Exactly how do Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac resemble the free market to you? The current "financial crisis" is not a failure of the free market as espoused by the Austrian school, rather, it is a failure of fiat currency.
Recent announcements by Mike Griffin and NASA that the new Ares V rocket is going to be in the commercial spaceflight business makes me really question what, if anything, NASA really intends to do in the near future.
I really hope this isn't true. All this will accomplish is the crowding out of private capital and further delay of a real spacefaring economy. When will people realize that our (American) strength comes from private efforts -- not a statist programs?
No, I'm suggesting that companies are smart. If you can't show value in anything shorter than fifty years it isn't worth doing. Break it down into smaller, valuable steps.
Shareholders don't demand short-term profits -- they demand risk-adjusted and time discounted profits. Just like you do whenever you collect a salary.
You are correct -- I am against all taxes that do not provide for the common defense (national security).
Having said that, I appreciate, and agree with many of your points. However, your list of justifiable projects to spend my money on is just your opinion. I have my opinion as well, and while it is nicely aligned with yours, I have no right to force you or anyone else to fund my projects. If I (or you) believe in them we should enter the capital markets with our reputations in hand to get them funded.
What I don't agree with is your thesis that these things wouldn't be done without a government and the requisite taxes. I do believe that corporations would do many of these things. More importantly, as Elon has demonstrated, I believe that individuals with means would fund the riskier things. But, we have to allow them to build up discretionary funds and not suck them up with taxes.
Finally, anyone that has seen the inner workings of NASA today will likely attest that it certainly isn't "pushing the envelope" in the way that its funding (~$18B/year I believe) should.
You are correct -- I am against all taxes that do not provide for the common defense (national security).
Having said that, I appreciate, and agree with many of your points. However, your list of justifiable projects to spend my money on is just your opinion. I have my opinion as well, and while it is nicely aligned with yours, I have no right to force you or anyone else to fund my projects. If I (or you) believe in them we should enter the capital markets with our reputations in hand to get them funded.
What I don't agree with is your thesis that these things wouldn't be done without a government and the requisite taxes. I do believe that corporations would do many of these things. More importantly, as Elon has demonstrated, I believe that individuals with means would fund the riskier things. But, we have to allow them to build up discretionary funds and not suck them up with taxes.
Finally, anyone that has seen the inner workings of NASA today will likely attest that it certainly isn't "pushing the envelope" in the way that its funding (~$18B/year I believe) should.
It is true that the early history of NASA was obviously targeted towards national defense -- and thus justified. However, the work would have been eventually done using private capital if the end result -- satellite communications for example -- were profitable -- and therefore sustainable.
Public funded space exploration is wrong because it deprives tax payers of their liberty. It takes resoures from people without their consent that they earned with their own sweat and hard work.
I don't care how valuable your pet project is to humankind -- if you fund it with the barrel of a gun it isn't worth it. That's (one of) the reason Musk's effort is amazing. He has done it (well, mostly), with his own cash.
I would however like to see you defense -- I believe it will be ripped apart here with great haste...
I agree that maybe "it" isn't worth doing in some cases and shouldn't be done if it doesn't square up financially. As long as Elon is spending his own money though, he can do whatever he wants with it.
Clearly there are things we need to do for national defense. Sat recon would be high on any list and certainly a basic requirement. And as long as those costs are being paid for with my tax dollars I want the costs subject to verification by my fundamentalist capitalist system.
This is great news for the SpaceX team. But there is nothing "commercial" about the NASA COTS Program. The only difference between COTS and every other NASA program is that NASA is contracting for a service rather than the hardware itself.
This is a step in the right direction, but this vehicle isn't satisfying any "commercial" requirement.
- Most places in the United States get ~5kWh/m2/day insolation total assuming no obstruction (parking garage) -- so your number seems high.
- 300 watt/hours/mile: where did you get that from? A liter of gasoline has about 8.9kWh of energy. So your number seems low for anything close to the kind of cars we drive today.
- I looked around for average commute distances thinking yours was small. Seems 15-20 miles is concensus. Wish my commute was average...
- PVs will never get to 50% without radical changes.
Even if you had 100% efficiency, there isn't enough incident energy imparted over an eight to nine hour period on the area of a car roof to power the average commute home in the average commuter car. Subtract out things like, say, clouds, and things get even bleaker.
Personally, I appreciate boring aircraft when I'm traveling. You know, I get on in the same number of pieces that I get off with. It's a real testament to commercial aircraft designers that we think that their products are boring.
I'm not real big on my jet saying "BOO!! SURPRISE!!"
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly how do Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac resemble the free market to you? The current "financial crisis" is not a failure of the free market as espoused by the Austrian school, rather, it is a failure of fiat currency.
It's Austrian Economics actually.
See also: the broken window fallacy.
None of the projects you mentioned had or have anything remotely resembling a return on investment. Moreover, they were paid for by robbing people.
The free market didn't ask to be bailed out -- that was the regulators. Fannie and Freddie weren't free either.
Markets clear.
Recent announcements by Mike Griffin and NASA that the new Ares V rocket is going to be in the commercial spaceflight business makes me really question what, if anything, NASA really intends to do in the near future.
I really hope this isn't true. All this will accomplish is the crowding out of private capital and further delay of a real spacefaring economy. When will people realize that our (American) strength comes from private efforts -- not a statist programs?
The exploration of space is for in the public interest.
