Slashdot Mirror
NASA's Ares 1 To Be Reborn As the Liberty Commercial Launcher
MarkWhittington writes "When President Barack Obama canceled the Constellation space exploration program, it was thought the Ares 1, the much-maligned planned rocket that would have launched the Orion into low Earth orbit, was dead and gone. However, it looks like ATK, the aerospace firm that manufactures solid rocket boosters for NASA, has entered into a joint venture with Astrium, the European firm that builds the Ariane V to build a commercial version of the Ares 1."
from European powers, I'm giving up and joining the fringe-right libertarians.
It's not Ariane V, it's Ariane 5. And also not Ares 1, but Ares I... don't do it, it looks & feels bad.
(the end result is not really Ares anyway... yes, it will use the solid stage from ATK. But the rest would be mostly Ariane 5-derived, it seems)
PS. WTF, "Liberty" rocket?! How on Earth Astrium agreed to such ridiculous name?... (will any possible manned spacecraft launched by this rocket include "freedom fries" in its menu?)
One that hath name thou can not otter
Why do you hate free market competition so much?
One that hath name thou can not otter
The faster we launch people into space for no particular reason, the quicker we can get rid of those annoying fossil fuels under the ground!
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
The point is that if we spent 10 years and billions of dollars developing this technology, then declare it "a dead end" and give up on it, only to turn around and pay other countries to utilize the technology that we ourselves paid to develop... then I am completely disheartened by the leadership of our space program and I begin to see the point of the hardcore libertarians who claim that we have no right to be spending tax dollars on a space program of any kind in the first place.
Mostly just the solid stage comes from Ares / ATK (...something which was supposedly "virtually ready" anyways, according to proponents). Astrium just seems to provide a stage of their own.
Why do you hate free market competition so much?
One that hath name thou can not otter
Free market competition is great - when theres no foreign national controlling it and it is purely domestic.
is it also stale and outdated?
So now you post as anon, why do you cower, or whatever it was you used to post?
From a quick glance at announced specifications - this new rocket will have virtually the same launch mass to LEO as Ariane 5 ... so there really doesn't seem to be much of a reason for Astrium. Other then selling their technology of course, basically in the form of Ariane-5 core.
This is till pork, it matters most for ATK.
One that hath name thou can not otter
I'd be interested in hearing the rational for the idea that "we have no right to be spending tax dollars on a space program." Why the space program? What else do we supposedly not have the "right" to spend tax dollars on? Or are you claiming that we have no right to be collecting taxes?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The new rocket appears to have virtually the same planned mass to LEO as Ariane 5 ... so not much reason for Astrium. Other then selling to operate their technology of course, basically in the form of Ariane-5 core (Free Market! Wait, what, it's good only when you have a free hand to operate in other places? Oh, got it... nvm, carry on)
This is still local pork, it matters most for ATK.
One that hath name thou can not otter
My friend, I believe the lines you're looking for are:
"slashdot = stagnated," and
"...what are you afraid of?,"
Followed up with a brilliant bon mot about someone's mum's face.
To be fair, theres a world of difference between a rocket that launches crew and one that doesn't. Crew-rating costs are out now, which saves a ton of money. It's also not going to be as capable, with 44 klb of payload to LEO rather than 56. So while it will probably be a good launch vehicle, that doesn't mean it was good for Constellation.
"Open the pod by doors, Hal" > "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave" sudo "Open the pod bay doors, Hal" > alright
"so there really doesn't seem to be much of a reason for Astrium"
There certainly is, for Republican Senators from Utah.
The point is that if we spent 10 years and billions of dollars developing this technology, then declare it "a dead end" and give up on it, only to turn around and pay other countries to utilize the technology that we ourselves paid to develop
Isn't that basically the story of all heavy industry in the USA? Everything from steel mills to steel trashcans? Automotive industry? Most of the microelectronic industry?
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
people bought the pinto too, just cause someone is dumb enough to buy it does not make it awesome
Auntie Beeb's article has pictures.
Naw, pretty sure that most of that we made some good profit off of first before we sold it off. This we gave up on before it was even done (maybe with good reason, maybe not. I guess we'll have to wait and see).
Man does not explore for "no particular reason". Man explores for personal gain.
