Community > Forum > National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) > Splitting NASA

Splitting NASA

Posted by: Andy Hill - Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:46 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 62 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Splitting NASA 
Author Message
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Thu May 12, 2005 7:30 am
publiusr wrote:
Peace.

I don't think you know what this word means.

DKH

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Thu May 12, 2005 7:48 am
publiusr,

you seem to concentrate on thoughts and facts only that fit into your view of thinking and your preferences only and to ignore nearly all other facts.

1. Private Spaceflight IS happening - it just has begun last year and is in its infancy. A "diagnosis" like your issue is possible in five years earliest and what's reported about the business since the XPRIZE has been won means that there are good chances of significant growth. This is assisted by scientific estimations - I posted one in the Financial Barriers section.

2. You seem to have your own definition of "bashing". And what people do you call a "free-traitor"? You seem to be extremely subjective and no able to bear that others think or feel different than you - you never ask for it and you never care about it. You never ask for and care about the knowledges of others, you never try to understand but you tend to consider yourself as the owner of the truth. You simply don't argue objectively and you don't seem to care about the borders of your knowledges and experiences.

3. I never said or claimed that privates mustn't be critizised and nearly nobody else did do too. Fact simply is that privates are forced to be efiicient - forced by the markets and the constraint amount of ressources (steel, composites, propellents) - while governments are not. Governments have power and can abuse it - and they do it really. That's valid for politicians in general and that's one of the major reasons why they have be controlled by a parliament and by voters. Governments are forced by politics only - and politics nearly never cares about ressources and their efficient use. In Germany the governments and the politicians are the ones who cause the collapse of the Health Insurance by Law and the other three Insurances by Law - they are the ones who damaged the whole public budgets and fiscal ressources.

All these are sufficient reasons to think if something should be in the hands of the public sector or in the hands of the rivate sector. It's a topic for the Financial Barriers section and I am thinking about a thread about it there. The differences and reasons are objective and logical. Because of all this all criticisms are constructive and objective - all criticisms here are so too. What isn't objective nor constructive tends to be something different than criticism. Criticism of privates is possible within the private sector because the conditions of existence are equal for all the privates - within the branches and industries at least. But it's not possible from outside the sector because the conditions of existence within the private sector are quite different from the conditions of existence in the government sector, the sector of politicians, the public sector. It's allowed but has no proper base. The criterion for the decision of doing something public or private is if something is a public commodity or a private commodity: private commodities are more efficient and with higher quality produced by the private sector - allways. That's scientific result as well as experience.

4. Calling people "bean-counters" is polemic and doesn't provide any solutions to problems. Really they are people looking what's possible and waht's not possible - they are looking to the constraints set by ressources: steel, composits, propellent, oxygen and much more. These ressources are expressed by units of money but they are no money really. These people are called "controllers" and they only look if the ressources are used as efficient as possible - but they do not have the right to decide about the use of the ressources. Who has this rigth really is decided by others - may be that some controllers have decision rights but that doesn't have anything to do with their controllership.

Not the controllers do harm to something but those who decide - and some of those who decide ignore what the controllers recommend while others base their decisionson the controllers' recomments.

5. The loss of jobs hasn't any thing to do with thinking or any kind of thinking - in Germnay there is unemployment of around 10% - and it's due to the fact that the government prefers huge companies like Airbus which don't provide that much jobs as middle-sized companies would do. But the government and one party at least cause the breakdown of middle-sized companies. This results in an increase of investments without an increase of the number of jobs - simply because the investments are done by large companies mainly that use machines not requiring workers.

6. I know of the ressources need for spaceflight and their nature and scale. Spaceflight has it's economic aspects, requirements and relations and the articles of www.space.com and othe journals discuss them. And the decisions about spaceflight are done by politicians who often are no engineers too and who often have less knowledge about spacflight than me. I know the borders of my technical and physical knowledge and handle them well - by asking people like spacecowboy, listening to Andy Hill and talking to him, and to talk to much more like them: all these people behave very well and quite different than you.

I have two approaches for threads about 3. to 5. in the sections Regulation and/or Financial Barriers - and I'll look for time to write and post them.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:46 pm
Posts: 1215
Location: Kapellen, Antwerp, Belgium, Europe, Planet Earth, the Milky Way Galaxy
Post    Posted on: Thu May 12, 2005 11:30 am
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
Hello, Andy Hill, hello, Peter, hello, Dr_Keith_H,

I informed Sigurd about the problem via PM.

The only cause I can imagine currently is use of insufficient resolution for the screen - but I can't imagine that one of you is using a wrong one.

