Government <> Private Companies

I just saw a new text on space.com and it kinda gave me the intention to write this down over here.

As you all know.. Hubble is going to go down.. because of bush his idea.
Also the Underwater Lab, the onliest in the world.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/a ... 40223.html

<<<NASA astronauts have trained at the lab for several years to help them prepare for the rigors of space travel, sometimes spending a week or longer at a time.

"The beauty of Aquarius is not only is it isolated, but very isolated, and it's an extreme environment," said NASA project manager Bill Todd. "It also allows the crew to go on a real mission in a real environment and work with real scientists doing real work, just like they would in the space station."
>>>

My question is "for what ?" is this going away..

I always saw bush his idea as a political move... AND if it's going to be real, what it seems it is.. it will be such a development.. they may reach the moon.. less likely mars.. and if they do... it will ask so much money or resources.. they will pull back.. and the only thing that can do it again.. and keep going will be the private business... so.. we just lost 2 things.. where nasa could help the private business.. with great information and pictures of space... and let private organizations train their astronauts under water...

So my question is... is there any REAL development for humen kind if the government goes alone or with other governments to a new planet ? when they stop other research.. so the few research it may create will be at a higher cost...

I think it's only the private business capabilities.. that will change humenkind... cause government space... is too much political motivated and when they reach a goal... they have to pull back or change a lot.. to be able to reach an other goal, cause of the money limitation.

Comments and other opinions are welcome

The reason of not doing the Hubble service mission, has nothing to do with Bush and the new vision for NASA's future...

The Hubble service mission is being discontinued because of the Colombia investigations boards recomendations.. The mission is not safe enough, if NASA want to follow these recomendations...

While it may be true that Bush's vision for NASA... ala moon & mars has nothing to do with cuts in funding for Hubble and Aquarius. But those decisions are catastrophic because their existence is based on bureaucratic NASA decision of the day, not a business plan from one or more private companies.

Oh yes, I forgot. The last time a private company tried to save a piece of space hardware, NASA pressured the Russians to crash the Mir space station.

Here's an idea! What do you’ all think? The X PRIZE Cup selects Florida. I actually prefer New Mexico. Then some corporate sponsors position the Aquarius Underwater Lab near the annual International Space Races. Then X PRIZE Cup fans could experience "spaceflight" without leaving Earth.

Yeah ok... it's on safety reasons...

But without bush his plan... and with the those sefety problems.. what would they have done ?

@traveler,
<<<Then X PRIZE Cup fans could experience "spaceflight" without leaving Earth. >>>
yeah.. sounds nice

I Think it doesn't really matter if NASA is successful or a total flop with any of it's projects. The important thing is that they spend money doing all that basic research.
Sooner or later someone will come along, pick it up cheap and presto, you've got a space business.

Witness Bigelow and his inflatable space habitats. The original development work was done by NASA.

NASA may think they're doing useful work, their real use is what the leave in their wake


Fred

The more private and international space activity there is, the less control the DoD has over space.

If you had the only battleship in the world and three of the only four merchant ships, why would you want everybody else to suddnely have doznes of cheaper better ones.

Most of the big telecoms have the same issue. The Status Quo has them in control, if you change everything maybe they are still in control, maybe not.

If humanity becomes extinct at least no one can be blamed.

Spotted this...

Space has too high a risk/reward ratio, and therefore private enterprises can't afford to undertake such ventures.

This is why I said that private enterprise should go after hypersonic travel, since there is already an existing intercontinental travel market. Going incrementally faster and faster into the hypersonic regime should allow air travel providers to compete more vigorously for market share, and allow technology to gradually improve without radically boosting the risks.

They tried that, with government support, with Concorde, and lost a heck of a lot of money...

You can't necessarily expect things to work out perfectly on the first try. It may be necessary to keep trying again.

There have been a lot of technological improvements since Concorde - in materials, in control systems, in engineering design, and across the board. The new technologies should allow new thresholds to be crossed in terms of performance.

Meanwhile, the market has also evolved. With globalization, there is a much increased demand for intercontinental travel. Also, the more intense competition due to the greater number of players has reduced margins, thus creating more need for improved offerings to differentiate service providers in the marketplace.

Most travelers don't care if they get extra MP3 jacks or LCD screens in front of them. For intercontinental flights, they'd just rather get there faster.

Electric vehicles were also tried before, and abandoned, with big sums of money lost. And yet, here they are again, this time poised to succeed like never before. Likewise, the new realities demand that high-speed intercontinental travel be given a chance.

If you think that proven markets like intercontinental transport are risky - what do you think unproven totally novel markets like space travel are going to be? High-speed intercontinental is most certainly less risky than space, and more attainable as a stepping stone.

But still, nobody is really looking in to high speed passenger transport.



They do however, care about price. Concorde was very expensive to travel on, and I don't believe ever recouped its dev costs. The dev costs of hyper transport would be astronomical (!) leading to price per seat charges going through the roof. Too expensive to make, too expensive to run, too expensive for most of the population.



The cost of developing hyper transport for the masses (which is what would be needed) would utterly dwarf the costs of electric cars development.


It is just too expensive for anyone but a government to develop (given current tech), and since governments are not in the business of wasting money (well, not on stuff like this anyway), I cannot see it happening.

You will get smaller hyper fast transport (aka Blackbird), but passenger stuff is way out there.

Three super-sonic transports have been developed so far. All have failed to turn a profit.

Electric Cars now make sense because of the rising cost of fuel, something that works against air transport and in favour of Maglevs.

And hypersonic travel makes more sense now because of the globalized economy, with ever greater numbers of people having to interact across opposite ends of the globe.

Concorde wasn't fast enough, nor capacious enough. A hypersonic aircraft would cross a threshold of utility which previous generations of rapid transports could not.

Actually, in today's world, you shouldn't have to travel at all!

Well in today's world there is plenty of demand to deliver hi-explosive "presents" to our oppressed brothers in thrird world countries from half-way around the world. Surely our they would appreciate faster delivery time? After all you cannot put price on freedom!