Slashdot Mirror


Katrina Delays Shuttle

guildsolutions writes "The scoop on MSNBC has it that NASA will not fly again until next fall. With NASA's reluctance to get back into space, and Hubble dying, We just wonder when private industry will put NASA out of the game."

17 of 374 comments (clear)

  1. yeah... by composer777 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because private industry did such a great job of evacuating the city of New Orleans before hurricane Katrina. Let's turn over our space program to the free market and see how it handles it.

    Does anybody ever notice how whenever the free market fails at something, the government steps in to take the blame, which provides further "evidence" that government is incompetent, which results in further reduction of government services, and more privatization. Then, when private industry screws up yet again, we blame government, and round and round we go. It's a nice circular argument. This is of course the problem with privatization, is that private industry cares about one thing, and that is profit. Markets are horribly inefficient at solving certain kinds of problems, such as the evacuation of the city of New Orleans (or space exploration, unless the only thing we're interested in is sending rich people into space). It would be nice if the free-marketeers in the White House understood this fact.

    1. Re:yeah... by failure-man · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would be nice if the free-marketeers in the White House understood this fact.

      They understand just fine. To them "privatization" means socialization of risk and privatization of reward. Basically let you friends make an ass-load of money and then jack the taxpayers with it when everything goes to hell.

    2. Re:yeah... by toddbu · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Because private industry did such a great job of evacuating the city of New Orleans before hurricane Katrina.

      Ok, I'm really confused. You really think that it was the private sector's job to evacuate New Orleans? How did you come to this conclusion?

      --
      If you don't want crime to pay, let the government run it.
    3. Re:yeah... by falcon5768 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      80% of the people DID leave. Privitization did nothing to cause the problems in NO. People wouldnt leave and the governments reluctance to do anything at first cause 90% of the problem.

      Infact privitization helped in some respects since the only places left for those unwilling to leave till it was getting too late was privatly owned buildings who opened their doors.

      You sir have a very fucked up idea of what private companys are supposed to do. This is a government debacle, which is only being saved BECAUSE private companys are donating time and money before the government even spent a cent on relief efforts. You lose sir, good bye.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    4. Re:yeah... by Bastian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Privitization did nothing to cause the problems in NO.

      Nor did they do anything to alleviate the problem.

      You sir have a very fucked up idea of what private companys are supposed to do.

      I would suggest that it's a perfectly accurate idea of what private companies are supposed to do. They are supposed to make money. It isn't in their interest to provide transportation and shelter to people who don't have the means to evacuate themselves. In fact, it's generally in direct conflict with their entire reason for existing, especially for publicly-traded companies.

      The whole point is that there are certain things which should not be privatized because privatization dramatically hinders (or prohibits) those things from being useful when they are most needed. A private "public" transportation system cannot be mobilized for a mass evacuation as easily as one that is under the direct control of the government. (Yeah yeah bureaucracy blah blah. I said "can not", not "is not.") If the interstate highway system were privately managed, it would not have all the features that make it so useful for national defense, because including those features increases the bottom line.

      This is a government debacle, which is only being saved BECAUSE private companys are donating time and money before the government even spent a cent on relief efforts.

      We've done well on disaster relief efforts in the past. Don't blame a debacle that is the direct result of the Bush administration and Congress mangling FEMA beyond all recognition, turning our entire homeland security system into a giant bureaucracy that can barely stand up under its own weight, and massively cutting our first response capabilities by cutting funding for everything disaster and emergency-related under the sun on the entire government in general.

      This is the CURRENT government fucking up. If it were behaving as it should have, and as it has in the past, those private companies would have had their place, but they wouldn't have been there first because they couldn't have gotten there first - the National Guard would have been there from the beginning.

      You lose sir, good bye.

      Shut up.

  2. Obviously by learn+fast · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We just wonder when private industry will put Nasa out of the game.

    When space travel and space telescopes become profitable.

  3. 6 months off on their estimates - inexcusable by Buran · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm a lifelong space buff and even I am starting to think it's time to trash the current system and go with SafeSimpleSoon.com's proposals.

    Waiting from September til March to fix a problem is fine, but when you've barely done any work so far on fixing the problem (that I'm aware; I haven't seen any test summaries beyond "we got a few tanks to work on now" hit the specialized news sources), suddenly admitting that you never even really thought March was achievable -- if you haven't done any testing yet and you're already saying a 6+ month delay is going to happen), you're clueless.

    I used to say that the time wasn't up for the Shuttle yet. Now given this latest example of incompetence, it's time to move on.

    Either that or take a hint from id Software, and just say "When it's done". No false promises. No bullshit.

  4. Re:Hold a sec... by composer777 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're called the transportation industry, i.e. bus, trains, and airplanes. The last two were started by gravy train government subsidies. However, when they are needed, they bail and close up early, leaving the majority of poor people, and even some well-to-do stranded. At least you see government pretending to take some blame. They're doing a terrible job of it, becuase the conservative administration doesn't take responsibility for much of anything, but the corporations, well, they're invisible. In fact, if you watched CNN's footage of looting, you would think that walmart was the biggest victim in all of this.

    Leaving these problems up to industry is not the answer. The reason, it's obvious, because industry doesn't care about poor people.

  5. how? by gaanagaa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And now they are blamming Katrina. It took ages between recent few launchings.

