Comments on: Another privatization screed

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:47:56 +0000

Also, us fanboys recognize that comsats became a viable commercial industry through a set of “socialist” government projects — remember ICBMs, Intelsat, NASA experiments, and all the rest? The same will be no less true of future successful space businesses in the near term.

Rand: Whatever he may claim, Elon, clearly, is not motivated by near-term profit. He has spent far more than he could possibly make at the prices he claims he will charge, even if he is in business for decades. Likewise, he has just accepted government subsidies. And, no, I doubt Elon would be surprised.

— Donald

By: Nemo

Nemo — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 05:41:28 +0000

It’s an article of faith that private enterprise is only capable of operating in LEO and NASA is the only organization that can do anything beyond LEO.

The fanboys don’t seem to notice all those communication satellites operating beyond LEO or know how they got there.

That’s because the fanboys often omit the adjective “manned” when describing their article of faith. Most of us, including those who don’t share their faith, understand that the fanboys don’t care about comsats and that “manned” is implied. You evidently don’t.

By: Edward Wright

Edward Wright — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 22:18:07 +0000

> Can any of you fanboys give one simple reason other than politics for why NASA must design,
> own and operate their space transport system?

It’s an article of faith that private enterprise is only capable of operating in LEO and NASA is the only organization that can do anything beyond LEO.

The fanboys don’t seem to notice all those communication satellites operating beyond LEO or know how they got there.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 20:57:09 +0000

With the exceptions of communications and suborbital tourism, nobody who cares about the bottom line in the next decade is going to invest in private spaceflight.

Elon will be surprised to hear this.

By: Chris Mann

Chris Mann — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 15:24:38 +0000

He must be making a pretty strong argument if the NASA employed socialised spaceflight proponents are already stooping to personal attacks.

Can any of you fanboys give one simple reason other than politics for why NASA must design, own and operate their space transport system? Lets lose this cost plus bullshit, put out a tender for ISS and lunar transport services starting from 2009 and let commercial providers bid on it. If Elon fails to deliver, Boeing, Lockheed and Grumman all have the expertise to step in and take NASA’s money.

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:52:53 +0000

Mr. Peters: . . . where success is the key ingredient because there are shareholders who care about the bottom line

That, of course, is the problem. With the exceptions of communications and suborbital tourism, nobody who cares about the bottom line in the next decade is going to invest in private spaceflight. You are only going to invest in private spaceflight if you have an investment horizon of decades, or if you are motivated by something other than the bottom line. As it happens, there appear to be people out there who fulfill both of these requirements, but they will always be few and far in between.

When Elon, et al, have actually mined an asteroid, then and only then will someone managing grandma’s money invest in mining asteroids.

People like Mr. Peters are letting their ideology blind them to the basics of managing other peoples’ money.

— Donald

By: Mark R. Whittington

Mark R. Whittington — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:20:36 +0000

Of course, the ironic thing about all this is that NASA has become more commercial friendly than it has been in its history.

By: Monte Davis

Monte Davis — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:59:49 +0000

So what if he’s got all his facts wrong? It’s the vision that counts, isn’t it?

By: Chance

Chance — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:57:22 +0000

Just out of curiousity, how would you privitize most NASA functions? Do you just advertise for contracts? Would you actually sell off divisions of the agency, along with the equipment and facilities? What was the last major agency in the US whose functions were formerly government, but then privitized? I was about to say the post office, but I’m not sure that’s a good example.