On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> Consider, though, that NASA gives a lot of funding to contractors who
> would like to establish all kinds of hurdles to the kind of private
> space we envision, mainly to protect their funding.
Actually, no. *They don't believe in it.* They do believe in possible
competition for their comsat launches, and *that* they will fight most
vigorously (as witness some of Beal's woes). But on a corporate scale --
as opposed to occasional mavericks within the structure, who seldom see
much real support from upper management -- they think any sort of cheap
spaceflight is so far off in the future that it's completely beyond their
planning horizon.
Mind you, they're perfectly willing to step on us while pursuing their own
agendas, but they have no specific desire to.
Mammals? Nah. Dinosaurs have been around for tens of millions of years,
and pretty definitely will be around for tens of millions more. That's
where you place your bets. Those little hairy things won't be important
any time soon. (My, that's a pretty comet up there.)
> > NASA *cannot* compete with cheap private spaceflight...
>
> But they can try to put all kinds of regulatory/legislative barriers in
> place.
They are neither in the regulatory path nor in the legislative path; they
simply have no power to do such things.
> ("You're under arrest because you didn't have a launch license from
> NASA." "NASA doesn't issue launch licenses! That's the FAA!" "We'll
> let the courts decide that. In the mean time, we're impounding your
> vehicle. You're liable if we mishandle it and the explosion injures
> anyone.")
Um, been reading too many conspiracy novels before bedtime lately? Or
just eating too many anchovy pizzas? Nothing of the sort was happening
five years ago, when innovative launch looked like *much* more of a threat
to NASA than it does now.
> "Competition" is a polite, if slightly inaccurate, term for this.
If "this" had any basis in reality, that would be correct.
We have enough real government problems; inventing bogeymen under the bed
is not helpful.
> > The single most effective way to put the shuttle out of business is to
> > demonstrate the ability to offer cargo and passenger shipments to ISS at
> > $100/kg...
>
> To the ISS's orbit, anyway, whether or not NASA lets us actually dock
> with the ISS.
Well, yes, meeting -- and getting JSC to agree that we meet -- the
"visiting vehicle" specs might perhaps be a little difficult. (No space
vehicle ever built meets them -- the existing and near-future vehicles
which do visit the station are grandfathered in.) So we'd have to stay
well clear, and work our way in one flight at a time. Take up CNN camera
crews, with long lenses, to film the arrival of the later station modules.
Henry Spencer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
