Leave Outer Space to the Millionaires

tcd004 writes "Martin Rees, Britain's Astronomer Royal has an interesting article in Foreign Policy arguing that the future of manned space travel should be left to wealthy adventurers. He points to the fact that modern state-funded space disasters become national traumas, and argues that that gung-ho millionaires are more free to take risks because they 'don't represent a nation; [they] represent humanity.'"

Comments

Boy bands in space.

[joeware]

I agree. Let's send all the boy bands into space.

Re:Boy bands in space.

[Bake]

I was leaning more towards sending them into the Sun (That big yellow thing in the sky)

Re:Boy bands in space.

[Realistic_Dragon]

I agree. Let's send all the boy bands into space.

A crew with the aptitude of monkeys that pay for themselves!

Re:Boy bands in space.

[urbazewski]

better yet, the old bumper sticker from the 70's:

"If we can send one man to the moon --- why not send them all?"

.

Re:Boy bands in space.

[Usquebaugh]

But who would cut the grass?

Re:Boy bands in space.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like Golgafrincham...

Uh-huh.

[Tidal Flame]

That's a bit counterproductive - if the only people who're going to be travelling into space are wealthy millionaires, we'd be much slower in space-travel development than we are at current. Not that it's all that important, but.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Aadain2001]

I guess you haven't watched NASA for the past 30 years. We still use the same Shuttles. We have seen MANY great new spacecraft designs, but they were never explored because of all the buracracy invloved. There was an article in the latest Wired that talked about this. These millionars are building reusable space craft that are cheap and effective and actually made with modern ideas. They will most likely be the ones to bring us, the average citizen, into space. Let them do the research, because in the end they will want to turn around and sell it on the open market, creating practicle space travel.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Anonymous Coward]

You may want to brush up on use of capital letters there, yourself. I'll give you an "E" for Effort.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought most of them represent Satan...

I have a higher IQ than lots of those dumbfucks.. All they know how to do is play the game really well.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Steveftoth]

You do realize that the entire reason the usa had such a large space program was a PR thing. That we were afraid of being 'second best' in the space race. It's not buracracy, but just the american public that doesn't want to goto space.

We still have the same shuttles because they are probably cheaper then building new ones. NASA was spawned from the Airforce and still is relient on military money for many projects.

Singular millionaries will goto space, because they want to, while most people are fine here on earth.

Re:Uh-huh.

[WolfWithoutAClause]

That's a bit counterproductive - if the only people who're going to be travelling into space are wealthy millionaires, we'd be much slower in space-travel development than we are at current. Not that it's all that important, but.

Probably, but it's not either-or.

The problem with NASA (with all government space in all countries really) is that it's budget can't grow much. It can't grow because it is a government operation, and hence essentially can't make a profit, and therefore only grows as fast as government grows.

Which is a big problem, because one of the reasons that space is really expensive is because hardly anyone goes there per year- the economies of scale are really bad when you only go a few times a year. But commercial companies, under the right conditions, grow exponentially, far faster than governments can. Look at Cisco, a lot of their growth isn't directly related to Moore's law.

And that's where we are right now- it actually costs about $6000/kg to put something in orbit (the Shuttle is up at more like ~$13000/kg)- a man weighs maybe 80kg- so ~$500,000 is a reasonable price to aim for. (There's also some evidence that the price of commercial launch has dropped by about 50% in the last 5 years or so.)

If there was a market for tourism; then the launch rate would go up- it's a rule of thumb that the price drops by 15% for every 10x more you do something. So if there was a launch market of 1000 tourists per year, then the price could be as low as $300,000 from economies of scale alone. And that's before you get into fully reusable vehicles and other 'high technology' which can cut the costs even more.

But I don't really think that governments are in the business to do that kind of thing; they're interested in defense, spy sats, navigation sats, antisat tech, ICBMs etc. not a bunch of tourists- so it seems that the wing of the government called NASA is the wrong organisation to put even averagely wealthy people into space.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize how horribly complicated the space shuttle is? It is not economically feasible to redesign a shuttle every 10 years, let alone 20-30. And these millionaires who are building reusable spacecraft are also not under the umbrella of the US government, which requires some form of safety/redundancy/reliability. Don't automatically assume that because John Carmack does something, that it is the right idea. Hundreds of astronauts have left and returned from earth safely, and thousands of scientific experiments have been completed in space, so please hold off on the negative remarks towards NASA. Yeah, great new spacecraft designs have come and gone, and you know what... your taxes are lower because they have come and gone. A new shuttle is on the way, but I don't think it is coming too late. No I don't work for NASA, but I do work for a major Defence contractor who knows that planes/spacecraft don't happen overnight.

Re:Uh-huh.

[fenix down]

Come on now, what gets us closer to a Martian colony than throwing old white guys to weather balloon height in the safest and least expensive possible way over and over and over again?

Re:Uh-huh.

[EmbeddedJanitor]

At least the wealthy millionaires have a track record of achieving that is better than any government department.

I bet for every NASA dollar that goes into space, at least ten NASA dollars are squandered on the ground in departmental politics etc.

You don't get to be a millionaire by pissing away your time in meetings and buying $16000 toilet seats.

Re:Uh-huh.

[73939133]

if the only people who're going to be travelling into space are wealthy millionaires, we'd be much slower in space-travel development than we are at current.

Yeah, and if the only people buying race cars are wealthy millionaires, we'd be so much slower in the development of race cars as well. So what?

Manned space travel is of no compelling interest to governments, science, or the daily lives of anybody on this planet. It's a luxury, a dream, an adventure. If it takes a little longer to develop, that's just fine.

Governments should concentrate on driving science and technology, and that can be done more cheaply and much more effectively by having unmanned space programs.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Esion Modnar]

If it were left to governments, the only computers would be bigger and heavier mainframes. It took somebody with a garage (think Apple and others), a soldering iron, and a vision to bring it to everybody else.

You see, institutions only know how to make other institutions. Individuals know how to make things for individuals.

Re:Uh-huh.

[istartedi]

What about their maids and butlers?

Now... where to get zero-G cooking and cleaning experience?

Re:Uh-huh.

[Anonymous Coward]

And where is the difference between the NASA and wealthy millionaires?

Re:Uh-huh.

[stefanlasiewski]

I guess you haven't watched NASA for the past 30 years.

NASA has progressed much further then any wealthy millionaire. NASA has been to space a zillion times in the last 30 years. When was the last time a wealthy millionaires made it into orbit without the help of a big government?

Yes, wealthy millionaires are progressing, but right now they are far, far behind any of the major space agencies. The Xprize only requires their contestants to reach low orbit below the height needed for satallites, so don't expect most of these guys will be launching satalites in 2004.

There are other more successful examples (like Sealaunch, who's launched a couple of satellites).

Re:Uh-huh.

[stefanlasiewski]

You don't get to be a millionaire by pissing away your time in meetings and buying $16000 toilet seats.

No, you get to be a millionaire by SELLING the $16000 toilet seats.

Re:Uh-huh.

[squiggleslash]

Achieving in general, yeah. Achieving space flight... nope.

There's a standard libertarian argument that if only NASA was removed, it's monopoly on space travel would disappear and so everyone, currently paying their hard earned taxes to the gubmint to do it, would be able to get into space, both because they could afford to, and because they would be allowed to.

It's a nice theory but it's wrong on two counts:

• NASA does not have a monopoly on space travel. Anyone who wants to travel into space can do so without needing an act of congress to do it.
• The amount each of us gives to NASA is so small as to be insignificant compared to the cost of putting ourselves into space.

Truth is, if Richard Branson wants to go into space, he can do so. The fact he hasn't suggests that he'll not regardless of whether NASA and the Russian space program are in existance.

It may even be that the odd Millionaire's success record may count against them. After all, you don't become a millionaire by pouring billions into unprofitable projects. Perhaps that's the reason nobody outside of popular government wants to go there badly enough to have done it yet.

Re:Uh-huh.

[PaulBu]

I was so much expecting:
...Individuals know how to make other individuals. ;-)
Paul B.

Re:Uh-huh.

[ngg]

The Xprize only requires their contestants to reach low orbit below the height needed for satallites

No. The X prize requires that they reach a specific minimum altitude (Somewhere around 100km IIRC). It says nothing about orbiting the earth.

Re:Uh-huh.

[CakerX]

if you want to get into space, you have to get through the atmosphere first.

Which requires the FAA certifying whatever contraption you build to fly, and you to pilot it.

if you launch from the USA that is, launching somewhere else might be diffrent

Re:Uh-huh.

[phutureboy]

Do you realize how horribly complicated the space shuttle is? It is not economically feasible to redesign a shuttle every 10 years, let alone 20-30

Do you realize how horribly complicated computers are? Less than 30 years ago it was almost incomprehensible that the things would someday become a household item. The same could have been said of automobiles at one point. Never underestimate the power of commoditization.

And these millionaires who are building reusable spacecraft are also not under the umbrella of the US government, which requires some form of safety/redundancy/reliability

And private industry *doesn't* require safety/redundancy/reliability?

Re:Uh-huh.

[Aadain2001]

I do realize how complicated the shuttle is. I also know that they are required to take the entire thing apart after it returns from space, requalify each piece, and rebuild the entire thing from the ground up. This makes it MORE expensive than just building a new one from scratch! The shuttle is about as reusable as a car that has to be rebuilt every night.
NASA did do good work, 30 years ago, but they haven't done much of anything since. When NASA was founded in the 1960's (could be wrong, could have been in the 50's, so don't hold me to this), they went from capsule style launching to putting a man on the moon to shuttle launching in about 20 years. But since that time, they haven't done anything new. Sure, there have been plans to goto Mars, or build a habitat on the moon. But none of these projects were explored. So, instead of spending their budget on pushing further into space, maybe even grabing an asteroid for mining, they decided to stay at home, doing nothing more than launching expensive shuttles to perform some experiments. My tax dollars are higher because NASA has refused to scrap the shuttle. If they had actually spent the time to test/build some of these new designs, we would have much cheaper space flight.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Aadain2001]

Right, NASA has done a lot of good. But that doesn't mean someone new can't come in and try somethings that haven't been done before. NASA is a big buaracratic government agency and can't move as quick nor take the kind of risks that an independant wealthy person can.

Re:Uh-huh.

[squiggleslash]

If FAA approval turns out to be a problem, and there's no real reason to suppose it would be (experimental aircraft are routinely tested and approved), you can, as you say, launch from outside of the US. Given the amount of money involved in creating and fueling a space-worthy vehicle, I'd make a guess that the amount needed to move the launch location would be a drop in the ocean by comparison.

A drop in the ocean. Hoho...

Re:Uh-huh.

[yoder]

Yup. If pioneering space is left to the millionaires, we will never colonize the moon or Mars. There will be plenty of millionaires in space, but nothing permanent or worthwhile will get done. First, because it will take a hundred billion plus to set up shop on Mars and second, it will take twenty or more years for any profit to be made. If millionaires (or billionaires) go out there pioneering, it will probably be on our dime using government grants, incentives, and tax breaks. These Space Cadets will be more than willing to use a hundred billion of our money to get the ball rolling so they can rake it in later with little or no out of pocket for them. I'd rather have the money go to NASA. I respect and trust scientists (even the bureaucrats) much more than I could ever trust a CEO or Chairperson.

Re:Uh-huh.

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Actually, the FAA approval is reasonably difficult for rocket launches. Basically, they start off by assuming that the probability of failure for your rocket is 1.0, and then they expect you to prove that there's a less than 10 in a million expected casualties from the 'inevitable' accident. Oh yeah, and they have a computer model for launches that apparently 'proves' that a hundred people should have died from Columbia; which doesn't make it any easier.

Oh yeah, and America/FAA takes responsibility for American citizens launching from anywhere in the world, and you have to jump through exactly the same hoops no matter what. (Some of the paperwork is easier to satisfy depending on where you are launching from though.)

Let's put it this way- XCOR have hired someone for the sole purpose of dealing with the FAA and other regulatory authorities.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Angry Pixie]

Isn't that how all great frontier expeditions started out - rich adventurers financing trips to the top of mountains, to remote lands, and now to space?

Re:Uh-huh.

[WolfWithoutAClause]

My theory is that NASA went down hill when Werner Von Braun retired. It isn't that he designed everything, but he was wise and very well respected, and so was able to keep the organisation on track. The Shuttle, which is the first vehicle he didn't have much influence over was really never a good idea. It technically works well, notwithstanding the accidents, but economically it is a poor excuse for a vehicle.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Do you realize how horribly complicated computers
> are?

Do you realize how horribly they would fail if subjected to the same stresses put on some of the Shuttle components?

Re:Uh-huh.

[undetrerbrucke]

That's true on earth but when these corporations are light years away, how do they face punishment for unethical or illegal behavior? It's not like government would be able to cut a supply line or order an expedition to return home.

I think the author underestimated exactly how ruthless explorers need to be. Corporations are ideal for the job if they can profit from whatever they find. I'm a little annoyed with how much time the author spent convincing me to abandon NASA in favor of corporations only to conclude that corporate exploitation would be bad.

It's a choice. If we let government call the shots, we must accept the consequences of a slow, tedious and cowardly program. If we let corporations call the shots, we must accept their rights to whatever they find.

We can learn from the exploration of the new world. NASA can issue charters with restrictions on how much power they hold over their claims (i.e., corporations keep mineral rights, US keeps territory.)

It all depends on how we want to relate to exploration and how quickly we want to get to new worlds.

The author's claim about pioneers destroying the American West is pretty shallow. I'm sure it's easy to spout nonsense like that from old Europe. Descendants of those pioneers are the people that keep it protected.

Laws are for people with no friends.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Twanfox]

I do realize how complicated the shuttle is. I also know that they are required to take the entire thing apart after it returns from space, requalify each piece, and rebuild the entire thing from the ground up. This makes it MORE expensive than just building a new one from scratch! The shuttle is about as reusable as a car that has to be rebuilt every night.

You realize how complicated the shuttle is, yet you think they disassemble the entire orbiter every single time? Also, do you know how much it costs to build a shuttle from scratch? Here's a few quotes, borrowed shamelessly from a USA Today article.

In December, NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe, hired for his budgetary prowess, unveiled yet another plan for a shuttle successor. The "orbital space plane" would cost roughly $12 billion to develop and build by 2010 and could get four to six astronauts to the space station at a fraction of the shuttle's cost.

NASA has taken $2.4 billion from its existing $15 billion annual budget to fund research and development of the space plane through 2007. Congress would have to authorize another $10 billion or so to on top of that to build the vehicle.

USA Today article on 2/4/2003

Ok. NASA's budget is roughly $15 billion. It costs $12 to research and dev a new plane, and $10 to build one. Numbers don't quite fit? To make them more skewed to the cost of making one from scratch, keep in mind that NASA's budget encompases maintenance and support for a good number of centers.

Still think it's a cool idea to build one from scratch each time?

Re:Uh-huh.

[NeoNormal]

>"Governments should concentrate on driving science and technology, and that can be done more cheaply and much more effectively by having unmanned space programs."

Oh, puleez... who drove the tech you're using right now? Whose R&D led us to the level of technology we're at? Who bought ALL of the ICs that were being made for a while?

And if you want to drag "race cars" into it, what do you think Ferrari spends on their F1 program yearly?

Oh, and I (currently) live on this planet and know others who also do... lots of them that have a "compelling interest" in space travel.

Re:Uh-huh.

[GileadGreene]

NASA was spawned from the Airforce and still is relient on military money for many projects.

Uh, no. It wasn't. NASA was born of NACA (the National Advisory Council on Aeronautics), and has been a civilian agency from the get-go. NASA's funding does not come through the DoD or the USAF, but directly from Congress.

Yes, a number of NASA Astronauts are either ex-military, or active duty military seconded to NASA, but this is a result of the requirements NASA places on shuttle pilots (mission and payload specialists OTOH tend to be civilian). Yes, NASA flew a bunch of DoD payloads on the shuttle, but this was a result of NASA essentially demanding that they be the only launcher for US payloads (this was the only way they could even come close to generating a flight rate that would justify the shuttle).

NASA is a civilian agency. NASA employees are civilian government employees.

Re:Uh-huh.

[spike hay]

No. The X prize requires that they reach a specific minimum altitude (Somewhere around 100km IIRC). It says nothing about orbiting the earth.

Yeah. While the xprize contestants are making great strides, the Mach 3-4 that most of these designs are reaching is a far cry from 27,000 km/hr that you need to put a sattelite at a 250 km. LEO orbit.

The sad fact is that orbit is something only governments and large corporations can reach. The physics are just too demanding.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Anonymous Coward]

"...and thousands of scientific experiments have been completed in space."

By this I'm sure your refering to the affects of zero gravity on rootbeer. And if ants can sort nuts and bolts in space.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Stickerboy]

Do you realize how horribly complicated computers are? Less than 30 years ago it was almost incomprehensible that the things would someday become a household item.

Yes, and we all know how bug-free and rock-solid stable most instances of computers and operating systems are. The tolerance level for failure and breakdown for a machine designed for manned space travel is considerably lower than the tolerance level for a machine designed to browse the internet and help balance your checkbook.

And private industry *doesn't* require safety/redundancy/reliability?

Gee, heard any stories lately about pharmaceutical, biotech, or other high-tech industries cutting safety and reliability corners in their pursuit of the almighty better bottom line? Yeah, me neither. Corporations would never screw over consumers and try to cover it up to earn more profit. So let's go ahead and dump manned space flight entirely into the hands of private industry and the markets.

Re:Uh-huh.

[cje]

I do realize how complicated the shuttle is. I also know that they are required to take the entire thing apart after it returns from space, requalify each piece, and rebuild the entire thing from the ground up.

This is simply untrue. I have no idea where you think you heard this from, but the type of maintenance that you describe only happens when the engineers deem it necessary (usually every 8 to 10 flights.) They do not "rebuild the entire thing" every time a shuttle returns from space, and it is extraordinarily dishonest of you to propagate this.

NASA did do good work, 30 years ago, but they haven't done much of anything since.

Correct. Other than the Shuttle program itself (which is aging but still a marvel of human engineering) and all of the science that has resulted from it, the Voyager missions to explore the outer solar system, the Viking and Pathfinder missions to Mars (the latter of which involved JPL actually driving a rover around on the surface of the planet) and the resulting hundredfold increase in mankind's knowledge of Mars, the Galileo mission that spent years studying and providing unprecedented amounts of information on the Jovian (that's Jupiter) system, the Cassini mission that will do the same in the Saturnian system, the Deep Space 1 mission that involved an actual rendezvous with comet Borrelly, numerous Earth science projects that enable us to map this planet, monitor resources, respond to disasters, and deal with everything from famine to forest fires, the International Space Station, and the Chandra X-ray Observatory. Oh, and then there's that Hubble thing, which has expanded mankind's knowledge of the universe more than any other instrument in history. And I'm sure I'm forgetting several prominent projects (sorry, fellas.)

Other than that, yeah, NASA's been pretty much inert.

My tax dollars are higher because NASA has refused to scrap the shuttle.

Oh, for God's sake. NASA's budget is approximately one quarter of one percent of the entire federal outlay. If you pay (for example) $400 in federal taxes for each paycheck, less than a dollar goes to NASA. (And if you get paid every two weeks, this means that you pay about $25/year to NASA.) Even at the height of the Apollo program in the late 1960s, NASA's budget was only slightly over 4 percent of the national budget as a whole. If you want to complain about "your tax dollars", start pointing your fingers at certain Senators who order aircraft carriers that the military doesn't even want just so that a company in their Congressional district can land a lucrative contract.

If we could cut all of the self-serving pork out of the federal budget, we'd have enough money to fund ten NASAs.

Re:Uh-huh.

[PhysicsExpert]

Never underestimate the power of commoditization.

I somehow doubt that space shuttles will ever be a commodity.

Re:Uh-huh.

[darien]

NASA's budget is roughly $15 billion. It costs $12 to research and dev a new plane, and $10 to build one.

Well, that's fine then - they can do the R&D once, build 1,499,999,998 space planes and still have $8 left to spend on scratchcards!

Re:Uh-huh.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=9626

Ed Lu performed the second data collection and file indexing on the NGL (Next Generation Laptop) machine, for downlink. [The NGL, a Notebook equipped with a 2GHz Pentium-4 processor, 60 GB hard disk drive (HDD), 1 GB RAM memory, and a 2-hr. Li-Ion battery, is currently on a three-week zero-G shakedown test.]

On the operational PCS (portable computer system) laptops in the ISS, Ed Lu performed the regular weekly maintenance reboot.

Re:Uh-huh.

[SN74S181]

Correct. Other than the Shuttle program itself ...." etc. etc.

You're forgetting how many people have watched too much Star Trek and think no space exploration can be done unless we haul up a Winnebago-style meat wagon carrying passengers.

It's sad how many people think we can just hop away from the biosphere we are part of as if we're true individuals and not part of a complex system.

Re:Uh-huh.

[SN74S181]

It took somebody with a garage (think Apple and others), a soldering iron, and a vision to bring it to everybody else.

Actually, it took somebody with a huge expensive FAB to produce the Microprocessors, to bring it to 'everybody else.' All those dirty hippies in the garage couldn't have done shit without LSI semiconductors from big, expensive corporations.

Still, it's romantic to think that a few guys in a garage could change the world....

Re:Uh-huh.

[SN74S181]

If it takes a little longer to develop, that's just fine.

Didn't you know? We're supposed to be rushing out into space because we need to be ready to leave soon. Because we want to continue being allowed to destroy this planet's biosphere at will.

The 'we need to hurry up efforts to get into space' people are serving multiple masters.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Gee, heard any stories lately about pharmaceutical, biotech, or other high-tech industries cutting safety and reliability corners in their pursuit of the almighty better bottom line? Yeah, me neither."

Gee, heard any stories lately about big govt screwing up horribly, wasting billions, passing insane laws and generally being unaccountable...?
I guess not...stop reading the NY times...

"Corporations would never screw over consumers and try to cover it up to earn more profit."

and govt 'officials' would never screw EVERYONE over in their insane lust for ever-more power?!?!?
read a frick'n history book, willya?!

"So let's go ahead and dump manned space flight entirely into the hands of private industry and the markets."

FUCKN A!
They'd blow any govt version of it completely away...always have, always will... ...irregardless of what your card-carrying soc. prof told you...

Re:Uh-huh.

[gowen]

If it were left to governments, the only computers would be bigger and heavier mainframes.

And the only way to network computers together would be a massive row over which of seven different proprietary implementations of OSI to use. See, government science funding made your posting (criticising government science funding) possible.

Oh, the irony.

Dogma sucks.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I'm not sure that that's the case. One thing that wealthy millionaires like to do is to become even more wealthy. I think that they would be more likely to commercialize space (hotels, pleasure cruises) than to keep it as a private playground. This is especially likely because *all* the wealthy millionaires would need to agree to keep it private.

Granted it would be expensive at first, but I imagine that air travel was prohibitively expensive to begin with as well. Eventually the costs will lower and open space travel up to the masses.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Thag]

Gee, heard any stories lately about pharmaceutical, biotech, or other high-tech industries cutting safety and reliability corners in their pursuit of the almighty better bottom line? Yeah, me neither. Corporations would never screw over consumers and try to cover it up to earn more profit. So let's go ahead and dump manned space flight entirely into the hands of private industry and the markets.

Does the phrase "Columbia" ring a bell? How about "Veteran's Administration?" Government beaurocracies are, if anything, more susceptible to corruption than private companies, because they're completely political entities, and as long as you can play the political game, nothing else matters.

Jon Acheson

Re:Uh-huh.

