Here comes the other economic shoe dropping...

[Coito ergo sum]

The bottom line benefit is the development of raw materials and basic industry, technological development, and the sustainment of all supporting businesses and industries required to complete a 30 year project, plus the exploration and mastery of near space, such that the West (North America and Europe) does not lose its dominant position in the world.

I don't think a big government run project like Apollo is the right way to go. In many ways, Apollo was detrimental to the long term space program, since it displaced plans for a sustained presence in space, including space stations from which missions such as a moon mission could be launched. Yes, Apollo had some good spinoffs, but the plans that Apollo displaced would have too.

Which projects were in the offing that Apollo displaced and what would they have done, specifically?

I think the better approach in this area is to provide an environment friendly towards space programs based on private enterprise. Having most satellite launch providers be private companies is a good start. In the longer run, private initiatives focused on eventual development of a space elevator are probably the best way to proceed - an example being LaserMotive, a company geared towards developing the beamed power technology needed to power such an elevator.

Private enterprise won't take us to Mars in our lifetimes or put a base on the Moon. Private enterprise will only do what can conceivably turn a profit for those engaged in the activity, and for which private companies can raise sufficient capital.

Now, I'm all for "providing an environment friendly to space programs." However, that's easy. Just let them do it. Provide a streamlined licensing and oversight board for private companies to comply with safety and security regulations when dealing with space rockets and then let them go about their business. Heck, nobody is stopping them now.

It's not an either-or prospect. NASA should run the Moon base and manned Mars mission projects to lead the way - because those are high cash investment projects without an immediate profit potential. So, that path gets blazed and then private enterprise can follow. Once private enterprise perfects low Earth orbit activities, then they can take the next step.

A NASA Mars mission, for example, doesn't stop LaserMotive in the least from developing the beamed power technology, and doesn't stop anyone from developing the space elevator. All good things. So, private enterprise should do it. Nobody is stopping them. I'm not all for giving private companies money to fund their profit making endeavors though.

[Warren Dew]

The difference was that Reagan realized his tax cuts were ballooning the deficit, so he raised taxes 11 times to compensate... and this was back when the top tax rate was around 50%, rather than the 30-something it stands at today.

You're mistaken. Reagan first dropped the top rate to 28%. It was only raised a few percentage points from that.

[Warren Dew]

Which projects were in the offing that Apollo displaced and what would they have done, specifically?

The original Eisenhower era plan for NASA was first to build a permanent manned space station in Earth orbit. We're not talking about makeshift things like Skylab and the International Space Station designed to be abandoned after a decade or two; we're talking about a permanent base for further space exploration, from which moon and Mars missions might be launched.

Unfortunately that was so long ago there's little about it on the web. I was only able to find a few paragraphs:

In them, [Von Braun] described an updated version of Noordung's wheel, enlarged to a diameter of 76 m and reached by reusable winged spacecraft. Von Braun saw the station as an Earth-observation post, laboratory, and a springboard for lunar and Mars excursions. Later in the same decade the dream slowly began to turn into reality. In 1959, a NASA committee recommended that a space station be established before a trip to the Moon, and the House of Representatives Space Committee declared a space station a logical follow-on to the Mercury Project.

http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... ation.html

Unfortunately, when the Bay of Pigs fiasco happened, Kennedy saw fit to try to distract public attention from it by announcing a more aggressive moon shot schedule by skipping the space station. Of course, that left us with no sound basis for further human space exploration once the moon shots had been completed.

Private enterprise won't take us to Mars in our lifetimes or put a base on the Moon. Private enterprise will only do what can conceivably turn a profit for those engaged in the activity, and for which private companies can raise sufficient capital.

I think that ultimately private enterprise is the only way to put together a really permanent presence in space. The development needed for a liftport, for example - which in this age of limited fossil fuel is really the only way to have a major long term presence in space - simply takes too long for a monolithic government project subject to cancellation with each new administration.

Now, I'm all for "providing an environment friendly to space programs." However, that's easy. Just let them do it. Provide a streamlined licensing and oversight board for private companies to comply with safety and security regulations when dealing with space rockets and then let them go about their business. Heck, nobody is stopping them now.

It's not really that easy. Private companies can't survive in competition with government programs funded by taxpayer dollars.