We are going into space to make money. What it is that is going to make us money is as unknown to us as the wealth of America was known to Christopher Columbus. But we know that there is a high likelihood that something worth some money is going to be found.
And hell, it just might be fun.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
The rationale is something along the lines that the government can only legitimately spend money on defense and law enforcement, i.e. maintaining the monopoly on the use of force, and everything else should be privately funded or not exist at all, including (for instance) health care, basic scientific research, childrens' education, parks, roads, the fire department, etc. etc.
Personally, I think that's exactly as out of touch with reality as Marxism is, but it's a popular opinion (or perhaps a popular troll) around here for some reason.
The Ariane 5 is already man rated as it was designed to be the booster for Hermes. You could easily slap an Orion on top and call it a day without having this international make-work project.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Have fun dealing with some of the premier assholes of the U.S. space industry.
On the other hand, I suppose ATK can't really lobby Astrium the way the lobby the U.S. Congress....
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
The point is that if we spent 10 years and billions of dollars developing this technology, then declare it "a dead end" and give up on it, only to turn around and pay other countries to utilize the technology that we ourselves paid to develop... then I am completely disheartened by the leadership of our space program and I begin to see the point of the hardcore libertarians who claim that we have no right to be spending tax dollars on a space program of any kind in the first place.
So you are against funding research of any kind or just space? Much other research funded by the government is then developed by private enterprise. The reason the government has a space program, instead of just funding it, is the interest by DoD.
If it ends up saving NASA tons of money - what's the problem?
This is blinging
I didn't say I agreed (yet).
The basic idea of the hardcore libertarians (I know several) is that taking money from individual A (via taxes) to pay for the pet program of individual B is essentially government approved and mandated theft and robbery. I've never been able to get out of them exactly what the dividing line is between "pet project" and "societal necessity", but it seems to me that they generally believe that almost everything we currently spend money on falls towards the former rather than the latter.
On a discussion specifically about spaceflight funding, one particular friend of mine asked what right I (i.e. the government) had to take money from him for a project that does not benefit him and that he would not have chosen to support given the opportunity to choose. I pointed out the ways that the space program had benefited him, but he kept coming back to the same question of "why are you spending my money on something I don't want", and I was never really able to give him a reasonable answer.
Also, the proposed second stage would have to be completely redesigned to allow air start (it is a ground stage).
Basically, a lot of work for not much benefit (other than to keep ATK's 5-segment booster development going).
Since a considerable amount of tax dollars went into the development of the Ares 1, it's hard to see how you can call it "free market competition".
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
No, just No.
This rocket can be described in a few words: it is a desperate attempt from ATK to find a possible justification for their 5- segment booster.
That is all. There is no technical merit for this rocket.
I can guess the design process went like this:
"Hey, We need an upper stage for our 5 segment booster!"
"How about that Ariane 5 center ( ! ) stage?"
"Sure!"
The press release is an exercise in PR. Flexible, Commercial, hell, the name is LIBERTY!
There are a few things that make this rocket BAD.
The Vulcain engine is not air startable. They will have to fix this; it is not clear how much this will cost
You don't want a Solid rocket engine for manned launches. They are not able to do a hold down test before launch. Once it is lit, you are going, whether it is working or not.
With this rocket, there is once again no Horizontal stacking.
It lifts less than just the ariane 5 as it is RIGHT NOW!
The Ariane center stage will have to be radically altered - right now it is build for bearing the load of boosters on its sides. Now it will be pushed up?
Really, this is ATK lobbying and marketing. It is just not efficient, safe or even a good idea.
If NASA adopts this it will be because of the ATK lobbying lawmakers, not because of technical merit. Because it just has less merit than anything else currently being discussed. They want a piece of the pie, and they will ask for a bigger piece of it while paying less for it then other ideas being discussed.
All in all, I hope this bombs hard.
That is not a rationale. It is a simple statement of opinion. In order to be a rationale, you would need to explain WHY the government can only spend money on defense and law enforcement and, presumably, law creation... but what laws? What would actually be illegal in a libertarian society? Harm, obviously, but what is harm? Does it harm me if you pollute? What if you use child labor and my moral code prohibits it, when you undercut me in the market, is that harm? What if you decide to form some White Citizens Councils and drive all blacks out of business? Certainly that would be considered harm, right? Or would it just be the free market at work? In a libertarian society, what would keep a majority from economically coercing and dominating a minority? Or is that considered okay in libertarian society, as long as the majority uses market forces to oppress the minority?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
So, the Liberty will be able to put about 20,000 kg into LEO for about $9,000 per Kg. The Falcon 9 can put just over half that (10K kg or so) into LEO for somewhere between $5,400 - $6,000 per kg, depending on the load factor. (Numbers pulled from the SpaceX web site.)
