Virigin Galactic

Mdanner423 · Post by **Mdanner423** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 1:07 pm

Hey!

If anyone wants to give me $198,600 I will personally go into space with virgin galactic and write a report from a space campers view point

. People have tried this before, to sell commercial seats into space, but they didnt quite have as much financial backing as this does. I think it'll happen within their time frame (2008). What do you guys think?

Do you think that at Space Camp we should learn about private and corporate adventures into space, or only government sponsored?

Do you think that companies will start to use simmilar technology to do their own expirements and to develop new products into space, minimizing the need for NASA?

http://www.newratings.com/new2/beta/article_471877.html

I realize this covers some of the same, for some reason controversial topics that the x-prize thread did, but I think it's an important topic!

What are some positive aspects of private and commercial space ventures, and what are some negative aspects?

Space Nerd · Post by **Space Nerd** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:40 pm

I'm saying if and thats a big IF commerical space travel gets off the ground... legally. I think low earth orbit is the best place to start. I think that the commercial people ought to let NASA handle things first. They can always go farther later. As for postive aspects there are many such as increased public interest in the universe that we live in. However, we cant discount the negative effects of space likely becoming less of a special scientfic thing and more of a 'its really easy and safe to go to space' tourist thing. Personally, i just dont want to see going to space become a routine thing because leaving our earths atmosphere should never be routine. Now before i start a fight i shall retire into the depths of my internet attack shelter.

Not that we get argumentative or anything.

Mdanner423 · Post by **Mdanner423** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:43 pm

I can understand how you might think space flight would be considered routine and the work of the pioneers might be forgotten. (Ive had teachers, and college professors tell me that we still go to the moon often with the space shuttle, so, I really have no idea what the general public thinks.) But isnt it possible like with airplanes that the pioneers will always be remembered and respected, like the wright brothers?

Space Nerd · Post by **Space Nerd** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:48 pm

There are people who actually believe that i've been to space. If i didnt tell them any differntly i could be selling autographs. The public knows so very little about space travel that its frightening. I'm sure that the pioneers of the space program would be remembered and i'm all for that. My problem lies where going to space becomes all to easy and we forget about how unsafe and risky space travel actually is. I just dont want to see going to space become a weekend traveler thing. I think with commercialization that will happen all to fast. I'm ok with it in the future maybe but i definitly think it should wait till after NASA gets to mars.

Mdanner423 · Post by **Mdanner423** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:53 pm

Hrmmmm. I'm not able to understand that. So you think it's a bad thing that we clock alot of man hours in space? I gurantee there will be accidents as with everything, car crasehs, plane crashes, trains derail. But the more experience we have the safer we can make the journey. Why would routine low earth orbit flights be better after the US makes it to Mars? Think of all the spinoffs that came from one or two agencys working in space, if we have those plus say 6 companies working on both research and tourism wouldnt the output mostly be positive. Should the US government own space, the moon, mars, or any of the planets or their moons?

Drumrollz · Post by **Drumrollz** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:53 pm

I've said it once, I'll say it again. NASA has either got to seperate from Government funding and work with the commercial sector, or they'll lose their footing in space.

NASA isn't getting enough money from the government, the government is spending non-existant money on NASA as it is. We need commercial spaceflight if we ever hope to succede in making space a part of our everyday lives.

Lyn, NASA has been handeling things first.
We haven't left Earth's orbit in over 40 years.
Bush's amazing new space plan is just another way that he looks like he's doing something, but pushing something through Congress and actually DOING something are two totally different things.

We want to work towards an era of "easy and safe" to go to space. No one forgets cowboys, do they? That was the last frontier. Space is the next one.

You can't rely on NASA anymore. They're bogged down in public criticsm, government budgeting, government approvals, redtape, and the like.

I love the spirt of NASA, don't get me wrong. But they're not who they used to be. And unless they get out of the bear trap of the government they're stuck in, they'll stay there.