Places like LaserMotive and projects like Scaled Composites' SpaceShipOne couldn't have happened without the seed funding from privately funded competitions like the Ansari X prize. LaserMotive is still dependent on that kind of funding. Tax people to fund a government program, and the people who currently pay for those competitions will figure that their tax money is funding it anyway, and won't bother with the private funding any more.

It's not an either-or prospect. NASA should run the Moon base and manned Mars mission projects to lead the way - because those are high cash investment projects without an immediate profit potential. So, that path gets blazed and then private enterprise can follow. Once private enterprise perfects low Earth orbit activities, then they can take the next step.

NASA isn't going to be doing any "blazing"; the private companies are already way ahead of NASA on the technologies. Monolithic NASA projects will just crowd out the private players and waste money.

If NASA is to put a man on Mars quicker, they shouldn't run the project. Rather, they should be the passengers: they pick the astronauts and figure out what experiments are to be done on Mars. Then, they should pay private companies to get the astronauts and experiment packages there. That's the only way to avoid crowding out the private companies.

[Coito ergo sum]

Which projects were in the offing that Apollo displaced and what would they have done, specifically?

The original Eisenhower era plan for NASA was first to build a permanent manned space station in Earth orbit. We're not talking about makeshift things like Skylab and the International Space Station designed to be abandoned after a decade or two; we're talking about a permanent base for further space exploration, from which moon and Mars missions might be launched.

Unfortunately that was so long ago there's little about it on the web. I was only able to find a few paragraphs:

In them, [Von Braun] described an updated version of Noordung's wheel, enlarged to a diameter of 76 m and reached by reusable winged spacecraft. Von Braun saw the station as an Earth-observation post, laboratory, and a springboard for lunar and Mars excursions. Later in the same decade the dream slowly began to turn into reality. In 1959, a NASA committee recommended that a space station be established before a trip to the Moon, and the House of Representatives Space Committee declared a space station a logical follow-on to the Mercury Project.

http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... ation.html

Unfortunately, when the Bay of Pigs fiasco happened, Kennedy saw fit to try to distract public attention from it by announcing a more aggressive moon shot schedule by skipping the space station. Of course, that left us with no sound basis for further human space exploration once the moon shots had been completed.

Private enterprise won't take us to Mars in our lifetimes or put a base on the Moon. Private enterprise will only do what can conceivably turn a profit for those engaged in the activity, and for which private companies can raise sufficient capital.

I think that ultimately private enterprise is the only way to put together a really permanent presence in space. The development needed for a liftport, for example - which in this age of limited fossil fuel is really the only way to have a major long term presence in space - simply takes too long for a monolithic government project subject to cancellation with each new administration.

My understanding is that the space station idea was kicked around but was never seriously pursued. Von Braun also had outline plans for a Mars mission in the 1940's and 50's. Those fellas had foresight and balls. Wish we had them now.

From my standpoint, I'd say - "yes" to all. Europe and the US should combine a massive effort to foster low Earth orbit space stations and frequent traffic up and down, etc., and we need manned missions to to the Moon and Mars. I think we can have private enterprise do a lot in low earth orbit and with space stations, because they can eventually make money with it.

[

Now, I'm all for "providing an environment friendly to space programs." However, that's easy. Just let them do it. Provide a streamlined licensing and oversight board for private companies to comply with safety and security regulations when dealing with space rockets and then let them go about their business. Heck, nobody is stopping them now.

It's not really that easy. Private companies can't survive in competition with government programs funded by taxpayer dollars.

Places like LaserMotive and projects like Scaled Composites' SpaceShipOne couldn't have happened without the seed funding from privately funded competitions like the Ansari X prize. LaserMotive is still dependent on that kind of funding. Tax people to fund a government program, and the people who currently pay for those competitions will figure that their tax money is funding it anyway, and won't bother with the private funding any more.

Those prizes are small potatoes. We could do that, and still fund NASA for moon and mars missions. Heck allocate a $1 billion for prizes, and allocate $50 billion a year for 20 years for NASA, and it's still a drop in the bucket compared to the treasure that was flushed down the toilet in the last 18 months on turtle crossings, coupons for HDTV converters, and building monuments to government pork.

[

It's not an either-or prospect. NASA should run the Moon base and manned Mars mission projects to lead the way - because those are high cash investment projects without an immediate profit potential. So, that path gets blazed and then private enterprise can follow. Once private enterprise perfects low Earth orbit activities, then they can take the next step.

