Slashdot Mirror


NASA Wants To Fund Space Taxis

NASA plans on using $50 million in stimulus funds to seed development of a commercial passenger transportation service to space. Potential space taxi inventors have 45 days to submit their proposals. The proposals will be competitively evaluated and the winners will be announced by the end of September. It is unclear what other Commodore 64 games NASA plans on making a reality, but I hope Arkanoid makes the short list.

136 comments

  1. Once again ... by neonprimetime · · Score: 1, Funny

    NASA plans on using $50 million in stimulus funds to seed development of a commercial passenger transportation service to space.

    ... More stimulus funds that 99% of the middle class will never see. How is this gonna help my 401k?

    1. Re:Once again ... by eln · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you invest your 401k heavily in companies building nightclubs in space, this space taxi service will be a major boon for you.

    2. Re:Once again ... by cthulu_mt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wrong! You saw that stimulus money when the government took it out of your wallet!

      Say thanks to Uncle Sam.

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
    3. Re:Once again ... by Arthur+B. · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is not a troll, this is informative.

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    4. Re:Once again ... by Darth+Sdlavrot · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, if this is like most ventures, it'll be privately funded by VCs, and you won't be able to participate until they go public. Therefore you and I will miss most of the potential for monetary gain. Of course if you've got enough money to be of interest to a VC then this won't be an issue for you, but then I doubt you'd be whining here on /.

    5. Re:Once again ... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      NASA plans on using $50 million in stimulus funds to seed development of a commercial passenger transportation service to space. ... More stimulus funds that 99% of the middle class will never see. How is this gonna help my 401k?

      Ah, the old "spending money on the space program means ferrying dollar bills into orbit and dumping them there" argument. One day people will get it into their heads that money spent on the space program is spent pretty much exclusively on Earth where jobs are created, new technologies are developed, and countless other economic and social spin-offs are generated. In the meantime, I'll have to keep on posting this reminder.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    6. Re:Once again ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Queen Isabella plans on providing a yearly allowance of 12,000 maravedis and providing three ocean-worthy vessels to seed new, trans-Atlantic commercial routes to the Orient. ... More spoils of war that 99% of the gentry will never see. How is this gonna help me expand my feudal holdings?

    7. Re:Once again ... by mc1138 · · Score: 1

      It's going to shoot it to the moon! Or at least low earth orbit...

    8. Re:Once again ... by wjousts · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Believe it or not, but the stimulus isn't supposed to pad your 401k, it's supposed to create jobs.

    9. Re:Once again ... by nigelo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'll keep posting this, too, I guess:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy

      --
      *Still* negative function...
    10. Re:Once again ... by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 3, Funny

      Space Taxis? Do we really want to trust Arabs with our latest NASA technology?

    11. Re:Once again ... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Remember, the reason the broken window fallacy is a fallacy is that it assumes that breaking a window and having to fix it is the only thing that gets the money moving and thus you're making things better by breaking the window. The observation that this money could have been spent on new development with equal or greater effect on the economy is what nullifies it.

      Investing in space tourism is investing in cheap access to space. That's not anything like digging ditches just so you can fill them in, or breaking a window so you have to fix it, or going to war so you have to spend tons of money blowing things and people up. It's more like (though not exactly like) the U.S. highway system. A public works project that had a huge economic benefit.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    12. Re:Once again ... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      I'll keep posting this, too, I guess:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy

      Interesting, but there are people who claim that the New Deal (and the big government spending that went with it) did not pull America out of the Great Depression. They say that instead it was WWII (and the big government spending that went with it), which is a bit of a contradiction.

      The New Deal (or the space program) was not a broken window. WWII on the other hand was a big broken window, and you could have achieved a lot of the same effect by building all those carriers, destroyers, tanks and bombers and promptly dumping them in the sea. But you can't really compare that to a public works program or a space program where there are useful spin-offs, to say nothing of taking into account the wasted resources spent raising, rearing, and educating a generation of men who end up getting slaughtered.

      As stimulus packages go, space exploration is a pretty good deal.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    13. Re:Once again ... by GameMaster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Of course, 99% of the middle class won't see it. $50 million is a drop in the bucket considering, both, the size of the US budget and the population of the country. Even if it were divided evenly, a dollar each, there wouldn't be enough to go around. However, there is a good chance that, assuming you aren't too old, this might boost your 401k in time for your retirement.

      The US, simply, can't compete against much of the rest of the world at most of the traditional industries. Our quality of life is too high and would have to nose-dive to make us competitive. The places that we've always dominated, since WWII when we really first developed a middle class with above average quality of life, have been high-tech such as computers, pharmaceuticals, materials science, etc. As we move forward, it's inevitable that other countries will start to catch up in some of those places and out population will continue to grow.

      In order to stay competitive we need to continue to advance our most competitive industries and seek out new ones that revolutionize life enough such that they become the next "semiconductor industry". One example is the development of new/economical energy generation/transport methods such as Nuclear/solar/wind/"clean coal"/bio-fuel/wave/geothermal/fuel cells/batteries/etc. Another example, more applicable to this discussion, is commercialized space travel.

      We've reached a point where the price of space travel is withing "spitting distance" of being cheap enough for commercial ventures to develop their own vehicle/stations. There are already a number of start-ups that are flirting with it such as Virgin Galactic developing a sub-orbital vehicle and Bigilow Aaerospace designing fractional size prototype space stations but implementing vehicles capable of re-entry and full size/fully functional stations will be much, much more expensive. Government grants are a way to accelerate the development of this technology and, potentially, open up the field to a broader market faster in the same way the plumitting cost of semiconductors in the 80's made it possible for everyone in the country to have a computer on their desk within a decade or so instead of just big companies/colleges having expensive supercomputers.

      Right now, the only, practical, uses for space travel are communications satellites, military, GPS, and pure research. Sure, there have been a few tourist that have been lucky enough to go to the ISS, but even at the high prices they've paid, they don't represent a realistic "industry". If we could get the cost of entry to drop by an order of magnitude (which is realistic to expect when you take it out of the hands of a military-like organization like NASA, implement the most modern tech, and increase the number of flights to take advantage of economies of scale) then it should open up all sorts of other growth markets for things like tourism, power generation/transmission, commercial materials science development/production, and the mining of things like the moon and asteroids for rare materials.

      So, sinking a mere $50 million (mere in government terms as well as relation to what it takes to get anything of significance done in today's world, of course) is a small price to pay if it can help someone like Burt Rutan produce a low cost vehicle that opens up a revolutionary new industry to help re-grow the economy.

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
    14. Re:Once again ... by nigelo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed.

      Then I guess we could argue matters of degree: do we get bigger benefit from space-related research or, say, stem-cell research, investing in social programs or basic education.

      And I'd have to say 'I don't know, so let's find a way to invest in all of them, and hopefully reduce the need for investment in the digging ditches/filling them in, etc.'

