Discussion in 'Science, Math, History and Language Studies' started by Party Rooster, Apr 17, 2012.
Guess we're going to be docking with unclipped Russians now...
Let's do this, fuckers. SPACE!
I don't get this technical space jargon
good, make it profitable and we wont be able to keep up with the launches, there booo hoooo assholes that wanted to squash the space program seem to forget all the great aerospace jobs that were around in the 60's and 70's, hell alot of my friends parents worked for boeing and lockheed back then, and they were the rich kids.
They make a shitload of promises and only deliver on half of them. That's my prediction for SpaceX. The stages and capsules landing in powered flight isn't going to happen. At least sending rockets is cheaper than the bloated shuttle program. On a positive note, even every rocket and capsule as a throw-away is cheaper than the bloated shuttle program.
This isn't private. It's a private company according to the legal definition, but by a scientific (economic) definition, a private company is funded by its owners and operates for commercial profit. This is funded by taxes and operates to satisfy only one, not private, consumer.
Blatant misuse of the word commercial. The word means that you operate by putting out products onto a market, and consumers buy them. This isn't what's going on. They are funded by and working for the government. The only difference between it and NASA is the legalities.
And of course that, when it fails to deliver on impossible expectations, dolts can point at the "free market" for the failure.
Wikipedia hates Norm
SpaceX is a largely a government contractor, yes. That doesn't mean they're not a private company, but they're clearly in that category of private companies that are more interested in more government for the sake of their contracts. A "gray" area for hard-core libertarian types, if hard-core libertarians recognized that gray existed in the first place.
It's still privatizing space. As SpaceX and their competitors in their industry develop the hardware and the procedures, they'll lower the costs of going into space so more and more private companies can pay them to launch communications satellites and the like.
The truth is that a lot of the payloads in space launches are already private. It's making the transport, the haulage private that's the big trick.
If by "not recognizing that gray exists" you mean that I think it's a stupid metaphor that doesn't apply in Economics (or any other exact science), then yeah, you got me. I guess I'm a hardcore libertarian type who doesn't like evasive language.
Then you're just being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole. Which is why Libertarians are failures, regardless of how theoretically effective their philosophies are.
You're puling little bitches who live in your mom's basements, pretending to be philosophical supermen of a John Galt variety. Fuck off.
If Economics were an exact science we'd have been rid of Keynesian assholes 70 years ago. Unfortunately, like all social sciences, it's not exact. No study of human behavior can ever be exact.
No we're not. We just hate the government involving itself (with taxpayer money) in areas they have no business being in, especially in this economy.
It's pretty funny that this discussion about potential new frontiers in space exploration has turned into a Libertarian circle-jerk.
I guess you're done being subtle about avoiding intelligent discussions.
Actually, I like this approach better. At least it's honest. That idiotic "hardcore libertarian types don't recognize grey" observation is much worse, because it has the same exact value as straight up name-calling, but disguised as an attempt at an intelligent point.
Exactness refers to the methods used to study something. It has nothing to do with the subject of the study. You can use exact methods to study inexact subjects just fine.
Every science has shitty practitioners. Doesn't make the science inherently flawed. Economic activity is an important subject, and it should be studied using the same scientific method we study everything else with. That method is very much objective, logical and exact. There is nothing "gray" about it. Whenever someone uses the metaphor "grey" to refer to science, he is distorting the scientific method, not being "realistic".
What new frontiers? They're launching shit into orbit. That's impressive, but not innovative. The big innovation is supposed to be that it's "private", and "commercially motivated". Except that it's neither of those things. It's taxpayer funded and politically motivated.
It's the next step in aviation. Simple as that. Who knows what this will lead to. Maybe back to the Moon? Visit an asteroid? Go to Mars? I suppose if you were around in 1957 you'd be poo-pooing the launch of Explorer 1 as well.....
That's all well and good but, how do you explain the fact that you said they only had one government customer, when in fact they also have private customers?
Emotionalism does nothing beneficial for the taxpayer or the economy. We all agree that space travel is fucking awesome, but in the year 2012 with the economy we have it no longer makes sense for the taxpayer to fund it. (That public funding has been senseless and needless for decades.) Besides, NASA would run much more efficiently it it were a completely privatized entity.
I don't see how you can go from NASA to a completely privatized entity for space exploration without an intermediate step such as Space-X. First of all, the infrastructure is already in place for launches, and will remain government property as long as the Air Force is needing to send up payloads. Second, the venture capital to create a space transport company probably doesn't exist when there's other entities (Russians, Chinese, EU) with the infrastructure available and ability to handle loads for the right price. Lastly, we seem comfortable for now, but things could go to shit in a hurry with any of the foreign entities and we'd be stuck with little or no transport capability and a dire need to access space. Space-X's government funding assures that this will be available if the need arises.
The Air Force should have it's own space division. Maybe the Fed can keep NASA for strictly government purposes, but the days of subsidized pure science need to end. That's all I'm saying.
The Air Force does have it's own space division, but most of its payloads are of the megaton yield variety.
In truth, it isn't that big of step. Very little of the shuttle program employed any NASA people. Almost everything was outsourced to either the big aerospace firms or small engineering outfits. Other than some department heads and a few scientists, everyone else worked for the private sector.
You can slap "private" and "commercial" on manned, or manned-related space missions all you want, but it still boils down to our tax dollars being shot up into space, and down the proverbial shitter.