Drumrollz · Post by **Drumrollz** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:56 pm

Space Nerd wrote: I'm ok with it in the future maybe but i definitly think it should wait till after NASA gets to mars.

NASA isn't going, manned flight, to Mars anytime soon.
We need to focus on the moon. If we can't make that a regular trip for NASA, then they don't stand a chance.

Space Nerd · Post by **Space Nerd** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:08 pm

Okay starting with Danner:
I have no problem with clocking more hours in space i just want the right people to be doing it. The trained professionals who follow the guidlines that we've spent many years making. I dont think i was clear when i said after we go to mars i was actually speaking about commercialization being better after we've gone to mars. If we're gonna have commercialization now i vote only for low earth orbit. I dont know if that was any clearer.
In reguards to the spinoffs theres a principal in psychology that talks about the paradox of progress which basically says that no matter how much more technilogically advanced we get we still have as many problems and are equally as unhappy as before. Are that many more spinoffs needed? You do bring up a good point on that one though i'll give you that.

Moving on to Dan:
I'm not even talking about bush right now i'm just working this out on a level assuming that eventually we will get to mars without question. I think it would be better to wait to commercialize until we've done some more exploring on the government level. I dont have a problem with NASA working with the commercial sector i just dont want the commercial sector branching off on thier own yet. Thats my only issue right now. I also dont have a problem with NASA going regularly to the moon. I just dont want to see commercialization happen too fast. Mars is in the future so thats where i put my opinion.

Realize that i'm a friendly debater lol and that i often times like to play devils advocate so i will often stand my ground i dont intend to offend anybody so if i do tell me and i'll apologize.

Mdanner423 · Post by **Mdanner423** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:22 pm

Space Nerd wrote:...I dont think i was clear when i said after we go to mars i was actually speaking about commercialization being better after we've gone to mars. Are that many more spinoffs needed?

Why will it be better to go to the moon once the US goes to Mars? Why would the need for spinoffs be diffrent now? They were technologies that we never knew we needed or how to make them, I know we are pretty technological but I know we haven't created everything possible. I think we need just as many spinoffs as we ever did.

Cerver · Post by **Cerver** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:34 pm

*This is a rather long post, I will try my best to keep it organized.
*I will save my personal views for last, until then I will just provide information.

Danner is completely right, this is an important topic. I would like to start off with some general arguments from both sides.

"No one owns space, so why should the government be able to govern it?" That’s a good argument, however: "I don’t want to wake up some day and look up at the giant Coca-Cola moon." (red moon, get it) “Nor do I want to look at the giant Nike swoosh neon space station at night.” Are also good arguments. Although those are some pretty far fetched situations, they represent the long term effects. But what about the smaller things.

Should I have to look at the "Just Do It" on the side of a rocket heading into outer space? You may think this is not a relative question, but it has already been tried (and denied). Think of how much easier the x-prize would be if they could be corporately funded for add space.

Well, there are two sides to this example, legality, and morality. Legally: I’m not entirely sure how this would be covered, but if I can see corporate advertising, unwilling, from my own property, I think that is pushing the limits. Morally, its really up to the individual.

So far I have just touched on the "Should they be allowed in space" from the justification point of view. But what about the practicality point of view. NASA is having a tough time fitting everything in a budget, privatizers might be able to give NASA some handy formation, possibly cut a mission or two out of the schedule. You may want to argue that a third party organization could/would take shortcuts and shortchange NASA. Well that’s true, but NASA could shortchange themselves just as easily. And why the hell do the same thing twice. (China, moon, !?) So:

Option 1: NASA and privatizers go on space missions independently. And if public knowledge is obtained then they might benefit from each other,

Option 2: NASA could go CO-OP with 3rd parties. Pay each other for different missions/knowledge etc.

