idea for the title, feel free to suggest it to me via PM.

Why? Why doesn't the gov't have to fund it?

Why does the gov't have to fund it, you mean? Because many venture capitalists run from aerospace with its high costs up front. More on this from the book FREE FLIGHT by James Fallows. Note the line about entreprenuers having a class grudge against financiers. They either won't give you a lot of money up front, or if they do, they want the company. That's what happened with Rayburn last I heard.

There was a line in "Free Flight" where Cirrus head Klapmeir looked ready to kill the author, then kill himself, when he learned that some venture capitalist or other who had turned him down, put a lot of money into a computer start up that also didn't have a revenue model or something to that effect.

Musk had paypal. Bezos,Amazon; Carmack, Doom; You see a pattern. The private space start ups do not make money on space itself. They become independantly wealthy with information technology, then can afford to operate at a loss, protecting their space start ups from the caprices of the market. That isn't capitalism any more, its patronage--a hobby at best. If you get money from a gov't contract, it might as well be called a subsidy. With Airbus, they get money more directly. Boeing thru contracts and what not.

The point is--in terms of spaceflight itself--the profit motive does not work. A super-rich person either operates it at a loss (at least at first) or Gov't takes some of the risk, as with the comsat industry that benefited from advances in missile warheads, rocketry, spaceflight, etc. That gov't sponsered research forged the information revolution that made the folks I listed above the billionaire space advocates they are today. I guess they see themselves as giving back to space, as it were.

But not all folks see their success the same way. I think Bill Gates needs to be taxed more before he gives all his money away in terms of perishables overseas. Let me put it to you this way. Look at three people. A Security Guard, a trucker, and a Trucking firm owner. The last profits the most from the Eisenhower Interstate system no one firm could ever build, so it is fair that he should pay the most in order to keep the system paved. The Trucker makes a pretty good living, and seeing as he drives on the road, he pays less than the owner, but more than the guard, who might take back roads. Without Eisenhower's need to move tanks back and forth, the above three would have jobs that gov't made for them indirectly. Without gov't space spending, the internet billionaires wouldn't have profit.

Thus Gov't is best suited for building infrastructure (space and otherwise).

That's why, to answer your question.

Private initiative can follow where gov't leads. Now with space and road building--private interest can be forwarded. Less so with military aviation. Now the "learjet" was made possible by a fighter's engine, but that is about as far as that ever went. Thus Gov't money is best used for space and roads and less so for aviation, but that is an arguement for another day.

But I digress. Having answered your question Jim, allow me to ask one of you if I may be so bold. What direction would you take NASA were you made NASA Chief Administrator, or for fun, King of the World. What would your vision of the future be?

You are making my point. The infrastructure is in place. The launch ranges exist. Launch vehicles are methods of transportation and not infrastructure. The gov't doesn't need to operate launch vehicles. The gov't doesn't operate trucks on the Eisenhower Interstate system. NASA should not be developing and operating launch vehicles. The gov't should buy all launches, like it does for unmanned spacecraft and ISS cargo. It buys a launch service and not the vehicle.

There is no need for a gov't HLV.

And again you are making my point. The gov't didn't build the Eisenhower Interstate system, it paid contractors to do it. The gov't doesn't build airports, it pays contractors to do it.

I would get NASA out of the launch vehicle business and have industry build what is needed to meet NASA's requirements. The requirements would be to launch X spacecraft to point Y. Also I would make sure that plans fit within projected budgets

Then there is no need to go into space. The Business of America is Business. Exploration can be done by NASA and unmanned spacecraft. Exploitation can be done by industry.

Almost all transoceanic telephone calls are now over fiber. This has been true for several years. Satellites are far superior for broad area coverage (e.g., DirectTV). Most cable TV systems get their channels via satellite instead of fibre because it's currently more economical. There are a lot of very small aperature terminals (VSATs) in use at retail establishments around the country. If you know where to look, you can often see small satellite antennas at places like gas stations that accept credit cards at the pump and some ATMs.

Satellites are also the best solution today for mobile users like the military and commercial shipping. It's kind of hard to drag a fiber optic cable behind an aircraft carrier.

Again, "What's the current load over fiber, and what's the current load over sat-comcast?"

I don't know. Why don't you do some research yourself?