Of course, there are other costs besides the raw launch cost (insurance, etc.), but it will be interesting to see how these two vehicles compete. For things like ISS resupply missions, it may make sense to just shoot the Falcon twice.
Once the Falcon 9 heavy gets into the mix (32,000 kg to LEO for $95M), ATK & Astrium will need to sharpen their pencils a bit. That'll be one and a half times the payload for half the cost or so.
Price wars for space launch capacity? I can't wait to watch!
Yes, and it was a failure. This is a new project, saving what is possible from the previous one (and also fishing for components on the free market) ... what, now you want all that past money to be totally wasted?
One that hath name thou can not otter
Does your friend have any idea how many modern inventions were spawned from the space program? He only thinks it does not benefit him. He sounds like the type of person who would claim that nothing benefits him, and therefore he shouldn't have to pay taxes at all. But the thing is, he is benefiting. He could always shop around for a better deal. Society is offering him a deal, he is taking the deal, and then complaining that he doesn't want to pay. Well, the first step is NOT TAKING THE DEAL! He is free to find a better one, in any country on earth. We have a free market of governance, and anyone with useful skills and some capital can go nearly anywhere in the world and become a citizen. So why is your friend still here? He must like the deal, and he is simply trying to negotiate a better bargain for himself.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It's not the leadership of our space program. It was obama that decided it was a "dead end". NASA did good things for this country, then politics took over.
I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong
Oh well at least they can rant a rave about how america gave aways this technology to the EU. An when astronauts die because we are again using a liquid based rocket like delta or something similar they can again complain that the president was wrong to cut the program. So many opinions with so many options and so little money.
I don't know how popular it is. Libertarianism always has a populist streak in it, but usually it gets turfed as soon as people realize that Real Libertarians (TM) mean their entitlements as well. It's always easy to say "I don't want my tax dollars paying for x 's schools/parks/roads/etc.", but when the seduced find out that Real Libertarians (TM) are also out to kill taxes going to their schools/parks/roads/etc., it suddenly dawns on them that Libertarianism isn't nearly as attractive as it sounds.
Frankly, I doubt a society could long survive on the purer forms of Libertarianism. I guess the US was sort of a Libertarian system prior to the Civil War, but I'd posit that the considerable pressures put on the Federal Government by a good many of those Libertarian policies, particularly the very strong States Rights arguments that guys like Madison and Jefferson had been in favor of, were in fact the underlying structural problems.
That's not to say I'm in favor of Big Government, per se, or of creeping intrusions of one level into another, and I can certainly appreciate why Obama's health care plan, for instance, really does intrude Federal powers overly much into the business of the States. At the same time, the hallmark of successful modern democracies is not obsessively narrow ideological systems of governance, but rather compromises (ie. free enterprise, but with some sort of socialistic welfare safety net to assure that the lower classes are not entirely left behind). One must govern pragmatically, but there's damned little pragmatism in full-blown Libertarianism. They want the Federal Government hog-tied so tightly that it would become pretty much impotent, and don't seem to realize it was precisely that problem that lead to the Civil War.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I didn't say it was a bad thing. I merely pointed out that private firms resurrecting some or all of Ares 1 is not a victory for the free market, not in any way shape or form. I think it's damned good that someone is going to use this so it doesn't end up being some graveyarded parts and a bunch of files and blueprints archived in some dusty warehouse. But whatever this is, it is not a good example of free market success.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
NASA and "save money" are like oil and water. NASA was born under the blank check "just get it done, price be damned" environment of the cold war era. I don't see them as having ever truly moved away from it, not to menion they are now politicized all to hell and have all the penalties of "You'll do it this way because senator asshat from arkansas pulled some favors to have congress vote this way in order to keep jobs in his district".
Aside from that, it works out like this:
Launching a rocket costs X dollars.
if you are going to launch a rocket because someone else wants you to, not because you want to, one would assume that you're going to charge them X + Y dollars, in order to pay your expenses AND make it worth you while to do favors for them.