Option 3: NASA could privatize itself. Or what I like to call “Ride the Space Wave”

I know your all thinking “What did he just say!”, but stop and think about it. If NASA has to compete with third party space goers, they will definitely struggle. Why? because they have a thing called safety regulations. It cost more money. So if someone goes into space, cheaply but risky (Russians?) then NASA will have trouble getting business, in the space sector at least. And if the space sector suffers then NASA suffers, because that’s what they are viewed as, just space.

But NASA does so much more than space! And if they loose popularity because they fail in the space sector, then they will fail elsewhere too! That’s why it may be a wise decision to stay competitive by becoming a "privatizers" themselves.

NASA could run its own hidden agenda. What this means is they get money from people, companies, etc, to do missions or rides or whatever. But on these missions they also do their own thing. Its like a safari guide snapping his own pictures. Free pictures. Well, I’m talking about free space time. (not to be confused with the space-time-continuum) NASA charges for the ride, and makes a pit stop at the ISS (the tourists probably wouldn't mind.

Now that all of that has been said I would like to take some time and mention Deception Point by Dan Brown. [If you hate Dan Brown, suck it up, he writes fiction and there’s nothing wrong with that.] Deception Point is a fiction story about some incredible finding. Its a great book, but that’s not why I'm talking about it. In the book NASA is both attacked and supported. Fictional privatizers are also in the plot. I don’t want to give anything away, but some very interesting political situations arise with NASA and these privatizers. I hope everyone here takes the time to read this book, not only for the perfect examples and situations about NASA and space privatization, but also because it is an extremely well written thriller.

Now back to the main topic. Regardless to if it should happen, some programs are already up and running.

Example of co-op research: HABET is a program at ISU (Iowa State University which is where I attend). HABET (High Altitude Balloon Experiments in Technology) "Launch" (more like, let loose) a variety of Payloads lifted by Helium/Hydrogen filled balloons. These balloons are massive, they start out about 5 ft in diameter but reach 30 ft at the upper limits of the atmosphere (The one I was involved with reached 74,500 ft). HABET has already been commissioned by Stanford (whom were commissioned by NASA). In a program called NEMASAT they flew worms to a micro gravity environment altitude. I posted a link (see below) to an article that talks about this program. One thing the article fails to mention is that they used this information obtained at ISU to help them with the timeline of the STS 107 failure.

Example of independent research: CubeSat is a much larger program, around 40 universities, high schools, and private developers are involved in it (Including ISU). You can read all about it on their website (see below) but basically its a new standard for launching picosatelites. A developer makes a 10cm cube and sends it off to be stuck into a larger device that is then launched. Each cube has a weight limit of 1 kg and costs about $40,000 per cube. [Since 1 kg is 2.2 lbs is about $20,000 per lb, if you remember from quiz bowl (Atlantis team) NASA can launch 1 lb for "Ten thousand USD" on the space shuttle. Hmm, NASA is currently cheaper.

These may be relatively small programs, and far from what NASA is currently able to achieve, but that could certainly change with time.

Well Danner, I hope I gave you (and everyone else) some useful information.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, my personal opinion. I don’t think space should be limited to governments. However, If I ever wake up and see some space tragedy on the news about some private company I will be extremely pissed. Also, if I ever see a red moon, or a Nike swoosh neon sine. I will also be extremely pissed. Those statements should be self explanatory and I think everyone would agree with me.

Useful links:

HABET homepage
http://cosmos.ssol.iastate.edu/HABET/Home.html

HABET LT 1 (Mission I was involved with.)
http://cosmos.ssol.iastate.edu/HABET/l71/l71.html

HABET (NEMASAT missions)
http://cosmos.ssol.iastate.edu/HABET/l72/l73.html
http://cosmos.ssol.iastate.edu/HABET/l72/l72.html
http://cosmos.ssol.iastate.edu/HABET/l65/l65.html
http://cosmos.ssol.iastate.edu/HABET/l66/l66.html

Stanford letter relating to NEMASAT
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/2004/worms24.html

CubeSat website
http://cubesat.calpoly.edu/_new/index.html

Deception Point
http://www.danbrown.com/novels/deceptio ... views.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... 5?v=glance

Whens meg gonna post?