      --
      *Still* negative function...
    15. Re:Once again ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be beneficial if developed within the next 6 months. To get the most "bang for the buck", we could load the current administration and all derivatives for the initial test flight. The economy would recover overnight, the sun would shine again, flowers would bloom, et cetera.

    16. Re:Once again ... by stokessd · · Score: 1

      The highway system has a huge benefit because there are, you know, places to go. People can use roads in cars, on bikes, on foot and even busses etc. Is a space taxi or space exploration the most efficient use of technology, and technology transfer?

      There's a lot of technology that can be brought to bear on building the biggest jenga tower too, but is that the most efficient method to get that technology and jobs spread around?

      I suppose if you think there is some sort of future in space, then this may be worthwhile. But call me cynical, but I'd like some sort of similar effort put into exploring and enriching things where the people actually are. Even if there is a future in space, I won't see it. I want to see more practical programs that affect us where we are. Here's some crazy ideas: better actually usable public transport in the US, more renewable energy in the US, bridges and roads improved in the US, rails to trails, park improvements, etc. Then there's healthcare, etc. I'd put the space taxi on the last page of the pad of paper I was writing on.

      Sheldon
      (former NASA guy)

    17. Re:Once again ... by ianare · · Score: 1

      ... and at the end of WWII the previous superpower (Europe in general terms, though mainly England and France) was devastated by war. The newly created American factories were diverted from the war effort into the rebuilding effort, and a new superpower was born. There was a time when the US produced and manufactured most of the world's goods and food. THAT is what created the after-war boom years. The new deal however, laid much of the groundwork to make this possible.

      Also remember that WWII was a relatively short war, especially for the US. A short war can have some economic advantage, as long as you win of course. A protracted war will always lead to economic problems, even for the victor (see : the current Iraq war and its role in the economic crisis).

    18. Re:Once again ... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Then I guess we could argue matters of degree: do we get bigger benefit from space-related research or, say, stem-cell research, investing in social programs or basic education.

      Yes. This is the correct place for the debate to be.

      And I'd have to say 'I don't know, so let's find a way to invest in all of them, and hopefully reduce the need for investment in the digging ditches/filling them in, etc.'

      Agreed. And from that standpoint, $50mil seems like a pittance compared to the totality of our government's investment. I'd like to see more, and more for all the things you mentioned previously, and less, say, corn subsidies where megalo-corps grow tons of excess corn and then let it rot.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    19. Re:Once again ... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 0

      Or better yet, lets leave the money in the hands of the population and let them decided.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    20. Re:Once again ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WWII was not as broken a window as you say it was. War (at least, modern war) is one of the few instances where technological prowess is 1) required for survival and 2) seen as such by an overwhelming majority of the people involved.

      That was kind of why the space race worked - it was part of the Cold War. If the Chinese announced they were going to Mars and we cared enough about tech superiority to stop them, you'd better believe we'd go to Mars as well, no matter how useless or dangerous. Right now, however, there is nothing that obviously forces our survival to be dependent on advancement, which is probably why there isn't a lot of it - we're not going to Mars. We're in caution mode.

      You are absolutely right about the space investment being a good deal however - it's probably one of the best investments we've made. I am kind of ashamed that it takes war and threat to get people moving on these things.

    21. Re:Once again ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

    22. Re:Once again ... by Naturalis+Philosopho · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'll never meet my great-great-great-great grandkids either, so It's kind of stupid to plan that far into the future... I mean, what's the benefit to me?

      Or did I misunderstand your argument?

    23. Re:Once again ... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      ... and at the end of WWII the previous superpower (Europe in general terms, though mainly England and France) was devastated by war. The newly created American factories were diverted from the war effort into the rebuilding effort, and a new superpower was born. There was a time when the US produced and manufactured most of the world's goods and food. THAT is what created the after-war boom years. The new deal however, laid much of the groundwork to make this possible.

      Also remember that WWII was a relatively short war, especially for the US. A short war can have some economic advantage, as long as you win of course. A protracted war will always lead to economic problems, even for the victor (see : the current Iraq war and its role in the economic crisis).

      True. War can have unexpected positive outcomes though. Germany's rail network was obliterated and they were able to build it from scratch to suit current needs. England's came out a bit better, so the current network is stuck with the old bottlenecks that it always had since Victorian times. To this day the Brits have a hard time getting their trains to run on time, the Germans find it a lot easier.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    24. Re:Once again ... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I agree. Space Rikshaws are bound to be much safer in the end, not to mention cheaper.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    25. Re:Once again ... by krnpimpsta · · Score: 1

      This is not a troll, this is informative.

      this is not flamebait, this is redundant

      Redundant? THIS.. IS.. +5 INSIGHTFUL!!!!!!!!

      --

      New webcomic updated on Sundays: HERE

    26. Re:Once again ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      That's right...because 50,000,000 goes so far when splitting it 305,000,000 ways.

    27. Re:Once again ... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 0

      Exactly, the argument for privatization of everything.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    28. Re:Once again ... by Wizworm · · Score: 1

      it's supposed to create jobs.

      How'd that work out for you

      --
      I always thought of Creationism as the Raving Right's version of the Loony Left's Anthropogenic Global Warming-brightmal
    29. Re:Once again ... by lennier · · Score: 1

      "One day people will get it into their heads that money spent on the space program is spent pretty much exclusively on Earth where jobs are created, new technologies are developed, and countless other economic and social spin-offs are generated."

      Are they, though?

      I mean, yes of course that money is spent "on Earth" strictly speaking... but what it is spent *doing*? It's spent paying very specialised engineers to create very specialised one-off hardware which is tossed into space and thrown away. In the case of Apollo, even much of that Earth-based knowledge component *was* literally thrown away when the Shuttle became the new hotness. And now that Ares is the new hotness... and don't forget the X-30 National Aerospace Plane which Ronald Reagan said would be a "new Orient Express" and sat there burning a hole in the black budget for a couple decades.... is this knowledge building on anything? Is it going anywhere? *Why* is it important to be able to build rockets, other than to learn how to build better rockets?

      It's often *claimed* that space research has spinoffs - but is that in fact true, and if true, is it relevant? Are the spinoffs in any reasonable proportion to the money spent? It's directly false in the case of Tang and it's also not the case for Teflon. These products were invented outside the space program and became associated with it - but they weren't spinoffs. Any high-tech endeavour would have created them. Why space?

      If we employed a bunch of very smart people here on Earth to build a castle made out of cheese, we'd also promote a lot of rapid development in dairy-related construction techniques, and that money would recirculate back into local economies - etc, etc, etc. But we generally expect a bit more from a big project than just "people got paid and it doesn't matter what they got paid to do".

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    30. Re:Once again ... by lennier · · Score: 1

      "Investing in space tourism is investing in cheap access to space."

      Yes, and?

      Space is, by definition, a vacuum. A large empty hole filled with a whole lot of nothing.

      What, precisely, do we gain by getting cheap access to cubic giga-miles of nothing?

      Low gravity for manufacturing? Okay. What exactly are we going to manufacture that will justify the cost required to ship it up and down the well?