I think we can assume that if random European country can launch the rocket for X dollars, so could we, so by launching the rocket we designed ourselves, we'd save Y dollars.
The exception to this is, of course, if for some reason it's much cheaper (i.e. more than Y) to launch a rocket in that country than here... at which point you really have to ask yourself "why is it so much cheaper? Is it purely that they're paying a lot less to workers in that country, or are we into areas of 'savings' impacting safety and craftmanship?"
This is political rocket science!
Or is that considered okay in libertarian society, as long as the majority uses market forces to oppress the minority?
Yes. The unique difference between nazism and libertarianism is method.
Unfortunately there are a lot of middle class fools around here.
What the heck are you talking about? It's called a JOINT VENTURE. An american company (ATK) provides the first stage. An european company provides the upper Stage. Each one developed its part. You didn't pay a dime to develop the Ariane 5 core stage!
Capitalism is based BOTH in competition and cooperation. This is a case of cooperation. If both companies get a profit, and NASA gets a cheaper/safer way to put astronauts and cargo in orbit it's a win-win situation.
NASA has never been great for the "free market." NASA is, and has always been, about making the breakthroughs that needed to be made no matter the cost.
We've gotten more out of NASA's research than we ever expected, and NASA has actually been worth every penny we've ever spent on it. Nowhere in the private sector would the research for any major NASA breakthrough ever have managed to come; the private sector would have taken one look at the development cost and said "screw it, wait for someone else to do the difficult stuff first" and only then come by to make it "cheaper to do" later on - which is precisely what happened, time and again.
The problem is that because its results and benefits aren't immediately realized in a 2-year or 4-year timeframe, politicians on the "cut cut cut rawr rawr kill the government" platform always see it as "wasted money." This is much like the way that retarded "government representatives" scream about how "education funding is wasted" because spending more money doesn't instantly improve results, while ignoring every bit of research that shows quite conclusively that cutting education funding to below a certain minimum guarantees the worst results possible.
The end result today is that NASA's been hamstrung under the "do more with less" attitude for so long, as ordered by blind nincompoops who are insulated from the results of their own decisions, that they're stuck trying to "do more" with mere pennies for the tasks they are continually given.
It's certainly in the direction of "free market success"... and consider how most of the cherished, really really private, space companies also greatly depend on old developments (Bigelow is NASA Transhab; SpaceX, iirc, basing their engine tech on some earlier ideas / generally grabbing lots of existing engineering talent in the area; new Taurus rocket using ex-Soviet engines and the first stage developed by Ukrainians)
;p (don't tell them that James Web Space Telescope will launch on Ariane 5 ;p )
Just slight funny in how it makes the semi-nationalistic motives of armchair stalinist libertarians shining through
One that hath name thou can not otter
Your equation leaves out about 12000 other factors also involved in building a rocket.
X+Y can be cheaper then X+Y+Maint+Dev+transport
All large machines cost money just sitting around.
Different country have different priorities. So leveraging one of there systems or visa versa is a perfectly sound financial decision.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So what you're saying is:
1) If NASA builds something, they'll waste money.
2) If the private sector does it, they'll overcharge.
3) If they're not overcharging, they're probably cutting corners.
So... what's your solution?
Odd, the "the government can't do anything right" are usually the ones who kill cool science programs.
It was overpriced, and behind schedule. the only reason to keep it was pork to congressional districts. Obama made the correct call, but the people getting the kickbacks didn't like it.
Honestly, my solution is to kill every politician within 1500 yards of NASA engineers, write the remaining NASA (After the politician purge) a check that the DOD would envy, and say "get our asses to Mars".
But then, I'm a romantic.
This describes US economic history since Ronald Reagan. It's not specific to the space program.
In fact, according to the leading geniuses on the political Right, getting government out of the space program and letting "private industry" do what they want with it is completely consistent with the "free market".
I'm with you, though. I believe really big and important things, like space exploration, health care, education, research, etc should be in the government's wheelhouse. We cannot count on private industry, much less private capital, to do the right thing by us.
You are welcome on my lawn.
In a libertarian society, what would keep a majority from economically coercing and dominating a minority?
The inability to use any kind of force to keep the minority oppressed. That's why the market can never truly oppress like a government can.