  6. A Better Question Is: by aluminumcube · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... what DOESN'T delay the shuttle? And for those of you who keep fighting the privitization of space with such arguments as "Who would put up telescopes and run pure science research?" The answer to that is NASA- instead of inefficiently and ineffectively blowing billions of tax dollars keeping the wheeles of their wussified, red tape, burocracy running, they could just bid out the launch of their projects to the lowest bidder in the private sector. Ohh.. and while I am venting.. what happened to NASA's hardcore pilots? The kind in the movie "The Right Stuff" and "From the Earth to the Moon?" The people they trot out now to fly the shuttle all look like Volvo drivers.

  7. Reluctance? by pookemon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With NASA's reluctance to get back into space

    So being cautious is now a reluctance to go into space? Maybe they don't want to kill another seven astronauts? They are probably quite expensive to replace.

    I would think that NASA want to be in space, as much as possible, but they are being careful because they figure that their last act of absolute incompetence put them on notice. They know that they have to be careful - or their funding will dry up because of the outcry that would result from being stupid enough to not do something as simple as "look at the wing".

    --
    dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
  8. Profitability by Crixus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Our market system discourages anything but profit, and I don't see any corporation or consortium spending the kind of money that NASA spends, until there is a easily exploitable resource for them to take advantage of.

    Yes, Virgin Spaceways (whatever it's called) will do their thing with ballistic shots, and very probably orbital shots someday as well.

    But full-on space programs will be something that only governments will fund for a long time.

    Certainly MS could fund a small space program... who knows, maybe Paul Allen can talk Bill into something like that.

    --
    Ignore Alien Orders
  9. It won't be private enterprise. by cornface · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It won't be private enterprise that makes NASA irrelevant. It will be the Chinese.

  10. Never (at least not without NASA) by csoto · · Score: 4, Informative

    Private industry hasn't even come close to being able to reach the orbits that NASA does routinely (remembering that NASA's vehicles are built by private industry contractors).

    --
    There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
  11. Submitter is a troll. by topical_surfactant · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Private industry will replace NASA for spaceflight when they can reliably launch a human INTO ORBIT. FOR A LOW PRICE.

    Not a chance in the next decade. The space elevator has the best chance of meeting these goals, and it's still just an idea.

  12. Faith-based "reasoning" fails again by shanen · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The problems in New Orleans and NASA have nothing to do with a shortage of private investment. The problems are irrational worship of a fantasized memory of what the less worshipful people call the "Robber Baron Era". In a rational and balanced reality, you should be considering which tasks need to be performed by government, and which should be performed outside of government, which need to be regulated, and which can be left to the old "invisible hand". (Private investments are naturally rational, and irrational investors go bankrupt.)

    In the case of New Orleans, the required investments in levees have consistently returned large benefits to the society. Because of the excellent location of the city, it was an efficient hub for shipping that benefited not just the Mississippi River basin, but the entire nation, and even the world. Sure, other ports exist and competed with New Orleans, but the city's ongoing prosperity was proof of how it contributed to the prosperity of all the other communities that helped pay the taxes that maintained the levees.

    In the case of NASA, the people who talk about privatization are consistently clueless about the real numbers involved. Actually, this is also complicated by the fact that most of the return on space exploration is in the form of knowledge that has no short-term market value that could attract investors.

    However, both New Orleans and NASA are suffering from the side effects of incompetent leadership at higher levels. Some of them are faith-based fanatics who can't deal with the complexities of the real world. Others are short-term profiteers whose only real mission is to steal as much money from the government as possible. A few of them even have delusions of recreating the Holy Roman Empire.

    Whatever. For all of them the same response is appropriate. As Rocky said to Bullwinkle, "That trick never works."

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  13. NO! NASA is needed. by beefstu01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    *bashes head on table*

    I always hate it when people say that NASA should be on its way out, and private industry should take over. NO! Failures! F-! Private industry is out looking for profit, finding a dollar in something. If there isn't a dollar to be earned, they won't be in business very long. Private industry isn't interested in furthering the field of science, they don't care too much about contributing to the knowledge of mankind. This is why we need NASA-- to make scientific breakthroughs that are available to ALL for (ideally) noble causes.

    Quickly sidestepping too much politics, NASA embodies what the government should spend its money on (yes, improving infrastructure of the country is important, but I'm sure there's a lot that the government shouldn't spend money on *cough*war*cough*). NASA is set up to do wickedly expensive, yet groundbreaking research which can be useful 30+ years down the road-- very few companies would make such an investment. It's the department that's set up to be the exploratory fleet of our time. Who else would put a couple of rovers on Mars? Where's the profit in that? We got tons of scientific benefit from it, and I think we all can concur that it was a damn good thing that we landed on Mars and scouted the area. What motivation would private industry have to do the same?

    I agree that currently NASA is kind of a broken department. Politicians are more interested in financing bridges named after themselves and whatnot than advancing science. Society today is more interested in what some celebrity ate for breakfast than science. It's a damn shame too! Look, what NASA needs is a bit of a reorganization, a shakedown if you will. They need to get back in gear, and instead of being a political lapdog, they need to get back into their R&D groove. You can't argue that they've done great things in the past. Currently, they've got some of the best damn brains in the country. They were able to hit a friggin comet with satellite! I say that we throw more money into NASA, and tell 'em to make something of it. Make a new shuttle! Find a way to setup a moon base, or mine the moon for materials. Push further into ramjet/scramjet research. There's so much that they can do, we just need to let them do it.

    Please, realize that NASA is not a detriment to the country. It's done a lot of great stuff, and has the potential to do a lot more. If you privatize all of NASA, science will be set back many, many decades.