      Solar radiation unfiltered by atmosphere? Okay. And after transferring to microwaves and building ground stations... why not just build solar cells on Earth?

      Communications satellites? Sure, but we've got those already and filled up most of the GEO slots. Why do we need people there?

      Excitement and fun for the obscenely rich? Okay. But how many multi-millionaires are there and what happens once they've all gone into orbit once?

      Rocks and ores? Yes, but getting rocks down the well would either require expensive heavy-lift capacity or would be indistinguishable from orbital bombing, so creates a whole new category of weapon of mass destruction. And the ores we're likely to run out of soon on Earth are finnicky things like copper and cadmium and uranium. Are huge asteroids of boring nickel-iron actually *useful* except as a way of wiping continents off the map?

      We'll use the space ore to build stuff in space, you say? Great. Why are we going to need space habitats to house? The miners? Excellent, then. A self-justifying economy with no return on investment. By the way, where are we going to get water and soil for those habitats from? Ice comets? Okay, but how are we getting out there? The Moon and Mars don't have much water, and what little they might have will be seized on by scientists looking for life before you can use it.

      We'll fund it all with upfront investment and work it out later? Great, you just created the solar system's biggest speculative bubble and crash - or, if you then turn around to demand payment from your space colonists, you've just created a whole new generation of indentured space labour. Makes for a good Space Communist technothriller, but not good business sense.

      We'll find weird space microbes on the Jovian moons then! And make medicines from them! Yes, well maybe we will and maybe we won't. There's no guarantee there's any life out there except ours. But gene-piracy seems like it might work - except, only if existing patent laws continue. What if gene patents go open-source in a few years?

      Helium-3! We'll mine the Moon for it and later scoop Jupiter! Okay... but you need functioning fusion before Helium-3 is useful. We might get warp drive first. And even then, it might not pay for itself.

      Warp drive! That's the ticket! Then we can find Earthlike biospheres and ransack them for new bioforms! Yes, that might work. Got a warp drive in your pocket anywhere? Or any theory that even suggests one is possible? Oh and then you'll have to deal with new diseases, but at least you'll have something resembling a Star Trek future. No warp drive... no space future, really.

      But.... SPACE IS BIG you say! There so much stuff out there! There must be something! But Einstein says we can't get to much of any of it within a human lifetime. Big, empty, and slow. Or try your luck at kicking Einstein over. Major props if you can do that - many physicists have died trying.

      Doing anything in space is orders of magnitude harder, riskier, slower, and more expensive and less fun than on Earth. Where's the orders of magnitude return? Heck, where's *any* return except for what we've got already: unmanned probes, satellites, and missiles?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    31. Re:Once again ... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      If we employed a bunch of very smart people here on Earth to build a castle made out of cheese, we'd also promote a lot of rapid development in dairy-related construction techniques, and that money would recirculate back into local economies - etc, etc, etc. But we generally expect a bit more from a big project than just "people got paid and it doesn't matter what they got paid to do".

      Building castles out of cheese would be a true "dig a hole and fill it in again" situation. But exploring space is a long term project for the species. Its ultimate payoff is not measured in a single human lifetime. Someone else posted that he is not going to see the benefits in his lifetime therefore it is pointless, but the human species is about more than what goes on in a single generation. The benefits we get in the meantime are small by comparison to the big payoff of turning us into a space-faring race.

      Think of it as the modern version of building a cathedral. And also think of what I posted elsewhere, "what is the point of a baby?"

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    32. Re:Once again ... by lennier · · Score: 1

      "where megalo-corps grow tons of excess corn and then let it rot."

      Call it "ferment" and it's BIOETHANOL! One for me, one for you!

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    33. Re:Once again ... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Except we're not investing in cheap access to space. Using chemical rockets, there are some real, fundamental limits to how cheap (in terms of usage) we can get the cost to orbit, and that is not cheap enough for space flight to be affordable as anything other than an insane luxury or for scientific research. It isn't a matter of getting the early adopters to bring the cost down - they won't bring down the cost of the fuel (if anything, they'll raise it slightly by burning so much of it) and that's where most of the cost goes. If you could build a shuttle for free and only have to pay for the fuel then space travel would still be insanely expensive. If you're lucky, there will be some useful spin-off technologies, but investing the money in deep-sea exploration would likely give the same kind of spin-offs and provide something that is actually of commercial value as an added bonus.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    34. Re:Once again ... by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Even if there is a future in space, I won't see it.

      Your view seems to be REALLY inline with political views and planning. They don't plan/care about anything past the next election horizon. Why not invest in something that won't see big returns for three years like improving mass transit in cities? Oh yeah, because all the cost will be seen with your government and all the rewards might be seen with another government. In the end, no-one gets a better mass transit system.

      Wake the fuck up and stop being so gloriously selfish.

      Just because you won't personally see the benefits doesn't mean that something isn't worth doing. You are not special. If you think that 50 million dollars spent as part of a stimulus package to maybe give the folks at NASA a great idea or a cheap way of putting small payloads into space is bad, then just think of it as 50 million dollars distributed among scientists, engineers and inventors. Chances are that it might just end up in circulation in your country and helping your flailing economy - which desperately needs help right now.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    35. Re:Once again ... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problems with the British rail system started with Dr Beeching's scrapping of most of it. By concentrating on the more profitable lines, and scrapping the rest, he hoped to make British Rail less dependent on government subsidy. Unfortunately, he failed to take into account that a lot of the passengers on unprofitable rural lines were getting trains to larger stations and then getting on the more profitable trains. When the branch lines were scrapped, they had to get cars instead and so didn't use any trains. Privatising it might have worked, except that they privatised the profitable bits separately and then kept pumping government money into the unprofitable bit, so it combined all of the disadvantages of public and private ownership for the taxpayers, and all of the advantages for the shareholders.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    36. Re:Once again ... by Penguinshit · · Score: 1

      I am Sikh and tired of being called an Arab!

    37. Re:Once again ... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Space is, by definition, a vacuum. A large empty hole filled with a whole lot of nothing.

      Hehe. Yeah, that's a definition, but another definition includes all the not-nothing stuff that's off the earth. I mean you mention a bunch of stuff that's "in space", or at least you have to go through space to get to it.

      But yeah. What could we get with cheap access to space?

      Solar radiation unfiltered by atmosphere? Okay. And after transferring to microwaves and building ground stations... why not just build solar cells on Earth?

      Because unlike the light frequencies photovoltaics operate at, the microwave beam isn't attenuated by the atmosphere, giving as much as an order of magnitude improvement in energy. Because unlike ground-based solar, it will work anywhere on the globe year round for most of the day. Come on, this one is a no-brainer.

      Rocks and ores? Yes, but getting rocks down the well would either require expensive heavy-lift capacity or would be indistinguishable from orbital bombing, so creates a whole new category of weapon of mass destruction. And the ores we're likely to run out of soon on Earth are finnicky things like copper and cadmium and uranium. Are huge asteroids of boring nickel-iron actually *useful* except as a way of wiping continents off the map?