As to the OP, here's an example of some genuine NASA (and NACA) research that is benefiting a lot of people. Recently, the great aeronautical engineer Richard Whitcomb died. In a decades long career, first at NACA and later at NASA, Whitcomb developed key technologies that make aircraft more efficient. From AvWeb:

Engineer Richard Whitcomb, whose innovative ideas are incorporated in the design of most aircraft flying today, died in Newport News, Va., on Oct. 13. Whitcomb "was the most important aerodynamic contributor in the second half of the century of flight," according to historian Tom Crouch, of the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum. Whitcomb won the Collier Trophy in 1954 for his development of the "transonic area rule," which reduces the shock wave drag that occurs near the speed of sound. "We built airplane models with Coke-bottle-shaped fuselages and lo and behold the drag of the wing just disappeared," said Whitcomb. "The wind tunnel showed it worked perfectly." In the 1960s, Whitcomb's supercritical wing design was revolutionary, according to NASA. The airfoil design was flatter on the top and rounder on the bottom with a downward curve on the trailing edge. That shape delayed the onset of drag, increasing the fuel efficiency of aircraft flying close to the speed of sound.


In the 1970s, Whitcomb developed his third significant innovation -- winglets. Other engineers had suspected that end plates added to the wingtips could reduce drag. But Whitcomb showed that the structure would work best if it was an airfoil. Winglets are found on a wide range of aircraft today and improve fuel efficiency. Whitcomb worked at the NASA Langley Research Center, in Virginia, from 1943 until he retired in 1980. "Dick Whitcomb's three biggest innovations have been judged to be some 30 percent of the most significant innovations produced by NASA Langley through its entire history," said Langley chief scientist Dennis Bushnell. "That's from its founding in 1917 to the present. He is without the doubt the most distinguished alumnus of the Langley Research Center."

Don't forget, the first 'A' in NASA is for aeronautics.

Partial credit is still credit in my opinion. No organization operates in a vacuum and it seems like we're sort of extending the concept of corporate personhood to NASA with regards to accomplishments. I don't care of NASA and the military play off each other or if private enterprise actually did some part of the process of which NASA was a part. It was a group effort and NASA was part of the group and it seems unlikely that many things would have been accomplished had NASA not been part of that group.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

Actually Augustine says there is a need for HLVs. Hopkins explained why--and no, the arguement that he is "just one person holds no water." One person on a showroom doesn't guess the price. He co-wrote the AIAA LV handbook after all. HLLV is cheaper than multiple EELV PERIOD.

That sir is a very narrow view. How can space exploitation work idf private capital is so reluctant to fund even sub-orbital plans. You prove my point.

1.I said no gov't HLV's.

2. You have no proof of that and you have no experience or education to base it on.

3. No, then there is nothing to exploit. It is not the job of the US gov't and gov't workers to exploit resources. It is industry's.

It is if we want it to be.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

Is not the lesson from all this that war is key to progress, provided it doesn't destroy everything in the process? It was in the interest of defence that most of this stuff happened.

But 'we' are not the government, per se. Usually (and most cases, I think, govt regulates/manages resources while industry does the actual 'work' (ie exploiting it, as Jim is saying, I do believe)

@GLom: True. Defense drives a lot of things on the order of 'staying ahead' technologically speaking. A competitive thing, especially with aircraft where so-called air-superiority is a prime consideration (and A is for Aeronautics). If there were a Defense 'race' for/over Space (other than satellite stuff, topic issue is *manned/crewed* stuff, more or less), there would be a different drive occurring governmentally-speaking, I bet (!).

Alex

the problem with exploiting space as it currently stands is the sheer lack of a destination. thing is. once you get to LEO the cost to go anyplace else is one more of time than fuel or Delta v or construction costs.

Going by the road analogy we cant claim to have built a full road yet. because the tiny piece we have now is not going anywhere.
it falls upon NASA to create a destination for the road to lead too.
A science base on the moon would be one such thing.

__________________
Signature? Why?

I disagree. While the "area rule" has mostly benefited supersonic military jets, it's the airliner and private jet makers that have reaped the greatest rewards from Whitcomb's research into supercritical airfoils and winglets. Also, he devised the "area rule" at a time when most passenger air travel was expected to be supersonic within a few years time. So no, I don't think his research was mostly defense-driven.