To be fair, theres a world of difference between a rocket that launches crew and one that doesn't.
No there isn't, unless you insist on using a massive SRB. I believe the proposed 'man-rating' costs for launching Onion on Atlas and Delta were on the order of a few tens of millions of dollars.
Crew-rating costs are out now, which saves a ton of money.
Only if you insist on using a massive SRB.
Did you not read the bit about the White Citizens Councils? People used economic coercion to destroy other people's lives without having to resort to violence. It actually happened, the free market was used to oppress and destroy people, you can't simply rewrite history to agree with your political/economic theories. It amazes me that people can discuss "market forces" and, nearly in the same breath, deny that the market has any kind of force. It astounds me that people will simply deny history in order to make their cherished ideologies seem more plausible.
Fact: White people used the power of the free market to destroy the lives of middle class black business people.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I'm surprised that all the armchair rocket scientists that posted their poorly thought out rants on the failure or Ares were wrong.
Wrong about what? Ares I failed hard. And this new rocket still has yet to fly much less compete in a market with a number of established successful competitors. Before you whine that the realists are "elitists", perhaps you should provide some support for your arguments?
The story seems to be very much about a manned rocket ... and BTW, the only way for SRBs to pass man-rating standards was to relax the standards.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Those hardcore libertarians clearly do not understand the term "cost of doing business". Taxes are the cost of doing business, a kind of a rent for the infrastructure and opportunities they have by living in in a particular society. If they pay rent for a flat, do they also complain about the landlord not using the money for their benefit? They are always free to move to a cheaper place to leave.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Fact: Most modern Libertarians don't have a problem with racism.
...to do drugs.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
ORLY? I won't argue, because that's not the point. The point is, the majority can use the free market to enforce tyranny on the minority. If the White Citizen's Councils could use the free market to destroy blacks, any majority could use it to destroy any minority. Thankfully, we live in a constitutional republic, and the Federal Government stepped in to stop the oppression. I don't want to see the clock turned back on that one.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I think we can sum up many of the comments as follows. "How dare ATK try to use "our" commercial space subsidies to keep your jobs after you lost direct government support, instead of dying quietly. That would have been much more convenient for our particular views/politics."
*shrug* I doubt it'll go anywhere, but if they can convince someone to try to make a go of it, more power to them.
There are a few things that make this rocket BAD.
The Vulcain engine is not air startable. They will have to fix this; it is not clear how much this will cost
They are not planning to use Vulcain. Vulcain is used in Ariane V's FIRST stage, they are using the SECOND stage.
The engine they are using is both air-startable AND re-startable.
The Ariane center stage will have to be radically altered - right now it is build for bearing the load of boosters on its sides. Now it will be pushed up?
again, wrong.
The ariane V second stage sits in top of it's first stage.
The stacking is quite similar.
Ariane V has "2.5" stages:
0) Boosters.
1) first stage (vulcain engine)
2) second stage
This new rocket will differ from Ariane V by having one huge solid rocket engine(from ares 1) replacing the boosters an first stage.
Do you have any fucking clue about engineering at all? You're nothing but an ignorant politician who doesn't understand that the costs of breakthrough engineering cannot be accurately predicted, because the discovery of the problems that need to be solved occurs during the development process, not before. Real leaders set the goal, face the difficulties, and follow through when the going gets rough. Assholes whine about the costs, give up on the goal, and spend their rhetoric forcing others into failure.
there are other costs besides the raw launch cost (insurance, etc.), but it will be interesting to see how these two vehicles compete. For things like ISS resupply missions, it may make sense to just shoot the Falcon twice.
vitiligo
This is just one of multiple attempts by ESA to get NASA to fund their work. In addition, is one of the few American space companies that makes NOTHING when it comes to launch vehicles. They are pretty much a worthless company in that arena.
I would much rather see NASA, COTS, etc. be awarded to American companies that produce the majority of the work in America. That would be SpaceX, Boeing, and even SNC's Dream Chaser, which will launch on Delta, Atlas and F9H. My guess is that those 3 will be the big winners in the human launch systems.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I can't wait to see the first one blow up thanks to the mixing of imperial / metric units.