NASA isn't going to be doing any "blazing"; the private companies are already way ahead of NASA on the technologies. Monolithic NASA projects will just crowd out the private players and waste money.

That I can disagree with you on 100%. NASA is one of the most successful government projects ever. The success per dollar that NASA has achieved is staggering. The Moon, Mars, Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn Uranus, Neptune and soon Pluto -all visited in about 40 years, some several times. Comets have been visited and studied,asteroids visited and studied, planets discovered, fabulous telescopes developed. I mean - the one agency that can be unequivocally said to NOT be a waste is NASA. And, yet that's the first thing most people seem to want to cut.

[

If NASA is to put a man on Mars quicker, they shouldn't run the project. Rather, they should be the passengers: they pick the astronauts and figure out what experiments are to be done on Mars. Then, they should pay private companies to get the astronauts and experiment packages there. That's the only way to avoid crowding out the private companies.

NASA put a man on the Moon. Private companies? ?

NASA is always paying private companies, though. Grummun. Boeing. Etc. Etc. - NASA has to run the project for national security reasons, but they bid out portions of the project to private companies. One company develops the LEM, one company develops the Orbiter, another company develops the rockets. Private companies are always involved.

[Warren Dew]

If you read further in the link I provided, the permanent space station was the plan not only in 1959, but until it got pushed out budgetarily by Apollo.

The success per dollar that NASA has achieved is staggering. The Moon, Mars, Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn Uranus, Neptune and soon Pluto -all visited in about 40 years, some several times.

The unmanned, one way missions are certainly very cost effective; Everything on your list except the moon was achieved with only about 1% of the federal budget. The round trip, manned missions, not so much - the moon shots cost about 5% of the federal budget, which is quite a lot of money.

This is getting a bit off topic for this thread, though.

[Coito ergo sum]

If you read further in the link I provided, the permanent space station was the plan not only in 1959, but until it got pushed out budgetarily by Apollo.

The success per dollar that NASA has achieved is staggering. The Moon, Mars, Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn Uranus, Neptune and soon Pluto -all visited in about 40 years, some several times.

The unmanned, one way missions are certainly very cost effective; Everything on your list except the moon was achieved with only about 1% of the federal budget. The round trip, manned missions, not so much - the moon shots cost about 5% of the federal budget, which is quite a lot of money.

This is getting a bit off topic for this thread, though.

I agree with you - but, one of the main reasons for a space program is so that humans can go there....but, yes. Off topic.

[Coito ergo sum]

In the US, Private Sector Hiring in Sept. Takes Unexpected Drop, Falls 39,000...

[Coito ergo sum]

"Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said the U.S. economy is likely to be “fairly bad” or “very bad” over the next six to nine months." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-0 ... sible.html


But....we're headed in the right direction, and the recession is over.

[Coito ergo sum]

Middle class spending down again - most ever decline since records have been kept! http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... TopStories

The bottom 1/5 of income earners, however, are spending more due to inflation on prices relative to necessities like food, clothing and shelter.

[Coito ergo sum]

The average incomes of New Yorkers has fallen for the first time in 70 years. http://www.cnbc.com/id/39531849

[Coito ergo sum]

Food stamps recipients in the US reaches highest level ever....41.8 million.....http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-0 ... -says.html

[Coito ergo sum]

Gallup has US unemployment up over 10% now..... http://www.gallup.com/poll/143426/Gallu ... ember.aspx

[Coito ergo sum]

US Dollar on the way down, again..... http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101007/bs ... 1007100939

[Coito ergo sum]

Fed to increase inflation as a means to fix the economy..... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... Collection

They want to decrease savings and increase spending....oh, I know...just when Americans are being forced to be fiscally responsible, the government is going to take action to make them less so! Nice!

[Coito ergo sum]

"The stimulus plan will make sure that unemployment doesn't go over 8%!" Must pass it now! Must pass it now! Do it now! Do it or doom will befall you!

"We are headed in the right direction"

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39571732 Economy Sheds 95,000 Jobs; Rate at 9.6% as Easing Looms

The U.S. economy unexpectedly shed jobs in September for a fourth straight month as government payrolls fell and private hiring was less than expected, hardening expectations of further Federal Reserve action to spur the recovery.

You know that stuff we did that hasn't worked? Do more!