Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 1995508" data-attributes="member: 177">While there's some truth in here, I think this statement has a lot of spin in it.The fact of the matter is that at the moment, launching into orbit is really darned expensive.&nbsp; Even when NASA does it, it costs about $10,000 per pound to lift something into orbit.&nbsp; That cost isn't from legislation, or government restrictions or anything.&nbsp; It's simply that the technologies we currently use are really darned expensive.The government subsidizes NASA to make launches cheaper, but that's not some form of anti-competition measure.&nbsp; That's because very few launches would get made otherwise, and we need communications sattellites to make our world go around these days.I'm sorry, but that's backwards.&nbsp; With current technologies, launching isn't really profitable for anyone smaller than a nation, period.&nbsp; Removing the government subsidies on NASA will only make launches with current tech more expensive.&nbsp; NASA and the US government don't put many blocks on research.&nbsp; If someone would do the research, and bring launch costs down by a factor of ten, they'd make a mint!&nbsp; But the research is darned expensive, and not sure to bear fruit.&nbsp; In other words, it's a big economic risk.&nbsp; Most companies shy away from big risks.That's why the Ansari X Prise exists - to make the research more appealing.&nbsp; It took one of the greatest aeronautical engineers on the planet and a co-founder of Microsoft to toss in $20 million just to get something that would make the trip to space (not orbit, just space) semi-reliably.&nbsp; And they only won back $10 million for their troubles.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 1995508, member: 177"] While there's some truth in here, I think this statement has a lot of spin in it. The fact of the matter is that at the moment, launching into orbit is really darned expensive. Even when NASA does it, it costs about $10,000 per pound to lift something into orbit. That cost isn't from legislation, or government restrictions or anything. It's simply that the technologies we currently use are really darned expensive. The government subsidizes NASA to make launches cheaper, but that's not some form of anti-competition measure. That's because very few launches would get made otherwise, and we [i]need[/i] communications sattellites to make our world go around these days. I'm sorry, but that's backwards. With current technologies, launching isn't really profitable for anyone smaller than a nation, period. Removing the government subsidies on NASA will only make launches with current tech more expensive. NASA and the US government don't put many blocks on research. If someone would do the research, and bring launch costs down by a factor of ten, they'd make a mint! But the research is darned expensive, and not sure to bear fruit. In other words, it's a big economic risk. Most companies shy away from big risks. That's why the Ansari X Prise exists - to make the research more appealing. It took one of the greatest aeronautical engineers on the planet and a co-founder of Microsoft to toss in $20 million just to get something that would make the trip to space (not orbit, just space) semi-reliably. And they only won back $10 million for their troubles. [/QUOTE]

Verification