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.

[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?

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.

[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.

[istartedi]

What about their maids and butlers?

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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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....

Wow

[Exiler]

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

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-

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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[ddimas]

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

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 ...

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...

[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.

Wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't represent humanity, they represent themselves.

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

Virgin Space!

[CausticWindow]

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

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!!

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?

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?

[dj_paulgibbs]

But what has NASA done for us lately?

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

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.

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!"

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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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

New business model

[MachineShedFred]

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

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!

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.

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...

[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: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?

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: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: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."

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?

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?

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. :)

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.

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: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.

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.

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)

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!

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.