Ain’t it amazing that when costs soar, to provide profit for corporations, and it comes out of taxpayer’s pockets, “all is good”. When government actually DOES do things cheaper, because corporations are cut out of the “profit stream”, or if contractors are actually monitored to REDUCE COSTS, “mean old government” is “damaging business”. This is B.allistic S.tupidity.
.Nothing like riding on 50 years of Government financed rocket development and space experience and tell me that private enterprise does it faster, better, and cheaper….. after ALL the hard work has been done… Must be liberal arts major without the foggiest idea of what’s going on.
I’m happy to see private enterprise in space, but it’s worth remembering the last 50 years of government in space. If we had waited for private enterprise we would still be lighting Roman candles.
Technically, isn’t the government still the source of cash behind Space X? They’re essentially a government contractor until private companies start bidding for cargo space. I guess we can hope that private capital will be funding future flights.
There’s a difference between COULDN’T and WOULDN’T… Let’s give NASA some credit for getting us where we are with the technology. They’ve taken where NO OTHER BUSINESS or GOVERNMENT has gone before. And then give GWB credit for eliminating the funding and giving private enterprise (as well as other Governments) the opportunity to push the United States out of the Space Business.
Actually, NASA wanted a much smaller “shuttle”, and non-piloted ships for resupply to Skylab and the ISS, etc. The AIR FORCE, and their CONTRACTORS set the larger size for the shuttle, which greatly increased costs.
NOT getting a replacement for the shuttle was the work of that “conservative” block in Congress, and “W”. Several options were on the table at various times, and all got shot down. Now if they’d had more “military application”, they’d probably have “flown”.
Mike, as I stated, the Air Force mandated a much larger than needed shuttle. NASA didn’t see a need for something that expensive to operate as “reusable”.
The pass-thru money from congress to NASA to Spacex was $381 Million dollars, which information is part of the congresssional record. Also considering several NASA personnel went over to work for Spacex. There is more tax-payer money on the way. This is only the tip of the ice-berg, so this is Capitolism at it’s best!
I don’t understand the debate here. Privately funded spacecraft for profit are launching now, and taxpayer-funded NASA is concentrating (at Obama’s direction) on “Muslim outreach.” Shouldn’t everyone here be happy?
Dtroutma almost 12 years ago
Ain’t it amazing that when costs soar, to provide profit for corporations, and it comes out of taxpayer’s pockets, “all is good”. When government actually DOES do things cheaper, because corporations are cut out of the “profit stream”, or if contractors are actually monitored to REDUCE COSTS, “mean old government” is “damaging business”. This is B.allistic S.tupidity.
Breeana almost 12 years ago
.Nothing like riding on 50 years of Government financed rocket development and space experience and tell me that private enterprise does it faster, better, and cheaper….. after ALL the hard work has been done… Must be liberal arts major without the foggiest idea of what’s going on.
NoTimeTheBook_com almost 12 years ago
Go Michael R — nice, agreeable idea we can all support. Thanks.
lonecat almost 12 years ago
I’m happy to see private enterprise in space, but it’s worth remembering the last 50 years of government in space. If we had waited for private enterprise we would still be lighting Roman candles.
hanmari almost 12 years ago
Technically, isn’t the government still the source of cash behind Space X? They’re essentially a government contractor until private companies start bidding for cargo space. I guess we can hope that private capital will be funding future flights.
Breeana almost 12 years ago
There’s a difference between COULDN’T and WOULDN’T… Let’s give NASA some credit for getting us where we are with the technology. They’ve taken where NO OTHER BUSINESS or GOVERNMENT has gone before. And then give GWB credit for eliminating the funding and giving private enterprise (as well as other Governments) the opportunity to push the United States out of the Space Business.
Dtroutma almost 12 years ago
Actually, NASA wanted a much smaller “shuttle”, and non-piloted ships for resupply to Skylab and the ISS, etc. The AIR FORCE, and their CONTRACTORS set the larger size for the shuttle, which greatly increased costs.
NOT getting a replacement for the shuttle was the work of that “conservative” block in Congress, and “W”. Several options were on the table at various times, and all got shot down. Now if they’d had more “military application”, they’d probably have “flown”.
Breeana almost 12 years ago
Wouldn’t have hurt any if the Company developing the new shuttles were based in Texas as well.
el8 almost 12 years ago
this is nothing new: http://www.ask.com/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies
Dtroutma almost 12 years ago
Mike, as I stated, the Air Force mandated a much larger than needed shuttle. NASA didn’t see a need for something that expensive to operate as “reusable”.
chutkt6 almost 12 years ago
The pass-thru money from congress to NASA to Spacex was $381 Million dollars, which information is part of the congresssional record. Also considering several NASA personnel went over to work for Spacex. There is more tax-payer money on the way. This is only the tip of the ice-berg, so this is Capitolism at it’s best!
Farley55 almost 12 years ago
I don’t understand the debate here. Privately funded spacecraft for profit are launching now, and taxpayer-funded NASA is concentrating (at Obama’s direction) on “Muslim outreach.” Shouldn’t everyone here be happy?