      You don't have to be in danger of running out of a material on earth. You just have to be able to multiply the output by an order of magnitude or two by harvesting a couple asteroids. There are tons of rare elements in near earth asteroids. A lot of them, despite not "running out" on earth, are very expensive to acquire. So, make getting out and into our gravity well cheaper, getting to NEOs is already easy, figure out how to process small asteroids, and you have a profitable scheme. This one isn't a "no-brainer" as in it isn't clearly something we should be doing right now, but it is very likely to be profitable if we tried.

      Helium-3! We'll mine the Moon for it and later scoop Jupiter! Okay... but you need functioning fusion before Helium-3 is useful. We might get warp drive first. And even then, it might not pay for itself.

      Lol. Sure. Maybe we'll come up with whatever crazy new revelation of physics allows warp drive before we figure out the engineering problems of fusion. Anyway, yeah, if fusion works, He-3 will be incredibly profitable. Hopefully we aren't still waiting on cheap access to space when it comes online!

      BTW you forgot to mention same-day travel/delivery to anywhere on earth. This we're closer to achieving than anything else.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    38. Re:Once again ... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      If you could build a shuttle for free and only have to pay for the fuel then space travel would still be insanely expensive.

      That's simply not true. Fuel costs are a very tiny portion of the overall costs to develop, build, maintain and operate rockets. That's why liquid fuel rockets aren't actually any cheaper to launch than solid fuel even though the fuel itself is much cheaper.

      If fuel costs were the only cost space travel would be orders of magnitude cheaper. But when you're making a tiny fleet of ships under government contract, then the rest of the costs balloon and can't be amortized over a large number of ships/launches. That is definitely something these investments can help with.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    39. Re:Once again ... by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      The primary complaint will all of you arguments, mind you, is the expense of moving material in to orbit, and to the ground, safely.

      We've already got the technology to do that; we've just stepped away from it. Project ORION is achievable using current technology, can move *vast* amount of material into space, and back onto the planet, and would release no more radiation that the various open-air nuclear tests of the previous century, and most likely a good deal less than the various coal burning power plants we have.

      Estimates of the value of even a small number of space asteroids in terms of precious metals (techy ones, too) exceed hundreds of billions of dollars .

      Low gravity for manufacturing? Okay. What exactly are we going to manufacture that will justify the cost required to ship it up and down the well?

      I'd suggest that the combination of low gravity and virtually no prohibition against utilization of huge amounts of energy, and no risks of spreading contamination? One could possibly build some interesting things; a manufacturing plant on the dark side of the moon, using energy beamed down from solar satellites, as one would have to release a truly magnificent amount of radiation before it would negatively affect the earth.

      2-3 asteroids might be sufficient to cover the development cost of a Project Orion powered mining program, while simultaneously flooding the world market with technologically useful minerals. New golden age? Who knows.

      100+ asteroids, mined over a 30-50 year period, would be incalculable wealth to mankind.

      Before flight, there were a great deal of naysayers who sounded a lot like you. Before deep-ocean capable vessels were developed, the entirety of the western world thought that venturing into the Atlantic was pure idiocy. When the Arabs first discovered oil beneath their sands, they couldn't think of what to do with it.

      That being said, however, I agree with you, as long as we, the Human race, are restricting ourselves to chemical rockets there really isn't any reason for us to be exploring space, or wasting money on "Space Taxis". Chemical rockets will not be useful for anything but unmanned probes and communication satellites.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    40. Re:Once again ... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      The US, simply, can't compete against much of the rest of the world at most of the traditional industries. Our quality of life is too high and would have to nose-dive to make us competitive. The places that we've always dominated, since WWII when we really first developed a middle class with above average quality of life, have been high-tech such as computers, pharmaceuticals, materials science, etc. As we move forward, it's inevitable that other countries will start to catch up in some of those places and out population will continue to grow.

      This is absolutely FALSE. The reason why we are losing ground with China and India is solely because they both have their money tied to the dollar, and also have trade barriers against all western nations. That has to stop. China was suppose to free their money and drop trade barriers in 2002 as part of obtaining MFN from America, but have renegged on the trade barriers (in fact, says that it will not drop them for another DECADE) and did a fake opening of their money. It is in a "basket tied to various moneys". Problem is that while China has improved their economy with double digit growth vs, below 5% for most of the west, their money rose less than 17%. In fact, it has stalled since Sept. According to nearly all economists, it should have risen by 300-500%. In addition, India has their money FIXED against the dollar, along with trade barriers. Finally, both India and China are heavy heavy heavy polluters in terms of their land. What is needed is for them to have to use the same or better equipment as even the least of the west (which sadly IS America WRT CO2, though we are one of the better ones in terms of other pollution).

      Finally, we need to automate more. America at one time was the LEADER in automation, in terms of developing it as well as implementing it. Sadly, since reagan gave amnesty to illegals, we have quit automating. Instead, we count on "low cost" illegal labor. That has been destroying our ability to compete since we pay the illegals less, but it is still more than other nations pay (otherwise, they would leave here). The neo-cons of the last decade allowed in more, and the dems now want to continue to allow this nightmare.

      Until we address these multiple issues, there will continue to be unfair trade. In fact, it will get worse because of our attempt to address our CO2 emissions. That will only encourage nations like China, India, Brazil, and even Mexico to pollute more to grab as many jobs as possible (similar to what W did to EU). Instead, the west needs to do a tax on ALL GOODS based on where they originate from. It needs to be implemented slowly (say 4 years) to give countries time to adjust. Thankfully, it sounds like EU is actually considering it, which is really needed. Time for EU to lead.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    41. Re:Once again ... by BranMan · · Score: 1

      Subsidies for food crops are an absolute necessity. There is one thing you do not want the 'market' regulating, and that is the growing of food. I consider the subsidies a relatively cheap insurance policy - prop up the growing of food during good and average years (where the price the market would support would be too low to have many producers survive) so that when a BAD year, or two or three, happen, we don't have a famine here.
            And believe me - if there is a famine in the US, a lot of the rest of the world is going to be starving.

    42. Re:Once again ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you've lost the forest in all those trees. NASA expends a great deal of energy talking up the big picture of their activities and you're focusing on short term economic gains. The problem isn't that their communications strategy is broken; the problem is your attitude.

      To whit: What was the short-term economic gain for funding Columbus, Cartier, and the other European explorers of the new world? Very little really. The stated promise was finding sea routes to India, China, the Spice Islands and so forth. However that never quite materialized as promised, and certainly not with those explorers.

      As we know they instead found a new continent. Even then the returns didn't exactly happen quickly and the long-term payoff was centuries down the road. Oh, and if the governments of the day (monarchies all) hadn't funded those projects, who would have done so? Private industry? No. The projects were too expensive and risky for any company or entrepreneur of the day.