__________________
“There’s nothing that spells progress in large, friendly letters like trying to combine two totally incompatible technologies.” – David Szondy, Tales of Future Past.

I think nasa should be hiring other companies to do their flights for them, otherwise we're never going to get off the ground. NASA's role should be in encouraging private businesses to get into space on their own, because once they are up there they don't need the government to hold their hand. If only the government can get into space then it's going to stay that way for a very long time.

The US military doesn't build weapons, it buys them. NASA shouldn't be building launch vehicles, they should buy launch services. They already do this for unmanned launches and IMO should do so for manned launches as well. Simply put, I don't believe it's proper for a government entity to use taxpayer money to compete with private enterprise. NASA tried to monopolize all launch services in the early 1980s with the Shuttle. They wanted everything launched on the Shuttle so they used heavy subsidizies to artifically lower their prices. Before the Challenger explosion, it looked like the plan was going to work. Following Challenger, the law was changed and from that point on, the Shuttle became a vehicle in search of a mission.

Really that was the case from the point when Skylab reentered.

If you are talking about running a 'taxi service' to service the ISS, and potential private platforms later, then absolutely private industry is the way to go now. But for anything further out we're probably still at a stage where NASA is going to have to build the launch vehicles to do that. Hopefully though the comercial outfits can follow them from LEO once some profitable venture can be found to provide a reason for doing so.

That's beside the point. Whether a country is a democracy, a republic, or even a monarchy/dictatorship that fears the unruly mob, the people will tend to get what they want.

What about the US Postal Service? What about fire or police departments? What about roads nad prisons? There's a reason why some things are run by a government, legitimacy. Governments and their policies are generally judged by two criteria, effectiveness and legitimacy. Private companies in commerce might be more effective but there are some endeavors in which they cannot be said to act legitimately. People still shoot tresspassers, but they don't usually shoot the mailman. Private commerce might engage in space access, but the government places restriction on them WRT ITAR and other requirements. Moreover, other than religious institutions, only governments have the long-term financial stability and vision to complete such goals. Commerce cycles are too short to fund such grand endeavors. That doesn't mean that commerce can't, it just means that, in the current environment (meaning the last few centuries of capitalism), commerce won't.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

Invalid comparison.

A. USPS is a service to everyone. fire or police departments are public services. NASA is not. Providing launch services is not a public service.

B. Road construction and maintenance is most contracted to construction companies.

C. The US gov't doesn't run airlines. Public orgs may run the airport.

What about the US Postal Service? What about fire or police departments? What about roads nad prisons? There's a reason why some things are run by a government, legitimacy.

Having the government compete against private industry doesn't lean the government legitimacy. If government were held to the same accounting standards as industry, there would be a lot more prison overcrowding. Government can and does artificially lower prices through taxpayer subsidizies and shifting expenses, things most private industries can't get away with doing. To cite one of your examples, look at how many times the USPS has had to get taxpayer subsidizies to break even.

Just as the Air Force doesn't build bombers and fighters, NASA has no business building boosters. The military defines the requirements and purchases the equipment from industry. NASA should do the same - define the requirements and purchase services. They already do this for unmanned boosters for their satellites and space probes. The system works. The sad fact that the current estimated cost to build the Ares I is $35 billion is, to this taxpayer, obscene.

Part of that issue is volume. The Air Force does fund the development (at least sometimes), and the contracts do specify certain volumes that will give the contractors a good basis for profitability of scale.
JSF was a 1.5B outlay before any production contracts.

Another thing with military contracts is proven track record. I know we have a proven track record with unmanned boosters, but do we have one with manned ones?

The development costs are there for a manned vehicle. Whether it be a new one or an altered existing design, the initial outlay still needs to be funded, and the volume isn't there for spreading it over a contract.

I know it wouldn't be 35B, but I also don't know how that 35B is isolated to the vehicle, or spread to other areas of the program.

I'm not sure that NASA would be against it if it were feasible, since they already do contract transportation (Soyuz).

Are there any companies chomping at the bit for a contract, or is it at the point right now that they would be willing to do it IF they were guaranteed the cost?

In short, I do agree that NASA should get to the point of contracting the service, but I don't think we are at an apples to apples comparison of other branches of government (at least for now).