[Esion Modnar]

Actually, it took somebody with a huge expensive FAB to produce the Microprocessors

Oh yes, that is a necessity. Didn't mean to say that some dirty hippies built the first personal computers from hemp and high hopes. But big corporations like IBM and others of the time were dismissive of the personal computing market. They assumed the only real use of all those microprocessors was as part of big iron, to be sold to "big business," you know, the whole 3-piece suit, boardrooms, martini lunches and harrummph harrumph set.

Just don't give complete credit for the paintings to those who make the paints.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies are indeed required to observe adequate safety for both employees and the public.

If commerce can get away with ignoring this responsibilty, that can be laid at the feet of 'elected' representatives who will not risk derailing their gravy train by upsetting the organisations which bankroll their campaigns.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Steveftoth]

I guess my point was more that without the Military, NASA wouldn't exist today because it whole purpose for it was to combat 'those nasty russians' in a PR war at the time. If it wasn't for the PR factor, the Airforce (or some military force) would to have figured out how to launch spaceships and put satilites in space as it was obvious that being able to put spy satilites in space was a big deal. Making NASA a civilian agency also means that you don't have to make all your workers get secret clearance to work on a project like that. Since it was public knowledge taht we were going to space.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't even know when the space program started (which decade even), I don't think you know enough about it to be making these comments.

1) The shuttle is NOT disassembled and rebuilt after every flight. Is is inspected and repaired very thoroughly, but not rebuilt.

2) Compared with going to Mars, getting to the moon is damn easy. So the did the easy stuff fairly quickly, and they haven't completed some of the really damn hard stuff, so they suck?

3)If the moon is such a nice place to make money, why aren't corporations there yet? They can sweet talk the government into anything they want practically. If they wanted to be there, they've had 30 years to get there.

4) There's no reason to have one or the other. Let some millionares develop some sweet technology and do better than NASA. It will be a free market. If they can provide better services than NASA, then they will be used by Principal Investigators (experimentors), and NASA won't. THEN, maybe it will be time for NASA to go away.

5) NASA does what it can to save money. Why do they go to the trouble of recovering boosters from the ocean? Because it's CHEAPER to recover and reuse them than replace them.

6) When you cut an organization's budget, they have to worry more about surviving than expanding. Give more money to NASA (and as a bonus, earmark is soley for R&D), and you'll see more experimenting (i.e. new shuttle designs).

Re:Uh-huh.

[timeOday]

Correct. Other than the Shuttle program itself (which is aging but still a marvel of human engineering) and all of the science that has resulted from it, the Voyager missions to explore the outer solar system, the Viking and Pathfinder missions to Mars (the latter of which involved JPL actually driving a rover around on the surface of the planet) and the resulting hundredfold increase in mankind's knowledge of Mars, the Galileo mission that spent years studying and providing unprecedented amounts of information on the Jovian (that's Jupiter) system, the Cassini mission that will do the same in the Saturnian system, the Deep Space 1 mission that involved an actual rendezvous with comet Borrelly, numerous Earth science projects that enable us to map this planet, monitor resources, respond to disasters, and deal with everything from famine to forest fires, the International Space Station, and the Chandra X-ray Observatory. Oh, and then there's that Hubble thing, which has expanded mankind's knowledge of the universe more than any other instrument in history. And I'm sure I'm forgetting several prominent projects (sorry, fellas.)

And oddly enough the two items in that list related to manned space flight (the Shuttle and the ISS) are the two most expensive and least producing.

And don't count the Hubble. The Shuttle is so expensive it would have been better to simply deorbit the defective Hubble and make another one.

Re:Uh-huh.

[phutureboy]

I somehow doubt that space shuttles will ever be a commodity.

Maybe, maybe not, but the parts and subsystems which make up the space shuttles may well be.

Re:Uh-huh.

[sploxx]

> Actually, the FAA approval is reasonably difficult for rocket launches.

Yes, probably true, but do you really want to change that? It's another issue if would be only possible for government organizations to get FAA approval.

> Oh yeah, and America/FAA takes responsibility for American citizens launching from anywhere in the world, and you have to jump through exactly the same hoops no matter what. (Some of the paperwork is easier to satisfy depending on where you are launching from though.)

This would be only true if the US governs the particular state you are talking about (and then it's US territory). Maybe that an american citizen, who launched without approval from another country would get into court after he/she reenters the US. Hard to believe.

Re:Uh-huh.

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Actually, the FAA approval is reasonably difficult for rocket launches.

Yes, probably true, but do you really want to change that?

Actually, I probably should have said unreasonably difficult, and yes.

This would be only true if the US governs the particular state you are talking about (and then it's US territory).

Bzzzt. Wrong. US laws do not necessarily end at the boarders of the USA.

The international agreements say that the country whose citizens launched the vehicle are liable for any damage that it does. It's up to the country to recover the costs from the citizens. So; the US government has a whole bunch of regulations that they apply to any of their citizens, wherever they happen to be living in the world, whenever they launch.

Of course in practice, they probably won't enforce the consequences of not following them until you return to America, but as a US citizen you still have to obey these laws.

Re:Uh-huh.

[sploxx]

> OBzzzt. Wrong. US laws do not necessarily end at the boarders of the USA.
Admitted. But if your rocket is working properly, where is the harm to the US it could require compensation for?

Re:Uh-huh.

[WolfWithoutAClause]

But if your rocket is working properly, where is the harm to the US it could require compensation for?

Yeah, but you or they don't know that until you launch; (in fact you don't even know that afterwards, check out Columbia and Challenger, those bugs were there from the beginning.) So if you launch without the proper documents; you're going to get royally screwed, even if it was a successful launch (that time).

Re:Uh-huh.

[GileadGreene]

If it wasn't for the PR factor, the Airforce (or some military force) would to have figured out how to launch spaceships and put satilites in space as it was obvious that being able to put spy satilites in space was a big deal.

The Air Force has always (except for the Shuttle aberration) maintained its own launch capability independent of NASA. They even have their very own launch facility at Vandenberg AFB in California. The USAF was well on its way to putting men in space (look up the X-20 DynaSoar sometime) until it was decided to make manned space a civilian game, and all the funding got moved over to NASA. The 60's space race was made civilian specifically to avoid triggering a war in space.

BTW, there are civilian agencies that require seret clearances of their employees - the Department of Energy guys that do nuclear power research leap to mind.

Wow

[Exiler]

ten bucks says someone builds a golf course on the lunar surface

Re:Wow

[Sergeant Beavis]

Alan Shepard already did it. He sliced the first drive :)

Re:Wow

[moitz]

ten bucks says someone builds a golf course on the lunar surface

This hole is a par 5, 19km. The green is at 18.5km, and up 17 meters.

-moitz-

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

PlayByPlay: Well, this will be his forth put.
ColorGuy: This lunar gravity is really a bitch!
PlayByPlay: They talked about putting magnets in the holes.
ColorGuy: That would be cheating!
PlayByPlay: Maybe, but we need something, or we'll never finish the first hole.

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Millionaires represent humanity?

Re:Really?

[Carnivorous Carrot]

> Millionaires represent humanity?

As opposed to what socialist nonsense?

Homer Simpson, "averagenaut"?

(Oh, and thanks for the setup. I'd have posted your comment anon just so I could post this reply. But I knew someone would come thru!)

Re:Really?

[Carnivorous Carrot]

'sides. Any nerd worth their salt knows the movers and shakers in space are the do-it-yourself-types. Ever read Robert A. Heinlein?

I mean, duh!

Or should that be...doh?

Re:Really?

[Carnivorous Carrot]

It's bad form to reply to your own, to do it twice is really bad.

However, what's the third possibility? A political ass like Drumlin in "Contact"? Ellie could and should have pounded Palmer (well, philosophically, I mean, not just physically) by pointing out how the aliens might be able to read his phony, lying, power-hungry mind and see how shitty our officials are.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd put Homer into space before I let Ross Perot or Ted Turner go.

can we have a comfortable middle ground where actual scientist go and do actual scientific stuff? turning space into Rodeo Drive for numbskulls with big trust funds is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The AC is modded insightful, you've not been modded yet. I'd mod you -1, Dumbass, if the option were there...

Re:Really?

[zangdesign]

I would argue that millionaires DO NOT represent humanity and sending them out into space would only allow for the complete commercialization of space at the hands of a few unscrupulous privateers.

At least by using publicly funded sources for space travel, we can get a better guarantee that the results of the work will be held in the public interest, whereas by commercialization of space exploration and travel, we guarantee that the results will be held for private interests only.

As long we are pretending to give a damn about our fellow man, we might as well make a good show of it and keep the funding for exploration public. It could easily be funded by cutting the military back to basic killing-and-maiming stuff like guns and bullets instead of pie-in-the-sky advanced weaponry that's only 50% effective (Patriot missile system, for one).

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, really, you should have quit whilst you were ahead, guilding the lily never works, ask any failed capitalist.

Re:Really?

[smallpaul]

I would argue that millionaires DO NOT represent humanity and sending them out into space would only allow for the complete commercialization of space at the hands of a few unscrupulous privateers.

Why do you presume that millionares are unscrupulous? Some are. Some aren't. For instance Warren Buffet spoke out against the tax cuts saying that they were making his income taxes too low compared to middle class people.

At least by using publicly funded sources for space travel, we can get a better guarantee that the results of the work will be held in the public interest, whereas by commercialization of space exploration and travel, we guarantee that the results will be held for private interests only.

Of course. Government always works in the public interest. They would never consider using knowledge of space for, I don't know, weapons.

The characterization of rich people as bad and governments as good is naive. Rich people can be good or bad and so can governments.

Re:Really?

[Rinikusu]

And what's wrong with that?

Right now, the overwhelming drive for government funding of space programs seems to be for tracking systems for dropping precision-guided bombs on people's heads, whom you've located with your super-spy satellites? Which is more "in the name of humanity": Weapons research or Intel building a huge orbital-silicon fabrication facility? While NASA does occasionally get thrown a bone or two to go gnaw on to placate them, the fact of the matter is, the commercialization of space is what's going to bring the cost of going into orbit down to the average Joe's level.

Remember that whole "space elevator" thing that keeps cropping up? Do you realize that the #1 use is going to be for COMMERCIAL use?

Re:Really?

[dbrutus]

Are the scientists going to the millionaires and asking to be sent? That phase will come later. I can see John Carmack going to orbit. I can also see him funding some scientists to gow and research neat stuff after he went up but I don't see him doing the second *before* the first.

The first challenge is cheap, reusable lift which is why everybody's concentrating on the X Prize and not fundraising to send scientists to the ISS.

Re:Really?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Surely millionaires are no less representative of humanity than astronauts and NASA employees?

Spending billions on Hubbles etc is hardly serving humanity (ie. in the public's interest). If space travel was really caring about your fellow man, then surely we'd see a few more homeless bums on spaceflights.

Re:Really?

[JaredOfEuropa]

"I would argue that millionaires DO NOT represent humanity and sending them out into space would only allow for the complete commercialization of space at the hands of a few unscrupulous privateers."

I would argue the opposite. Perhaps millionaires are as good a representative of humanity as nations... it all depends what you mean by "representing humanity". Better to dispense with this vague notion and get on with the real matter.

I have high hopes for privately funded space programs. That doesn't mean that all public funding should be dropped, perhaps we'll even see jointly funded missions in the future.
As for the results of a commercial space program being for 'private interests' only: look at many of the privately funded endeavours of the past and present. I would argue that private enterprise has brought jobs, wealth and comforts, especially to the common people (while making a few individuals super-rich, yes). Many things like running water, air travel, cheap and ubiquitous communication and countless other things would be nonexistent today, or exist only as playthings for the very wealthy, if it wasn't for private enterprise.

I don't see why space would be any different. Sure, a guy like Branson might enjoy riding his very own rocket to the moon to enjoy the sights rather than to conduct science, but you can bet that he'll be lying awake nights figuring out how he can sell the rest of us tickets to the moon, for a million, $100k, or perhaps even $10k. Can you see NASA or the other space organisations showing even the slightest interest in space tourism? The very idea abhors them... It's kind of ironic that space commercialisation is pioneered by the ex-communist Russian Space Agency.

No sir... if you want to live to ride a rocket and see the moon for yourself, put your money on private enterprise and the likes of Branson, not on NASA.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

public interests?

Where are public interests defined? Does the NASA also have paid slashdot modders?

Re:Really?

[stripe]

If I remember correctly the original design by NASA was for a smaller shuttle. The bigger orbiter that we have now is because of the US military payload requirements. As for the commercialization of space, I am all for it. The faster we move manufacturing off the planet the better it will be for the enviroment.

Re:Really?

[Tukon]

If we leave space up to individuals it is more of a race than it ever was before. Take into account that a single person could thereby go to Mars, and since he got there first, could "claim" the planet on his own. Thus, they could set up a government, start charging people to go there and exploit its resources as a private enterprise. In this sense, there is a seemingly unlimited supply of resources.

The only problem is controlling the planet, but sci-fi has been working on that problem for a long time... ;-)

-Tukon

Re:Really?

[Ybrog]

Think tax cuts.

Re:Really?

[Hatta]

Why does it matter who is represented? It's not like we're sending a delegation to meet ET. At this juncture, space exploration is science, and should be done by scientists. I don't care who is doing the funding, as long as the research gets done.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey dont take it personal he said they dont represent humanity not idiots :)

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Think, we're flinging the millionaires into space. With any luck they'll stay there.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are infinitely more socialists than millionaires in this world, and the former really do purport to represent the poor and middle classes. Millionaires generally don't. So the answer is yes, American social Darwinism notwithstanding.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

It could easily be funded by cutting the military back to basic killing-and-maiming stuff like guns and bullets instead of pie-in-the-sky advanced weaponry that's only 50% effective (Patriot missile system, for one).

Think of how well it could be funded if we also stopped killing and maiming all together.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least by using publicly funded sources for space travel, we can get a better guarantee that the results of the work will be held in the public interest, whereas by commercialization of space exploration and travel, we guarantee that the results will be held for private interests only.

Better guarantee??? Are you insane?

You want our interests represented by the government? Whose priveledge and power is achieved and controlled through cunning insiders, underhanded manipulation of the system and corruption at almost all levels? Not to mention GROSS inefficiencies that have very little corrective measures. OK KOMRADE!

I'd sooner trust a public corporation. At least they're representing something that a large collective wants - The consumer! Ordinary people like you and me keep the corporations profitable and we "vote" with our dollars. The majority ownership of stocks and bonds in America is controlled by pension funds and mutual funds whose interests lie in the hearts of ordinary investors like you and me. They're accountable to the shareholders!

Yes, the free market has it's problems (you can read about some of the problems in "Everything for Sale: The Virtues and Limits of Markets" by Robert Kuttner), but I'll take the free market over socialism any day.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to what socialist nonsense?

Socialist? So stating that a Millionare does not represent humanity is socialist? Take the number of millionaires, and divide them by the number of people - and if the fraction is at least 0.1, I'd say that, yes - millionaires are representitive. If not, well.....

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

"but I'll take the free market over socialism any day. "

score:0 ...i guess that says it all for commiedot, eh?

Re:Really?

[Rich0]

You just summarized the US's military position around 1941 or so. What might have happened to change it?

Everybody is better off without the killing and maiming altogether. The problem is that nobody wants to be the first to toss out their military, and nobody wants to end up being the guy who tossed out his military to find out that his neighbor secretly kept his.

And if the US only produced guns and bullets they'd have a hard time getting volunteers to carry them. Would you like to be armed with guns when your opponent has 1960s-era fighter jets? Or would you prefer to be armed with 1990s-era figher jets instead?

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sig sucks. Go to hell.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't say that we should throw away our guns, just that we should stop killing people. Its much cheaper to keep a stockpile of wepaons than to start wars. I'll admit that my comment was a bit fececious since simply not killing people is not necessarily a viable option. In spite of my opposition of the war in Iraq, I think we are late interveneing in Liberia. What I meant by my comment was that peace should be our goal, not better war. What I was arguing for was a more Clintonesque military, where we try to end conflicts around the world, not start them.

Re:Really?

[Rich0]

I'll agree with the goal of avoiding war. I'm divided on the issue of pre-emption. The goal of course of operations like Iraq is that if we go in now we can mop up without losing too many soldiers. If we wait until they are a serious threat it is too late to do anything about it. Again, I'm not 100% convinced, but it isn't an argument you can just dismiss out-of-hand.

As far as ending conflicts goes - my philosophy on the military is that when you send in the marines their main job should be to kill people and blow stuff up. Their purpose shouldn't be to feed starving masses, or to stop ethinic conflicts, etc. If somebody attacks us, they should make a quick example of them. If we have a vital foreign interest using the military should at least be an option, though one which is used VERY sparingly. If somebody does something bad to somebody else, well, we shouldn't be the world's police force. Let the UN take care of it (the US can be part of the solution, but I'm not a big fan of sticking soldiers in the middle of cities full of warlords just to give them a common target)... The military policy of the US should be such that it really gives warlords pause before challenging us. Sending in the troops should be an absolute last resort, and when they do go in, they make every bad guy on earth feel sorry for the folks who provoked us to it.

I guess speak softly and carry a big stick would be my idea of good military policy. Don't make idle threats, and follow through on the threats you do make. Everybody feels happier when the 10-ton-guerilla in the corner is known to keep by its word.

Space should be left to corperations

[Eric(b0mb)Dennis]

I think the real future of space travel is when big corporations start to see the possibility of profit.

Anything else under the guise of "scientific research" seems like it will never take off... the quest for the allmighty dollar will always be stronger than furthering humanity

It's a sad but true state of affairs

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[Andorion]

It's a sad but true state of affairs

Not that sad... profit is what this country's all about, and it's a GREAT motivator for innovation.

~Berj

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[Raindance]

I agree this would be the most efficient way to both channel and use resources regarding outerspace, but I think at that point these space-going corporate entities lose accountability to specific governments, government in general loses power, and we really would live in a corporatocracy.

The way we reach our goals in space travel is more important than when we do it, in my opinion. I think letting corporations run the show in this context would be the wrong way.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[Eric(b0mb)Dennis]

Yes, I agree that it is a great motivator for innovation, but sometimes it seems it doens't always lead innovation in the right direction. It's great from the consumer standpoint, because that's who they're trying to please.. but when you start to look at humanity as a whole, it seems the profit motivation leads to things which are counter-productive.... Just my 2 cents, anyways.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[GoofyBoy]

The point of the article is that the "overinflated male ego which still needs to prove that he is still sexy to any 20 year old girl" will push us to Mars and back with still enough energy to develop a working Dysan Sphere.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[RatBastard]

Never underestimate the power of a good-looking 20-year old girl.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[Andorion]

I'd like to see some examples of innovations for profit being counter-productive for humanity... I was under the impression that innovation is, by definition, good.

~Berj

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[MisterFancypants]

When is the last time the medical industry really cured a disease (ala Polio), as opposed to creating a temporary symptom-reliver?

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[Eric(b0mb)Dennis]

Basically anything that is a huge pollutant to the environment, constant creating of money-producing (as the other reply mentioned) symptom-reliever, instead of cures

It seems that the more they try to 'delay' the problem in an attempt to get a constant stream of cash, instead of actually solving it... just seems counterproductive...

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[timmyf2371]

The pharmaceutical industry constantly patent medical "discoveries" which causes problems in third-world countries which have very little cash.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[Moofie]

Monsanto's terminator gene.
Poorly designed, high-profit-margin SUVs.
Pollution (since being responsible with industrial waste costs money).

And, of course, Microsoft's monopoly. Or any monopoly.

That's just four off the top of my head.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! Maybe a bunch of corporate mergers will produce the UAC corporation! And then they'll start experimenting with teleportation portals! And then weird monsters will start coming out! And then there'll be only one marine, who has to kill them all and save the world!

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[bnenning]

The pharmaceutical industry constantly patent medical "discoveries" which causes problems in third-world countries which have very little cash.

True. But in the absence of the profit motive, would these discoveries be made at all?

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[pla]

I'd like to see some examples of innovations for profit being counter-productive for humanity...

DRM.

The Ford Pinto.

Any weapons research whatsoever (by a contractor, to satisfy the "for profit" condition).

Religion (and if you don't consider this either an "innovation" or "for profit", I have a bridge to sell you).

Lawyers.

Need I go on?

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[jinglecat]

Let us not confused power with the term "ho".

"Oh, twenty-something year old gal, I see your plight, you just wave your girly things and expect a reaction from us man-folk."

Sadly, it works. Unless you're ghey.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[Andy_R]

That depends on which country you are in, not everyone on /. is American.

The rest of the world has it's act together on space exploration, with the European Space Agency, the International Space Station* and so on.

Maybe if NASA joined in more with the rest of us, we could get to Mars a lot quicker?

*clarification for Americans - the International Space Station actually is International, with other nations involved, not just mentioned in the name to sound impressive like the 'world series' sports competitions.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[Tackhead]

> It's great from the consumer standpoint, because that's who they're trying to please.. but when you start to look at humanity as a whole, it seems the profit motivation leads to things which are counter-productive....

I happen to enjoy living in a system where success is largely a function of your ability to convince someone to buy your stuff.

The alternatives seem to be systems where success is either a function of your ability to browbeat others into paying for your product whether they want it or not (socialism), or worse - once the browbeaters are there, simply bribing the browbeaters into keeping competitors away from your market ("mixed" economies - capitalist, but only insofar as the principal industry is the lobbying of government officials).

I'll take capitalism any day, thanks.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[2short]

Someone asks for an example of innovation being counter-productive, and you get an 'insightful'; for pointing out an example where medicine was incredibly productive, and saying it has been productive, but not as productive as you'd like since. What part of "counter-productive" are we missing here?

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[dbrutus]

WW II was a great innovative period. It was not all that great for humanity and we would have been much better off short circuiting it in 1937-1938.

A pure example from the period: nazi scientists made great innovative strides in hypothermia treatment. We've never gotten better baseline data than their experiments. Their innovation was to throw jews into freezing cold water and measure how they died in various situations.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[73939133]

profit is what this country's all about, and it's a GREAT motivator for innovation.

Very little true innovation has been motivated by profit. Most of the fundamental breakthroughs have been made by publicly paid researchers who really don't give much about profit.

But that's just fine: I wouldn't view manned space travel as significant "innovation" anyway, so we might as well leave its development to the profit motive.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[dbrutus]

Well we *could* get rid of malaria but we chickened out before we completely eradicated it. You can't blame the pharma/chemical or medical industry for that one though, it was the greens banning DDT that was the problem.

One really good prospective cure is adult stem cell research which will allow you to be fixed by yourself and without having to go on anti-rejection meds for the rest of your life. The really funny thing is that the inferior treatment of fetal cells (which leaves you dependent on anti-rejection drugs for the rest of your life) get hyped oh so much more and usually by people who like to claim to superior feelings of compassion.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm... what about terrorism? Terrorism is pretty allmighty, too.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[mythr]

Well, it's more profitable to sell someone a symptom reliever, which they will come back for over and over again, than a cure, which they will presumably only need once. This is one case where profit is a disincentive for the innovation that would be most beneficial to humanity, instead of just to the coffers of the drug company.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[Anonymous Coward]

The terminator gene is a good thing. For countries that are afraid that a GM crop will disturb the natural environment, the terminator gene would help prevent GM plants from replacing the local, non-GM plants.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[b-baggins]

This shows a tremendous ignorance of how free markets work.

You go right ahead and make your profits selling a symptom reliever. I will come along, and make a killing and put you out of business by providing a cure. Guess what? Everyone buys my product, and you wind up in a bread line.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[f97tosc]

it seems the profit motivation leads to things which are counter-productive..

