SpaceX CRS-7 has blown up on launch
- Thread starter nhboy
- Start date
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
Just curious why you think it must be done commercially?
Much of the risky, into the unknown, exploration throughout history was financed through governments.
Losing a spacecraft hurts, to a business that hurt is much more profound than to a government.
glhs837
Power with Control
Because only places that are economically viable will allow for expansion. I'm not talking exploration, let NASA head out to Mars and beyond. But let commercial folks handle orbital stuff, still risky, hell aviation or shipping are still dangerous. But donr commercially.
agree and disagree. Space will not expand that much to really make an economic advance. Seeing that the Govt/NASA is basically funding these missions anyway, that is a moot point. Commercial ventures strictly dealing with space will require payouts/dividends to investors investors, so that makes commercial more expensive than you think.
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/02/03/nasa-presses-congress-to-pay-for-commercial-crew/
As far as let NASA concentrate on Mars and the stars, OK. but by doing that it simply means the govt is already developing or has developed the means to transport goods to the space station - a much easier prospect than longer flights.
Every rocket launch is a crap shoot - ya never know.
These commercial ventures want to do it, let them develop their means by themselves, then sell it.
Our government screws up so many things, but one of the really bright spots for the last 60 years was NASA. Only weak leadership at the top brought them down.
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
The only difference between SpaceX and the Shuttle is who owns the vehicle. Private industry built the shuttle, built the Apollo program etc with government money.
hitchicken
Active Member
SpaceX is a business. They can re-coup some of their losses fairly quickly.
For sale: Unused, slightly dented barge we've been unable to use. Some scorch marks. Buyer supplies own tow.
For sale: Unused, slightly dented barge we've been unable to use. Some scorch marks. Buyer supplies own tow.
glhs837
Power with Control
Yep, they built those things for NASA, to accomplish NASA stuff. My point was that for expansion to take place, and it needs to, the resources of this tiny ball wont last forever, nor can we support the ever increasing population here. And as we all know, it's great for the govt to trailblaze, and do the basic stuff, but most innovation happens when private citizens are turned loose on a thing. B233, I think you're wrong, the solar system is a big place, with almost infinite resources, people will go, and live, and expand humanities envelope. It's just what we do.
Spock, although your thoughts make no economic sense, they are logical. But until private industry foots their bill and accepts all the associated costs and losses, NASA has, and will do a better job. Simply because if NASA is paying the employees, they will accumulate many of the brightest just because they can. Many of the brightest are just starting out, and pride and decent pay can influence minds.
I am a private enterprise person, if they can do it without tax payer dollars.
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
I would like to point out for space travel what is needed is not innovation so much as strict quality control, attention to detail, redundant engineering, checking things over and over, etc. Private industry has an objective to make money and inherently wants to cut out some of these steps.
There is a huge difference in lost tools in airplanes in military facilities and commercial facilities. A lost wrench in a governmental facilities is looked for over and over until it is found, in a commercial facility it is written off in far less time.
There is a huge difference in lost tools in airplanes in military facilities and commercial facilities. A lost wrench in a governmental facilities is looked for over and over until it is found, in a commercial facility it is written off in far less time.
glhs837
Power with Control
Makes no sense until we actually start developing ways to make money in space. Instead of making money helping the gov get there. Might that be in products only possible to produce in space? Or in giving the elderly wealthy someplace they can live a bit longer. Hard to say. How much treasure was poured into North America, both private and govt, before money was made? But you can be pretty sure the companies in the game now will be the ones leading the pack comes that time. As for the taxpayers dollars, well, the govt still has a need to be up there, and if we can support that, and give our commercial entities a leg up, I'm good with that.
Not arguing with you. If tax payer money is used (which it is) to enable a private enterprise to turn a profit (which they must in order to satisfy stockholders), then the US treasury needs to be compensated an appropriate % of the profits commiserate to our investment. Hopefully, the enterprise will be able to wean itself off the public teet and go it on it's own.
glhs837
Power with Control
The aspect you are not touching on is that while taxpayer dollars are being used to fund for profits, that's because they are providing a service. No different than say Southwest flying civil servants around the country. We are being compensated, by getting the support the ISS needs. Good read here.....
http://flightclub.jalopnik.com/why-the-sky-isnt-falling-on-spacex-after-yesterdays-roc-1714596758
The first comment is interesting. Someone has complied a list of launch failures per rocket program. Gives some great perspective.
Good article, and agree with the first comment as well. Let them invest in it, or give it back to NASA for control, with the Space X people having an equal say, if that is possible. All I'm saying it is either commercial, or not.
I certainly hope they get to the bottom of it and correct the flaw(s) quickly.
How would that be possible...considering it's the ISS that the private launch capability is supporting? If not the US government paying for all of that..who else??
How is SpaceX any different from Lockheed...Boeing..Ingalls...?
glhs837
Power with Control
that's what I'm not getting, B. You seem to be saying that the govt is giving these companies money for nothing. But we are actually buying a service. Right now it's resupply of a govt facitlity, not unlike the old Revves Aleutian Airlines, that provided commercial transport functions to military bases in the Aleutians, or the contractors that support other remote govt facilities.
Here's a tidbit about the money Space X is working with, private sector-wise......
http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/20/spacex-raises-1-billion-in-new-funding-from-google-and-fidelity/
Note that 1 billion was only good enough for a 10% piece of the Space X pie.
Total valuation after that was 12 Billion. With a big friken B.
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/01...rockets-to-12-billion-with-google-investment/
So, this isn't some solar panle company whose only way to make money is govt magical thinking. These people all know there are trillions to be made for those who get there the first.
Here's a tidbit about the money Space X is working with, private sector-wise......
http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/20/spacex-raises-1-billion-in-new-funding-from-google-and-fidelity/
Note that 1 billion was only good enough for a 10% piece of the Space X pie.
Total valuation after that was 12 Billion. With a big friken B.
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/01...rockets-to-12-billion-with-google-investment/
So, this isn't some solar panle company whose only way to make money is govt magical thinking. These people all know there are trillions to be made for those who get there the first.
Last edited:
Lurk
Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
I see what went wrong there. Those four booster rockets on those tower-thingies forgot to take off and pull the CRS-7 up.