Subject:
|
Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:51:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
808 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> I'm reading between the lines, but I think only a little: new design, high orbit
I heard a statistic indicating that the amount of energy needed to go into low
orbit is about 70X the energy needed for this touching-the-face-of-God launch,
so there are many difficulties to overcome, perhaps more daunting than the
obstacles faced to date?
> Yes, but let's imagine that Rutan can do it for $60M. What did NASA spend? (Of
> course, they were pioneering the technology!)
That's the point that can't be emphasized strongly enough. The achievement of
SpaceShipOne is remarkable, but it would be a mistake to think that the project
had succeeded solely on its own merits, technology, or funding. Just like any
descendents of the computer or Internet are beholden to the government that
invested in those projects from the beginning, regardless of any "bootstrap"
fantasies that privatization advocates might retain.
> > > I'd love to see NASA become a superfluous organ of the state.
> >
> > I wouldn't. It's hard to feel patriotic about commercial ventures.
>
> Yeah, but more tech and more options for more people and more ventures at lower
> cost is way, way, way more important to me than feeling patriotic.
I'd add to this that, for reasons of aesthetics (if nothing else) I don't want
to see space whored out as a big corporate billboard, the way nearly everything
else in the private sector has been.
On the other hand, I wouldn't be thrilled about taxpayer-funded efforts to
lunaform the moon with a giant relief of St. Reagan's image, either.
> I hope that we're finally on the cusp of seeing how a bunch of shareholders can
> accomplish great things that a nation cannot (or, more accurately, will not).
Time will tell. I'm still waiting to see the collateral benefits of man-powered
flight or round-the-world flight without refueling. As a diversion for the
megasuperultra-rich, private spaceflight is fine. As a generator for anything
more than very impressive novelty, I'm not yet convinced.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
| (...) I'm reading between the lines, but I think only a little: new design, high orbit Yes, but let's imagine that Rutan can do it for $60M. What did NASA spend? (Of course, they were pioneering the technology!) (...) What if it's double those times (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
81 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