Time for some empiric observations. During the last 100-150 some countries have permitted and encouraged profit motivation, others have outlawed it and put the development in the hands of an intelligent elite. So where did we get the highest standard of living? The most efficent use of resources? The most scientific breakthroughs?

...

I rest my case.

Tor

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[wcbarksdale]

Actually a vaccine for malaria is in development. My uncle was a volunteer test subject for it.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[urbazewski]

also

environmental degradation and other "negative externalities" that allow people to offload costs onto third parties without paying themselves

aggressive marketing of addictive and unhealthy substances, especially to children

marketing of tinned milk as infant formula in the third world (think nestle boycott) and other attempts to profit off the information gap between cultures

But really the issue is how to define "counter-productive for humanity" --- what about products or actions that benefit some people while harming others? Who gets to decide? Under the market, it's one dollar, one vote --- the smallest desire of a rich person will count for more than the life threatening need of a poor person.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[wcbarksdale]

The main sources of problems in a market system are when the costs and benefits of an action are not localized to the actor. This is not so much a problem with the concept of a market system as with its implementation.

For example, the full costs of environmental pollution (medical problems, land reclamation, etc.) do not, generally speaking, fall on the polluter. If they did, they would far outweigh the cost of proper disposal.

Another example would be the benefits of curing a disease that is widespread in poor countries. The benefit to humanity as a whole might be great, but the benefits to a medical research firm might not outweigh the costs of development.

These are basically the reasons why a "pure" market system (one that makes no attempt to localize the costs and benefits of actions) can't be successful other than on paper.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[Usquebaugh]

1. Ignore the constitution
2. Invade other countries
3. Profit

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[Usquebaugh]

This shows a tremendous ignorance of human nature.

No you won't. You'll come along with a better symptom reliever.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[turbod]

Care to back up your claims about public researchers doing the most good? I don't think you can do it.

TurboD

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[ddimas]

It's been quantized. 1 millihelen (remember Helen of Troy?)is the amount of beauty needed to launch a single ship.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[Marc2k]

The Chevrolet Corvair.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[73939133]

Care to back up your claims about public researchers doing the most good? I don't think you can do it.

Sure: the Internet. Developed and deployed almost entirely by academia and government grants.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[diverman]

Innovation creates potential for good. However, it also creates potential for evil. Think of innovation as the flux of ideas.

Companies do not target the whole. They target the best market share that they can achieve, and then exploit it. Unfortunately, companies rarely can create something that appeals to all, or "sells" to all. So, they find the least common denominator. In doing so, they end up destroying true innovation.

I mean look at what companies did to the Internet. And I don't mean the dotcom economical dive. I am referring to the content of the Net. Before the Net's extreme commercialization, it was more of a place for sharing ideas. Then commercialism took control, companies acted like the Net was theirs to do as they will (as opposed to taking a more respectful community approach), and tore each other apart. There were many great ideas that were ruined because of the greed and corporate self-interest. This was counter productive.

Now, with the dotcom days being dead, the Net is actually regaining some of its original purpose. Free information is again being more easily found with fewer commercial sites fighting for people's attention.

So, innovation CAN be a good thing... but it can also turn very ugly... not because of the innovation itself, but because commericalism turn it to the darkside. Don't forget, commercialism is not in favor of the consumer or customer. It's in favor of itself. It just so happens that at first, the company's initial interest IS to serve the consumer... until the company gets to the point that abusing the consumer brings them more money.

Just my $0.02 of ramblings. :)

-Alex

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[turbod]

That's funny, bandwidth didn't become prevalent until private corporations became interested. Up until that point 56Kbps over uWave carrier made for voice telephone calls was the transport of the day --- and at that time, the internet was not large nor pervasive. Even I2 wouldn't feasible without the interest of IBM and their partners in high speed comms for you guessed it, more commercial exploitation of the internet for global compute farms. Please guess again, and try harder this time.

TurboD

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[passion]

hmm, that sounds like certain operating system licenses...

I'll sell you this seed today, but it will stop working in a year, and you'll need to buy seed 2.0 next year.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[evilWurst]

I think more likely is that we'll use the old method used with sea exploration.

1) Nation sponsors crazy explorer

2a) if explorer dies/fails, explorer is hero but nation is unaffected

2b) if explorer lives/succeeds, explorer is hero AND nation gains prestige and territory.

It's a good deal all around. Using millionaires as bait is even an improvement on the idea - they do the beginning on their own dime, and get funding once they've proven they're on the right track. Nation gets a dozen cheap space programs (while still running its own unmanned version); economy gets new technology; citizens get free entertainment; millionaire explorers get fame to go along with their fortune.

Hmm. And the X-Prize concept could easily be expanded to suit this. Every time someone wins, start it again, but raise the bar.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[73939133]

That's funny, bandwidth didn't become prevalent until private corporations became interested.

What does "bandwidth" have to do with it? We were talking about innovation: the basic technologies underlying the Internet, not the engineering and investment required to bring it to the unwashed masses.

Please guess again, and try harder this time.

What's the point? You obviously have trouble distinguishing "innovation" and "engineering".

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[Anonymous Coward]

Your cynicism is duly noted.

Still, symptom relievers, or better symtom relievers may not make things better in the way you want, but they make things better, and hence are not an example of making things worse.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[Genda]

If only viagra could get us to the stars... we'd be coming where no man has come before...

Genda Bendte

- I keep hearing a George Carlin riff on why rockets are shaped like penis'...

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[akuma(x86)]

If industrial waste really were a concern of the consumer, then the consumer would willingly pay more for a product that was environmentally safer.

As it turns out, the free market just doesn't value things like environmental safety, so the government intervenes with laws and regulations.

It's just as much the consumer's fault as it is the corporation's

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[Anonymous Coward]

The free market cares nothing for education, so it should not be taken as a guide. The money makers need to bear the brunt of the cost - after all they will still make money even if they do...and if it turns out to be uneconomical, well hell - that's the free market for ya ;)

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[FreeUser]

As it turns out, the free market just doesn't value things like environmental safety, so the government intervenes with laws and regulations.

It's just as much the consumer's fault as it is the corporation's

Regardless of whose fault it may be (and I would argue that a corporation intimately familiar with its production process and byproducts bears more guilt in the consiquences of their manufacture than an unsuspecting or unknowing customer who buys the product), the bottom line is that the free market does not work, and does not serve humanity's best interest, when it comes to addressing these issues. I.e. the free market is not the panacea laissaz-faire free marketeers and Libertarians would have us believe. It works great for some things, and falls flat on its face for others. Health Care and the environment are two areas where free markets fall flat on their face, all right-wing rhetoric to the contrary aside.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[griblik]

Wow, I must be getting it all wrong. My girlfriend's 20, and I have a real hard time getting out of bed in the morning...

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[SN74S181]

Which, of course, begs the question of the medical industry 'causing problems' in the third world countries.

If your house is burning down and I live 300 miles away in an entirely different area, the fact that fire engines from my citie's fire department aren't rushing to your house doesn't indicate I caused a problem for you.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[Ben Hutchings]

Pop-under adverts.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[Moofie]

Horse shit.

It is not the customer's responsibility to ask the corporation "Hey, how many people downstream did you give cancer to make this product?"

If the free market doesn't value environmental safety, that is a failure of the free market.

You're an objectivist, aren't you?

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[b-baggins]

I just did. It's called the cure. You know, the perfect symptom reliever.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[rifter]

No you won't. You'll come along with a better symptom reliever.

Hah! You overestimate them. Lately pharmaceutical companies have come up with worse symptom relievers with prettier colours and better commercials instead.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[akuma(x86)]

I'm not suggesting that we move towards a totally free market. My comment even suggested that the government had to step in to intervene with laws and regulations.

My point is that the market (producer AND consumer) does not value environmental safety. If it did, we would have no need for the current government regulations.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[akuma(x86)]

So the cost to the consumer of checking on the producer of the goods and the increased cost incurred by the producer following environmentally responsible practices will not be tolerated by the consumer. If the consumer really were concerned about environmental safety as such, then it would be worth both his or her time and money to pay more and do these checks.

As it turns out, this increased time and money is not worth it to the consumer.

I'm not saying that we should move towards this total free market. I even suggested in my comment that the government steps in to enact laws and regulations.

Perhaps I also should have mentioned that this is a good thing.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[Moofie]

OK, the point I was addressing was:

" I'd like to see some examples of innovations for profit being counter-productive for humanity"

And you have proven my contention that raw profit motive is, in fact, counterproductive for humanity.

I think we agree. Right? : )

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[Moofie]

...that the patient only needs to buy once.

Perhaps I could acquaint you with a company called Gillette. They sort of invented this idea. You make money on RECURRING PURCHASES.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[akuma(x86)]

In many cases, the free market does the optimal thing for humanity. It allocates resources to their most productive ends. It delivers what people want. If the people don't want it, they won't pay for it (the item or service will not be profitable to produce). This is a "vote"-by-dollars system.

The point I was trying to make is that there are 2 parties in a market. The buyer and the seller, and if the both of them trade with each other to produce an undesirable result (pollution for example), then it's both of their faults.

In some cases, the market does not do the right thing for humanity. This is where we need governments to step in and intervene. This is a good thing. I would recommend reading "Everything for Sale: The Virtues and Limits of Markets" by Robet Kuttner for more examples of markets not working.

I agree that in some cases the market does not work, but in many cases it does.

I don't consider the space program to be one of those cases where the government needs to intervene. Yes, there were innovations and science that came out of the space program, but this was not the most efficient way to get those benefits. The problem with government programs is that they are inherently inefficient because there exist very little corrective measures that you would get in a free market. Clearly, the space program did nothing for the Soviets.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason people go to the moon is for the tacky amusement park. Face it Fry, the Moon is boring.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[Ed Avis]

It's not a question of whether the producer and consumer value envionmental safety; they can both value it yet still pollute - because the pollution affects somebody else, and not them directly. Or because the cost of the pollution is spread over everyone, and so the cost to producer and consumer is only a small part of the total cost.

I suppose you could imagine an altruistic producer and an altruistic consumer, who will always take into account other people's interests and not just their own. If actors in the market were like that, we'd have no need for governments at all.

For example I would lose out personally if global warming caused a rise in sea levels. Yet I do not adjust my spending patterns for this, because the amount of CO2 emissions caused by me personally is such a tiny proportion of the whole that my actions would make no difference. Even though I would be willing to pay more for goods to save the environment if everyone else did it, just for me the tiny extra damage to the environment from my own pollution is less important than the money I save.

Anyone Else All For This?

[Eberlin]

Anyone else all for sending all these rich people into space (preferrably never to return)?

Wait, let's make them pay for R&D on something to shoot them with when they're up there before we launch any of 'em.

Re:Anyone Else All For This?

[kalidasa]

Anyone else all for sending all these rich people into space (preferrably never to return)?
Wait, let's make them pay for R&D on something to shoot them with when they're up there before we launch any of 'em.

Yeah, let's have them pool all their resources to build three titanic colonizing spacecraft, and put them all aboard the first one we finish. We can call them the A, B, and C Arks, and put them on the B Ark ...

Re:Anyone Else All For This?

[mcscary13]

Let the rich waste their hard earned tax breaks (thanks Bush) on blowing themselves up? Abso-frickin'-lutely! Maybe they can help us explore the surface of the sun! As long as the have their last wills filled out first. Go Natural Selection!

Re:Anyone Else All For This?

[Q Who]

Wow... Never underestimate jealousy of a loser, I guess.

Re:Anyone Else All For This?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect their heirs would be in favor of this. "I know, let's convince Dad to go on a trip to Mars! he'll still have plenty of money left over..."

Re:Anyone Else All For This?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, those assholes actually worked to get where they are! Screw them!

Um, yeah, I know this was flamebait, but did you ever stop to wonder why capital gains, dividends etc. are all classified as unearned income, what the primary sources of income are for the extremely wealthy, and put 2+2 together?

Re:Anyone Else All For This?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ready the 'B' Ark!

Interesting, but...

[mgcsinc]

They also represent a tiny slice of the pie - hardly all of humanity in the eyes of many of the underprivileged. At least being represented by one's country allows some degree of personal fulfillment... watching someone of higher privilege do the same by virtue of their privilege alienates; watching someone who has been trained with your tax dollars, in equipment which your economic output has contributed to in some way, someone who represents what you feel you represent, that inspires and awes.

Re:Interesting, but...

[kmac06]

How does a NASA astronaut who's been in the Navy for 10+ years and has been in serious training for most of it represent the underprivileged?

Besides, the point of NASA tax money is not to give the underprivileged 'some degree of personal fulfillment.' That's what welfare is for.

Re:Interesting, but...

[Aadain2001]

Yes, but it never moves beyond that point. We've seen this with NASA. The entire country and world were awed by putting a man on the moon. But have we done anything since? Nope. NASA just sits there, never doing anything that will advance humanity into a space faring people. The awe has long since worn off. Time to let someone new give it a shot.

Re:Interesting, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

The underprivileged don't pay federal taxes. There is no training done with their tax dollars.

Re:Interesting, but...

[TheViffer]

watching someone who has been trained with your tax dollars, in equipment which your economic output has contributed to in some way, someone who represents what you feel you represent, that inspires and awes

And watching someone go up on there own dime allowing my tax dollars to go to such things as feeding the hungry, medical research, or paving roads inspires and awes me.

Don't get me wrong, its nice to have that "American Joe Blow from some Iowa farm" go up to space, but money talks and the economy is tight, and taxes are just about as high as they can go without turning American into pure socialism.

Re:Interesting, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your view of space is dated, rooted in 1960's moon-landing thinking. Most people don't care about space any more, it's turned into a series of pork-belly projects. People clearly don't identify themselves with members of the space program - how many people can even name a modern astronaut? Space missions inspire awe anymore. I'm an avid newspaper reader, and the missions to outer space are viewed as routine, and given only the smallest of write-ups - the exception being when shit blows up. Personal fulfillment? Don't be ridiculous.

Re:Interesting, but...

[Revenge013]

I completely agree that the more direct way for a greater number of a given population is for it to involve the collective money of the population (IE: tax dollars).

At the same time, there are those wealthy individuals who can represent more of a majority of the underpriviledged than you think - most of us strive to earn a wealthy status, and even fewer actually achive it. So, don't write off someone just because they are wealthy - instead question how they got that way. In closing... I think it is important to keep the morals we learned from an old TV show in mind: Gilligan's Island.

Re:Interesting, but...

[tarquin_fim_bim]

Because they are serving the community? Mankind? ...in the advancement of the collective human knowledge. Space _is_ the final frontier, and should be explored and investigated by well trained competent personel on behalf of the human race, not some rich twat on a jolly.

Re:Interesting, but...

[TexVex]

...series of pork-belly projects.

I think you meant "pork barrel".

Re:Interesting, but...

[Ensign Regis]

For astronauts to inspire and awe me, they must do something awe-inspiring.

Woo, we landed another rover on Mars! Let me know when there's a manned mission to Mars. Or even back to the moon, set up a research colony or something. Right now, our space programs consist of a fleet of probes, a couple of old shuttles, and a portion of a "space station."

One other point: In America, at least, we can become higher privileged through hard work and good thinking. Capitalism always results in a better product (in this case, space travel) than socialism. The examples are endless, from the fact that the US still exists and the USSR does not, to the fact that private schools trump public schools in test scores. Further, if the private enterprise can produce a quick, cheap method of getting to orbit, then everyone benefits, governments (from taxes) and the "lower class" (from more jobs) alike.

Re:Interesting, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

This raises a very important point.

I suspect that the rich nations (notably the US) have gotten to the stage where individual fulfilment through affluence is so possible that people no longer see the need to look beyond themselves, to be part of something greater, to achieve by proxy in the way that the US did during the Moon Race.

However, try China and India, where you have enough technical talent to build at least Apollo-era space hardware, a largely poor population, nations coming out of a history of colonial oppression and division that want to reassert themselves, and the potential for a space program as a symbol of national prestige is much greater. Remember the ecstatic reactions in India after they exploded their A-bombs in 1998.

My guess: China and India will be the ones to conquer space, using Soviet-style "boilerplate" engineering rather than American state-of-the-art engineering. They simply have more motivation.

Re:Interesting, but...

[Catnapster]

No, space is not the final frontier. I'd say that the next frontier after space would be the earth's own damn oceans - really, if we can't even be bothered to explore our entire planet, I don't think we have any business out in space.

Wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't represent humanity, they represent themselves.

If they represented humanity, then where's my money? :)

Re:Wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't they teach about kids about Adam Smith anymore?

For the love of God...
Do a google on the invisible hand and Adam Smith.

Virgin Space!

[CausticWindow]

I vote for Richard Branson to be the first to cross the solar system in a nuclear powered balloon.

Re:Virgin Space!

[donutz]

I vote for Richard Branson to be the first to cross the solar system in a nuclear powered balloon.

My vote's in for Charles Bronson too! Oh, wait, you said Branson. Nevermind.

Re:Virgin Space!

[Zirnike]

Damn, I saw the subject, and my first thought was 'Well, book me a trip!'

Re:Virgin Space!

[ColaMan]

I know ,you're kidding.

But if he got into it and reduced costs the way he demolished airfares in my town I'm all for it.

Return Flight, 1000km (Mackay-Brisbane):
Pre-Virgin - $400-$600
Post-Virgin - $60 (specials) to $199 (last-minute)

Bring it on, Richard!

Re:Virgin Space!

[PortWineBoy]

I vote for Richard Branson to be the first to cross the solar system in a nuclear powered balloon.

Except something will go awry in the first few attempts and he'll probably run into ET.

Yup.

[Ikeya]

Isn't this exactly what so many slashdot readers have been suggesting for years? Private funding and competition almost invariable leads to faster, greater results that can be achieved by the government. Sounds like a great plan to me!!

Re:Yup.

[Osrin]

nice idea, lets use the principals of Open Source to build a rocket ship. A bunch of well intentioned individuals with no accountability for their actions construct a ship that will launch you into space, maybe.

Re:Yup.

[Anonymous Coward]

Private funding hasn't done much until now. It wasn't illegal to travel to space or anything. Sometimes the government is better.

Re:Yup.

[forii]

A bunch of well intentioned individuals with no accountability for their actions construct a ship that will launch you into space, maybe.

As opposed to the great amount of accountability that was shown after the Challenger blew up in 1986?
It's a little soon after Columbia to pass judgement, but you have to remember that in the current situation if you don't like the way NASA does things, what are you going to do, go to the Shuttle store down the street?

Re:Yup.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because the average slashdotter is a sci-fi fan who hasn't the faintest clue how incredibly expensive it is to explore space, and how little potential for profit there is. (the only money in space flight is in launching commercial satellites, and that is best (cheapest) handled with big dumb rockets, not with new unproven technology that is years from getting an inch off the earth.)

Yeah, yeah... mine the moon/asteroids ... blah blah blah ... I've read the fiction too and it was way cool, but does not constitute a legitimate business plan.

If private funding is such a panacea, why haven't the privately funded efforts gotten past slick graphics of cool spacecraft and "flight tests" of scaled down vehicles cruising well beneath the commercial aircraft?

If you want to see what happens to privately funded space fantasies, go here and then look here. [hint: It isn't there any more]

Re:Yup.

[Anonymous Coward]

No... it seems that the author is suggesting to send the wealthy... and then stop there. That is certainly not the "golden age of space exploration" that anybody here has in mind.

Re:Yup.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're new here aren't you?

The average Slashdotter seems to be a socialist.

I agree completely

[L. VeGas]

As long as I am the one who gets to pick which millionaires are shot into space.

Great idea! But...

[jabbadabbadoo]

How many take offs would it take to make Bill Gates broke?

Re:Great idea! But...

[A Bugg]

about 2000 or so depending on the market.
a bugg

Re:Great idea! But...

[Anonymous Coward]

If he crashed would he get a BSOD?

Re:Great idea! But...

[Lord_Slepnir]

one. You would have have to have the 'engine failure' at the right part of the launch.

What about national pride?

[chia_monkey]

This line alone killed me:
He points to the fact that modern state-funded space disasters become national traumas

Ok...well what about national pride. I think there was a lot of pride in the USSR when they put the first satelite up. And in the US when we got on the moon. Let's not focus on the negative here people. "Disasters"...sheesh. I believe there was much more scientific discovery, national security innovations stemming from the race, and other issues that far outweigh the "disasters".

Plus...who cares if Joe Billionaire flies up there? What is he going to bring back? Pictures? Whoopty-freakin-do.

Re:What about national pride?

[LostCluster]

But what has NASA done for us lately? The problem of getting a space shuttle in orbit is more or less solved... just what was the recent John Gleen mission about again, besides being a publicity stunt?

Now that the space race is over with both teams crossing the finish line, what's left for orbital manned flights to discover that we can't send a robot up to do?

Re:What about national pride?

[GoofyBoy]

In the long run, we can see how he did it and impove on it without the expensive trial runs.

What you are saying is its "National Pride" vs. "Individual Ego". But does it really matter, except in Internet flame wars about who's country is better?

Re:What about national pride?

[CausticWindow]

I agree with you that there might be some scientific aspects to space travel that won't be adequately handled by playboys and adventurers.

But if there's one thing we don't need more of, it's national pride. Certainly not you Americans at least. If some of the african space programs would take off, then we're talking perhaps.

Re:What about national pride?

[dj_paulgibbs]

But what has NASA done for us lately?

The aquaduct. And sanitation. And the roads. Medicine. Education. And the wine.

Re:What about national pride?

[TummyX]

Yah. More patriotism. Just what we need.

Re:What about national pride?

[kamapuaa]

Don't forget, your examples are from the 50's and 60's. Most people don't care about space exploration anymore, and the only way NASA can make the front page is if something blows up.

Re:What about national pride?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way anyone can get on the front page any more is if something blew up (or went wrong). The real successes and discoveries get stuffed in the back, or only in scientific journals and obscure web pages.

Re:What about national pride?

[lkturner]

Plus...who cares if Joe Billionaire flies up there? What is he going to bring back? Pictures? Whoopty-freakin-do.

How about an "I went to Mars and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" t-shirt?

Re:What about national pride?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, the only "state-funded space disasters" I see are the Space Shuttle and the ISS, both US-led projects.

When was the last time the Russian space program had a "disaster"?

Re:What about national pride?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when that South African millionaire bought a tourist trip to the space station? That was a big deal in South Africa, to all South Africans. I saw a couple of interviews with him, and he seemed quite a nice guy, not the rich bastard type at all.

Re:What about national pride?

[dbrutus]

Too many countries are filled with elites actively discouraging patriotism instead of ensuring it turns in healthy directions. National pride fills a vacuum in the human soul. What replaces it when it's suppressed is, frankly, more worrying to me.

What?

[mikeophile]

gung-ho millionaires are more free to take risks because they 'don't represent a nation; [they] represent humanity.'

Pretty sad world when nations aren't considered to represent humanity.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sad world when nations aren't considered to represent humanity.

Well of course nations don't represent humanity. They represent the RIAA and the MPAA!!!

Re:What?

[phorm]

True and false though. It's more sad that millionaires are seen to represent humanity over a country, but at least recognisable that while some countries think they represent the opinion of the majority of the world, the rest of the world tends to disagree.

Humanity could be represented by its pioneers, free-thinkers, humanitarians and risk-takers. If you want to represent the power of human ingenuity, an "hung-ho" individual with a revolutionary idea could represent humanity in that aspect.

