Slashdot Mirror
Air Force Wants Commercial Spacecraft
coondoggie writes "The US Air Force is preparing to take a long look at how commercial space technology can help it better operate in the cosmos. The Air Force today said it will host a space test program meeting next week ahead of expected contract offerings, or Broad Agency Announcements looking to recruit commercial space providers."
If actual "exploration" were a priority we'd put the manned program on hiatus for a hundred years and refine our present crude remote-manned systems.
Humans are mere sensor operators who can do that from a distance.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
What if the government is paying for part of the demand? It's not hard to imagine situations in which some demand exists, but not quite enough to justify any particular company making an existential wager on it. An additional demand from a government customer might tip the balance.
How much purely commercial demand was there for small, portable computers before the Air Force wanted them on-board ICBM s? We went from "the world needs maybe six mainframes" to our current state pretty quickly, once some of the R & D was picked up by the Feds.
There aren't very many things for which there is absolutely no demand, but there are many things for which the price is as yet too high.
Besides, I like my interstate highways, even if they were just an Eisenhower-era military-industrial conspiracy. They have turned out toi be useful for a good many things besides rapid mobilization of troops.
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
Profitable private rail? The private rail that was built on massive amounts of federal land, and supported through government strike-breaking? That private rail?
- yes, that private profitable rail, and I absolutely agree with you, the government acted criminally by supporting anybody, including the rail tycoons. But by the time we are talking about the rail was private and profitable and it was efficient, roads were not.
Do you honestly think that there is no demand for air travel?
- first, the successful airplanes were created privately. Those, who had government funding (I am thinking about the Aerodrome fiasco) failed. Those who got the planes to fly successfully, did it on their own.
Any government money was not needed to have commercial air travel. Commercial air travel was going to happen. The same may be true of space, but it's not the time yet.
And yes, your argument is that people like things for free. Do you know why? Because there is demand, which is willingness to put the money where the mouth is, which really means WORK, because money is expression of work. Money that is printed by government is not about work, it's about taxing the existing money supply by inflating it.
Then there is other type of 'demand', which is really just a wish. Do I wish I had Enterprise like space ship at my disposal? Sure. Do I wish somebody gave me one for free? Sure.
Do I want to spend my own time and money building one? No. The reason is that I don't actually have a purpose for it, rather than to amuse myself. I also do not expect to live 10000000 years that it would take me to build one (probably). By spending my time and money that way I would deny myself any other wants and desires I may have for things other than the Enterprise space ship. I would put myself through huge amounts of hardship, I would have to deny myself all sorts of nicer things in life. So if I am unwilling to do this to myself, what right do I have to ask others to do this for me?
No, I do not subscribe to Keynesian ideas at all - the ideas that government must generate demand by printing money - I see these as destructive to the economy, these are the ideas that destroyed this economy anyway. Government can only print and tax, it cannot generate actual real demand, as in, it cannot make people want to spend their own work for something if the people don't get a real benefit from it.
You are saying that government should do this, because you think it is a nice idea. But if there is no market for it it means people are not in mass going to spend their own work to achieve your 'nice' idea. You want government to force the people to spend any amount of their work (that's what money is after all) on this, isn't it selfish of you? Just because you think something maybe a great idea does not make it so.
You want something? Sell it to others but not through force of government, but as a viable business opportunity and a good product that's worth the investment.
Government does not need to be there for any work. Government is not there for work in the first place - it's a spending item for minimum military protection and justice system. I would be a huge success if government could just do those two things and not screw up the economy and society in the process.
You know, all those SS checks people expect to keep receiving? They'll be receiving them but the money is buying less and less, that's because government is constantly spending and borrowing and printing.
Realize that in 50s/60s the minimum legal wage was around 1.50USD/hour, which was 1.5 ounces of silver. Today that would be 60USD/hour (minimum wage) and people didn't pay taxes on that wage, so that's even more. The government has printed so much money, that silver is over 40bucks/ounce today. That's why the prices are so high and are going much higher for everything and you want government to keep printing and spending?
Well, prepare to be able to buy abs
You can't handle the truth.