~Tim
aka Mufasa

"WTF? Smart people on the internet?"

Drumrollz · Post by **Drumrollz** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:34 pm

And how exactly, do you propose, NASA is going to get back to the Moon anytime soon? They don't have any kind of vehicle for it anymore, and they don't have the public support that they did in the 60s. Back then, The Enemy had the capability of spaceflight, so we had to keep up with them.

*here's to wishing we find out Osama is on Mars, then we'll magically come up with the technology and money and be on Mars in two and a half days*

Cerver · Post by **Cerver** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:35 pm

Now tim mysteriously edits his post to make Dan look like a fool!

Moderator: Play nice.

Drumrollz · Post by **Drumrollz** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:47 pm

Tim, you were looking all mature until that second post

Tim wrote:Well, there are two sides to this example, legality, and morality. Legally: I’m not entirely sure how this would be covered, but if I can see corporate advertising, unwilling, from my own property, I think that is pushing the limits. Morally, its really up to the individual.

See, the trouble here is that already is in place. You see corporate advertising already from your own property. Sure, it's not as common in Suburbia, but anyone who has ever lived next to a major highway or in the city knows that adversiting already permeates your property.

Here's another good example: Television.
I recently saw a little survey of teens and their favorite TV shows. All of the teenagers seemed to think their show was perfect. Hardly. The OC? ER? C.S.I.? All great shows. But they all have something in common: Commercials.

Now, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, on the other hand.....

Cerver · Post by **Cerver** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:53 pm

yes well, its my SRB, so its funny.

But seriously, you have the option to watch TV, you can turn it off. Thats the idea anyways.

And being a sceintist I am compelled to correct my error.

You may create a vacume over the surface of my SRB if you wish.

tennisrox014 · Post by **tennisrox014** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:11 pm

wow. i must have ADD and i couldnt finish reading that long post. but props to you for writing it!

Space Nerd · Post by **Space Nerd** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 7:20 pm

This just keeps getting more and more interesting...

I think we have a couple of arguments going on at the same time which makes posting more difficult. Deception point was a good book (as i too mentioned in my previous topic) and it had a lot of good outlooks. I still stand with the fact that commercialization is dangerous. Also, if we have private organizations or companies putting things into space we also run a risk of more space junk. This obviously causes problems for us becuase we have more than enough space junk to avoid already. If we have random groups of people sending stuff into space it leaves a lot of room for error. I realize that NASA also has that room for error but they also have a lot more people to check on them too being that they are government and all.

I also think there should be some governing body behind space because if there are no rules for space whats there to stop it from becoming chaos?

Everybody has had some good points so far... it's getting interesting.

Mdanner423 · Post by **Mdanner423** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:04 pm

I know there are some international agreements on space debris now... I bet they will if they already dont, make it a regulation for satellites to do a deorbit burn before being shut down. As far as vessels causeing space debris... That shouldnt happen, i dont think.

Space Nerd · Post by **Space Nerd** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:08 pm

It would happen if there was an accident. Or one of the private companies screwed up. They would be likely to face more judgement than NASA imho because they wouldnt be government run. Lots of people blame the government for thier problems but they never do anything. That adds up as bad for the private sector or at least worse than it would be for NASA. I'm thinking of space debris caused by vessels that they lose control of once in orbit or stuff that they just jettison because they dont want it anymore.

meg · Post by **meg** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:18 pm

*sings the hokey pokey and dances around her room*

Mdanner423 · Post by **Mdanner423** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:18 pm

I don't see that happening, but its possible. An accident would prolly cause a spin and make the vessel fall back into orbit, and as far as just throwing crap out.. I dunno, the people behind it are pretty smart and they are going to do the little things to make sure people stay happy customers, so I don't think they will throw out the trash. But I cant gurantee that.

Virigin Galactic

What is to far, where should commercial or private space pioneers be limited to explore?

Virigin Galactic