It seems that some guy with a bright idea who invents the next equivilent to a "warp drive" would much better represent the the dreams of humanity than a millionaire with bucks-to-burn on R&D. However, that being said, the inventor would probably have to find funding somewhere. A private venture a shrewd millionaire who sees the promise in investing in such an inventor deserves at least part of the fame/history in such an event, and much more so than private corps or governments.

After all, we don't really expect a millionaire to make/invent the revolution, but maybe he/she could be a strong supporting foundation of it...

Re:What?

[ChristTrekker]

Pretty sad world when nations aren't considered to represent humanity.

Only if you consider nations as more important than individuals.

Re:What?

[Daetrin]

Pretty sad world when nations aren't considered to represent humanity.

Pretty sad when a disaster for humanity is considered a better alternative to a disaster for a nation.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nations other than the US, you know...

Re:What?

[Ironpoint]

Why is that sad? I guess you need to explain your definition of nation and humanity.

Nations are formed to represent the will of a certain subset of living humans. Humanity, on the otherhand, is the state of being human, which I would exprect to be the sum of all qualities of humans. You can't pick out a nation and say "these people represent all of humanity" because they don't. But you can pick out a random human and use him/her as a model of humanity.

Regardless of what aspects of humanity come into play in manned spaceflight, it doesn't change reasons a nation chooses to engage in it. No nation ever launched a rocket thinking, "Gee I hope this rocket lives up the aspirations and dreams of mankind."

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

The first part of your statement is contradictory.

If a "random human" can represent humanity, then by extention a group of humans could as well. Isn't a nation a group of humans?

The second part of your statement is simply asinine.

"No nation ever launched a rocket thinking, "Gee I hope this rocket lives up the aspirations and dreams of mankind.""

How does a nation think? Is it not a collection of individuals who have their own thoughts?

*checks pockets*

[macshune]

"...that gung-ho millionaires are more free to take risks because they 'don't represent a nation; [they] represent humanity.'"


hmmmm...nope. lost me on that one...

You know what will happen, don't you?

[L. VeGas]

When they come back to earth, they will be forced to wear iron collars and chains because they keep saying, "Damn, dirty apes!"

riaa

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine by me if the RIAA millionaires shoot themselves onto the moon.

-t

Re:riaa

[CrazyDuke]

I'd rather they shoot themselves into the sun.

Next Slashdot Headline:Bill Gates on Mars

[GillBates0]

Gates seems to be considering Linux as a passing thru competition just like OS/2., and That Microsoft are the ones that keep pushing new technologies.

Gates seems to be considering the International Space Station as a passing thru competition just like the other space missions and that Microsoft are the ones that keep pushing new technologies to further space travel.

Re:Next Slashdot Headline:Bill Gates on Mars

[GoofyBoy]

and then two weeks later there will be an Open Source movement for space travel just to show Gates up.

Re:Next Slashdot Headline:Bill Gates on Mars

[m0rphm0nkey]

Bill gates in space representing humanity. I'm curious which aspects of humantiy he would best represent to our space faring galactic neighbors.

hmmmm....

"Kill the lawyer!"
Rufio

It's a Win-Win Situation.

[RatBastard]

Really, it is. Think about it. The technology will be developed with corporate money. No taxation at all! And as it would be private sector, you know they'll be looking at a quick return on their investment rather than milking the tax rolls for as long as possible. And if the ships explode, so what? Who cares if some rich bastard gets his stupid butt killed? It's not like the parasite was doing anything but keeping the prolatariate down!

Re:It's a Win-Win Situation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, damn all those evil corporations. I just love sitting here on my computer the parts for which were made by corporations, drinking my soda and eating my snacks which were also made by corporations, and complaining about the corporate parasites that keep the proletariat down.

I just wish all these corporations would dissolve and let the world be a better place.

Re:It's a Win-Win Situation.

[Dashmon]

Yes. It'd work just as well as the free market does on earth. The best quality you can get! I mean, look at MS! Who can deny that their monopoly exists only because they make the best products around?!

Seriously, my problem is that if you let rich kids explore space on their own, it'll be a long time before normal people are represented up there. And we need to go into space together, not divided by some arbitrary income level.

Re:It's a Win-Win Situation.

[RatBastard]

The rich got to fly across the oceans on jetliners before the rest of us proles did. Yiou did know that's where the term "Jet Set" comes from? The rich also get big-screen TVs and super-fast computers before the rest of us. That's part of what being rich means.

If you don't like being "left behind", get rich.

The flip side is that these rich kids will spend lots of money shooting themselves into space. and after they manage to get there without killing themselves off, they'll want to recoup their expenses. Then will come comercial space tourism. Then comercial space travel.

That is...

[kerincosford]

.. the stupidest fucking thing I've heard in a long, long while.

How many "gung-ho" millionaires have the means to send people to the Moon? And "represent humanity", my ass. They represent the 0.000001% of humanity who care to fritter away obscene amounts of money on vanity projects, rather than, say, feeding the starving.

Re:That is...

[dreadnougat]

" They represent the 0.000001% of humanity who care to fritter away obscene amounts of money on vanity projects, rather than, say, feeding the starving. "

Because we all know that we can throw all of our money at any one given problem and it goes away.

Re:That is...

[forii]

They represent the 0.000001% of humanity who care to fritter away obscene amounts of money on vanity projects, rather than, say, feeding the starving.

I feel obligated to point out that people starving is usually not a matter of money, but a matter of politics. Take Zimbabwe, for instance, where the US now sends half a million tons of food aid, when the country used to be a net food exporter. Why? Because President Mugabe seized the most productive farms in the country because they were owned by whites. And now those farms lie fallow and the people starve.

Political causes are at the root of famines in Ethiopia, China's "Great Leap Forward" (The worst famine in recorded history), and even the Great Irish Potato famine, where there was actually enough food even after the potato crop failed, but the other crops were taken to port under military guard and exported to other countries.

Throwing more money at the famine problem is not likely to solve it, despite what Sally Struthers et. al. would like to have you think.

Re:That is...

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see how you managed to separate money from politics. They drive each other.

Re:That is...

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see how you managed to separate money from politics.

A beer famine caused by money is the failure to buy beer because you left your wallet at home.

A beer famine caused by politics is the failure to buy beer because you're under 21 (in the US).

On NASA, and where we're going next

[Anonymous Coward]

I do at the least believe contests like the X-Prize are the real future of aeronautics. They allot a prize, and say 'Make something that does 'X'', and many groups from incredibly different backgrounds and ideals come up with technology that could and will do the job.

I saw today some of NASA's plans for life beyond the Shuttle. In particular, their 'Space Plane', which looks, feels, and does the exact same thing the Shuttle does. Their 'next craft' may well have a mission 'well beyond Earth's orbit'.

Whoopie doo! What will that be, 2030? It makes me sick that NASA is willing to mortgage the future of space for 30 years because they're not daring enough to do something big right now. I'll be 65 in 2030. People don't live that long.

People die in space.

Craft are lost in space.

Space is a dangerous place.

If the most NASA believes space is good for is interesting ways to battle cancer using technology from the ISS, we do not have a real leader behind us in the space race.

Did I say 'space race'? There still is one, you know. Sooner or later, the Chinese will shoot a capsule to the moon, because they have a real interest in going there - and then America will sit back and suddenly realize that they have NOTHING that can do what the Chinese had just done. We'd have to create the Apollo program from scratch. SCRATCH.

The article makes a good point, that individuals can take more risk than a government institution. Government institutions value job security and predictability fostered by high budgets...not pure results. This is why the conclusions of the shuttle inquiry thus far have said 'That was bad. Well, back to the shuttles!' without real consideration of alternatives.

I wave my flag to the X-Prize and prizes like it that will come after. A random person will, someday soon, reinvent the Mercury program with a small group of people that NO government actually sanctions, and it is only then that it will be realized where the real advancements are being made.

Re:On NASA, and where we're going next

[sweetooth]

I don't necessarily think NASA is the problem. I think our government, and the general public are the problem. Every time there is a space related accidant the public gets upset and questions support of the programs. Our elected officials seize these opportunities to take money out of the NASA budget.

If we truly want to succeed in space I think we have to understand that there are "acceptable losses" of both life and equipment. Do people really think that when Europeans started sailing across the Atlantic everyone survived? Of course they didn't, they were acceptable losses in the face of the potential gain of exploring this "new world" across the oceans. Space is very similar. I think in general the US consists of a bunch of greedy cry babies that are unwilling to take risks, and this analyst is right. It will take a bunch of millionaires that don't have to answer to the general public for what they do to truly make the next big leap into space exploration or commercialization.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to belittle the people that gave up thier lives to be a part of the space program or anything by calling them acceptable losses. I'm just trying to point out that this type of thing is going to happen and should be expected if we are truly going to start taking advantage of the potential of space.

Re:On NASA, and where we're going next

[JaredOfEuropa]

"I do at the least believe contests like the X-Prize are the real future of aeronautics. They allot a prize, and say 'Make something that does 'X'', and many groups from incredibly different backgrounds and ideals come up with technology that could and will do the job."

This happened in the past: prizes were offered for first to cross this or that ocean in under so many days, or first to fly non-stop across the Atlantic, and people rose to the challenge.

Re:On NASA, and where we're going next

[kamapuaa]

China's "Space Race" is pure propoganda. Just as with Russia and the U.S. in the 50's and 60's, the parallel technologies between development of space technology and development of ICBM's is hardly an interesting coincidince - development of the latter is the reason for development of the first.

Secondly, so what if China does get to the moon? What did it get the US, moon rocks? The space race won't be won by incremental improvements to the Apollo program. Rather, the space race is a matter of improving technologies so that space travel is practical. Right now, even if the US put a man on Mars in 2004, there's no way there could possibly be a self-sustaining colony, or easy transport back and forth. Sending people on Mars would be no more than propoganda for older people and sci-fi nerds, who still think the Moon Landing was something amazing and awe-inspiring.

A space future relies on a more practical (and probably high-tech) means of propulsion, of developing a "Mr. Fusion" type machine to provide the enormous energy requirements that even a small colony on Mars would require (don't mention availability of gasses which theoretically will help fusion reactors; until the technology is developed that's irrelevant), and of learning more about the surface of Mars, or other places where astronauts might want to go.

I don't think launching men to Mars would do much to help the above objectives - especially when one considers the expense. And in that, I think the author's right. The taxpayers should be paying for serious space research, not space propoganda.

Re:On NASA, and where we're going next

[bnenning]

It makes me sick that NASA is willing to mortgage the future of space for 30 years because they're not daring enough to do something big right now. I'll be 65 in 2030. People don't live that long.

I agree completely. Of course space is dangerous; new frontiers always are, until they're colonized. That's why we need brave/foolish individuals willing to take their chances and pave the way for the rest of us. I hope to take a vacation to the moon during my lifetime; that will not happen if NASA keeps their monopoly on space.

Re:On NASA, and where we're going next

[Anonymous Coward]

The space race won't be won by incremental improvements to the Apollo program. Rather, the space race is a matter of improving technologies so that space travel is practical. Right now, even if the US put a man on Mars in 2004, there's no way there could possibly be a self-sustaining colony, or easy transport back and forth.

I disagree completely. The logic that we should wait and 'do space travel right' is the same logic that has us burning billions of barrels of oil on cars to 'do private transportation right', rather than exploring other options.

The logic that we should wait and 'do space travel right' is the same logic that would have demanded the Wright brothers not bother with their stupid, cheaply made, not-able-to-carry-150-passengers Flyer, while waiting for someone to come up with the idea AND engineering for the DC-10. A lot of work and lives had to go in before we had the DC-10, which made 'passenger air travel practical'.

Of course we don't have all the pieces to do a self sustaining Mars colony. Gemini, and the early Apollo missions, were used to create the technologies that actually made Apollo XI, the moon landing, possible. We learned from those missions - what worked, what didn't, where safety margins weren't probably put in place.

Then Apollo XIII showed us how fragile the whole mission is, even with the safeguards we knew to put into place. These things aren't found by sitting at a drawing board and hypothesizing how cool an ion engine would be. It was done by launching really big rockets into space, and seeing what happened.

If you believe that the only reason to do space missions is to create colonies with the first six people that go there, you vastly misunderstand the way engineering problems are solved. We need to go to space, and right now, even if it's in stupid ways, to continue to learn from our triumphs and mistakes. That may actually make a real Mars colony possible by 2050, rather than 9 billion A.D., when there are no more fossil fuels to run a space program and ever get OFF of Earth.

That's the vision that truly scares me - a mankind so complacent that we burn everything we have to survive off this planet and do something great, in Mazdas and Fords, on U.S. 101, while making Windows 2005. Noone is going to remember shit about what features Longhorn did or didn't have in 40 years. A Mars program? Yes.

Re:On NASA, and where we're going next

[homer_ca]

"The logic that we should wait and 'do space travel right' is the same logic that would have demanded the Wright brothers not bother with their stupid, cheaply made, not-able-to-carry-150-passengers Flyer, while waiting for someone to come up with the idea AND engineering for the DC-10."

There were other aviation pioneers before the Wright Bros. who experimented with inadequate technology. Langley actually flew a steam powered model airplane for 3/4 mile in 1896, but he later switched to gasoline power on his manned airplane. I think it's fair to say anyone thinking about a steam powered plane would have been better off waiting for internal combustion.

So the question now is, are chemical rockets adequate technology for manned space exploration? I would say barely. Sure, there are pie in the sky technologies like space elevator and fusion, and ion engines might be good for small, lightweight probes, but the only realistic propulsion breakthrough we have is nuclear fission rockets. They make me as nervous as anyone else, but for a Mars mission it's actually safer for the astronauts because of the shorter travel time and hence less radiation exposure while in space.

Re:On NASA, and where we're going next

[cranos]

So finding out the best way to get a living payload to another planet in our solar system and bring it back is not serious space research?

I hate to tell you this, but without actually trying to get their we work at a disadvantage when it comes to developing the technology required to move man off earth and into space. If we waited until we had the perfect technology we would be waiting for ever. Exploration and discovery is not about sitting on your arse waiting for the next business class flight, its about facing the odds and trials that breaking new ground brings.

As for your comment about the Moon Landing, as soo as you can say that you've been on the Moon then you can talk it down until then, try thinking about the fact that for the first time, a member of our species walked on another planet(oid).

Re:On NASA, and where we're going next

[BollocksToThis]

Secondly, so what if China does get to the moon? What did it get the US, moon rocks?

Right. And how long did the US spend on the moon? How much of it did they explore? How much of it did they try mining? How many bases did they set up to investigate the possibilities of low-G farming, research, production? How many weapons and defenses did they test there? How many new ideas for vehicles, or space shuttle designs (taking advantage of the fact that less propulsion would be required to leave the moon's gravitational field) did they test there? How many living environments did they try creating, to preserve the future of our species in case an asteroid wipes out life on Earth? How many observation turrets did they set up so they could ignore atmospheric interference when studying other stars and planets? How many other millions of things I can't even imagine have they NOT tried?

Mmm. But how many rocks did they pick up, and how many fucking US flags did they stick into the ground instead, never to return? The fact that the US has squat to show for their trip to the moon doesn't mean another trip is worthless. It means the original plan had no vision or imagination, only a misplaced desire to 'beat those dirty commies'.

GO CHINA.

Re:On NASA, and where we're going next

[Malcontent]

" There still is one, you know. Sooner or later, the Chinese will shoot a capsule to the moon, because they have a real interest in going there - and then America will sit back and suddenly realize that they have NOTHING that can do what the Chinese had just done. We'd have to create the Apollo program from scratch. SCRATCH."

It is now an official policy of the united states that no other nation will challenge our supremacy in space.

If the chinese get close we will kill them.

Re:On NASA, and where we're going next

[kamapuaa]

That's silly. Mining? How would they bring it back? Regardless, even if gold was lying on the ground waiting to get picked up, it wouldn't be cost-effective. Setting up military bases? How would they support them? What would be the use? You've been reading too much science fiction.

Re:On NASA, and where we're going next

[Anonymous Coward]

That's silly. Mining? How would they bring it back?

Perhaps they'll slingshot it back. Perhaps they'll use it in construction right there on the moon. Perhaps someone will come up with new and inventive ways to deal with this.

Setting up military bases? How would they support them? What would be the use? You've been reading too much science fiction.

How do they support the ISS? The uses would be education, primarily. Learning about different environments, and figuring out what obstacles there are to extraplanetary exploration. You haven't been reading enough science fiction. You suffer from the same lack of imagination that the OP claims afflicted the first moon mission.

Re:On NASA, and where we're going next

[Anonymous Coward]

So with this particular US government do you think the response to a challenge from China in space would be:

1. do a Kennedy and launch a massive ten-year space program to one-up the upstart?

2. continue an unparalleled military build-up and threaten to bomb the crap out of the challenger?

Methinks Bush and co would go for number 2, ie forget about a new space race; the US would turn it into an arms race. The USA is currently being run by a bunch of megalomaniacs.

Read Stephen Baxter's novel "Titan"; it deals with just such a scenario (inter-alia). The novel was heavily criticised when it came out c. 1997 as being unrealistic in its portrayal of a US future; AFAIC Baxter was just ahead of his time and Bush is following the script to the letter...

Re:On NASA, and where we're going next

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is now an official policy of the united states that no other nation will challenge our supremacy in space.

If the chinese get close we will kill them."

And the Indians? And a reborn Russian program? And the ESA? Is the US going to take on the entire world?

(Oh that's right, they're doing that already...)

Re:On NASA, and where we're going next

[Malcontent]

"And the Indians? And a reborn Russian program? And the ESA? Is the US going to take on the entire world?"

Yes.

We will kill anybody we want anytime we want for whatever reason we want. That's the bush doctorine.

Re:On NASA, and where we're going next

[MikShapi]

"It wasn't me, society is to blame!!!" .. "Okay, we'll take them instead". -- Monty Python

The last great unknown....will this work?

[reverendG]

from the article: In fact, space adventurers will not leap into the unknown to the extent the great terrestrial navigators did. By the time Mars is within reach, the entire solar system will have been explored and mapped by flotillas of tiny robotic craft, controlled by the ever more powerful and miniaturized processors that nanotechnology will make possible

while this is true, there is still a significant amount of risk in traveling in heretofore untested technologies. The types of low cost space planes that will be used will be like the ones that were featured on slashdot previously. The first terrestrial circumnavigators, however, were using techniques and craft that had been slowly developed over centuries of widespread use.

I don't think that the author of the article is trying to downplay the bravery of the explorers of tomorrow, I just think this was a bit of a poor point for the author to try to make.

Send the spammers

[AndroidCat]

No one would care if they got blown up. However this might encourage accidents. Perhaps replacing animals in product testing?

Re:Send the spammers

[Danse]

As far as the aliens are concerned, we're probably considered to be an entire planet full of spammers, blasting our radio and tv signals out into space 24x7.

Re:Send the spammers

[palfreman]

Unlikely. Assuming the signal have been picked up yet, even our of state of radio technology allows us to process overlapping signals now - see the GNU Radio project as an example of this kind of "wideband" technology. So broadcasting isn't spam, it's just using the possibilites of the electromagnetic waveband in a way that's relitively limited in usefulness to us. If there are aliens, then either they are more advanced - in which case there is no problem, or they are less advanced and can learn from our technological breakthroughs.

Re:Send the spammers

[stephanruby]

I don't think we're a planet of spammers. Spamming implies that aliens would receive our message even if they didn't want to. And in order to receive our signals that way, the aliens would have to direct their dish accidently into our direction and tune in accidently into our frequencies.

Considering the distances involved, accidently directing their dish into our direction is not as easy as it sounds. And considering the infinity of the spectrum, in order to *accidently* tune in to our signals, they would need to be at the exact same political and technological crossroad as we are.

Even worse...

[mikeophile]

The pictures will be of him joining the 100 mile-high club.

Oh wait, I think I meant "even better".

Re:Even worse...

[fenix down]

Haven't we seen enough of Joe Billionare's ass already?

But, by that logic, isn't it worse?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...they 'don't represent a nation; [they] represent humanity.'"

Wouldn't a trauma to all of humanity be worse than a trauma to a single nation, though?

no bush

[MasTRE]

Can we send The Chimp into orbit and then tell him the Heisenberg Compensator is broken and we can't bring him back until he fixes it?

<eg>

Re:no bush

[Anonymous Coward]

The Heisenberg Compensator is... clearly compen-... compensifiticating... oh, pretzels!

Re:no bush

[Anonymous Coward]

Just tell him that the martians have lots of weapons of mass destruction and huge oil researves. He'll go to do a publicity moon landing stunt himself while sending Halburton and Betchel to Mars.

Space is humanity's future

[irritating environme]

Space represents the only positive long-term hope for humanity. Considering that we already have too many people on the earth should standards of living continue to rise, not in terms of food, but actual resources such as fresh drinking water, reasonable space for a functioning biosphere, and energy and power, the only viable expansion frontier is space.

A couple of millionaires playing space cowboy won't get us there, corporate competetion would help, but the government myust lay the groundwork with technologies and basic infrastructure (a REAL space station would be nice, a moon colony, etc).

Rubbish

[Saige]

This is the same guy that claimed that the odds of an apocalyptic disaster striking Earth are 50-50. Of course, he never bothered to qualify the time frame (that I'm aware of), so it shows a horrible understanding of probability (after all, there's a 100% chance of disaster if you don't add a time limit), not even counting his seeming inability to properly judge the disasters he considers, instead opting just to disasterbate.

True, there's not exactly a ton of economic use at the time for space exploration. So? Like many things, the more time and money and effort spent on exploring space, the better the technology becomes around it, technology which will find other uses. It will also increase our knowledge as a species, which is definitely a good thing (as opposed to those who increase their knowledge only to keep it secret, or those who think knowledge is bad)

Given the infrastructure it takes for space exploration of any significant magnitude, how many individuals are going to pursue it just because they can? I would suspect not many. Of course, that doesn't count all the issues that would come up when private individuals start creating craft able to launch itself (and cargo) into space.

We could just let all the corporations do the exploring. And let them own everything they touch out there, to pillage as they see fit. After all, if they're not allowed to do such things, what can they do to make money? They won't bother.

Re:Rubbish

[smallpaul]

Of course, he never bothered to qualify the time frame (that I'm aware of),

The time frame is 100 years.

Re:Rubbish

[f97tosc]

Given the infrastructure it takes for space exploration of any significant magnitude, how many individuals are going to pursue it just because they can? I would suspect not many.

Not many, no surely they would be a fart in space compared to the myriads of government sponsored manned trips all over the solar system. ;-)

Tor

Re:Rubbish

[bpd1069]

How's that foot taste?

Re:Rubbish

[ThePackager]

You obviously haven't read Criswell (look him up, University of Houston). His idea could get a Democrat elected in '04 if it was chanmpioned like Kennedy's moon speech. Besides, it would keep us out of the once a decade War for Oil jag we're on with Dubya Sr. and Dubya.

Riches don't necesarily alienate....

[reverendG]

The rich and famous of a society that explore, take chances, and are inexplicably daring are often idolized by the poor and less fortunate. Look at Lindbergh. There are loads of examples.

Re:Riches don't necesarily alienate....

[kurosawdust]

The rich and famous of a society that explore, take chances, and are inexplicably daring are often idolized by the poor and less fortunate.

My guess is that they idoloize them because they're not poor, and relatively fortunate.

Re:Riches don't necesarily alienate....

[Anonymous Coward]

Who even remembers they were rich?

I'll help

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

the future of manned space travel should be left to wealthy adventurers.

I volunteer to take care of their personal belongings (wallet, car keys, ...) while they're away.

I've got nice insulation foam to sell NASA, to keep the millionaires warm up there in space ...