...



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


It was an error I made, it's fixed now, they're able to see it now.

_________________
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. - Lord Kelvin, 1892


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 243
Location: So Cal, baby!
Post    Posted on: Thu May 12, 2005 4:06 pm
Hey, publiusr...

Your manner is snide, your posture is arrogant, and you have unquestionably been confrontational.

This is fairly common behavior in most forums.

On the other hand, you have now explicitly stated that you are here with the deliberate intent of introducing negative opinions about the venture of private spaceflight. So, I ask you, did you LOOK at the URL? Do you KNOW where you ARE?

What you are doing is the cybersocial equivalent of trashing Apple in a Macintosh user forum, an action which one would only undertake knowing that he would be immediately and vehemently assaulted. So I doubt that anyone here will be particularly receptive to your cries for "peace"

Furthermore, although I was not inclined to agree when Ekke originally suggested labeling you as such, your statement regarding your specific intent to attack the founding purpose of this cybercommunity does, in fact, cast you as a troll.

If you wish to be a member of any community, you are compelled to comply with the social code therein. You have the luxury of being able to leave whenever you choose in this case, so I would like to respectfully suggest that you analyze your options and act accordingly.


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 891
Post    Posted on: Thu May 12, 2005 8:36 pm
Disagreements are often falsely labeled as anti-socia.l to start with. That is too easy.

As anyone who has tried to get funding for private space ventures--that I never said I was against--can attest to--bean-counters are quite real and not an artifact of my invention. Many suits are just not free with their money--do not like risk--and therefore are a poor resource from which to draw from--as some of you should know by now.

NASA has money (not enough) and those funds are simply more substatial.--and should be. My whole point is in questioning the ugly anti-Gov't anti-NASA think speak which I consider arrogant in the extreme.

It is not "anti-social" to point out that private intitiatives that try to raise funding have a hard job ahead of them. If you think this is all off topic--then why is there even an X-prize forum when the prize has been won. Everyone here would like to see a greater presence in space. My only point in all this that gets me called "arrogant" is my belief that spaceflight is simply too important to be left up to market forces that only have the bottom line in mind.

Off Topic---

As far as the 10% unemployment rate in Germany goes--I am afraid some of that is the fault of my State of Alabama. The M-class Mercedes is a German product--and should have been made in Germany. Sadly--those jobs were lost to Alabama. Many in Germany are upset over this outsourcing with Alabamians giving their state away in tax breaks. While it helped us--it hurt Germany, and fosters resentment. This is what I meant by my free-trader/ free-traitor comparison. Money--before-country. If you believe in free-trade--then German jobs coming to America is something you must approve of to be intellectually consistant.

But if you want Germans to have jobs--it is wise to put a lid on corporations so you don't have to worry about 10% unemployement due to outsourcing. This is why I question the Private Intitiatives do no wrong approach. My favorite 'economist' is Lou Dobbs who wrote a book on Space. He understands the dark side of economics--and the danger business-worship can bring. I simply wish to defend spaceflight from destructive influences like that which has caused so much harm.

If "Free-Market first" is what you believe in--then get used to that 10% unemployement going to >15% in a few years.

What has all this got to do with spaceflight you ask.

Imagine this. The United States gets into another war--people ask for NASA cuts--and use as justification Rutan's SS1 flights to say--"we already have private spaceflight right? So we don't need NASA then."

And we lose valuable jobs and the 39 series pads used by German's and Americans in Apollo will have ABANDON IN PLACE signs hung about them.

My biggest concern is that well meaning but mistaken space-marketeers may set this scenario in motion--and give the powers that be an excuse to destroy our space infrastructure. I just wish I wasn't the only one here who sees this threat. And if that gets me called "anti-social"...so be it.


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 243
Location: So Cal, baby!
Post    Posted on: Thu May 12, 2005 9:29 pm
Hey, disagreement is fine, even expected. It happens here a great deal. But you did actually say you came here to criticize private spaceflight

publiusr wrote:
it is my right to be a critic of laughable private attempts done by people with your bad attitude. I choose to criticize private attepts with pathetic funds to match their big talk and it is well within my right to due so--even if it chaps you.


And you are correct, it is your right. All I am saying is that you have to expect to be greeted with negativity when you carry such an attitude here at xprizenews.org

I happen to share your opinion that we need a good BFR. I also think Mr. Griffin will probably arrange to get one, perhaps rising as a phoenix from the STS ashes.