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

USPS has been self sufficient since 1972.

http://www.nalc.org/postal/perform/selfsufficient.html

Plus when the government asks for bids on something needing technology that doesn’t exist yet, don’t they (the gov) pay for all the R&D also? So in effect the gov is building it and just using the companies facilities.

So if I go out and buy a car - I pay for a portion of the R&D. So in effect, I'm building it and just using manufacturers facilities?

The right way to do this is say "We need X tons, to LEO, Y times a years, starting in 201Z". You then get bids back from various firms - you pick the best bid and pay the price. What they do with the money is fairly irrelevant. They may well be capitalising on pre existing facilities, resources, knowledge, research, products, components and processes. All that matters is that they deliver X, Y and Z, for the $ paid.

And historically, asking the government to do it itself has gone one way. Over budget, late, and feature pruning.

I disagree. The comparison is not invalid. It might not be preferrable, but that's a different argument.

A. The services of the USPS are available to anyone and everyone who pays for them. The launches performed by NASA on behalf of private enterprise is paid for by those using it.

B. Sometimes, yes, but that's not the point. The point is that only government has the legitimate authority to seize property for a road by way of Eminent Domain, and then they pay for construction, one way or another. Whether or not Government actually does the digging or sub-contracts it out is not important to my point about legitimacy.

C. I don't recall making a point like this in the quoted post. But I recall reading that road and airports are subsidized more than rail ever was, but I read that from rail enthusiasts who are probably biased. After all, rail received the payment/subsidy of an entire section of land if they had a rail lin pass through part of it, IIRC.

You ignored my argument about business cycles.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

Huh? I'm not sure what you mean by "lean". Anyways, only government has the legitimacy to act in certain ways. That legitimacy comes not from competition nor effectiveness but from its authority. Indeed, legitimacy is usually held in contrast to effectiveness. I would argue that it is the ability of government to subsidize projects through taxpayers, shifting expenses, bond sales, and money manipulation that gives it the long-view long enough to engage in certain endeavors that tend to have ROIs longer than the common business cycle can sustain.

I have no problem with private enterprise making things for NASA. I hope they do. But if they cannot, then I'm okay with government doing it instead.

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. I know that seems like a stretch to some of you, but consider that even in an earth-based transit infrastructure, the city bus and light-train are often owned and operated by the transit authority, a government entity.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

Now the analogies are just getting farther away from each other.
If you went to a car company and spec'd out a new vehicle, and payed it all out on a per-car contract of many cars, then it might be different.

But; A car company speculates on what will sell. There is no design built into the contract even though it is part of the cost.

Even in road construction, the government pays for R&D. It's the government that tries different pavement methods (even if the actual laying of it is contracted) to test and determine the effectiveness of future spedifications.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Huh? I'm not sure what you mean by "lean".

It's called a typographical error. The correct word was "lead."

Anyways, only government has the legitimacy to act in certain ways. That legitimacy comes not from competition nor effectiveness but from its authority. Indeed, legitimacy is usually held in contrast to effectiveness. I would argue that it is the ability of government to subsidize projects through taxpayers, shifting expenses, bond sales, and money manipulation that gives it the long-view long enough to engage in certain endeavors that tend to have ROIs longer than the common business cycle can sustain.

It is one thing when a government entity uses taxpayer money to subsidize a new area for a limited time. This may help a new technology reach market sooner than it otherwise could. However, long-term subsidizies distort the market by forcing everyone to pay for something that only benefits certain select people. Normally, those are the ones who pay the necessary bribes (campaign contributions) to secure the subsidy. It's a very corrupt and cynical process that undermines the very legitimacy you claim for the government.

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. I know that seems like a stretch to some of you, but consider that even in an earth-based transit infrastructure, the city bus and light-train are often owned and operated by the transit authority, a government entity.

Your very example shows what happens when the government runs things. In most American cities, mass transit doesn't come close to breaking even. It seems the people who actually use mass transit are unwilling or unable to pay the actual costs of running the system. All taxpayers end up paying to subsidize those who do use the system. Many communities may decide that's in the public interest - that's a local matter.

Governments do invest in infrastructure. An example cited earlier in this thread is government ownership of airports. Within the US, the government doesn't try to own and operate the airlines (with a couple specified exception like prisoner transport).