Re:I'll help

[Anonymous Coward]

RosCo! Them Duke boys is steelin them space-boys fixins! Git em!

--Boss Hogg

colonies

[Pompatus]

Getting the rich involved also might expidite the creation of a colony somewhere. Imagine the potential profits of creating a tourist colony on the moon. Of course, for this to work, travel expenses would have to drop significantly. But the motivation for a tourist colony as a vacation getaway seems more feasable than a nations motivation to expand and conquer. Britian, Spain, and Portugal didn't exactly hold on to their newly found empires for long.

Re:colonies

[cranos]

Naww, only a couple of hundred years. In fact the British Empire in the 19th Century was the largest it had ever been and it was only after the second world war when britain was pretty smashed up that the real collapse happened (India/Pakistan/Bangladesh).

Seriously whats wrong with a colony on the moon or mars. Going beyond the tourist angle either location would be brilliant as the colony would have access to resources not found on earth, in fact mars could become the next gold rush given its proximity to the asteroid belt.

Just think about it, for the last thirty years we have been thinking small, I think it's time we started to think big.

History of Exploration

[stoolpigeon]

Space exploration will develop along the same lines that exploration grew in the past. The technical challenges are new but the social challenges are tried and true.

Nations will send out explorers for God, Glory and Gold (or the modern version- you come up with some nifty alliteration).

Corporations will drive exploration as the profit is seen.

Individuals will push into space as they are able because we are wired that way. Of course right now and for a while that is going to be limited to those with the resources at hand to make the trips possible.

This is not new- it has been going on for quite a while and I am obviously not the first to notice this.

Re:History of Exploration

[Daetrin]

Nations will send out explorers for God, Glory and Gold (or the modern version- you come up with some nifty alliteration).

Darwin, Destiny and Deuterium?

Re:History of Exploration

[Madcapjack]

Individuals will push into space as they are able because we are wired that way.

I'm wired to watch my MTV.

Re:History of Exploration

[aziraphale]

Ironic, then, that MTV relies on privately owned space technology to do a significant part of its broadcasting work globally...

Re:History of Exploration

[Anonymous Coward]

More like Bullets, Bombs, and Bullshit!

Re:History of Exploration

[Madcapjack]

Ironic, then, that MTV relies on privately owned space technology to do a significant part of its broadcasting work globally...

You make a decent point. It is ironic. Though of course most commercial satellites aren't put up for exploratory reasons. However, I was being sarcastic in my original post. Personally I don't watch much TV and am very pro-space exploration and colonization. HOWEVER I do not think humans are 'wired' (if wired is taken to mean a natural genetic predisposition) to want to explore what is out there (or anywhere). Culturally some groups may be wired this way though...

Re:History of Exploration

[DeadScreenSky]

Nations will send out explorers for God, Glory and Gold (or the modern version- you come up with some nifty alliteration).

Add a "(Black)" in front of that Gold, and I think you have a good description of what drives the leaders of America (at least) to go 'explore'.

Fun.

[beeswax]

Clowns are evil.

Send Ronald Mcdonald into space with a camera attached to him flying through the orbit. Now that would be funny. Sorry I think I drank too much today.

Million dollars aint enough

[L. VeGas]

It's not in the body of the article, but the title is kind of, well... quaint.

Just being a millionaire is hardly enough to be able to afford this.

Now if it said zillionaire....

Either/or

[smallpaul]

Why is this presented as either sending publically funded astronauts OR sending privately funded millionaires. Let them both go. Just as the individuals can compete, the two development models can compete.

Re:Either/or

[Moofie]

Great idea. Now try to get permission to launch your rocket from NASA.

Let me know how that works out for you.

Re:Either/or

[sean23007]

Move to Columbia and try to get permission there. Or anywhere else. I'm sure you can find plenty of 3rd world countries who don't give a damn (and would probably love to have you there, what with all the new GDP a corporate space program would bring in).

Re:Either/or

[Kaz Riprock]

The same rationale worked for the genome project...and here we are today with a fully sequenced genome to be parsed and studied.

Re:Either/or

[Moofie]

Woohoo! Living in a third world country is GREAT!

Uh, no.

Re:Either/or

[smallpaul]

You must have missed the part of my post where I suggested that we should let both public and private people launch rockets. That rather implies that private citizens would not ask NASA for permission to launch (though they probably should ask the FAA or a space equivalent). No, NASA is not a space equivalent to the FAA: it is not primarily a regulator, it is an R&D organization.

Re:Either/or

[Moofie]

Like I said. Try to get your launch permit without NASA's permission.

You will be unable to do so.

Re:Either/or

[smallpaul]

And what is your point? You are stating a commonly known fact over and over as if it somehow refutes something I've said. I said that both private and public entities should be allowed and encouraged to go to space. I didn't say that the current legislative environment allows that.

Re:Either/or

[Moofie]

It SHOULD be that way, of course. However, I recommend you don't hold your breath.

NASA likes its monopoly just fine.

Re:Either/or

[sketerpot]

I don't know the answer to that. Sigh. Perhaps, if you're clever and lucky, you could try to play two developed countries off against each other. For example, threatening to move to Canada because "America has obviously fallen far behind the rest of the developed world in the space race", and moving to whatever country wants an ego boost.

I'm basically just mentally throwing myself against the bars in a cage here. Do you see any way of getting a private space program, preferably without moving to some place like Bolivia?

Re:Either/or

[Moofie]

I hope it might happen. XPrize is a step in the right direction, but John Carmack's project isn't even allowed to buy hydrogen peroxide for fuel. Because they, like, might be terrorists or something.

Re:Either/or

[Anonymous Coward]

Like I said. Try to get your launch permit without NASA's permission.

I don't need NASA's permission for jack shit.
NASA has no authority in China, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Antarctica, India, fuck, someone get me an alphabetical list of countries, and watch as I strike off exactly ONE location that needs NASA's fucking approval.

unreal - spelling errors abound.

[SubtleNuance]

they 'don't represent a nation; [they] represent humanity.'

Oh yes, people who manage to over-charge their way into great, vast, mountains of wealth "represent humanity". It is the HEIGHT of existance to become rich. The rich are role models to be envied and emulated, bow down in respect for our new merchant kings. We should aid their rise into the HEAVENS as our ambassadors because of their righteousness.

please - I cant imagine a WORSE idea. rewarding people with respect, elevating them to roles of demi-gods all because they managed to make themselves profit???. WHO CARES? having money does not make you a great person.. in fact, i would agrue that being rich means you are, by definition NOT A GOOD PERSON.

The idea makes me sick... why dont we let these super-people sleep with our teenage daugthers while were at it? maybe they can curry some favour with our new elite?

Re:unreal - spelling errors abound.

[Happy go Lucky]

Oh yes, people who manage to over-charge their way into great, vast, mountains of wealth "represent humanity". It is the HEIGHT of existance to become rich. The rich are role models to be envied and emulated, bow down in respect for our new merchant kings. We should aid their rise into the HEAVENS as our ambassadors because of their righteousness.

I don't think anybody said that being rich was the moral and ethical equivalent of being the Buddha. Being rich is merely the state of having more money than I do. I'm pretty much limited to a capped civil service salary, so everybody has more money than I do.

please - I cant imagine a WORSE idea. rewarding people with respect, elevating them to roles of demi-gods all because they managed to make themselves profit???. WHO CARES? having money does not make you a great person..

Nor does poverty make you better than wealth makes Buffet or Branson or whoever.

However, private space flight gives an option: Now, C. Montgomery Burns can spend a few zillion bucks on something that will eventually benefit society, rather than spending it on releasing the hounds or whatever it is he does.

Archie Bunker isn't going to hire either of us. Nor is he going to supply venture capital for either of us to open our own business. He's not going to underwrite the mortgage on my farm. He's not going to fund a blood bank, even if he can take a huge tax deduction in the process.

Maybe one is a "better person" than the other. Maybe not. I've arrested both rich and poor, and about the only significant difference I've seen yet is that one has more money than the other. One is just as likely as the other to cheat on spouses and taxes, beat his children, throw lit cigarettes out of moving cars, under-tip waitresses, keep fish in catch-and-release-only areas, drive drunk, et cetera.

in fact, i would agrue that being rich means you are, by definition NOT A GOOD PERSON.

Then do so. I'll go pop some popcorn. This should be good.

And then they crash

[grantsellis]

Whoo hoo! It's like the government but without any accountability. Anyone want to bet that the first time they crash a spaceship into sopmething this all becomes illegal.

Yep

[Thuktun]

Millionaires represent humanity?

To the extent that the world revolves around them...

The RIGHT Stuff?

[weaver7]

Bill Gates in space, what's wrong with this picture? Seriously, what if Ferdanand and Isabella thought that way?

Re:The RIGHT Stuff?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Bill Gates in space, what's wrong with this picture? Seriously, what if Ferdanand and Isabella thought that way?

There would be a lot more indians?

Seriously, private investors would have problems entering space.

Such as who and what are they messing up. I don't know who governs space, but there is a governing agency that regulates orbits and such. I'm sure they would have to crawl up a mountain of Red tape to even visit orbit. Lest they tank the Hubble.

Second, Liability. Sure, people might pay to go to the moon and eat crappy food and live in a bubble that costs far to much, but how much will it cost to supply that facility? What if the Space Ship Fat-Rich Guy crashes on landing? Even if they signed a waiver, that kind of accident may cause profits to shrink. Trained personel? There is no Navigator Union, or Space Ship making guild in place yet.

NASA and governments around the world have not set the foundation for exploration yet. Remember that Ferdinand and Isabella represented Spain. They just have to get there butts in gear and do something.

In general, I fault the media (and the dumb people in our world). In regards to everything from space exploration to war they've sunk to pulling americas tears as often and as blatently as they could.

Space Exploration is Dangerous, War is Dangerous, living is Dangerous. People die in these endeavors, I am sorry for the families of the slain, yet to die in such circumstances would be to die for a principal, and fully aware that your action can cause your death. We should honor them and crown them with glory, but though human life is sacred, we should realize that people DIE in such endeavors.

The shuttle accident was a bad, it was a big oops. One that the people responsible should be held accountable for, and the dead buried with full honors. It was a group of humanities finest, who died furthering humanity in the most heroic sense.

If the media really wanted to show something sad, they should go down any street in my town and see all the will work for food signs, or to the hundreds of people who show up for an interview when a new Walmart opens up. Those people represent humanity, the unfortanate astronauts represent they're dreams, ask any of them if they would rather starve to death or blow up in a shuttle.

Tangent ...

[SuperDuG]

okay hear me out ...

What makes someone "wealthy", is it net dollar value, ability to influence (power) or a mix of both? Are we to say that we are wanting to endorse a non-free capitalistic system that breeds greed and descent? What goals are there to have human kind in space?

Let's tackle the questions ... Wealth is decided on monetary value, but with monetary value comes power, so obviously it's a mixture of both, BUT you rarely see new money. Most "rich" people came from rich families and were given greater opportunities than those who weren't rich. So in essence we aren't supporting a capitalistic soceity per se, but a fuedal society. The problem with a fuedal society is that eventually the lessers will outnumber the eleet by so much it's simply a matter of time before a revolt or revolution. This brings with it pain and suffering and is always a step backwards.

Humankind in space poses a strange delimna. Is there a draw to join some type of universal collective of alien life? The most complex societies on this planet are not humans but are insect and plant collectives. Together the collectives strive to benifit the whole (which is why it's so hard to exterminate them) and that whole grows stronger through group motivated individual efforts.

So did Gene Rodenberry have it wrong when he created Star Trek? Absolutely not, until we as a society can think primarily about the group as a whole instead of personal gain we are destined to never rise above our own personal limitations. A new form of thinking and governing would have to be in place. Carl Marx had a theoretical governmnent system that would accomplish this, but disreguarded two key factors, the main drive for a human is personal gain and inherintly most people are lazy and will only strive to do what is the bare minimum, hence no bettering of the collective as a whole.

So should companies and rich people be the only ones who are allowed into space? If we want to not progress the human race, then yes. Sociologists and Historians note that it will take millions of years for humankind to evolve beyond their current limits and it's questionable if we will even surpass extinction. Just makes you wonder about the big picture I guess.

Re:Tangent ...

[Koryu]

1. Wealth = money. Not too complicated there.
2. Rich get richer: Even if you're not a Republican, you have to admit that as those wealthy people buy outrageous houses and throw money at "silly" things, like rockets into space, that by spending money, they put it back into the "system", thereby redistributing. Without any numbers to back this up, I believe the average standard of living (nationally if not globally) is increasing, not decreasing.
3. Alien collective: If there is such a thing, then we will have to invent compatible FTL travel and/or communication before we can apply. Space is a bit too big for anything less.
4. Companies and rich "space club". Same thing happened with cars, airplanes, and broadband Internet access (as already stated in this forum). Space access is just a bit technically more difficult, but the "leading edge club" will pave the way for the masses eventually.

Re:Tangent ...

[bnenning]

So should companies and rich people be the only ones who are allowed into space?

There was a time when only companies and rich people were "allowed" to own telephones, fax machines, televisions, and computers. As a result of funding by early adopters, costs are eventually reduced to the point where ordinary people can easily afford them. There's no reason space should be any different.

Sounds fine to me...

[anthony_dipierro]

Once the millionaires manage to get a profitable program running missions to space on a regular basis, that is. Until then I'd like to keep my satellite television and GPS receivers, thank you.

Who our pioneers *really* should be:

[IthnkImParanoid]

We could put together manned missions to a whole bunch of places without any significant loss to society if they failed. Just use these people:

• Alan Ralsky, et. al.
• Everyone who has ever wrote, directed, produced, funded, or acted in a "Gap" commerical.
• Jesse Jackson, Barbra Streisand, Al Sharpton, Rush Limbaugh, Charlton Heston, and Robert Knight. On the same ship. Fox gets a new TV show, to boot.
• Come to think of it, send everyone from Fox that touched anything other than The Simpsons, Futurama, and King of the Hill back when it was good.
• Phone Sanitizers

On a related note

[eLoco]

See this recent article ("The Right Stuff") on Wired from their current issue.

Privatize space.

[Irvu]

More importantly, the resources necessary to go into space are tremendous, and the potential gains quite high. If we abandon scientific research to private enterprise then all of the gains will be relaized *for* said enterprises. Rather than all of us benfitting from space research I predict that any and all discoveries will be kept to the wealthy playboys themselves leaving the rest of us out in the cold.

People may argue that NASA hasn't been big lately but NASA has been far from silent. The ISS has been a location for research in many arenas including cancer, and the development of technologies for space has led to new technologies being availible here on earth. Do you think that the solo billionaires like gates are going to share all of their discoveries with the rest of us? Somehow I'm dubious that a man who spends his life in the prusuit of wealth could be relied upon to share the benifits of that wealth fairly with the rest of us.

Let's not forget that Columbus didn't sail on his donated dimes for curiousity alone, he did it for wealth. I'd hate to see space treated in the same way. At least government space programs are required to share their output with the taxpayers.

Re:Privatize space.

[bladernr]

I believe that advances for humanity would be gained under the theory of "enlightsened self-interest". As a for instance, Bell invented the telephone in the context of a business (in other words, for money), but didn't we all benifit?

The problem with the government space program is that government has a monopoly. They aren't driven to innovate.

Let's say rich people start wanting to blast themselves into space. Well, even if you are rich, we are still talking about quite a bit of money. There would be great competition for cheaper, reusable launch vehicles (something NASA is having trouble with). Imagine if we imposed a tax to counter the environmental effects of a launch (something NASA just ignores), then our space program gets more environmentally friendly.

Would rich people that risk big money on new things reap big rewards if they suceed? Of course. Thats what risk taking is about. But everyone could be a risk taker. There would be highly-speculative corporations for space exploring that anyone could invest in, with high-risk, but potentially reward. It would not be unlike bio-tech stocks.

Finally, we could end some of the missions of no value except political or international appeal (John Glenn back into space... why again?). With solid economic drivers, either there are good reasons (which could include high-earning tourists with money, or research for potential new drugs or inventions), or the enterprise wouldn't do it.

All in all, America is the most profit-driven country, and the most innovative (as measured by patents awarded, scientific nobel-prizes, and other similiar distinctions). What's wrong with extending what has worked for us this far into space?

Re:Privatize space.

[Will_Malverson]

Rather than all of us benfitting from space research I predict that any and all discoveries will be kept to the wealthy playboys themselves leaving the rest of us out in the cold.

Steve: "Hey Bob, what was the salt content of the water that you found buried a few feet below the Martian surface?"

Bob: "Let me see your 1040... You only made $143,000 last year. I'm not telling you anything."

Re:Privatize space.

[bnenning]

Rather than all of us benfitting from space research I predict that any and all discoveries will be kept to the wealthy playboys themselves leaving the rest of us out in the cold.

In order for the rich guys to profit from their discoveries, they'll need to make them available to the rest of us. NASA has no vested interest in making space accessible to the ordinary person, but an enteprenuer building an orbital hotel would.

Let's not forget that Columbus didn't sail on his donated dimes for curiousity alone, he did it for wealth.

A fine example of the profit motive encouraging exploration. And there are no Indians on Mars.

Re:Privatize space.

[Quixotic137]

Let's not forget that Columbus didn't sail on his donated dimes for curiousity alone, he did it for wealth. I'd hate to see space treated in the same way. At least government space programs are required to share their output with the taxpayers.

At least he sailed, for whatever reason.

Re:Privatize space.

[Malcontent]

"Bob: "Let me see your 1040... You only made $143,000 last year. I'm not telling you anything."

More likely response.

Bob: "It will cost you 10 billion dollars to know the answer."

Re:Privatize space.

[Irvu]

1. Bell Did not invent the telephone.
2. While you might argue that we all (eventually) benefited from the phone's existence the mere fact that it came from a private source changes how it behaved and how we benefit. To take one example, consider AZT and the current crop of AIDS drugs. They were produced using publicly funded medical research and private sponsorship. They are currently the private property of a handful of companies. Because of that those companies are free to restrict the sale of the drugs and to raise their prices beyond what many AIDS sufferers around the world can afford.
   
   Yes the sufferers that can afford the drugs get help. And years from now when the patents expire the rest of the world can get help too but for right now, they are not really helping everyone.

3. The problem with the government space program is that government has a monopoly. They aren't driven to innovate.

   Prove it. So far as I can tell from the ISS, attempts to produce the reusable launch vehicles NASA has been and still is innovating.

4. Let's say rich people start wanting to blast themselves into space. Well, even if you are rich, we are still talking about quite a bit of money. There would be great competition for cheaper, reusable launch vehicles (something NASA is having trouble with). Imagine if we imposed a tax to counter the environmental effects of a launch (something NASA just ignores), then our space program gets more environmentally friendly.

   The competition for such launch vehicles already exists and is growing. Many many countries and companies want to get into space and are investing in the technology to do so. Eliminating NASA from space would make no difference.
   
   The U.S. just passed a tax cut that specifically benefitted the wealthy while shafting the poor (the child tax credit was denied to anyone making less than 30k per year). Do you really think that the government of such a country would levy a tax on space travel if only the rich do it?

5. Would rich people that risk big money on new things reap big rewards if they suceed? Of course. Thats what risk taking is about. But everyone could be a risk taker. There would be highly-speculative corporations for space exploring that anyone could invest in, with high-risk, but potentially reward. It would not be unlike bio-tech stocks.

   In the world of IMClone, Enron and others where we are just coming off of the internet stock bubble I am dubious that high-risk stocks are a benefit.

6. Finally, we could end some of the missions of no value except political or international appeal (John Glenn back into space... why again?). With solid economic drivers, either there are good reasons (which could include high-earning tourists with money, or research for potential new drugs or inventions), or the enterprise wouldn't do it.

   I will grant you that Glenn's mission was a pure publicity stunt but I seriously disagree with the assertion that NASA doesn't run any studies of economic importance. Recent Shuttle missions (and the ISS itself) have carried many economically beneficial missions to test new materials, study cancer, and make other gains. It isn't all Glenn.

7. All in all, America is the most profit-driven country, and the most innovative (as measured by patents awarded, scientific nobel-prizes, and other similiar distinctions). What's wrong with extending what has worked for us this far into space?

   You are going to have to prove that we are "the most innovative." And that that innovation is solely due to the profit motive. Somehow I doubt that so broad a claim can be made or that we can reasonably argue that the profit motive has always helped us.

8. 
   
   You are

Re:Privatize space.

[Irvu]

Rather than all of us benfitting from space research I predict that any and all discoveries will be kept to the wealthy playboys themselves leaving the rest of us out in the cold.

In order for the rich guys to profit from their discoveries, they'll need to make them available to the rest of us. NASA has no vested interest in making space accessible to the ordinary person, but an enteprenuer building an orbital hotel would.

No, not really, to take one example consider AZT and the AIDS crisis in Africa. Rather than making the drugs availible to the bulk of the world the companies that own them are pricing them for the wealthy markets alone. They are availible but only on their terms and most of the people that would benefit from them simply *can not have them*.

Besides where does the benifit from cspace come, New drugs, ner materials and research into the origins of the universe or orbiting McDonalds resteraunts? Persoanlly I favor real research over a motel 6 in space. If the companies want to build it let them, fine but don't let them stand in the way of those doing the real beneficial work.

Let's not forget that Columbus didn't sail on his donated dimes for curiousity alone, he did it for wealth.

A fine example of the profit motive encouraging exploration. And there are no Indians on Mars.

No not really, he discovered a new continent full of people, new plants, new animals, and spent all of his time looking for gold. Hardly an example of purely benificial exploration.

Really?

[GoofyBoy]

> watching someone of higher privilege do the same by virtue of their privilege alienates; watching someone who has been trained with your tax dollars,

So we shouldn't let someone do something because it might hurt someone's feelings?

>in equipment which your economic output has contributed to in some way, someone who represents what you feel you represent, that inspires and awes.

Inspires to do what? Pay more taxes?

c/millionare/billionare/

[Anonymous Coward]

no point in reading further if he got this wrong...

Tell me about it.

[mhore]

Never underestimate the power of a good-looking 20-year old girl.

It is a 20 year-old girl that has me redoing the entire house...paint...everything... all by myself without a complaint. Such power.

Mike.

Re:Tell me about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet she gives good head... and anal too. Mmm. The hershy highway's a call'n!

Could be dangerous

[grasshoppah]

It seems to me that as soon as we leave space to the wealthy adventurers, the discoveries made from such exploration are put in the position of becoming private property. The wealthy will claim the newly discovered planets, asteroids, mineral deposits, alien technology, etc. as their own. Idealls what we would do is establish an international cooperative effort(contributions not neccisarily monitary) to continue space exploration and all members of the society take one giant chill pill so that they can relize that there are bound to be dangerous in exploring a new frontier, but the explorers accept these risks and would never wish for the exploration to stop because of their loss of life.

Re:Could be dangerous

[cookiepus]

It seems to me that as soon as we leave space to the wealthy adventurers, the discoveries made from such exploration are put in the position of becoming private property.

Do you imagine the process of stellar discovery as a richy-rich type pointing out the window to a planet that no one noticed before and going "MINE!!!!" ?

And we'll see corporate logos on the Moon...

[dpbsmith]

..."Harriman was shown into te office of the president of the Moka-Coka Company.... Harriman took out a large sheet of paper and spread it on Grigg's desk. 'You see, the equipment is set up anywhere ner the center of the Moon, as we see it. Eighteen pyrotechnics rockets shoot out in eighteen directions, like the spokes of a wheel, but to carefully calculated distances. They hit and the bombs the carry go off, spreading finely divided carbon black for calculated sitances. There's no air on the Mooh, you know, Pat--a fine powder will throw out just like a javelin. Here's your result.' He turned over the paper and an the back there was a picture of the Moon, printed lightly. Overlaying it, in black, heavy print was: 6+.