      In the case of specific products, it often gets missed that there's a gap between a laboratory demonstration of a technology and a usable implementation. The space program has to have usable implementations and is willing to fund laboratory technologies to mature those demonstration technologies. Going back afterwards and saying it would have happened anyways is not only inaccurate (it didn't happen that way), but 100% discounts the development risks involved. Lots of companies don't want that kind of cost structure with uncertain outcomes.

      For every IBM (with Research Fellows) or Xerox (with PARC), there are 1000 companies like Dunkin' Donuts or Freightways. At the latter kind I think you'll find their idea of "Research & Development" amounts to implementing a new payroll system. I don't mean to denigrate those companies; they perform a valuable and useful function. But if you're looking to them to be big centers of innovation you're probably going to be disappointed.

  2. The Germans invented this first by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1
  3. Re:uh-oh by eln · · Score: 1, Funny

    I expect Palin will be going around telling everyone about the new amendment to the health care plan that involves using these space taxis to shoot old people into the Sun so we don't have to pay for their health care.

  4. Hey! Taxi! by amiga3D · · Score: 2, Funny

    I fondly remember killing thousands of passengers on my 64.

    1. Re:Hey! Taxi! by hamburger+lady · · Score: 1

      passengers will have to say in a computer voice "pad five, please"

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    2. Re:Hey! Taxi! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At first I thought 64 meant Commodore 64... yeah get off my anonymous lawn.

    3. Re:Hey! Taxi! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it most certainly did

    4. Re:Hey! Taxi! by chiefnerd · · Score: 1

      Yes, good times! Brings back memories...

      --
      SYS64738
    5. Re:Hey! Taxi! by Alcoholist · · Score: 1

      Me too. You'd think the word would get around that your flying taxi was a death trap, but yet the fares still lined up anyway.

      I wonder what the insurance rates on a space taxi would be? Probably astronomical...

      --
      Bibo Ergo Sum.
  5. Re:uh-oh by truthsearch · · Score: 0, Troll

    "You betchya!"

    Sarah Palin can see the sun from her house in Alaska, so she feels she's qualified to discuss space commercialization.

  6. Direct benefits, no; indirect, yes by zorro-z · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's worth nothing that, while few people are directly involved w/the space program, the space program has historically had indirect benefits which have benefited society. To list a few (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off):

    Health and Medicine
    Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs) (2005)
    Infrared Ear Thermometers (1991)
    DeBakey's Ventricular Assist Device (VAD) (2002)
    Artificial Limbs (2005)

    Transportation
    Aircraft Anti-Icing Systems (2007)
    Highway Safety Grooving (1985)
    Improved Radial Tires (1976)
    Chemical Detection (2007)

    Public Safety
    Video Enhancing and Analysis Systems (2001)
    Land Mine Removal (2000)
    Fire-Resistant Reinforcement (2006)
    Firefighting Equipment (1976 onwards)

    Consumer, Home, and Recreation
    Temper Foam (1976-2005)
    Enriched Baby Food (1996, 2008)
    Portable Cordless Vacuums (1981)
    Freeze Drying Technology (1976, 1994)

    Environmental and Agricultural Resources
    Water Purification (1995, 2006)
    Solar Energy (2005)
    Pollution Remediation (1994, 2006)

    Computer Technology
    Better Virtual Software (2005)
    Structural Analysis (1976-1998)
    Internet-Connected Ovens (2005)

    Industrial Productivity
    Powdered Lubricants (2005)
    Improved Mine Safety (1978-2008)
    Food Safety Systems (1991)

    --
    -Z
    1. Re:Direct benefits, no; indirect, yes by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, I remember the dark time before internet-connected ovens where cooking and looking at porn were separate actives. Thank God for NASA.

    2. Re:Direct benefits, no; indirect, yes by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 0

      Not to discount your list, but space taxis will provide indirect benefits exactly how? There's just no new technology to be gained from shipping people into orbit and bringing them back; where we need to be pushing frontiers is in the colonization of space and on planets and other potentially-inhabitable bodies, such as moons.

      I don't see space taxis accomplishing that.

    3. Re:Direct benefits, no; indirect, yes by zorro-z · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are making an assumption: namely, that no new technology would be involved in the creation of these 'space taxis.' In other words, you appear to be assuming that a space taxi would be nothing more than a rebranded, perhaps smaller, Space Shuttle.

      But perhaps a space taxi could resemble one which launches from a tanker flying at high altitude. Perhaps it could involve ramjets rather than liquid or solid fuel rockets. Or, perhaps more likely, it could involve an entirely new technology.

      The idea of developing new technology is also, in and of itself, a major benefit of the space program, in that developing new technology will likely require us to also educate a new generation of engineers. It's no co-incidence that Pres. Kennedy's challenge to land a man on the moon + return him safely to earth also yielded a bumper crop of enthusiastic young engineers. This group of engineers is now reaching retirement age, and if the US is to retain its economic position, it needs to replace these engineers w/a new generation.

      Full disclosure: I'm a computer engineer, from a family of engineers. I also went to Space Camp. Twice.

      --
      -Z
    4. Re:Direct benefits, no; indirect, yes by Praseodymn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Every time any NASA proposal has come up, people always make your point. Just because you can't imagine what useful thing will come from this proposal does not mean it won't exist. It just means that it's beyond your imagination. Furthermore, one could reasonably suppose that your argument had been brought up before any of the missions that yielded the useful technologies listed on this list; had those arguments been listened to, we would have none of the technologies, thus the oc's point.

      --
      Sometimes, you can, you go to hell for the rest of your life! That's a true thing.
    5. Re:Direct benefits, no; indirect, yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This list is not too impressive, considering the cost/benefit ratio and thr overall impact of human life generally.

    6. Re:Direct benefits, no; indirect, yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about improving battery life, and shrinking battery size to be used in cars.

      1950: There's no money to be made in that. Lead-acid is good enough for any commercial battery.

      1951: Offer me a gazillion bucks to build a battery light enough to fly on a space probe, on the other hand, and I'll start playing with that chunk of lithium over there.

    7. Re:Direct benefits, no; indirect, yes by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      The REAL engineering challenges are right here on earth. Stop being a day dreamer and rollup your sleeves and address today's issues. Global Warming for example or if that is too mundane then how about cleaning CO2 from the atmosphere. How about scrubbing CO2 from coal plants. How about improving batter life, and shrinking batter size to be used in cars. How about developing algae as a fuel source for cars. How about removing heavy metals from our drinking supply and the oceans.

      Funny that you picked these items. Global Warming theory got a BIG boost because of WHAT GROUP? And much of the monitoring is done by which group and their innovations?

      You want to scrub CO2 from coal plants? Why? I mean NASA would NEVER be interested in scrubbing excess CO2 from a limited amount of air.

      Improving battery life? Yeah, I can not begin to imagine why NASA would help to improve either battery life, Fuel Cells, or even Solar Cells.

      Algae for bio-fuels was being developed back in the 70's for O2 as well as fuel by which group? Oh, I forgot those 4 letters?