Your opinion -- not fact. If you believe this strongly, I suggest you make a case for it at your local bank and apply for a loan to start a business.
No, I'm suggesting that companies are smart. If you can't show value in anything shorter than fifty years it isn't worth doing. Break it down into smaller, valuable steps.
Shareholders don't demand short-term profits -- they demand risk-adjusted and time discounted profits. Just like you do whenever you collect a salary.
You are correct -- I am against all taxes that do not provide for the common defense (national security).
Having said that, I appreciate, and agree with many of your points. However, your list of justifiable projects to spend my money on is just your opinion. I have my opinion as well, and while it is nicely aligned with yours, I have no right to force you or anyone else to fund my projects. If I (or you) believe in them we should enter the capital markets with our reputations in hand to get them funded.
What I don't agree with is your thesis that these things wouldn't be done without a government and the requisite taxes. I do believe that corporations would do many of these things. More importantly, as Elon has demonstrated, I believe that individuals with means would fund the riskier things. But, we have to allow them to build up discretionary funds and not suck them up with taxes.
Finally, anyone that has seen the inner workings of NASA today will likely attest that it certainly isn't "pushing the envelope" in the way that its funding (~$18B/year I believe) should.
You are correct -- I am against all taxes that do not provide for the common defense (national security).
Having said that, I appreciate, and agree with many of your points. However, your list of justifiable projects to spend my money on is just your opinion. I have my opinion as well, and while it is nicely aligned with yours, I have no right to force you or anyone else to fund my projects. If I (or you) believe in them we should enter the capital markets with our reputations in hand to get them funded.
What I don't agree with is your thesis that these things wouldn't be done without a government and the requisite taxes. I do believe that corporations would do many of these things. More importantly, as Elon has demonstrated, I believe that individuals with means would fund the riskier things. But, we have to allow them to build up discretionary funds and not suck them up with taxes.
Finally, anyone that has seen the inner workings of NASA today will likely attest that it certainly isn't "pushing the envelope" in the way that its funding (~$18B/year I believe) should.
It is true that the early history of NASA was obviously targeted towards national defense -- and thus justified. However, the work would have been eventually done using private capital if the end result -- satellite communications for example -- were profitable -- and therefore sustainable.
Mao! Is that you?!
Satellites used for the profitable uses that you mentioned are privately funded.
NASA is a civilian agency -- not a military agency, so any justification based on national defense falls flat.
Public funded space exploration is wrong because it deprives tax payers of their liberty. It takes resoures from people without their consent that they earned with their own sweat and hard work.
I don't care how valuable your pet project is to humankind -- if you fund it with the barrel of a gun it isn't worth it. That's (one of) the reason Musk's effort is amazing. He has done it (well, mostly), with his own cash.
I would however like to see you defense -- I believe it will be ripped apart here with great haste...
You are a fool if you think any government agency is going to lead you to the future.
Grow a pair and get to work with your own money. It seems Elon is.
Yes maxmin, I would like some fries with my burger! You sure know how to flip 'em! Someday you might even be an assistant manager!
This is a poor rehash of "cost, schedule, performance -- pick any two."
It is a bullshit saying by people about to be disintermediated and wishing they could provide even one.
I agree that maybe "it" isn't worth doing in some cases and shouldn't be done if it doesn't square up financially. As long as Elon is spending his own money though, he can do whatever he wants with it.
Clearly there are things we need to do for national defense. Sat recon would be high on any list and certainly a basic requirement. And as long as those costs are being paid for with my tax dollars I want the costs subject to verification by my fundamentalist capitalist system.
Ariane and Soyuz suffer from two major issues: 1) they are foreign launchers and 2) their launch costs are "typical" -- which means too high.
Bottom line: no one has really solved the problem of "good rockets" if you include 1) liberty and 2) economics.
Or you could consider them to be the most successful in their industry.
You have misunderstood me. I agree with you completely. I have no doubt that a successful Falcon family will be a great commercial vehicle.
My issue is with NASA. Calling it "commercial" is just the latest way to keep the Agency in the way of real progress (= sustainable) in spaceflight.
This is great news for the SpaceX team. But there is nothing "commercial" about the NASA COTS Program. The only difference between COTS and every other NASA program is that NASA is contracting for a service rather than the hardware itself.
This is a step in the right direction, but this vehicle isn't satisfying any "commercial" requirement.
Numbers are good -- here's some comments:
- Most places in the United States get ~5kWh/m2/day insolation total assuming no obstruction (parking garage) -- so your number seems high.
- 300 watt/hours/mile: where did you get that from? A liter of gasoline has about 8.9kWh of energy. So your number seems low for anything close to the kind of cars we drive today.
- I looked around for average commute distances thinking yours was small. Seems 15-20 miles is concensus. Wish my commute was average...
- PVs will never get to 50% without radical changes.
Even if you had 100% efficiency, there isn't enough incident energy imparted over an eight to nine hour period on the area of a car roof to power the average commute home in the average commuter car. Subtract out things like, say, clouds, and things get even bleaker.
Physics. It's not just a good idea.
You have no idea what you are talking about if you think OO is in the same class as LaTeX.
Personally, I appreciate boring aircraft when I'm traveling. You know, I get on in the same number of pieces that I get off with. It's a real testament to commercial aircraft designers that we think that their products are boring.
I'm not real big on my jet saying "BOO!! SURPRISE!!"