'People will never stand for it. It's sacrilege.' Harriman looked sad. 'I wish you were right. But they stand for skywriting--and video commercials.' 'Griggs chewed his lip. "You know the damn well the name of my product won't go on the face of the Moon. The letters would be too small to be read.'"

--Robert A. Heinlein, "The Man who Sold the Moon" (1950)

Nice little earner...

[gilesjuk]

and of course, in the contract it states that the space holiday company becomes the sole beneficiary in the event of a fatal accident :)

Extreme trauma

[rawlink]

Sure, now it won't be a national trauma. It will be a trauma to humanity. Oh the humanity.

a millionaire? HAH trillionaire+ is more like it!

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont get it.. "millionaires"??? HAS HE NO CLUE AT ALL?.. Trillionaires is more like it.. or a gogool or two... like a measly couple of million will get you anywhere.. Gogool a 1 followed by 100 0's : 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 ixxo

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the guy really is a dumbass. Fucking ivory tower capitalists....

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Carnivorous Carrot]

> Because the guy really is a dumbass. Fucking
> ivory tower capitalists.... ...Now let me get back to my computer developed with tens of billions of dollars of private, greed-driven funds so I can download songs created by others that I shouldn't have to pay for, so I'm not gonna.

Now who's greedy? I'm telling ya, you guys can't handle the truth held up to your face.

Re:Space is humanity's future-prize awards

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I would argue that goverments have done as poor a job of developming space as they have in delivering mail in the USA. What governments could do is create prize awards for meeting major milestones important to things like national security.

Consume the world(s)

[StellarEX]

We really have a short life on this earth and it seems we spend a good portion of it being manipulated by marketing and consuming the products they shove down our throats. I'm not sure what else we should be doing as a species, but it seems like we've really lost our way and are just a in a loop of consuming and providing products to consume, and eventually as the earth's resources diminish because of this, of course the corporations will look to space as a money maker. I just hope the corporations don't turn out to be as bad as they are in the sci-fi movies (Aliens, etc)

Re:Consume the world(s)

[SunPin]

I just hope the corporations don't turn out to be as bad as they are in the sci-fi movies (Aliens, etc)

They'll be worse.

I think capitalism is a far better form of society than socialism so I'm not trolling. The reason they'll be worse, the reason they are portrayed as such is because there is an absence of a regulatory medium (i.e., government) to take the edges off capitalism.

The invisible hand can smack you without some enforcement of ethics.

Re:Consume the world(s)

[dbrutus]

We have the corporate governance we have because the shareholders have not been included in the information revolution. 50 years ago, the amount of information and control imbalance between management and shareholders was not so bad. Then, management had quarterly spreadsheets to manage their business and shareholders had yearly meetings where they were fed pap.

Today, managmeent has real time or daily updated data marts that allow them to drill down into every detail of the business providing a level of information and control that is a great leap forward in management. Shareholders have yearly meetings where they are fed pap. Everything else is 3rd party innovation that is guesswork. There are no major company provided innovations to improve shareholder oversight.

This situation cannot last. As companies veer off into their management empire building fantasies, shareholders will inevitably wake up and fix the problem. The only major questions are when and how.

America and China

[Anonymous Coward]

Sooner or later, the Chinese will shoot a capsule to the moon, because they have a real interest in going there - and then America will sit back and suddenly realize that they have NOTHING that can do what the Chinese had just done. We'd have to create the Apollo program from scratch. SCRATCH.

Everytime Joe American Sixpack goes to Walmart all he has to do is look at the products on the shelves to see that America can't compete anymore... yet he still can only scratch, SCRATCH his head in befuddlement wondering why he's out of work, about to run out of employment benefits, and desparately hoping to "get on" as a Door Greeter at that very same Walmart.

(BTW, People who use the phrase "get on at [wherever]..." in reference to getting hired by come company, should not be allowed to reproduce. Argh!)

He brings back cheap space flight.

[Moderation abuser]

Exploration, accomodation, entertainment. It starts off so expensive that only a billionaire can afford, then only a multi-millionaire, then the wealthy then the middle income, then everyone.

Or we can let NASA monopolise space flight for another 50 years.

Re:He brings back cheap space flight.

[bladernr]

This is an excellent point.

Remember that cars started out as something for th very rich. Then the rich. Then we had mass production, or, cars for everyone. Cars used to be a status symbol (just owning one, I mean). Now, I don't care how far you are below the poverty line, if you are in America, you most likely own a car.

Did a few people get very rich? Yes. Did everyone win in the end? I believe, the answer is yes.

There is a /. story about missles flying through space and bombing things within 2 hours. What about a civilian use of that? Imagine if you could have an affordable, 2 hour flight to Asia? Thats not just for the rich; thats for south-Asian immigrants who just want to go home for a wedding, funeral or a simple visit. Again, everyone wins.

The government monopoly certainly won't deliver on that goal. Why not let the private sector give it a shot?

Why wasn't I informed about this?

[commodoresloat]

They discovered Viagra on Mars??

Personal fulfillment?

[sleepingsquirrel]

You get personal fulfillment from watching someone you've never met floating around and drinking Tang? You might want to check out religion. Or love. Or something that you can actually participate in. Maybe some silent meditation for a few moments.

Space belongs to us all.

[blair1q]

Make anyone leaving the atmosphere sign an NDA ceding the IP of all discoveries to the world, or else keep them on the ground.

Their tax dollars?

[arashiakari]

watching someone of higher privilege do the same by virtue of their privilege alienates; watching someone who has been trained with your tax dollars, in equipment which your economic output has contributed to in some way, someone who represents what you feel you represent, that inspires and awes.

What can you mean? Poor people don't pay taxes, silly. The same "rich jerk" is in a 40% (or higher) tax bracket and is dumping TONS of his money into the federal, state, and local community coffers. So what if he wants to take some of that money and have fun with his time?

It should be inspiring for a poor person to see what hard work and perserverance under pressure and during hard times, the requirements of building wealth, gets you. It gets you a way to fulfill your dreams and passions.

Instead, you say it would be inspiring for a poor person to watch someone hitch a free ride on other people's money. Worse yet, you say it is the poor person's money. In U.S.A. 46% of the people pay 96% of the taxes. TRANSLATION... 54% of people in America only contribute %4 of the money it takes to run the country. SOURCE: IRS.

Their money indeed.

Re:Their tax dollars?

[default luser]

You want those %54 of people to pay a larger chunk?

Fine. Start paying 10 bucks for a Big Mac and 5 bucks for a drink, and pay those guys at McDonalds better wages.

The world works the way it does BECAUSE we are greedy. Tax breaks for the poor exist because the wealthy do not want a wage slave revolt on their hands. They are rather comfortable on their thrones.

It's a tedious cycle, and whne someone upsets the cycle, all hell breaks loose.

Re:Their tax dollars?

[commodoresloat]

In U.S.A. 46% of the people pay 96% of the taxes. TRANSLATION... 54% of people in America only contribute %4 of the money it takes to run the country.

So are you saying the country should belong only to the people who pay for it?

Re:Their tax dollars?

[fenix down]

Calm down, honey. He's just a Republican, he doesn't know any better.

Re:Their tax dollars?

[arashiakari]

On the contrary, I do know better.

I used facts to found my thinking and conclusion.

I didn't offer feelings from a vacuum of information.

Re:Their tax dollars?

[monopole]

Actually, two factors are overlooked here. First off, the IRS figures are for the federal income tax one of the most progressive taxes out there. If you take into account the highly regressive federal payroll taxes and the equally regressive state sales taxes, the percentage of taxes paid by the 'lucky duckys' on the bottom of the income scale comes out to about the same percentage as the top of the scale . Secondly, measuring the tax 'burden' of an individual in terms of the percentage of ones income is highly misleading, taking home 60% of minimum wage is really rough, taking home 60% of a six figure income is an irritation.

Finally the better portion of the wealtiest individuals are heirs to fortunes established by their parents and grandparents. If we were really interested in 'equal opprotunity' and rewarding hard work and perserverance we'd have a 100% estate tax. The children of the wealthy would still have the advantages of connections and educations financed by their parents, but would not be subjected to the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Re:Their tax dollars?

[dbrutus]

Perhaps the 54% could not engage in class warfare against the 46%?

Re:Their tax dollars?

[Usquebaugh]

Q.E.D.

Re:Their tax dollars?

[Anonymous Coward]

You either believe in a free market, and not in distribution of wealth, or you don't.

You obviously don't.

Re:Their tax dollars?

[sab39]

In other words, it would be possible to cut tax to ZERO for 54% of americans and only have a 4% effect on the federal budget.

I say let's do it!

Yeah but no!

[scovetta]

Why not let me (the consumer) decide the matter? Millionaires will obviously be the ones to go to space *first* (just like they drove first, flew first, and had broadband Internet first). Eventually, you'll be able to rent a Kia-brand spacecraft and complain about not getting good reception on your cell phone when you're 60 miles up.

Just pray...

[Kjella]

...that they don't run into ET out there. Could you imagine the first impression they get if they meet a bunch of boy bands? Excuse me, I'll just go dig a bomb shelter now...

Kjella

Re:Just pray...

[dbrutus]

Actually, it's quite likely that their first impression of us has already been formed by our EM emissions long before they hit the boy bands. They may be seriously confused when they meet the rest of us but they will likely be comforted that their first contact will be with the familiar faces of Menudo or NSync.

Re:Just pray...

[blibbleblobble]

"Just pray that they don't run into ET out there"

Surely if they're in space, they are E.T.?

Look at the past !

[Atreide]

Remind who where these guys who "played" with first cars and planes One century ago ! They were wealthy aristocrasts or just wealthy guys.
They became Aces or just explorators (crossing the Atlantic with one of these planes was nearly suicide).
They were those who much improved planes and cars and began the cars & planes industries. Because they were plenty of money and dreams.

Just let nowadays dreamers throw their money into space and in a few tens of years we might walk up their money ladder...

Just imagine what could do Bill G. with all his money !!!! :-)

A "hung-ho"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmmm...

You're absolutely right.

A rich and talented gigolo does represent humanity.

He does have a point there.

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, how many people here would like to launch Bill Gates into outer space?

Breaking the Light Barrier

[cruachan]

Moreover, communication with spacecraft will substantially improve. It took traditional explorers months to get messages home. For Capt. Robert Falcon Scott and other polar pioneers, messages home were not even an option. By contrast, the time needed for the first visitors to Mars (probably 30 years from now) to relay their thoughts and impressions will be measured in mere minutes.

Well, at least 20 minutes from Mars orbit. That is unless wealth also buys you exemption from the laws of physics

Re:Breaking the Light Barrier

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends on whose "physics" you are talking about. It is possible to manuver around spacetime. While it is impossible to remain in our present 3-space and go faster than the "fastest thing", it is entirely possible to skip through levels of spacetime to give the effect of actually going faster than possible by using "warp moments", or "gravitational instants"... (same thing).

Re:Breaking the Light Barrier

[JCholewa]

> Well, at least 20 minutes from Mars orbit.

You mean at most, right? The largest distance that Mars gets from Earth is something like 24 light-minutes. I don't know the minimum distance in those units offhand, but it about 55 million kilometers. Earth's distance from Sol is almost three times that distance, so the minimum distance to Mars from Earth is probably something like three light-minutes.

--
-JC
http://www.jc-news.com/coding/SFi/

Re:Breaking the Light Barrier

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean? Everybody knows that money buys you the right to violate speed limits. If they can flaunt the laws on Earth, why not do the same to laws of space as well?

New business model

[MachineShedFred]

1. Regurgitate old business idea (fried meat on a stick, etc.)
2. ???
3. Profit!
4. Blast off!

Who should go?

[Anonymous Coward]

We should send all the non-productive types, like hairdressers, middle management, and telephone sanitizers.
Of course.

Re:Who should go?

[sTalking_Goat]

Bad idea. Isn't that what started this whole human race thing in the first place?

I'm sure they said this about

[[cx]]

Boats, Planes, Trains, Automobiles, every mode of transportation when it was initially introduced had catastrophes of varying proportions. It is difficult to suggest that only the 1-2% of the worlds population should be the ones to do all the risk taking and privatized space travel.

It will be the poor people with ambition to get to outer space that actually have the best results.

But hey, this is America, ruled by the all mighty dollar and how can we dispute what a millionaire in space says?

One day we'll have a space station, and a few centuries from now we'll all be beaming aboard space ships and going around the galaxy with solar sails.

I'm sure I'll be long dead before I get the chance to go to outer space, but it makes me happy that some millionaire will get to do it simply because his daddy was rich./sarcasm

[cx]

Millionaires represent humanity

[BelugaParty]

Millionaires represent humanity.
Millionaires represent humanity!
Millionaires represent humanity!!
Millionaires represent humanity!!!

oh yeah! 2+2=3

A better idea: Let Burt Rutan run NASA.

[LibertineR]

NASA is a money wasting, CYA weak sister organization with no vision, drive or innovation. It needs an infusion of creative thinking by engineers who do their jobs out of a love for science, rather than 'dont-blame-me-if-it-fails' pussies who over-design everything adding cost and weight to their designs in an effort to make space safe for fucking school teachers.

Space is a long way from becoming a routine travel destination, and NASA needs to treat it as such, and stop with the friendly pussy designs, and get back to the business of exploration and pure scientific research. Taking people into space only to be spam-in-a-can for marketing purposes is a waste of our tax dollars. We need to stop treating space as cool until we can manage to put stuff up there without having to cross our fingers at the launch pad.

Put someone like Burt Rutan in charge or stop wasting my fucking taxes on studing how frogs behave in space, you bastards!

Re:A better idea: Let Burt Rutan run NASA.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd agree that sure, Burt Rutan might do a better job than Golden or whoever now runs it. I don't follow close enough to know. But I'm not sure Burt Rutan would be a fix-all for the problems like you suggest; I tend to agree more with the original article author... leave space for the millionaires and entrepreneurs.

Don't forget, Rutan alone would end up having the same risk constraints NASA has: beholden to still-higher bosses holding the purse strings (100 senators+430ish congresspeople) who are trying to ensure some of that money goes to their districts. And trying to manage dozens of different projects/missions at once, not one single focused task. And more than eager to pass the blame back on NASA when they've cut funding.

Re:A better idea: Let Burt Rutan run NASA.

[Anonymous Coward]

(engineer puts away Pussy design space vehicle # 348 in his pocket while nobody is looking...)

Re:A better idea: Let Burt Rutan run NASA.

[glenebob]

I agree with that. We need to stop playing around IN space and start figuring out how to GET TO space. The current technology of huge rockets, tiny payloads, and massive bills is getting us nowhere. Once we can put practically anything we want into space for lass than a few billion dollars, then we can go back to building big useful space stations (uh, not small toy ones). Once we have efficient technology for getting us into orbit, and big useful space stations in which spacecraft can be built and repaired, then we can go play around on Mars.

It doesn't really seem that NASA can do it. The political incentives aren't there anymore. If the private sector can make money at it, then that's who should do it. NASA could become a regulating agency, and could purchase real estate on launches just like anyone else wanting to get to space. Just because the technology is in the hands of private business doesn't mean space can't still be explored for the sake of exploration.

Re:A better idea: Let Burt Rutan run NASA.

[LibertineR]

The thing about Rutan, is that he is so innovative, that I think he could get the public actually interested in Space again, which would force Congress to fund them better. "Will of the people" and all that shit.

The current space shuttle is a flying truck. Who gives a crap about that? We need fuckin' Buck Rogers! We need something that kids will go to sleep dreaming about participating in. That will get this nation back to loving science again.

It would also help students get back to learning fundamental engineering concepts, including software geeks, and get rid of so much reliance on tools to do things for us. Any thing that would bring back assembly-language programming into voque would be awesome.

The only reason for the success of the initial space programs, was that they captured public imagination with their cool rockets and can-do attitude. The shuttle is a fuckin' yuppie SUV compared to what we used to do. Stuff that had me in front of my parent's TV for 24 hours at a time when I was a kid.

Now all we have to show for all that money and research is a fat-pig of a shuttle that can be shot down by STYROFOAM!!! ARRRRRRRGGGGGG!!

Fix it!!!

Leave outter space to the homeless...

[smokin_juan]

Well, ok, maybe not the homeless but how about the middle or upper middle class? As the article mentions, there will not be any great leaps and bounds in outer space until the price tag is cut. Now, you could say leave this to the millionaires - assuming that they would have the cash to accomplish such a feat - but in reality everyone overshoots their monetary capabilities. If I'm a member of the middle class and I take on the responsibility of space travel then my project will probably run into the millions. If I am a millionaire my space project will likely run into the billions. It's fairly simple for a middle class slob to find funding from a millionaire but it's a bit more unlikely that a millionaire could find a billionaire to fund his project due to the scarcity of billionaires.

Of course the real limitation is government - if I could get those fuckers out of my ass i'd'a been in upper orbit about three or four years ago, but good luck getting the supplies you need when fuck stains control the supplies.

"Gungho millionaires represent Humanity?"

[kremvax]

I thought they represented big-oil on capitol hill!

Kremvax

Absolute rubbished

[Enrique1218]

Our society is a little bipolar. We lose a 7 people in space accident. The first in sixteen years. It is a "national trauma". We lose that many in Iraq in two days and no one is hawking "national trauma".

So, since the human race will eventually outgrow this planet, we need keep sending people into space. Make the mistakes and learn from them, so we can continue to push the boundaries further out. I know the mistakes can be tragic. But, just as we are willing to send young men to die to give Iraqis freedom so too should we accept and honor the sacrifices of those we send in space. Because, when human population swells to the point that the earth can't sustain it, we won't be talking about national trauma but global.

PS-For those worried about their tax money being wasted. Nasa budget is very small part of the national budget. I don't think it is going to improve your tax return greatly if we abandon it. Let's just keep this in this community for a little while longer before we hand it over to greedy corporations

Combine Research with Corporate Profit...

[Dukeofshadows]

Remember, space is a total vacuum that allows for ultra-pure manufacturing not available on Earth. It also allows for almost unlimited power (Solar collectors), space (add modules as needed), and mineral potential (asteroid belt) for the company willing to exploit it. The current problem is not a conundrum best left to wealthy adventurers because our current obstacle is getting to space, not developing it. As soon as a means becomes available to get to lower Earth orbit for inexpensive sums, space will commercially develop at a break-neck pace, likely in a Wild West fashion.

For some unknown reason, many of us here in the US seem to think that if casualties are possible, it should not be done. This applies to warfare (Look at the furor over the ~100 killed in the recent Iraq skirmish), supersonic aircraft travel (Concorde; didn't stop flying until its one accident in 20 years), space travel (Columbia et. al). Letting a plutocratic clique explore and stake claims to space and the solar system prevents everyone else from getting a chance. If the success of the internet were translated to space, the international community would be very leery of one or even a handful of corporation controlling 95% of all space business.

Do we really want to see a potential case of three or four corporations (via wealthy individuals) dominating space? Would they then be allowed to restrict who travels into space and who remains on earth? It is unacceptable to allow a few individuals to set the pace for space exploration exploitation. Instead, I'd rather see either nationally-funded exploration of space or extraordinary tax breaks for companies great and small dedicated to getting into space. Space elevators are the key to getting up there IMO, so I figure chemical companies dedicated to polymers and their manufacture of such an elevator should be first in line. Combine a profit mechanism with the federally-subsidized R&D and allow the two to combine forces as a driving vehicle of space exploitation. A highly competitive commercial situation for getting to and exploiting space would also drive technology faster than a monopolized or oligopolized situation (look at operating systems). Just my 2c...

Re:Combine Research with Corporate Profit...

[2short]

"Remember, space is a total vacuum that allows for ultra-pure manufacturing not available on Earth. It also allows for almost unlimited power (Solar collectors), space (add modules as needed), and mineral potential (asteroid belt) for the company willing to exploit it."

All of these things are available much more cheaply on the ground. You can certainly produce just as good a vacuum on Earth, with the advantage of having non-vacuum nearby (not to mention the shipping costs). Solar collectors work down here too, and if you spend the money saved from the launch on more collectors, you make up for the atmosphere penalty and then some (Still, as big time power sources, solar collectors basically suck, they use them in space because it's all they've got). Space (add buildings as needed); do you have any concept how much warehouse/industrial space you can build for the price of a space station module?
The mineral potential of the asteroid belt?!? Pick any mineral. We don't know how much there is in the asteroid belt. We do know there is some enormous quantity on Earth that is too expensive to mine to make it worthwhile (too deep, embeded in too much worthless rock, etc.) Can you imagine how far down that curve we have to go before the asteroid belt looks attractive?

"Letting a plutocratic clique explore and stake claims to space and the solar system"

How exactly are they going to do that?

"Would they then be allowed to restrict who travels into space and who remains on earth?"

No. Why would we grant them this power? Do you really think that if say Warren Buffet is the first man to set foot on Mars, and he "claims" it, the rest of the world is just going to throw up their hands and say "Damn! Well, I guess there's nothing we can do. He CALLED it."?

"Space elevators are the key to getting up there IMO"

Why? Lifting a given mass a certain height, and accelerating it to a certain speed takes a certain amount of energy. What does holding onto a string have to do with it?

"Combine a profit mechanism with the federally-subsidized R&D"
If it was proffitable (it's not), why would you need a subsidy?

Space is really cool, yes. But it's not profitable. Companies do things because they're profitable. Millioniare playboys do things because they're cool.

Re:Combine Research with Corporate Profit...

[Novus]

Why? Lifting a given mass a certain height, and accelerating it to a certain speed takes a certain amount of energy. What does holding onto a string have to do with it?

Efficiency, mostly. The greatest problem with current rockets is that they have to lift several times their own mass in fuel and then spray it all over the place, wasting the potential energy generated by lifting the fuel. With a space elevator, this need is removed. Also, objects going down can be used to generate and store energy, instead of burning it all away as heat from atmospheric friction like a shuttle does.

Re:Combine Research with Corporate Profit...

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD PARENT UP

Re:Combine Research with Corporate Profit...

[Bob Uhl]

Do you really think that if say Warren Buffet is the first man to set foot on Mars, and he "claims" it, the rest of the world is just going to throw up their hands and say "Damn! Well, I guess there's nothing we can do. He CALLED it."?

Well, they kind of have to. When no-one owns land, one simply claims and holds it. Buffet couldn't hold all of Mars, maybe, but he could certainly claim it--and he could probably hold quite a large settlement.

not yet

[lurgyman]

Any "wealthy adventurer" will be in space representing him/herself, not humanity.

Besides this, space travel is too expensive for individuals to undertake on their own - barring the Bill Gatesian megarich types. Similar historical endeavors that rich adventurers embarked on were nowhere near as expensive as space travel is today, even relative to the technologies and economies in their days. The current NASA budget (around $15B yearly) is enough only to launch a couple of probes and a few shuttles every year, and maintain the current meager rate of development of new flight technologies. Well-known pilots of the 20's had to hire small teams to design and build their plane, but not an entire aerospace corporation or two like you for any successful spacecraft built so far. No one tycoon is going to want to expend so many resources on one task (no matter how cool).

I tend to see the development of space travel as being more like that of seagoing travel in the West. Early on, trading centered around Europe, especially the Mediterranean and Northern Africa, and didn't really spread much. Who could forget Columbus' famous trip to "India," paid for by the Spanish gov't of the time? It took a while before permanent settlements and serious commercial operations got set up across the Atlantic, which unlike (nearby) space least leads to places with a breathable atmosphere. So... it may be a while before we have a serious extraterrestrial presence, is there really a rush? (Besides the small but ever-present possibility of asteroid impact, that is...)