      Finally, as to making water palatable, yeah, I just can not imagine NASA spending any money on making sure that water derived from various sources on the moon and mars would need to be pure, so they will have no interest in developing that kind of tech. Thing is, the solutions to NASA's problems with space travel HAVE gone a long ways to helping our planet, and will continue to do so, it we let it.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    8. Re:Direct benefits, no; indirect, yes by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Full disclosure: I'm a computer engineer, from a family of engineers. I also went to Space Camp. Twice.

      You failed the final exam first time too huh? :P

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    9. Re:Direct benefits, no; indirect, yes by Limburgher · · Score: 1

      Full disclosure: I'm a computer engineer, from a family of engineers. I also went to Space Camp. Twice.

      Sooooooooo jealous. :)

      --

      You are not the customer.

  7. What if... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    This is almost reminiscent of the 5th element with Bruce Willis where he drives a cab in the future, which allows to go into space etc...
    all I can say, is I welcome our Taxi driving overlords

    1. Re:What if... by FCAdcock · · Score: 1

      Hey, if I get my own LeeLoo, I don't care how much money is spent!

      --
      --Forest C. Adcock--
    2. Re:What if... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      This is almost reminiscent of the 5th element with Bruce Willis where he drives a cab in the future, which allows to go into space etc...

      Well, Bruce certainly drove a cab. But, alas, the cab he drove couldn't go into space. Which was why he had to "win" that contest to get the tickets to go to that other planet. Which were then stolen, restolen, etc....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:What if... by Holi · · Score: 1

      Did you actually see the movie, because his taxi did not go into space. He used a completely different ship for space travel.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  8. Re:uh-oh by SEWilco · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm sure Republicans and Libertarians are all in favor of private space taxis, whether NASA helps create the technology or others do. Having the government with a monopoly on space taxis is different from private taxis services.

  9. Handy by kevinNCSU · · Score: 3, Funny

    This will come in really handy all those times I have too much to drink and need to get back to my Secret Moon Base.

    And maybe once they figure this out they can build a working escalator at the Reagan Metro stop. Or maybe the Space Taxi's can just moonlight moving luggage up to the platform.

    1. Re:Handy by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      This will come in really handy all those times I have too much to drink and need to get back to my Secret Moon Base.

      Oh look who's Mr. Responsible, not flying drunk!

      Or are you telling me they have police checkpoints in orbit now? Fuck, I knew it was only a matter of time!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:Handy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Secret Moon Base? Did you manage to rent space with Google at the Copernicus Center?

      Just remember that all your gas bills are paid up when you're there...

  10. Where do I get my Multipass? by bodland · · Score: 1

    My friend Leloo needs one.

  11. how fast will it go? by iveygman · · Score: 1

    The important question is: can these taxis make the Kessel Run in under 12 parsecs?

  12. Re:uh-oh by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Nevermind the NeoCons.

    Space tourism seems to be a thing best left to the robber barons. They seem to be doing a better job of it.

    50M is a pittance and NASA needs all it can get for it's own R&D type projects.

    How about a lets-triple-NASAs-budget stimulus package?

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  13. Re:uh-oh by Icegryphon · · Score: 1

    0/10
    Are you even trying?
    Or are you just mentally ill?

  14. As if I didn't have enough trouble... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

    Hailing a Cab when its 5 yards away, and now they want to put them in SPACE?

  15. Someone has to build the vehicles by hellfire · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First, engineers and scientists get jobs, and practice their craft. And do you think the scientists and engineers assembled the rockets with Erector sets in their own private labs? No, they had manufacturers build the parts and the craft. You have small manufacturers building the parts, and large ones assembling the pieces, with distributors in the middle moving the material and making sure it's all on time and available when needed.

    And then those people go home and spend their money on stuff...

    The best kind of stimulus is the kind of stimulus that puts people in jobs. And if you think space taxis are nothing but an idea for the very rich to go into space, just realize that the next thing we need to figure out in space is how to get people into space both safely and cheaply. Hey, get people safely and cheaply into space? That means more satellites, more repairs, more tourism for the common man, more economic opportunities.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:Someone has to build the vehicles by G33kGuy · · Score: 0, Redundant

      So you are saying that a stimulus to have a huge amount of people dump water from one ocean to the other with buckets would be a good stimulus because it would provide jobs?

      --
      Good sigs are hard to think of, bad sigs are a waste of time, that is why I invented, this lousy rhyme.
    2. Re:Someone has to build the vehicles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod up

    3. Re:Someone has to build the vehicles by rotide · · Score: 1
      So you are saying that dumping water from one ocean to another would potentially lead to the development of new technologies? Or further the development of ideas already on the table? Or potentially create a profitable business ferrying people and/or objects into orbit/space?

      What happens, if the off chance happens, and humans develop a super cheap and efficient means to getting into space due to this program? What happens if it becomes just as cheap to get into space as it does to fly a cargo jet around the country? Or, more realistically, it just becomes a fraction of the cost it does today?

      But I guess you were just trying to be witty with your analogy, but it just doesn't hold water. Sorry.

    4. Re:Someone has to build the vehicles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'd prefer that private investors footed the bill

      But they are! ...every single one of them...

    5. Re:Someone has to build the vehicles by G33kGuy · · Score: 1

      I should have quoted the post. I was referring to the statement "The best kind of stimulus is the kind of stimulus that puts people in jobs." I wasn't disputing the usefulness of this stimulus.

      --
      Good sigs are hard to think of, bad sigs are a waste of time, that is why I invented, this lousy rhyme.
    6. Re:Someone has to build the vehicles by pseudorand · · Score: 1

      > just realize that the next thing we need to figure out in space is how to get people into space both safely and cheaply.

      No, the next thing we need to figure out is why the hell anyone would want to go to space (save the novelty of it). Until we terraform the moon, mine on the asteroid belt or develop cost-effective agriculture on a space station, there is no practical reason to go to space and surely nothing to justify spending my hard-earned $$$ on it. I always been a liberal democrat but this is enough to make me switch sides.

    7. Re:Someone has to build the vehicles by wasabu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The best kind of stimulus is the kind of stimulus that puts people in jobs.

      Load of nonsense. Bleeding the money from private enterprise (ie taxes) to 'stimulate' parts of the economy only takes money away from other parts. This is called misallocation of capital because the power of the market is stifled, and always leads to LOSS of jobs, because the 'economy' of money is put in the hands of idiots. The desires and needs of millions of people are at the root of a truely free market. A handful of useless beurocrats by definition cannot best allocate capital. "Stimulus" is just a new word for the same old trick of stealing public money to line the pockets of your friends. Every dollar of capital misallocation will prolong Depression 2.0. If there is a market for space travel (between paycheques), private enterprise will find it and do it efficiently, for far less.

    8. Re:Someone has to build the vehicles by Yetihehe · · Score: 1

      just realize that the next thing we need to figure out in space is how to get people into space both safely and cheaply.