Obama's Augustine Commission suggested that NASA's future budget will be relegated to low earth orbit missions. This means future NASA missions such as Juno (Jupiter mission), MAVEN and Curiosity (both Mars missions) will have to reach their destination on rockets from the European Space Agency, China National Space Agency, or the Russian Federal Space Agency.
1) NASA abandoned this design because of thrust oscillation problems that could have destroyed the rocket. 2) The Ariane 5 with an Orion third stage already has LEO capability 3) The solid fuel booster hasn't enough thrust to launch this. 4) ? 5) Profit!
cool sunk costs fallacy bro.
Some realize it and glory in it. Slavery wasn't something that just those evil Southern states did, it was everywhere. The ability for individual states to abolish it, by themselves, long before the federal government stopped deciding that Fugitive Slave Acts were a great idea, was probably a significant force in turning the tide toward abolitionism.
The states can be independent "laboratories of democracy", as Ralph Nader put it; clearly not just libertarians see the value in decentralized government. For that matter, there's nothing inherently libertarian about federalism vs. separatism vs. centralism - a law or an institution is evil or good based on how it protects or infringes on human rights, not based on how many people voted for it or where they live. Ironically, your sentence here is a perfect counterexample to the one that preceded it: libertarians are just more likely than average to see decentralization as a pragmatic means to good ends.
No market = Pie in the Sky.
BTW. In the late-1940s high school football teams had a diversion play that some called "The Statute of Liberity". Basically, on the snap, the QB fackes a fumble, and the line-men all scramble like they are tring to recover the funble. Mean-time a lone wide-out makes motions like he can't believe what the stupid QB just did and goes walking toward the side-line in disgust. When, near the side-line he turns and holds up his left hand, like the Statue of Liberty holding the torch, and recieves the arching pass and walks into the end-zone.
This has nothing to do with the stupidity of the White House and Federal government plans to dissastablish the US Space program.
The best news all day was the US House rejecting extension of three provision of the Patriot Act, "How Should a Patroit Act".
Barak-O is the greatest weapon to destroy the US that any terrorist organization could ever possible have hoped for.
-308
The Vulcain engine is not air startable.
/. armchair rocket scientist got his facts wrong.
The Vulcan engine is not on the proposed rocket.
Looks like another
Mod this guy +5 Wrong / Insightful !!
I hear that Samsung has already expressed interest for launching commercials this way.
If this "Liberty" contraption win, I do not think it will be on merit, but politics. Free market? What free market. Incidentally, I have bridge to sell to you.
What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
Fun fact: republicans are (or was, I do not know current state of war with Eurasia) against private commerce in space. This endangers pork. This is not specific to republicans, it is delicious hipocrisy that hits me.
What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
Soo.... Ares I all over again.
This can only end well.
What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
1. Get billions of dollars from government to build a launch vehicle for NASA.
2. Get billions more due to cost overruns.
3. Develop mechanical problems which will cost billions more to fix.
4. Project is deemed to expensive and gets canceled by government.
5. Take launch vehicle private so you can resell it back to NASA for billions more.
6. No question marks here. Just profit.
Does this
But, but, Walmart and MicroSoft and TBTF banks have my best interest in mind, right? If you can't trust big business, who can you trust?
I drank what? -- Socrates
>I pity you.
>
>Not only do you have a view of humanity that is culturally
>naive and bordering on shallow but you compound the
>problem by being incorrect.
I think you need to study some history then.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
>Really? You speak for "we"? Interesting. Arrogance
>aside, please describe one single thing that will make
>money from space.
I'm sure they asked the backers of all the colonial expeditions to the New World the same question. They came hoping to find gold. Instead they found everything else that made America wealthy.
Who knows what will be found in space that will be worth money. Hell, just the REAL ESTATE will be worth money, once people can reliably get there and back.
>Hmm, that's right, the few things that do make money
>from space don't involve people in space:
>communications satellites and recon satellites.
These are things that we know of TODAY that make money.
The rest of your post is just a complaint about the limitations of man's abilities TODAY. You speak as if they will never be overcome. Maybe they won't. But unless we TRY, they certainly won't be.
But all of this is beside my point, which is, man explores not for "no particular reason", but for a very specific reason - personal gain. Assuming we figure out how, man will go forth into space for the same reasons he has gone anywhere - looking for the greener grass on the other side of the fence.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
This is something from Freelancer, isn't it?
It's always confirmation bias!