Re:not yet

[Quixotic137]

Besides this, space travel is too expensive for individuals to undertake on their own...The current NASA budget (around $15B yearly) is enough only to launch a couple of probes and a few shuttles every year...

This assumes that NASA operates at high efficiency. I don't recall a government program ever having been accused of that.

Except...

[Kjella]

...space isn't profitable *yet*. And before everybody goes "Well, what's the point of it then?". they should look at what we spend on other basic research without immidiate economic gain. There is extremely little that is so scarce on earth, or so valuable in space (Zero-G is not) that it make take quite some time before there's any significant profit.

One of the things that IMO mankind should build is a radiotelescope on the moons backside. Expensive, and for what? Listening to a roaring silence, some might say. No profit, no private corporation would build that. Or a Mars base, heck in time maybe even try to terraform Mars. I gurantee you it'll be expenses, not profit. Somehow I find it good investments anyway...

Kjella

Mod parent up...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I had mod points right now, but I can't decide if this one should be Funny or Insightful. Slashdot needs a new mod category of "+1 Truth Hurts".

Re:Space should be left to corporations

[pla]

Space should be left to corperations

...Because, after all, look at all the amazing work they've done here on Earth to make our planet more inhabitable.

True humanitarians, all. They certainly have our best interests at heart, and would NEVER screw us all just for a quick buck.

Why, this whole SCO vs IBM thing only hurts my head because I can't grasp, in their infinite wisdom, benevolence, and humanitarianism, how they can both have my best interests at heart. But I have no doubt they do, naturally.


Yeah. Corporations love us. Feel the fuzzies.

Obligatory Fight Club Reference

[Tiresias_Mons]

"When space exploration ramps up it'll be the big corporations that name everything: The IBM Stellarsphere, The Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks."

Mmmmm, sounds good...where do I sign up for my Grande Latte Enima and crap software?

If we're using trauma as a reason...

[chundo]

Wars are also a source of national trauma. We better leave them to the millionaires too.

Front and center, get up there, Lance!

-j

Re:If we're using trauma as a reason...

[AvengerXP]

If everyone were as well equiped as Xanathos from Gargoyles, i'd tend to agree. Go super power armors!

No fault BUT their own...

[arashiakari]

What I was trying to say is that "wealth" is the incentive that inspires regular people to begin to live with excellence. People who become wealthy do so mostly by the virtue of their own distinguishing efforts and not by mere chance or good timing.

Read "The Millionare Mind" which is a book written after some 10 years of analysis and sit-down surveys with "the millionaire next door" type people. They said that over 40% of all current millionaires are self-made starting out with nothing. Wage-slaves, as you say. They start their own plumbing companies, become roofing contractors, or software consultants... and take the risk of bringing in the money needed to pay themselves a salary (instead of relying on someone else to take that risk) for decades until they have built a business process that has residual inertia. It requires concerted determined effort applied over a long period of time - not life handing you loaded dice.

Tax breaks exist for the lower income brackets because those people contribute least to the economy by the lower value of their efforts, yet their vote carries just as much force as that of a multi-billionaire. It doesn't take much intelligence to see that a certain political mindset in Washington will attempt to "buy" that vote by telling the person that they don't need to pay taxes, they get this that or the other thing as a "handout" ... appealing to class envy and other sentiments and all kinds of fallacies are introduced like the notion of "federal money" to cover your needs. Since when should YOU PAY for my medical bills, PELL grant, or food stamps? You don't know me, and I've done nothing for you. That same logic is also true of the prescription drug plan in place for seniors. They are the wealthiest demographic in the nation, why don't we give "free drugs" to the broke college students instead? The fact to note though is that the senior citizens turn out to vote in VASTLY greater numbers than any other demographic. So... Washingtonites do what they have to do to "buy those votes!"

People are not wage-slaves. You can quit a job and find another one, close to what you enjoy doing. You can work hard in your spare time and study... better yourself. You CANNOT avoid risk. We are have the right to life, liberty, and to the pursue happiness but in fact we are not guaranteed HAPPINESS ITSELF and we must /personally defend/ our life and liberty. We are born into a situation that involves risk. It is up to you to try and make the absolute best of what time you're given. Step one: Put down the Coors and Playstation 2 controller. ;)

Everyone must choose. And those who choose to better themselves always rise to the level of their ambition and character.

Re:No fault BUT their own...

[Quixotic137]

Step one: Put down the Coors and Playstation 2 controller.

Well said.

Moonraker

[Anonymous Coward]

This brings to mind the 'evil' Drax coorporation. Does anyone else see this turning into "Moonraker"? Call 007

And while we're at it

[Sammich]

Deciding what is in the best interest of music lovers and anyone with a computer should be left up to them as well, oh wait...

Represent humanity?

[Ra5pu7in]

Since when has any gung-ho millionaire ever represented humanity? Millionaires don't become millionaires that way. It requires seeking profitable returns in everything and looking beyond the effect on the humans involved in achieving those profits. Who cares if there are layoffs as long as the owner's bank account has grown?

Re:Represent humanity?

[rtaylor]

You know whats really disturbing? It seems like companies partly owned by the union (the employees union) as a pension fund investment is always the first to have layoffs.

How the heck does that work?

Re:Represent humanity?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not fucking insightful. This is stereotyping and ideology.

Dickhead.

Re:Represent humanity?

[Bull999999]

My uncle is a millionaire and do you know how he got started? He came to the States when he was 35 and got a job with a company that cleans office buildings. While he's not at the cleaning job, he worked part time as a painter. After a while, he painted full time and opened his own painting business. Along with his profits from the business, he obtained funding form investors to buy up real estates in California right before the economic boom. And the rest is history. He could have retired years ago but yet he still works. Why? He provides scholarships to disadvantaged college students because he personally knows the hardships of life. And I'll say this in closing; this gung-ho millionaire represents humanity much better that you ever will.

Re:Represent humanity?

[danro]

And I'll say this in closing; this gung-ho millionaire represents humanity much better that you ever will.

I'm sure he is a swell guy.
But he is probably has nowhere near the kind of money space exploration would take.
for that, we are talking, Bill Gates, or Saudi Royal Family rich.
If you ever become that wealthy, my money is on that the only thing you represent is yourself.

Btw. the majority of the (addmittedly small sample) of "self-made rich men" I've met has been complete assholes, dedicated to winning any way they can, morals be damned!
I'm not saying there are no exceptions (a few has been pretty decent) but if you are motivated by accumulating vast amounts money above all else, chances are it won't make you a very nice person.

Re:Represent humanity?

[namco]

hhmmm yes i kinda agree most millionaires are in it for themselves and not others. They may have money to burn but regarding safety aspects they will try and cut curbs like there is no tomorrow. The only reason why NASA cut curbs is that they don't have enough budget money allocated to them. They mainly relied on the old shuttles due to being cheaper than making new space craft.

Re:Represent humanity?

[Anonymous Coward]

A link to ayn rand gets marked -1,troll ??!!??!?

YOU INSOLENT COMMIE LEECHES!!!!!

I can only hope we get into space soon...just for the sake of escaping you snivelling 'group-thinking' socialists

Re:Represent humanity?

[Bull999999]

But that's like the airline guy saying that all Linux users are hackers. Besides, consumers shop at places like Wal-Mart at the expense of mom and pop stores so I guess most of us are guilty of trying to save a buck or two at the expense of others.

Re:Represent humanity?

[Bull999999]

Perhaps I have different prospective on "self-made right men" as most of the ones that I know of escapes from bad situations, like a guy who came over to the states from Vietnam on a boat, or a guy who fled Iran with only three suite cases. They are all humble as they still remember their roots. Conversely, most of poor people that I know are poor because they spend all their free time/money on weed and/or Evercrack (and other various online games).

"If you ever become that wealthy, my money is on that the only thing you represent is yourself."

I don't think that you have to be that wealthy to represent only yourself. Most people that I know don't donate or volunteer for charity. Why do you think that people spend $1000+ for gamining PCs when they can donate $1000+ to a charity?

Re:Represent humanity?

[mfrank]

Maybe you ought to read up on someone like Warren Buffet. There's a lot more wealthy people like him than you'd think. It's just that the bad ones get the press. Heck, even Bill Gates gives more to charity than the GNP of a lot of countries. But I forgot, he's the anti-christ.

Innovations and Government

[JolieBlanc]

If you look at the course of technological history, when was the last time a -government- came up with a significant advance that pushed us into the future? Science is pushed by people, not governments; it's made by sleepless cracked engineers in labs at universities or in garages; it's made by the Wright Brothers and Edison and Tesla and Einstein, patent clerks and hackers. Technology becomes pervasive when Money picks it up and runs with it, to whatever end they might imagine -- and in pursuing their profit, the everyday guy on the street gets ahold of a gizmo and finds a hundred new uses for it. So yeah. I don't think our next big space jump is going to come from NASA, much as I like them. I think it's going to come from other people, and it'll get big when some businessman or corporation figures out a reason to get involved. What we do with it after that remains entirely up to us. :)

Balancing GIFTS with GRATITUDE

[arashiakari]

So are you saying the country should belong only to the people who pay for it?

Absolutely not.

I did not state that at all, or even make an inference to that notion. I stated a fact from the IRS website. They offer the figures and statistics in several forms, including Excel spreadsheets, and you can see for yourself.

It is a fact that less than half of the people in this country carry the weight of paying for everything in the public sector while the other half is, realistically, getting a free ride. That does not mean those people lead expense-free lives... I just say that to correct the notion that financially destitute people can look the "big government" as a source of inspiration and in any way take pride in its big-ness or accomplishments. What contribution does that person make? In point of fact, they only /recieve gifts/ from it! Medicare/medicaid is a perfect example.

You never hear it called a gift but that is exactly what it is. People who make money, have money, pay it in taxes... they are giving a gift to those who do not have money. All they ever hear in return is "Hey! That gift isn't enough!"

It's really bogus, no? People should express more GRATITUDE for the producers instead of complaining or refusing to recognize them at all - only pointing to a big overlording government like communists and saying, "geee... look what I MADE!" Well, who paid for it?

Re:Balancing GIFTS with GRATITUDE

[commodoresloat]

I did not state that at all, or even make an inference to that notion. I stated a fact from the IRS website.

But you chose that particular fact over however many other facts are there to make a particular point. I was simply following the logical implications of that point to an extreme. Hyperbole, yes, but there is a point to it; your argument that citizenship and civic responsibility is some kind of gift given by the rich to the poor is the most vicious kind of elitism. Most of the people you claim are "getting a free ride" are working at slave wages for corporations run by millionaires who wouldn't be as rich as they are without that labor. You characterize the public sector as a gift to the poor from the wealthy, but things like roads and public housing and schools and police and so forth are physically built and staffed by the poor and middle classes. Providing the capital is a very important part of this process, but it isn't the only part, and it's insulting to state that participation in the process by the wealthy is some kind of gift.

Anyway I'm not defending the notion you're criticizing, that the poor should look to the space program with awe, which I think is silly. I'm defending more fundamentally the notion of democracy that I thought your statement attacked. I'm not arguing for wealth redistribution or socialism either. I think if you read the basic capitalist economists like Adam Smith you'll find that they understood the role of the state in the free market as something far more profound than a gift from the rich to the poor.

what we should do is...

[Anonymous Coward]

...kill the fuckin millionaires, take their money and dump it back into the economy.

Yeah Gates in space Re:The RIGHT Stuff?

[WolfWithoutAClause]

I'd prefer to see Gates in space than a bunch of 20-20 vision commitee-chosen governmental yes-men with 'the right attitude'. I mean, realistically how many of us are likely to be chosen by one of these groups deciding who is 'good enough' for the priviledge of going into space.

"Isn't going into space if you have enough money" atleast a great leveller- if you want to go, and you have the dosh, you launch.

And there's also the point that all new technologies start out expensive and get cheaper over time- cars started that way; airflight started that way, computers started that way, cell phones started that way. This means that it is likely that if right now only the very rich can afford it; in future most or all of us will.

So, me too, I want Gates to go, and come back; if he goes every multi-millionaire will suddenly want to go- that will create a market, and the price can only come down.

the first impression matters most

[kavau]

It doesn't really matter (yet) who represents us in space travel. The day we encounter any extraterrestial intelligence is probably still far, far off. But if we decide to look that far ahead, the problem is real: Do we really want to run the risk that the first impression some aliens get of the human race is from some filthily rich, decadent space tourists???

Re:the first impression matters most

[kavau]

Possible scenario:

Alien ambassador: "Greetings, Earthlings! We come in peace and wish to promote trade and understanding for our mutual benefit!"

Space tourists from Earth: "Smile!!!" (A few dozen camera flashes unload themselves into the eyes of the unsuspecting aliens)

Alien military commander: "It's a trap! They're hostile! Vaporize their planet!!!"

Re:the first impression matters most

[Renli]

I know just as many poor assholes as rich assholes. I also know nice guys with money and nice guys who couldn't affoard to waste a penny in a wishing well.

Discrimination is discrimination. Obviously your not a good choice either.

Regressive Progress

[Michael.Forman]

This story is disturbing on so many levels.

The first is spending wealth and resources on an endeavour with no contribution to mankind other than giving us the satisfaction that yet another person has been in space. Wealth does not correlate strongly with the skills necessary to perform meaningful science in space.

Even more disturbing is, that the separation between the rich and poor in our society is so great that individuals are on the threshold of being able to afford space flight, while at the same time the real hourly wage of the average American worker fell 14% since 1973. The richest Americans are now able to do for leisure, what once only an entire nation could afford!

(Here's hoping that my moderator is not a billionaire who dreams of space flight). ;P

Michael.

Re:Regressive Progress

[Quixotic137]

Was it all that disturbing when individuals were on the threshold of building a railroad across North America? Would it surprise you that only people with cash could ride it?

Re:Regressive Progress

[cookiepus]

... are now able to do for leisure, what once only an entire nation could afford!

Something to the effect of your sentiments could be expressed about computing.

Re:Regressive Progress

[Anonymous Coward]

fool! it's about the income differential

(railroad/minwage)1880 << (spaceships/minwage)2003
by many orders of magnitude. while wealth is being concentrated at the top the minwage remains constant or even shrinks.

hear that sound? its the sound of a clue flying over your head.

Re:Regressive Progress

[Sloppy]

Wealth does not correlate strongly with the skills necessary to perform meaningful science in space.

And "having the power to tax" does?

Re:Regressive Progress

[Anonymous Coward]

No "having the power to tax" also does not correlate, it enables a system which does.

You see there's this system where individuals are taxed and programs are funded. Those in control of those programs hire talented individuals to achieve the goals of the project. Thus funding and talent connect. It's the same thing that allows roads to be paved and schools to be run.

Let me know if you see the fundamental and obvious difference that surprisingly didn't hit you before you hit the "Submit" button.

Re:Regressive Progress

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's the same thing that allows roads to be paved and schools to be run."

uh-huh...because the roads(1% of taxes) are all great, and the publik skuuls really work well...pffhhtt

"Let me know the fundamental and obvious difference that surprisingly didn't hit you before you hit the "Submit" button. "

The difference being that the free market is much more efficient than tax-fattened beaurocrats lining their own pockets with your tax dollars

But you already knew that when you popped off that one-liner, didn't you, ya sanctimonious twit?

Re:Regressive Progress

[Anonymous Coward]

"hear that sound? its the sound of a clue flying over your head. "

hear that one? it's the sound of the new sub-sub-terranian subway miles over your head, ya socialist worm

Re:Regressive Progress

[Sloppy]

You see there's this system where individuals are taxed and programs are funded. Those in control of those programs hire talented individuals to achieve the goals of the project. Thus funding and talent connect.

Rich people and private foundations can do that too.

Re:Regressive Progress

[Michael.Forman]

I thought I'd be seeing this after my first post. Someone references measured data in the field of social sciences and another person calls them a name. (Imagine if physicists had to endure name calling whenever they used conservation of momentum!)

What I find interesting is that the person doing the name calling is in the group, whose real income is shrinking (I'm assuming that few people in the top quintile read /.) and stands no long-term personal benefit to supporting a system with such an extreme and growing (i.e. getting worse for you) disparity in wealth. If left unchecked, wealth will accumulate without bound in the top quintile.

So, before we degenerate to name calling again, follow the link, verify the data, and ask, if you are comfortable knowing that as your real wage (income adjusted for inflation) declines, a select few will soon be able to afford their own space agency. Personally, I think it's antithetical to the class-invariant prosperity that capitalism purports.

That's just my 1.72 cents (2 cents down 14% since 1973).

Michael.

Re:Regressive Progress

[Anonymous Coward]

wow! people didnt actually read the original article before posting. thats so surprising for slahsdot [as is this sarcasm]!

see it was about individual swashbuckling billionaires travelling into space. it wasn't about billionaires recreating public works through donated money nor was it about private enterprise going into space. the point of the parent post was, [1] swashbuckling billionaires not good science will make and [2] billionaires that can afford space travel not fair to us is.

everyone on this level of replies has completely missed the point and replied to something that has nothing to do with the original article or the parent post. bwaahahaha!

Re:Regressive Progress

[mfrank]

WTF?? The main problem with space travel today is it's expensive. The govt doesn't have *any* real incentive to make it cheaper; they aren't spending their own money. Heck, the more it costs, the more pork there is to spread around. Rich tourists at least hold the potential of driving down the cost of manned access to space.

Can't even begin to see the point of your second paragraph. The Russians will put you into orbit for $20 million; plenty of people had that kind of money in 1973 too. The technology has advanced; it's not a matter of the rich getting richer.

You think you'll ever be able to go into space for $10,000 (not just for tourism, either, at that price there are commercial applications) if it's up to the government? They go ape-shit ballistic when Americans ride on Russian rockets for $20 million. The only way you'll be able to do it is if rich playboys drive the market. You know, like when the first CD players came out and were a couple thousand dollars.

Re:Regressive Progress

[Anonymous Coward]

its not the main problem (dying on reentry is) but youre correct that it is too expensive

ya. the second paragraph went right over you. he/shes just saying that we live in a world where most of us are becoming poorer while the top get richer. so much so they can afford to fly to space. yes they could do that in 1973 but now they can do it even more and us less and so on and so on. see. i made the point and i didnt use a single 50 cent word like quntile. no offense to the original poster.

you probably missed the point because the person you replied to is focused on social issues while youre so into space flight that you never stop to wonder where the hell all their cash came from and are just happy that someone is going to go into space to make it cheaper. we all have our hobbies.

im just here to help out. :)

The Train Spotters' Astronomer Royal Strikes Again

[reallocate]

If memory serves, there was an Astronomer Royal in the fifties and sixties who ridiculed the idea of going to the Moon until after Apollo 11 landed there.

As for this Astronomer Royal, his premises are incorrect, his logic is incorrect, and his conclusions are incorrect.

I doubt he'd be in Foreign Policy if he hadn't recently published a doom-and-gloom book that caught the attention of the anti-technology embarrassed-to-be-human crowd.

new opportunities

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

Since recent unfortunate publicity around the Enron Corporation we think you should be awarded new opportunities to do what's closest to you hart. We Theives of Government (tm) present you to all rights to represent humanity in space by having highly succesful military contracts, charging the daylights out of middle class while having no shame, and ultimately pillaging and turning adjacent planets in industrial pile dumps.
This will in turn amaze the populations of all our countries beyond recognition or their shrinking wallets.

Yours Sincerely,

G. W. Bu...

All the politicians and lawyers must go too!

[Anonymous Coward]

Admittedly Slashdot would have a severe problem without editorials about the DMCA and RIAA and patent suits and SCO daftness etc etc to fill its pages .... ... but just think how much extra coding time we'd have! :-)

Flamebait?

[incom]

"He points to the fact that modern state-funded space disasters become national traumas, and argues that that gung-ho millionaires are more free to take risks because they 'don't represent a nation; [they] represent humanity.'" I think so.

NASA, the wrong stuff

[Teahouse]

Space isn't hard, NASA's bureacy and lack of vision are.

x-33 - Cancel it
SRV - Cancel it
Saturn 5 - Cancel it
Shuttle - Build it as a bastardization of the Dynasoar (which would hhave been flying by about 68-70.)
Space Station - Overpay contractors and then retreat from space and fix the permanent crew at 3 instead of 7...oh, did they mention that there will be absolutely no science in a station manned by 3. It takes 3 just to keep it maintained? Our "scientific" space station isn't very scientific is it? $60 bill down the tubes.

Frankly, I would be willing to bet if we gave 4 billion a year each to Rutan and Orbital Sciences and told them they would get a $1 bill prize for the first to put a permanent station on the moon, it would be there in 5 years. Let them hire millionaires if they want, just PLEASE don't let me see NASA start and cancel another program after blowing 2-3 billion on it.

Human Space Exploration rules, NASA sucks.

Re:NASA, the wrong stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

You may not be old enough to remember how 90% of the people in the U.S. thought that one moon shot was enough. After the giddy pride in the moon landing was over, about two weeks later, taxpayers began saying enough was enough and NASA had spent all the money it needed to. Early in the Apollo program NASA expected to make up to twenty launches per year, the assumption that lunar missions and beyond wouldn't be curtailed. The infrastructure was designed with this in mind. However Apollo was the penultimate crash program, and once that objective was met, the purse strings were tied. NASA has had to make do with what congress is willing to part with, not with what it wants. NASA has long been the agency that suffers budget cuts sooner rather than later. The space station was cut from 7 to 3 crewmembers because it was either that or have the program terminated by congress. NASA would also love to replace the aging shuttle fleet, but doesn't have 30-40 billion dollars to develop and build a new fleet with. An entirely new support infrastructure for a new shuttle design won't be cheap either.

Private enterprise has the advantage of being free of government bureaucracy, but will sacrifice the levels of safety required by NASA. After all, corporations routinely ignore fixing safety flaws in automobiles if they think they're cheaper to litigate after someone gets killed.

Re:NASA, the wrong stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't lay all the blame on NASA's doorstep. The types of projects NASA takes on span decades. Break that down into presidential terms, and further sub-divide into budget terms. Now add in the fact that most projects are collaborations with other countries' space programmes (Canadian Space Agency, Japan Space Agency, European Space Agency), each with their own political and fiscal timetables.

The result of all this is that your project budgets are changing by hundreds of millions of dollars, sometimes billions of dollars, more than once a year. Budgetary cuts, driving necessary programme priority changes and rationalizations, mean that each year you end up writing off half of what you previously accomplished and replanning how you were going to complete the project. At some point you've changed things so many times there's simply no longer a way forward, or no longer a point in going forward.

IMO, the lack of long-term, non-partisan funding is far more to blame than the individual Space Agencies themselves... not that they're faultless.

-- sincerely, a bitter ex-Aerospace engineer, who left for this very reason

Re:NASA, the wrong stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

I know where they can get 20 billion immediately. Cut the pointless and ineffective War on some Drugs and you immediately can reclaim 20e9 US dollars from the federal budget. If the states cut their funding for the WOD, another 20 billion could be saved to balance budgets, save public schools (if you believe tehy should be saved), and have some left over to give out as tax breaks. If you want to save NASA, contact your representative and tell them that your priorities are not in having otherwise law abiding citizens crimalized for personal choices.

jaac

Corporate charters

[SunPin]

That's true on earth but when these corporations are light years away, how do they face punishment for unethical or illegal behavior? It's not like government would be able to cut a supply line or order an expedition to return home.