      No, the next thing we need to figure out is why the hell anyone would want to go to space (save the novelty of it). Until we terraform the moon, mine on the asteroid belt or develop cost-effective agriculture on a space station, there is no practical reason to go to space and surely nothing to justify spending my hard-earned $$$ on it.

      If we can't go cheaply into space, how can we terraform moon or mine asteroid belt? FIRST you have to have cheap space travel, THEN you can mine asteroid belt economically.

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    9. Re:Someone has to build the vehicles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. For that matter, why does the government invest in museums? What's the point of going to a museum, save the novelty of it? Do you really learn any more from looking at a dinosaur skeleton in person than you would looking at one in a book, or on the internet? Close the Smithsonians, I say!

    10. Re:Someone has to build the vehicles by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      > just realize that the next thing we need to figure out in space is how to get people into space both safely and cheaply.

      No, the next thing we need to figure out is why the hell anyone would want to go to space (save the novelty of it). Until we terraform the moon, mine on the asteroid belt or develop cost-effective agriculture on a space station, there is no practical reason to go to space and surely nothing to justify spending my hard-earned $$$ on it. I always been a liberal democrat but this is enough to make me switch sides.

      What is the point of a baby?

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    11. Re:Someone has to build the vehicles by lennier · · Score: 1

      "So you are saying that dumping water from one ocean to another would potentially lead to the development of new technologies? "

      "Potentially" is an important word in that sentence.

      What's happened to the space technologies that have ALREADY been paid for? Do we have any idea? NASA and USAF sure seem to have invested a whole lot of money doing.... stufff... which they don't seem to want to talk about and which never quite gets 'finished'.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-30
      http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/nasp.htm
      http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/waverider/examples.shtml

      But I'm sure it's all in the public interest.

      "What happens if it becomes just as cheap to get into space as it does to fly a cargo jet around the country?"

      Very little? Because you can grow, eg, corn and soy and cotton and cattle on Earth but you can't grow much in hard vacuum?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    12. Re:Someone has to build the vehicles by lennier · · Score: 1

      "If we can't go cheaply into space, how can we terraform moon or mine asteroid belt? "

      CAN we terraform the moon, is the question we should ask before we ask "how".

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    13. Re:Someone has to build the vehicles by jdigriz · · Score: 1

      The moon is too small to terraform, it wouldn't hold an atmosphere. However, self-contained settlements,mining stations and robot outposts are eminently practical. Now yes, anything that we mine would cost more than the equivalent mined on earth, but it would cost far less than the equivalent mined and refined on earth and then launched into space at 20,000 dollars a lb. So the reason to go to space is to build infrastructure to harvest minerals and energy that a) make the subsequent larger missions cheaper, b) enable a permanent human presence in space (all this up and down business is very expensive) and c) prepare the way for the follow-on missions by creating a manufacturing and resupply base. Oh, and as for "why would we want to go to space"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_solar_power With this technology the U.S. could become an energy-exporting country again if we invested heavily in it.

    14. Re:Someone has to build the vehicles by abuelos84 · · Score: 0

      Maybe not terraform, but we can build habitable spaces, that's why we are checking out how much and  what kind of ice is up there, meanwhile we need an efficient way of go and return from space.
      And 50 Mil. is NOTHING when you talk about US's Budget. Even now with this end of the world supercrysis 2049.

      --
      -- Counting backwards since 1984!
    15. Re:Someone has to build the vehicles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Burgers?

  16. Buy your burgers. by boeroboy · · Score: 3, Funny

    You'll see that money when the engineers who win the contest lay down an Abe Lincoln in front of you at McDonalds.

    Your employer will never see the money they spent on you while you were on slashdot either.

  17. Actually, they do not by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is a minimal amount of money for human rated launchers. Between SpaceX and Scaled Composites, this IS coming (Though to be honest, I would really like to see SpaceDev finish their work on their h-20).

    What really IS needed IS a space taxi AND a tug. Russia has the idea correct. Augustine should be pushing Obama/NASA to buy several Bigelows to attach to the ISS. First buy the sundancer and attach it to the ISS to hold cargo (keep hatch closed except when needing to access). Then buy a BA-330 for human space. That is all that is needed to get them going in orbit. These are perfect for playing space taxis, if we attach a tug to these.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Actually, they do not by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Augustine should be pushing Obama/NASA to buy several Bigelows to attach to the ISS.

      You can't buy what doesn't exist.

    2. Re:Actually, they do not by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Orion does not exist and yet we buy.
      Dragon does not exist and again, we buy.
      Heck, Tesla Sedan does not exist and ppl are buying.
      So, yes, you CAN buy what does not exists.
      By buying it now from Bigelow, it will push him to start his assembly line. He has slowed it down, waiting for launchers. By combining this with a push on the human launchers and we are looking at the private launches going cheap. Basically, we can continue to throw money all over the place (X-33, Ares I, etc) and constantly shift with the next admin, OR, we can at least cause the private industry to get started and then NASA can go back to dealing with the idiots in congress/admin.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Actually, they do not by georgewilliamherbert · · Score: 1

      There are almost 200 customer delivered Tesla sedans on the road today (one owned by someone about 2 miles from my house, saw it being delivered a few weeks ago). They're all over the roads in Palo Alto if you happen to work here, though some of those are undoubtedly factory test drives.

      It may take a while to get yours if you plunk down your $110,000 today, but it's a real shipping product.

    4. Re:Actually, they do not by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      No. There are ROADSTERS on the road, not the sedan. And like the sedan, ppl were buying it before even the prototype was produced.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. Re:uh-oh by thecross · · Score: 0

    Something tells me shooting an old person into the sun would be at least several orders of magnitude times more expensive than their health care.

  20. That will not happen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of the money goes into the pockets of the executives.

    $50 million is nothing. That money will be eaten up by administrative functions.

  21. Taxation without representation. by zymano · · Score: 0, Troll

    Taxing from hardworking real middle class to give some government agency to BURN our money is ridiculously CRIMINAL.

    The way Congress manipulates our taxes to BUY VOTES is wrong.

    1. Re:Taxation without representation. by grayshirtninja · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean taxiation?

  22. You can't smell a cabby in a pressure suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are some drivers in NYC whose body odor will make your eyes water.

  23. nostalgic... by whopub · · Score: 0

    hope Arkanoid makes the short list.

    Ah, Arkanoid, the single player version of pong. I really miss that one.

  24. Hey taxi! by kumichou · · Score: 1

    Pad one please

    1. Re:Hey taxi! by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 1

      Amen!

      Up please!

      Or, when running over a potential customer: "Hey! Hey! Hey!"

      --
      the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
  25. Dragon by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seems like SpaceX's Dragon capsule is a good start in that direction already. It's intended to carry seven to/from the ISS.

    And it has the advantage of being under development already, and under construction already.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  26. Squeezing money from a vacuum by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    In space, no one can hear you ka-ching!

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  27. Another way to work? by CandyKisses · · Score: 1

    They came up with this option in case you wanted to get to your job on Klaxon 5 a littler faster than you would by taking the space subway.

