(click pics for high res version)


If it's the case that NASA doesn't get more funding to perhaps plan for moon missions that explore the technology required to set up temporary living facilities there or on Mars, I agree with what you say about the private sector.D_Hall wrote:And I confess that I agree that the future of space is in the private sector. Mind you, that doesn't mean I believe in orbiting hotels or anything like that. Rather, I believe that if anything is going to change regarding space the revolution that is required is on the cost front... And NASA has repeatedly shown that they are not interested in dramatic cost reductions. After all, if tomorrow NASA found a way to get to LEO for 1/10 the cost, do you think they'd start launching 10X as often or do you think congress would cut their budget by 90%? I don't think there's a person out there who doubts that the budget cut is the more likely scenario. This, combined with a risk-averse culture means that NASA isn't truly interested in aggressively pursuing lower cost technologies.
Which basically means that the "future" is centuries away.D_Hall wrote:And I confess that I agree that the future of space is in the private sector.
That's the way I see it too but It's possible that these small contributions by private companies can help NASA when it comes to future missions by discovering new technologies that can be used for manned space travel.jimmy101 wrote:Small startups can do simple things like perhaps put satellites into Earth orbit. What they can't do is anything of significance relating to a manned mission to the Moon or Mars or anywhere else. The economics simply can't support a mission like that. Since any trip beyond earth orbit has zero proven financial value it is unlikely that anything will get done.
Also true. What I'm holding out for is for either China or Russia, or both, to over-take the U.S. as the dominant superpower and for some scary policies/politicians from those respective countries to shock the U.S. government in to planning a Mars mission or similar to reassert their power.jimmy101 wrote:The only reason we went to the Moon was because of the Cold War and the (not clearly thought out) concept of the military "high ground". If in the early 60's the Russians had been the US's best buddies Apollo would have never happened.
That depends upon your definition of "the future."jimmy101 wrote:Which basically means that the "future" is centuries away.D_Hall wrote:And I confess that I agree that the future of space is in the private sector.
Not to my knowledge. I gather that there's a sizable market for suborbital flights. Even unmanned ones that do nothing but haul experiments around for universities and such. This is doubly true if one can perfect the suborbital shot that is quick, easy, and cheap to fly again. So far, nobody has done that. NOBODY. However, Armadillo has close as anybody has and I believe that's their near term business plan: To develop a suborbital vehicle capable of 100 miles altitude with a useful payload capacity that can use the exact same hardware to fly time and again; just repack the parachute, refuel, and go!Technician1002 wrote:@D_Hall, do they have any plans to try for orbital velocity any time soon? Putting things into orbit or servicing things in orbit is where the money is.
Couldn't you use your influence to become the next Gerald Bull? (without the getting-assasinated-by-Mossad bit of courseD_Hall wrote:I gather that there's a sizable market for suborbital flights.
hectmarr wrote:You have to make many weapons, because this field is long and short life
Heh I agree completelly...Couldn't you use your influence to become the next Gerald Bull? (without the getting-assasinated-by-Mossad bit of course Wink)