From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Mon Jul 15 2002 - 04:43:41 MDT
On Sunday, July 14, 2002 9:19 PM Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
>> Yeap. I suggest scrapping NASA all together
>> and let the market rule in rocketry and spaceflight.
>> (Olga would, of course, disagree, but... Well, you
>> can guess what I'm thinking.:)
>
> I think whatever little NASA is accomplishing, is
> being accomplished because it is performing
> projects that are militarily applicable-someday.
> That is how it squeaks by the US House and Senate.
Huh? Why does this matter to me or my argument? I would also like to
see the military privatized...
> If you are suggesting space stations and moon
> landings and trips to Mars being performed by
> private industry alone, I am afraid we will wind
> up with nothing at all. Because For-Profit will
> not succeed with basic research. These
> companies will have to show a 'bottom line'
> to stock holders, with the 'payoff chances' slim.
I'm not so sure about that. AT&T did do the basic research for
transistors and even helped with radio astronomy.
Also, now there is a fledgling space tourism industry. A few years ago,
when Mir still was in orbit, MirCorp -- a private consortium -- wanted
to fund or buy it and use it for just this. There are also plans in the
work for a space tourism only space station -- i.e., one devoted solely
for space tourism. That could be the means to get private investment
into space.
Imagine this. Let's say space tourism could pay the bills for LEO
manned flight. I.e., people could go up to space stations paying for
it -- much as ocean cruises are now. Soon space tourists would want
other destinations, such as lunar cruises or landings. All of this,
too, would mean privately building more infrastructure in space and
possibly having crews up there longer and longer. This would be a kind
of de facto space colonization.
Also, since the 1960s there has been at least the telecommunications
reason for private industry to fund private launches.
> If you are suggesting that the government fund
> and let private industries operate space stations
> or Mars missions, that is typically called outsourcing.
That probably will happen and it's usually called outsourcing when a
private firm brings in another firm to do something like this. The
government term is contracting out. Same idea, but that's not what I
meant.
> My suggestion is Big Prizes in return for Big Risks,
> awarded by a scrupulously peered, governance
> team. This would be a contest open to nearly
> everyone in the world. Please note that if what
> you are suggesting is a private scheme for space
> travel, you need only to look to the Freshly Audited
> fortune 500 companies and their deliberately,
> overvalued companies. Will these clowns
> colonize the asteroids?
Probably not those particular clowns, but another set???:)
Anyhow, if your attack on free markets is based on the current stock
market scandals, you would do well to remember that these scandals took
place inside the sphere of highly regulated market AND that the upswing
in the market that made so many people act foolishly with their money
was basically created by the Federal Reserve -- a government agency,
no? -- lowering interest rates during the late 1990s (and again lowering
them in 2000 and 2001). This created a moral hazard -- as people took
risks they normally wouldn't take.
I.e., absent government intervention in the market, these scandals
probably would not have happened or would have been much more limited in
scope. (Granted, they are not as big as some are making them to be.
It's funny how a few companies cook the books this is seen as the worst
evil ever -- and granted it is wrong -- while when the government does
this no one notices and some call for increased taxes and public
spending.)
Cheers!
Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:27 MST