However, I don't think that lambasting the private ventures (or the Big Two or their EELVs for that matter) in an international forum provides any support for Mr. Griffin or NASA, and I think that I am not alone in this community in stating that your one-note chorus has become somewhat tiresome.


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
User avatar
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:43 pm
Posts: 97
Location: Canada
Post    Posted on: Fri May 13, 2005 10:30 pm
First off, I wish to appologise to all for sparking the infamous obital mechanics line of discussion. (regardless of how ... interesting ... it may have been).

Now,

Publiusr:
Unfortunately, within the realm of 'free trade' discussions, your present government has very little credibility to stand on. Especially visible from Canada, Mexico and South American countries such as Brazil is the frequent re-defining of what free-trade actually is, all for purely american national interests. The WTO's rulings are effectively ignored by the US, and other nations add another chip to their shoulders with each one.

The seemingly gross misuse of the term 'free trade' to reflect a largely self-serving mentality becomes rather distasteful. I recognise, and to some extent appreciate, that this comes from a strong sense of nationalism. I do, however, strongly resent when individuals want credit for altruistically giving up a self-interest dominated economic policy and adopting free-trade while still ruggedly clinging to this same self-interest.

Fortunately you do not attempt to continually redefine free-trade to mean both literally trade largely free of governmental constraints as well as trade that is free of cost to the country. I appreciate that you are honest in your motivations.
It is an awkward balance for a country to simultaneously look out for the best interest of its citizens as well as effectively act as a 'good' global citizen.

I do, however, doubt that the 'big government' self-serving aim to maintain as many jobs as possible (regardless of their financial viability) will fly much among a community hungry to see the private sector (and the general public) have access to space. Unfortunately, one of the main motivations for the X-Prize was that it seemed that NASA was doing very little to 'increase presence in space' for non-governmental personnel.
Your doomsday prediction about Rutan's flights been seen as a substitute for NASA seems utterly rediculous. If you were to mention Musk instead, that might have held some water, but I think just about every elementary-school child can easily recognise the difference in scope between the present reach of private organisations and that of governmental space organisations. No-one will call for the throwing out of governmental space organisations until (if) the time arrives that they are actually no longer needed. Your fear is that they would still be needed, yet that itself is the reason that would preserve it. Your fears seem a bit circular.

(note about the X-Prize forum existing after the x-prize has been won: read any of the many recent comments by Sigurd in the website discussion, and you'll see that a transition is, and has been in the process to move towards the more accurate "space race news")


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Wed May 18, 2005 1:37 pm
A standing ovation to SawSS1Jun21 for his "Hey, publiusr..." post. I especially liked the part about trashing Apple in a Mac user forum (How true, how true. Us Cult of Mac members are a vehement bunch, aren't we?). Outstanding post, mate. I've rarely seen a flame that well executed.

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 891
Post    Posted on: Wed May 18, 2005 9:27 pm
Really? Lets examine this more closely...

"Unfortunately, within the realm of 'free trade' discussions, your present government has very little credibility to stand on."

I never said it did--I am just worried that the religion of the individual will replace confidence in institutions that can be turned around.

"The WTO's rulings are effectively ignored by the US, and other nations add another chip to their shoulders with each one."

That actually boosts my arguement. It depends on who you talk to about whose trade is free--and whose isn't

" I do, however, strongly resent when individuals want credit for altruistically giving up a self-interest dominated economic policy and adopting free-trade while still ruggedly clinging to this same self-interest."

You have no arguement from me. If you recall--I was not among the ones who took cheap shots at certain Canadian X-prize entrants."

" I appreciate that you are honest in your motivations.
It is an awkward balance for a country to simultaneously look out for the best interest of its citizens as well as effectively act as a 'good' global citizen."


Now at last somebody understands my point.

" Your doomsday prediction about Rutan's flights been seen as a substitute for NASA seems utterly rediculous. If you were to mention Musk instead, that might have held some water..."

No, because Musk isn't as anti-gov't as some--and is more a threat to Boeing and their Delta II. NASA will be glad to have a cheaper ride from him .

Rutan has a lot of sex appeal---and since most people don't know much about aerospace--they assume that SS1 flew as high as the shuttle--because it went 'in space'. All you have to do is look at some of the NASA-bashers and how they can easily tout Rutan as a replacement for capabilities he cannot deliver on. Musk's Dnepr class Falcon V is another matter. I consider that a legitimate launch vehicle to carry real payloads of merit.

"...but I think just about every elementary-school child can easily recognise the difference in scope between the present reach of private organisations and that of governmental space organisations."

