Subject:
|
Re: Some good news for a change, maybe?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Jun 2004 07:26:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1021 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> Yes, but let's imagine that Rutan can do it for $60M.
Is that for development or launch?
> What did NASA spend? (Of course, they were pioneering the technology!)
NASA is also a governmental agency, and therefore bound by red tape. In other
words, they have to spend money to spend money. The government has been cited
as spending $300 on a hammer, but the hammer doesn't cost $300. The government
has to jump through $295 worth of paperwork-related hoops every time they want
to buy a $5 hammer. Granted, buying a Space Shuttle probably doesn't bear with
it a 5900% price increase over the actual cost of a Space Shuttle, but there's a
lot of money that's just spent to oil the wheels of bureaucracy.
As for NASA pioneering, I'd say that they were more responsible for pioneering
the knowledge than the technology. Rutan's design certainly owes a little
concept credit to previous NASA/USAF projects (the basic
underbelly-launch-to-airplane-landing thing was inspired by the X-15), but
whatever technology wasn't developed by the privatized aeronautics industry
appears to have branched off in a completely new direction.
> What if it's double those times but 1/10 the cost?
As I said, if he can land on the moon in 5 or match the heavy-lift capability in
12, I'll believe that NASA can be supplanted. If he can't meet either of those
dates, I don't expect the funding will be available to render NASA obsolete
within my lifetime. Compete with them, yes, but not replace them.
> 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 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).
Shareholders are often more concerned with filling their pockets than they are
with doing great things. If they weren't, they'd donate their money rather than
investing it.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