I think the author underestimated exactly how ruthless explorers need to be. Corporations are ideal for the job if they can profit from whatever they find. I'm a little annoyed with how much time the author spent convincing me to abandon NASA in favor of corporations only to conclude that corporate exploitation would be bad.

It's a choice. If we let government call the shots, we must accept the consequences of a slow, tedious and cowardly program. If we let corporations call the shots, we must accept their rights to whatever they find.

We can learn from the exploration of the new world. NASA can issue charters with restrictions on how much power they hold over their claims (i.e., corporations keep mineral rights, US keeps territory.)

It all depends on how we want to relate to exploration and how quickly we want to get to new worlds.

The author's claim about pioneers destroying the American West is pretty shallow. I'm sure it's easy to spout nonsense like that from old Europe. Descendants of those pioneers are the people that keep it protected.

Re:Corporate charters

[dbrutus]

I expect that local governors will be appointed. It's not only the New world colonies that will provide inspiration for the new model but the bad experiences of the company towns that are likely to find an echo. A space colony is likely the best condition to promote the company town mentality with all of its freedom eroding negative tendencies.

The law man, the pastor, and the transporter need to be from a different authority chain. Also, it would probably be wise to discourage grants on entire celestial bodies but instead make people use what they claim. Thus, if there's a case of bad treatment people can get out, or worse (from the company's perspective) split off from the company and claim their own parts of the planet setting up instant competition.

Baaaaaaaad idea

[TyrranzzX]

Sending men out to show the worst of our race? Greeeat idea. Yep. Lets just send a guy out so he can kidnap some poor grey, bring it back, cut it up and sell it on e-bay. Then, when their race figures out we got him they'll nuke us all.

First we've got to eliminate capitalism; it's age and outdated-ness is beginning to show as corperations are beginning to get more powerful than goverments and the ideals of the masses become ever more twisted and insane.

AS we've seen before, an old system of goverment will be destroyed to emplace a new system of goverment whenever it becomes undesirable for the people under that goverment, the trick for the goverment to pull is to somehow enslave the people through the illusion of power. I'm a bit worried as all of the media is owned and operated by people close to the goverment; you NEVER see people on TV bush-bashing. And things that are really bad for you, such as irradiated food, is called "controversial". Public schools are teaching dependancy, the media is owned, media that isn't owned by the select few is being labeled as terrorists, we've got waves of dumasses waving flags and showing the faces of people killed in wtc saying we should bomb stuff and vote for bush while we sit in our wooden prisons and take less pay for working twice as hard. "But we've got to protect ourselves agains the terrorists" they say, unfortunatly that's the voice of the goverment who's merely acting scared to lead the people on.

In any case, I doubt that space travel and mining will become economically viable on a massive scale until sometime in 2100 (takes a bit of time to test, build, test, build craft and research stuff, as well as to convince people going into space isn't dangerous), and by then hopefully we will have either changed our goverments or be in the process of changing to a non-capitalist or semi-non-capitalist system through the proper laws (for example, laws making it illegal to allow a corperation to get bigger than x billion in size).

If we don't change the goverment and it keep's it's current course, you can bet the advance of technology will be used to control people on a massive scale through regulation.

Re:Baaaaaaaad idea

[turbod]

Hmmh first you argue that the government is the problem, then you say we should rely on the government to regulate the economy and take away the "evils of capitalism".

Sounds really logical there.

TurboD

Re:Baaaaaaaad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be lacking a working sense of the capitalist pigs thick skull. Cost/benefit analsys (intentional mispel) of space travel must be analysed cutting up the little grey men is much less productive then capturing and torchering technical information out of them. Put them in a lab and let them make the millionaires new toys to sell. Next figure out what they like what goods need and thier buying proccess so when their brothers and sisters come looking we have a full product line ready to sell to them.

(As for nuking us I hope they have better taste in forms of destruction then us. Seriously nuclear bombs are so passe.)

As for capitalism and free markets and democracy being outdated, I really think your deluding yourself. Capitalism and Freemarkets are designed to coexist in the human condition. (Human Condition: def-- mostly consisting of survival and then greed)

Next point about the world being f*&#Ed, ya live with it.

Media: Two owners of two news stations couldn't agree to blindfold us to the truth in fear that a third media source will break the story about the first and second covering the 'truth' up while the third and forths break the story in the newsprint media that they own. Then the conspiricy theorists say that one and two were right all along and it was actually a big hollywood conspiricy to say that it happened but what really happened was.... For mother of PETE. Entertainment/Media people can't agree what pair of socks really matches thier slacks or weither they should match at all.

(By the way watch "Hannity and Cholmes" they Bush bash and so do most of the "Meet the Press".)

Lastly, mining asteroids and developing space based technology will take a while to develope. This technology is an investment in later production. Research of this type can be depreciated with eventual returns. The Dot com companies were an example of this they spent huge amounts of setup capital without seeing returns for a long time. The problem was that investment in the industry was far higher then the eventual returns from the industry could be. The dot com bust was actually an over adjustment of this realization.

Regulation by government is fickle to the desires of the population. P to P tech filesharing is a great example of obsolete regulation going bunk thanks to the mob mentality.

Thanks for the intelligent arguement,

Ryan

Millionaires...

[Neurotensor]

represent humanity

That they do. They represent the greed that is fundamental to humanity and will plague it forever. If they had been interested in the good of the people rather than their own egos, they wouldn't have been able to stockpile a million bucks.

The chance to lob a few millionaires into space should not be missed! Just hope they don't start colonies of space-cowboys, we could do without that.

Real World (Off-world)

[Anonymous Coward]

Put eight millionaires together, and broadcast their day-to-day lives. Sponsors would jump at this, adding more money to the space program. Say some kind of a 'mole' game...Last millionaire standing gets to plant the flag on behalf of mankind. Throw in a curvaceous blonde for good measure.

Billions worldwide will tune in. This show will pay for itself.

/. lobbying

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Imagine a world in which inerest groups start lobbying /. moderators.... Interesting.

Space, Inc.

[Firestorm_Rising]

Maybe not millionares, but I think private corperations should be ther ones to push farther into outer space, explore mars, colonize the moon, etcetera. Lockheed Martin and Boeing are both taking steps in that direction (well, at least working on getting into space). If, and when, they or other companies get their programs together, NASA will finally have what it's needed since we walked on the moon: competition. As it is, we're wasting too much money on a bloated government orginazation with no reason to work hard, no inspiration and no vision.

Wealthy Adventurers vs Political Heads of State

[Lord of the Fries]

What's the difference again?

Adventures have their own money or they lobby politicians to give up some of the governments.

BWAAAA-HAAAHAAHAAAA-HA

[Lobo93]

Yeah, send those rotten bastards off to space! All of them!
Maybe then it'll be a tiiiiiny bit less corruption in these parts of the woods. And that italian dude, Berlusconi-whatshisname, should be entitled chief-engineer - with, get this, Steve Ballmer as the captain! "I've got 4 words for you: I...love...this...company! Developers, developers, developers, hark, cough!" Well, you see, Mr. Baldmer: In space, no one can hear you scream...

Hihihihiii....

Oh, Jebus! I'm in that lame mood tonight....hmmm, red or blue pill....

"I would annex the
planets if I could. And, of course, exploit them." -Cecil Rodes

Shoul leave space to *?

[GrimReality]

I have seen:

• 'leave the space to millionares'
• 'leave the space to corporations'
• 'leave the space to NASA, ESA et. al.
• 'leave the space to Bill Gates' ;-)

I don't think space should be left to any specific group. Everyone should be trying a hand at it or every possible type of available clientele, investors, researchers etc. should be in. Not left to any one of them.

Who knows which method is going to bring about innovations, spur the space industry etc.

IMHO, state or state sponsored agencies (who might depend of corporations on clientele etc.) has many important roles to play: following tracks that 'profit-only' corporations or entreprenurs won't go or try to pioneer, being one of them.

Again, IMHO, filthy rich billionares could provide a source for exta bucks to fund the programmes of NASA et. al. or the corporations involved.

Similarly, corporations could jump in to exploit the markets that pop up in the field.

Leaving space to one particular group may not be the best idea.

Thank you.
GrimReality
2003-07-02 01:01:13 UTC (2003-07-01 21:01:13 EDT)

Re:Space is humanity's future-prize awards

[irritating environme]

I call Apples to Oranges. If there are corporations effectively competing, then that government service isn't needed anymore, it just exists due to inertia.
FedEx and UPS wasn't around in the 1650s, 1700s, or 1800s, only the post office. Once the service became mature, then corporations could effectively step in and outcompete the government.
The first (REAL) space and moon stations will be huge money pits, so they won't get corporations and investors since they won't pay off on a quarterly basis. Once the first federal station is up, private ones will crop up, and then its off to the races.

Let's not forget the last famine in America.....

[lysium]

....which was during the Great Depression. Families starved in absolute poverty while ton upon ton of food went up in flames at state lines. Curiously enough, the malnourished did not grow restless or discontent (perhaps they were too tired?); they simply blamed themselves for their inability find Work in the land of opportunity, and endured misery in relative silence.

------------

Mr. Durden agrees...

[rsborg]

Jack's P.O.V. : A bin full of newspapers, Starbucks cup and FAST FOOD GARBAGE.

JACK (V.O.) When deep space exploration ramps up, it will be corporations that name everything: The IBM Stellar Sphere. The Microsoft Galaxy. Planet Starbucks.

courtesy this site

Let's Send

[GnarlyNome]

Bill Gates
Orrin Hatch
Rush Limbaugh
Hillary Clintion
(insert names here)

Re:Let's Send

[Mysticalfruit]

Ironically, the only man among the bunch is Hillary...

Re:Let's Send

[Mantrid]

Let's see...
Pauly Shore??
Tom Arnold???
Hey, these people aren't so great, what the hell is going on here?

-yeah I know the quote is 100%, and I'm sure someone will correct it ;)

Re:Let's Send

[GnarlyNome]

Admitidly she does have more balls than bill
Perhaps we should call her Bubba Clinton

Milloinares aren't human?

[Gorimek]

Even sadder when humans aren't considered to represent humanity.

Just try

[GnarlyNome]

Launching without NASA premission
(if it wasn't By NASA the full Ire of NASA desends on you)

Pioneering spirit

[gad_zuki!]

Great point, I'm surprised this didn't come up earlier. We like to think we're past the stage where a small team or even an individual can change everything and only a mega-corporation or a world power can do anything we currently consider difficult or impossible.

The various designs for the X-Prize ships reminds of that famous newsreel showing all these wacky attempts at making the first airplane. These people really wanted it. They lived in a time where many still, even the highly educated, believed that manned heavier than air flight was impossible.

I really don't like the question, "Who is deserving of spaceflight?" The question is just wrong. There should be no top-down decree regarding such things. The more contributors the better.

Hmm

[motox]

That sounds a bit a Vernesque view of exploration... i think millionares are better at funding exploration than doing it themselves, somehow i dont see bill gates first human on Mars, if anything because he would give a false impression of what humans look like to eventual intelligent life forms he may step on. Will be martians cheaper to hire than indians ? Only time will tell.

People to send...

[Zazi]

We can send spammers, boy bands, Bill Gates, SCO, France, Windows, Brittany Spears, pigs, Tablet PCs, and HP into space. Who/what else can you think of to ship into space? Let's hear 'em!

Re:People to send...

[o'reor]

Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Darl McBride, Saddam,... er, hold on a second... not sure about the latter though. Maybe he's already there.

Nations Represent Humanity?

[CheeseburgerBlue]

Pretty sad world when nations aren't considered to represent humanity.

Er, I'm not quite sure what classic period of nationhood you're pining for. When were nations ever considered conduits of the wants and will of their people, except in jingoistic history lessons about post-revolutionary France and the rise of the modern republics?

...Weirdo.

one way trip...

[mcguyver]

of course!

The end of the human race....

[BCSEiny]

I find stories like this disheartening, here why: As a society we have a responsibility to improve ourselves. The problem (one of them) with modern society is that we believe nothing has a cost. Obviously this is not true. We have a responsibility to fund 'purely science' research, this includes space travel. If we do not then the only driving force is money which is not or more to the point should not be the point of research. (It might lead to it someday though.) When we do away with things like space exploration we lose a part of ourselves, and society, that will never be replaced. The hole will grow until there is nothing left but a shell that kinda resembles a once great civilization.

This guy makes no sense

[Anonymous Coward]

"Leave" outerspace to millionaires? I'm sorry,
but was there a choice between only governments
OR private citizens? Is it the case that there is
a limited amount of space in space? Why can't
BOTH work on space exploration?

Considering that private individuals have yet to
launch a successful manned object, I'd rather
we have the considerable backing and expertise
of governments.

Re:In space...

[zedmelon]

This wasn't a lame claim to "frist p0st;" it was a lame JOKE, dumbass moderator.

I'll be the first to admit it deserved "overrated," but it certainly doesn't deserve "troll."

Dr Evil and Moonraker

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, didn't you watch "Bond: Moonraker" and "Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me"?

Why shouldn't Hugo Drax or Dr Evil or any of super villian like Lex Luthor represent humanity.

I for one welcome our new evil overlords.

Oh, the humanity

[RdsArts]

argues that that gung-ho millionaires are more free to take risks because they 'don't represent a nation; [they] represent humanity

*Watches "Shuttle Donald Trump" go up in flames*

Oh, the humanity!

Needs a slight title change

[mkiwi]

Take of the "M" in Million and insert a "B".

That leaves only a few tech people crazy enough to try...
Larry Ellison
Bill Gates

Hmmm, I think we found a new hobby for Larry and Bill- something more constructive than "MY software is BETTER than YOURS!! :P"

How to send us back 100 years...

[mabu]

The other day it occurred to me while I was watching this Discovery channel special on space walking with all the astronauts worried about micro-meteors flying around in Earth orbit. We have all this satellite technology floating around, doing all kinds of things in addition to broadcasting and communications. Maybe one major aspect of future warfare will involve satellite-to-satellite battles. What if someone launched a probe into Earth orbit which unleashed hundreds of thousands of tiny projectiles that would circle the Earth and eventually destroy all the artificial satellites? The interesting thing is that the technology to do this probably is already available and even smaller nations could negate the powerful corporate nations by eliminating their satellite networks. Hey, then maybe people would have to actually sit down and talk to each other?

Martian environmentalism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting article, until the end, when he worries about environmentalism on Mars. Huh? There isn't any biosphere there to protect, so there's no harm to be done. What on earth (!) does it matter if there's trash left on Mars?

Langley vs the Wrights

[Anonymous Coward]

The US government funded Prof. Langley to develop the first airplane to the tune of $60,000, and his prototype broke apart on launch and fell into the Potomac "like a handful of mortar." The Wrights, on the other hand, spent $1500 of their own money and succeeded.

What NASA spends on space flight has no necessary relationship at all to what it would cost free enterprise.

negative millihelens

[Anonymous Coward]

One negative millihelen will sink a single ship.

Re:negative millihelens

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean that ugly women are hazard to navigation?

When do I become Astronomer Royal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder about this guy. He says lots of weird and kooky things, and I don't recall him ever publishing a paper that said anything interesting. I don't ever remember him publishing a paper at all. Her Majesty appoints him "Astronomer Royal" (Everyone stand: RULE BRITTANIA! BRITTANIA ALL THE WAY!) and suddenly his word is considered infalible. If an astronomer at some no-name mid-western university said the same thing, no one would bother listening. Less Rees, More Meat, I say. Jolly good show, old chap.

Re:a millionaire? HAH trillionaire+ is more like i

[Anonymous Coward]

Googol .

Time by Stephen Baxter

[disc0rdian]

I'm reading this book at the moment and the main character is doing that, wanting to build a vessel capable of getting off Earth because he believes its mankinds only way of surviving.

Good point

[o'reor]

Just imagine what happens if you do the following :

s/space/environment/
s/space/digital rights/
s/space/intellectual property/
s/space/work legislation/

Oh, wait... Did I read something in the paper this morning ?

Re:Good point

[khallow]

Just imagine what happens if you do the following :

s/space/environment/ s/space/digital rights/ s/space/intellectual property/ s/space/work legislation/

Somehow, that doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Maybe we shouldn't do that.

Obligatory 'Pulp Fiction' quote

[o'reor]

Jules: "You know how they call a quarter-pounder Astronomer with cheese in the UK ?"
Vincent: "How d'they call it ?"
Jules: "They call it an Astronomer Royal"

Re:Obligatory 'Pulp Fiction' quote

[Jules]

I don't remember saying that.

After the Internet bubble, the Space ?

[christophe]

If millionaires are to take commande of the spatial program, and they manage it the same way some of them use to manage their firms:
- Space travel technology will explode. The days of costly mainframe (Atlas, Ariane, Spac Shuttle) are over.
- As a consequence, a new wave of dot-coms will appear : the 'stars-com'. Most of them will even be supernovas: insane burning rate, a very short life, and a sudden crash.
- New shuttles too will explode: designed initially for 10 passagers to Mars, most will finally send 2 people to the Moon, with 20% shuttles lost.
- The Space industry will refuse any safety regulation imposed from the political powers. It would make things much more expensive and stop the growth, they said.
- Some firm will discover that it is cheaper to pay the family of a dead astronaut than to get him back from Pluton.
- Valles Marineris on Mars will become the new Silicon Valley, but nobody will complain that rents are astronomical.
- The bubble will explode when Boo.mars files Chapter 11 after failing of selling Martian water on Earth.
- New spam species appear. By satellite, it can now geo-target you. Everyone suffer from it, and Aldebaran people will ask what are 'penis' and 'viagra'.
- Black Hats can REALLY take control of satellites now. White Hats will shoot them. Finally, geeks and NRA unite.
- The Moon will be transformed as a giant movie theater. The DMFA (Deadly Moon For Astronoms) forbids you to look at the moon without paying fees to the MPAA.
- RMS will create the General Public Property License for newly found planets to avoid Microsoft to buy the whole Universe.
- Patents on space roads will become quickly the n1 cost for space travel, before fuel and spacecraft.
- Main difference with the former Internet bubble: any Microsoft-for-shuttles candidate will literally self-destruct if using its own products.

My prediction

[Scholasticus]

Here's my prediction of what will happen. First, a number of corporations will make a lot of money from space exploration/tourism and other commercial development (mining the asteroids, etc.). Then, Zefram Cochrane will become outraged that space is only for the rich, and found two things: 1) The SNN (SNN's Not NASA) project and the FSF (the Free Space Foundation). The goal of SNN will be to develop a free replacement for the expensive commercial spacecraft. SNN will tinker around for half a decade or so developing the cockpit, zero-g toilets, a chassis, but no actual engine to put the thing in orbit. Then a guy named Larry Finn will come along and design an engine, which he will whimsically name Larynx. Then a whole bunch of other people will realise that between the SNN stuff and the Larynx engine, you can build a complete working spacecraft. A bunch of professionals, hobbyists, and enthusiasts will build their own "Larynx" spacecraft, and suddenly space will be free for everybody. After that, just about everbody will be happy, except for 1) The commercial space interests, who see a threat to their profits, and 2) Zefram Cochrane, who will be outraged that everybody is calling the new spacecraft "Larynx" systems, and not SNN/Larynx. By the way, it's pronounced Suh-NN.

This matches history of sea exploration

[doinky]

in a lot of ways - many of the more successful expeditions which explored the New World were run by rich guys in search of loot; at most quasi-sponsored by governments (and even then, it was rich guys looking for loot who happened to be running a government).

Slooow down

[orim]

OK, I feel for you when you complain about nothing happening for the next 30 years. You and I will be 60, and we'll never get to pilot our very own space ship (like we did in Freespace/Starlancer/Independence War/Freelancer/etc). Well yeah, that sucks.

Often times I will think about what our grandfathers must have thought they were going to miss because they were born "before their time." Just look at how life has improved over the last 80 years, how far technology has gone, be it household stuff (tornado-vacuums, microwaves?), or cars, or a zillion little and big things.

I think we just have to suck it up, and admit to ourselves that we will not get up there within our lifetimes. It's not gonna happen. It can't. Asking for it in the next 10 years is like asking to build Pentium 3's in 1950s. "Yeah, some day, we'll have a 3 Gigaflop CPU that'll fit on a postage stamp." You need to build infrastructure, you need to make sure it's safe and reliable... it will take TIME...

Two more points, and then I'll post this:
1) If you're feeling so awful about that, think about the grand timescale.
- it took us hundreds of thousands of years to even start recording time, or progress from sharpened stones
- it took us about two thousand years to develop the steam engine (complex machinery)
- it took us about fifty to develop electronics
So yes, that last part was quick, but so what? It still took us hundreds of thousands of years to get this far. Give it TIME.

2) Early space exploration will not be all cool, like we think it will. You're probably thinking of your favorite book/movie, in which all these independent miners go out, reap profits, encounter dangers of space and beat them with their improvisational skills and their in-depth knowledge of physics. Suppose for one second that we got to where we got today without mining, and then somebody thought of it. These days, we'd be thinking: "Yeah, that's cool! We'll get to go down there, dig up gems, fight the drow, live adventures, and beat the darkness with our intellect and our improvisational skills."

Space mining, the way most people see it, will be dangerous. And about as glorious as real mining is on Earth today. Hell, space travel alone will be extremely dangerous. Radiation, equipment malfunction, pilot stupidity/lack of attention, loose chunks of stuff hitting your craft... all of those things can and will kill you, without having to do anything but sit in your assigned chair :)

So hate to break it to you folks, but you have to face the truth: no matter how much you want it, it just won't happen for this generation, or a few generations after us.
Let's enjoy our space sims meanwhile.

No, FAA Approval is EXPENSIVE.

[Thag]

Given the amount of money involved in creating and fueling a space-worthy vehicle, I'd make a guess that the amount needed to move the launch location would be a drop in the ocean by comparison.

You're wrong. It's actually the other way around.

For instance, Burt Rutan is expected to spend about $3-10 million US on his SpaceShip One X-Prize vehicle. Getting it certified by the FAA would cost him about between $100 and $300 million US.

I've heard it said that the Shuttle still hasn't flown enough to get FAA certification, but I don't know if that's true.

Jon Acheson

Re:Privatize space. in Injun country?

[ratfynk]

"A fine example of the profit motive encouraging exploration. And there are no Indians on Mars."

We will need to go out in space armed to the tits!

Outer space is Injun' country.
Some people already have to wounds to prove it just read the National Enquirer, or watch tv about close encounters.

Problem is some namby pamby liberal will push trough legislation preventing guns in space! The NRA won't react fast enough and bingo a stupid gun ban. Then no sensible entrepreneur will take a chance on space flight.

'Yu have till sunset to get out of Dodge mister' Will be what happens to our explorers.

Giving to charity is not representing humanity

[Ra5pu7in]

True, there are the exceptions to the rule. But don't automatically take donations to charity as evidence that a wealthy person cares about the people those charities help. There are many reasons for donations - including tax breaks, guilt, spousal influence, PR - beyond a simple desire to really help people.

I know a multi-millionaire who actually finds individuals who could do well if they had funding and helps set them up in business. He is one of the exceptions who does care about humanity.

Back to the topic at hand - gung-ho millionaires getting into space to represent humanity. Would those wealthy people who do represent humanity find it at all valuable to pour money into space INSTEAD of into programs that help here and now? Not likely. The majority of millionaires who would willingly put money into the space effort have either a personal interest in space or a profit motive.

Prediction.

[Irvu]

Prediction: If we completely Privatize space then in 20 years we will have amillion orbiting Motel 6's, no tax on the harmful pollutants that rickets produce, and still not know where black holes come from, or whether life existed on Mars. We will, however have mining operations there.