Not everyone can. My problem with free-traders IN gov't is that some of them do not understand the difference due to their own unquestioned ideology--who unthinkingly sabatoge NASA efforts with underfunding--then attack NASA for lack of performance due to said underfunding. They don't understand engineering--jusk Hayek and Milton Friedman.

"No-one will call for the throwing out of governmental space organisations until (if) the time arrives that they are actually no longer needed." Your fear is that they would still be needed, yet that itself is the reason that would preserve it. Your fears seem a bit circular."

Actually it is just the other way around. The free-traders don't want gov't funding for they see it as a competitor--and criticize underpperformance based on underfunding they cause with hype. There are plenty of people who would love to do away with NASA period. Don't think there aren't.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Thu May 19, 2005 7:06 am
publiusr,

nobody here said that SSO flew as high as the Space Shuttle and also nobody here said that SSo is a replacement for the Shuttle or for its capabilities. What has been said is that Rutan is capable to develop such a replacement for the Shuttle or its capabilities and that he is able to do that cheaper than Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop Grumman. It has been said too, that he has proven to be able new technologies the three mighty trusts never developed. And NASA never developed them too.

The government's decisions about reduction of NASA's funds - your word about underfunding - doesn't have anything to do with free trade but with the amount of tax money the government can expect to get. This amount of tax money is decreasing.

Really and in fact not the government decides about NASA's funds but the congress, the senate and the representatives - and these people have to take into account a huge list of quite other problems and tasks and especially the will of the voters. And the voters aren't that much interested in NASA as they have been thirty years ago.

And scientific results urgently indicate that free trade is significantly more assisting employment and wealth and providing tax money than non-free trade/protected trade - withpout free trade NASA's fund would be much less.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Thu May 19, 2005 12:46 pm
Y'know, I really hate to say it after all this time, but I agree with publiusr.

1) NASA is terribly underfunded, and has been almost incapacitated by Brilliant Bush's "Moon, Mars, and Beyond" directive. First aeronautics research then HST were dropped, and now even Voyager is being considered for the scrapyard -- just when the results are about to get interesting!

2) You're right, SSO is not any sort of orbital vehicle, never was, and never will be. It's designed for the sole purpose of taking a small load of passengers on a short-period exoatmospheric trajectory. I like that phrase better than "to space" -- as publiusr the uneducated get confused very quickly.

HOWEVER, comma, what we are saying is that we believe that private enterprise and free trade have the possiblity and probability to engage in human spaceflight activities with less cost and less risk than government agencies -- handicapped by idiot Congressman and truckloads of red tape -- possibly can.

As for HLV's, hell yes, we need 'em. But they're not the only way to fly. My current pick is a hypersonic waverider rocket-based combined-cycle (RBCC) (sc)ramjet aerospace vehicle, due to large potential fuel savings.

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Thu May 19, 2005 1:19 pm
Hello, spacecowboy,

I have no problem to agree to you - but I can't agree to publiusr's way of argumentation. The US tax money is far less impacted by the international trade than the german tax money - the US internal market as much larger than the german one. And the EU internal market isn't that integrated yet - and perhaps never will be because of language borders and so on

That NASA is underfunded is right - but I have a problem with the words "funds" and "underfunding" in talking about NASA and governments. The reason is a difference that has impacts on NASA and their projects: While private companies and organizations get capital - especially venture capital - for projects etc. the amount of which has a special relation to the requirements of the project(s) and is available regardless of the time until project termination NASA gets no capital but a share of the government's income. This share has no relations to the requirements of the project(s) but to the requirements of the government, the public and the politicians and it is available for one year only. The capital privates get for projects really are funds - but NASA never has any funds but a share of income - tax money - of the fiscal period (year) only. The capital is assured to the privates - the share of income never is assured to NASA.

And there really never will be funds like privates have - the government mustn't and can't accumulate assets and savings to create capital: It can save expenses only which only means reduction of expenses. If a government would start to accumulate assets, savings, capital the voters will be annoyed greatly and remove that government by the next elections.

So NASA eternally is put to very high risk - which private companies aren't: the market risk isn't that high and it is far better forecastable than political, parliamentary and governmental decisions.

So being underfunded is the fate of being governmental...



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Thu May 19, 2005 3:23 pm
Good point, Ekke. What we're trying to say (albeit not very well) is that NASA has less of the government's income than we think it should.

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 891
Post    Posted on: Thu May 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Agreed.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Mon May 23, 2005 12:21 pm
Whoa..... Now THAT was weird....








We actually agreed to something........

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: Espinoza and 20 guests


cron
© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use