I dont mind tax dollars going toward failures along the road to success if its a government entity doing it, it ensures as a nation that we own it when there is a success. I do not like private entities having a monopoly on tax dollars. There should be targets set, so say the current target is land a rocket on a boat with less than x percentage failure, here is the reward, set bounties if you will on the goal. It will still create a quasi monopoly on the tax dollars in that the tech is proprietary and the next target will be much harder for a new private entity to reach the target without the tech, also, the part where you have to foot your own billions, but that keeps only legitimate players in the game.
I feel the same way about all this fed cash being doled out for interwebs, the fed shouldnt line a pocket for a buildout, it should line a pocket to reimburse a buildout after a success, even if there is some initial seed funding made available, the bulk should not be given to the private entity. Bu then again, im the type of dick who if I hired a guy to paint my house blue and he sided it red, I wouldnt pay him. I also would never give a contractor payment in full until the job is complete, kind of an asshole i am. On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: > It does seem to me that people started out focusing on the successes at > NASA and ended up focusing only on the failures, now the cycle is starting > over with private enterprise. > > I don’t like the way people universally started to talk about the Space > Shuttle like some enormous failure to be mocked. NASA and their > contractors were told to build a reusable space truck for delivering stuff > to orbit, and that’s what they built. At the beginning people ignored the > risks and marveled at the successes. Then there were some failures, and > eventually no one cared about the successes, it wasn’t new and shiny. > > > *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 19, 2016 8:53 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT Space X > > I still think NASA should have been revamped. Private entities should foot > the bill for all failures, paid only upon success. > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Lewis Bergman <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Agreed, I am still amazed they can hit the damn ship without crashing it >> into it. >> >> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016, 10:34 AM Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> The speed at which they are progressing is astounding. They are doing >>> some truly amazing things. >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jason McKemie >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Yeah, I was watching that live. They lost satellite uplink to the ship >>> right >>> > before they landed it unfortunately. Disappointing to see they had more >>> > problems. The seas were apparently pretty rough and they mentioned >>> that ice >>> > on the pad could have been a factor. Still, a pretty amazing feat. >>> > >>> > >>> > On Monday, January 18, 2016, Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> He stuck the landing, but only to have a latch on a leg fail.... >>> arrgh.. >>> >> Look at how close it is to the center of the target: >>> >> >>> >> >>> http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/01/18/elon_musk_spacex_rocket_explodes_during_attempted_sea_landing.html >>> >> > > > -- > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team > as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. > -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