  28. More wasting money by tehdude2000 · · Score: 0, Troll

    NASA is whining that their budget is too small to complete the Constellation program and then they waste money on pie-in-the-sky crap like this. Stimulus money or not this should have gone to something FAR more practical

  29. Re:uh-oh by drukawski · · Score: 0

    So basically your saying the government needs a +4 trainer with infinite power and ore cheats. I suppose next you'll ask for instant build time and no cool downs on our super weapons.

  30. Cash-For-Clunkers conspiracy by adosch · · Score: 0

    I bet this is the government's conspiracy theory secret plan to flip all those 'cash-for-clunkers' cars for good use and pocket the $50 Billion on booze, hookers and free lunches.

  31. Re:Plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Caveman Ugh-lympics was awesome! One of my all time favorite games. The mate-toss was awesome, especially the butch cave woman who tossed her geeky husband!

  32. Not a good idea. by catmistake · · Score: 0

    There are cheaper ways to risk your life for a thrill. Space, everyone seems to forget, is the most dangerous (and expensive) place a human can be. Tourism revenue just doesn't cut it for a reason to do this.

  33. Re:Plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Elite or Frontier: Elite II (I know... it's not a c64 game)...

  34. Re:uh-oh by religious+freak · · Score: 1

    Are you aware of her "death squads" comment? GP was making an satirical analogy (and IMHO, a fairly valid one) about her comments related to the health care bill, which were completely incongruous with fact. I really miss the old Republican party... I could actually vote for them occasionally.

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
  35. Space Taxi - C64 by Danathar · · Score: 1
  36. Not this again... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    Most of those 'benefits' have nothing to do with the space program other than they were developed at an agency that also happens to run the space program.
     
    The NASA PAO is also a past master at making it appear that NASA developed technology, when in reality all NASA did was applied research on already existing technology. (For example, freeze drying - first commercially used back in the 1930's!)
     
    The magazine reference in your link (Spinoffs) is very aptly titled - because it's mostly spin.

  37. This Isn't a Bad Idea by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

    The economy is terrible, and some may say "WE'RE SPENDING MONIES ON SPACE TAXIS WTF?!?" But, the fact is, the people need to spend to stimulate the economy. Unfortunately, we need to be a LITTLE less frugal in order to help the economy. If NASA can put the ride prices at, say, $50 - less would be better of course, maybe sell 10 tickets at $20 per ride - then hopefully they could convince Joe the Plumber types to go on a ride to space. That is the price of a local venue show ticket, and apparently live music ticket sales are doing swell. If they can get people to do this, they can help stimulate the economy - but it has to be cheap, accessible, and interesting.

    The other factor that would help is advertising: NASA tells you you are helping the economy AND that your money helps fund new research and technology - and really, if they want it to work, they'll HAVE to invest in more efficient ways to get to space, and in theory that tech would trickle down to the general manufacturing industry and help bolster our economy by making cheaper products of higher quality to export.

  38. Re:uh-oh by WinPimp2K · · Score: 1

    NASA will have three reasons for doing this:

    1> they will indeed spend all the money on Admin costs (remember what NASA is an acronym for - esp the last letter)
    2> NASA has a vested interest in maintaining their monopoly (they don't have one - but they think they do) on manned spaceflight - so all proposed Space Taxis will be deemed unworkable.
    3> After filing off the serial numbers, NASA will steal any good ideas and massage them into something that will require 5 - 10 years of increasingly expensive studies - to be funded at taxpayer expense now that those pesky entrepreurs have been dealt with.

    --

    You either believe in rational thought or you don't
  39. Re:uh-oh by Froboz23 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The escape velocity for Earth is only 7 miles per second. With advanced railgun technology, it might be possible to launch a human into the sun at a surprisingly affordable price, once the up-front R&D investment is made. A military grade railgun today can fire a 2kg projectile at 3km/s with 9MJ of energy. To fire a 75kg human at 11.2km/s would require 1.26 GJ of energy, so clearly more research is needed. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if a railgun would work on biological material. It may be necessary to coax the person into a metallic capsule that would be more responsive to the railgun's electrical field.

    As an added bonus, this all-electrical solution is also environmentally friendly. No potentially hazardous rocket propellants to deal with, and the energy to fire the railgun could be generated during off-peak hours to further reduce costs. I think this solution would be far more economical than using conventional chemical-based rocket propulsion to launch old people into the sun.

    --
    Take off every Sig. For great justice.
  40. the number 1 priority... by snooo53 · · Score: 1

    The things you listed are certainly worthy investments. But then again, everything you listed is ultimately vulnerable, and shortsighted. We have the technology now, at this point in history, to put people in space and insure a future for the human race, and indeed every living being on earth, and everything that has been created as a product of those. You never know when that opportunity will be taken away, be it climate change, nuclear war, disease, apathy, or a collapse of civilization. The time to go is now, while we still can! It should be the #1 priority of the human race.

    --
    The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
  41. Drunk astronauts by owlstead · · Score: 1

    50 million spend just to get those drunk astronauts safely home. What a waste. Just limit the amount of Vodka they are allowed in their luggage.

  42. Re:uh-oh by addaon · · Score: 1

    Also, when you figure out reentry, you get a supply of human-flavored jam and jelly.

    --

    I've had this sig for three days.
  43. Re:uh-oh by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    The escape velocity for Earth is only 7 miles per second. With advanced railgun technology, it might be possible to launch a human into the sun at a surprisingly affordable price, once the up-front R&D investment is made. A military grade railgun today can fire a 2kg projectile at 3km/s with 9MJ of energy. To fire a 75kg human at 11.2km/s would require 1.26 GJ of energy, so clearly more research is needed.

    Yes, I'm aware that this is a joke. But...

    11.2 km/s is about escape speed from Earth. It is nowhere near enough to drop someone (or something) into the Sun. For that, you're talking somewhere over 30 km/s.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  44. Re:Plans by _damnit_ · · Score: 1

    "Mail Order Monsters" would be nice please. Much better than UFC or WWE.

    --


    _damnit_

    It's my job to freeze you. -- Logan's Run
  45. Space Taxi? by JimTheta · · Score: 1

    Did someone say... Space Taxi?

  46. Re:uh-oh by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      You could save even more if they were cremated first ;)

      Maybe enough to guarantee solar orbit...

    SB

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  47. Rocket fuel on the moon by Dollyknot · · Score: 1
    There is lots of hydrogen and oxygen on the moon they combine to make lovely rocket fuel.

    Bert Rutan proved we can get relatively safely and cheaply out of the atmosphere. Using the potential fuel on the moon, we could make a space tug accelerate a pay load to escape velocity.

    The reason space is so expensive is, to achieve escape velocity requires rocket fuel be lifted from the earth's surface.

    --
    It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
  48. Is the meter still running in orbit? by strannik · · Score: 1

    I can see the movies now:

    A L I E N 5:
    F O R E I G N
    D R I V E R
    "In Space, No One Can Hear You Whistle"