[Luis Dias]

I think everyone advocating private development has lost the plot. The reason the government has subsidized space-related ventures, the reason we have any at all, is because it's not cost-effective to go there and do stuff privately.

Well, it will be with new technology right?

Who's going to develop new technology for a field nobody's interested in currently? The reason we have, and still need, the government involved in space travel in a major way is so somebody's pushing the stuff forward. The proposed future of glorious private space exploitation isn't going to come unless somebody makes the building blocks first, and private industry isn't going to be the people who do it.

Sure, that's an almost perfect point except that you assume that private companies are "there for the money and nothing else". That's true, but only to a certain degree. Take the X Prizes, for instance. Their goal aint to incentivize companies with "money", since it's mostly a net negative for the candidates who invest in the contests. They have a degree of ideological dream, that tries to inspire investment out of the adventureness of it all, rather than the "money aspect". A typical X prize of say 10 million dollars will invite 100 million dollars of investment from all contesters.

There are "crazy" people out there who only do it because it's about their own human nature: they also dream about space (take John Carmack and his own inventions on the field for example).

So while it is true that the government is the only one right now who could pull a "Let's go to Mars" mission, it is also true that such a mission would be a gigantic black hole of resources, and further, it would drain human inventiveness of random citizens just doing their things.

So I'd say, that sure, it may be short-term "bad" for the space age to be left to the private sector, but in long term, to make the whole society think that space is their own as well to take, and to let just human ingenuity free to do what it pleases, it's a better long term solution, IMHO.

It's almost like the difference between an intelligent design process or random darwinistic design. In the long term, the latter is always more efficient.

[NGTM-1R]

I see the concept of advertizing on the X-prizes is lost on you.

The thing is, the government can pay to push the technology forward much, much faster than the private sector is willing to. The Apollo program is an excellent proof of the point, but for a more recent example so are ion engines. If we want to beat the main problem, the propulsion system, the private sector simply isn't going to put up the money to do it. It cannot and it will not.

[Luis Dias]

It's not lost on me, but you can spare the sarcasm and show the numbers to me and prove your point.

And *even* if your advertizing idea is right, you should ask yourself, what is exactly the motivation for these companies to have the label of "Prize X adventurers"? It means that the capitalistic system is fueled by exactly the human desire to adventure to the stars, even this flows through ads  (If you want this idea more clear: the ads that are allegedly financing the X Prize contestants have value because the eyeballs to which these ads are directed do care about space, and so the whole system "cares" about space as well).

And as I said and you willfully ignored, the private sector isn't ready for gigantic investments. We could make the case that the government should step in and fund these extreme researches, and I'll agree with it. For instance, Congress is considering taking out the next space observatory funding and I find that kind of **** just obscene.

But should the government fund gigantic black holes of investment, like a mission to mars, for instance? I'm way more skeptical on that point.

[NGTM-1R]

For instance, Congress is considering taking out the next space observatory funding and I find that kind of **** just obscene.

But should the government fund gigantic black holes of investment, like a mission to mars, for instance? I'm way more skeptical on that point.

See, this is the point where you've got it all backwards. Adaptive optics and other advances make space-based telescopes something of a waste. Absent searches at wavelengths which don't make the ground, there is no reason to build another space-based telescope, and the ones we have work fine for the moment. A mission to Mars would be the sort of jumpstart for pushing the technology forward that we need.

The space revolution is dying around us. The ISS, while it serves a purpose and does so well, symbolizes it. We don't have any competition anymore, we don't have any drive to achieve. At the current rate in 20 years we won't even send manned missions into our own orbit. If we ever intend to go beyond LEO for any time, we need something that will force us to build the technology to do it, because nobody in the private sector with the money to do it is interested in going that far unless there's already a way.

If the future isn't built, it's not coming. Private industry is not going to build it. They're offering prizes to go to suborbit now. Show me progress before you champion them.

[Luis Dias]

Ok so this conversation reminded me of a video I've seen years ago, luckily I know it was from TED and I found it quickly:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/burt_rutan_sees_the_future_of_space.html

I also don't see investment on the James Webb as a "waste" as you do, but hey. OTOH, I do see further investment on the mars mission as too gigantic. Yeah, we could have new waves of tech going because of it, but the price? Is it worth it? We are not talking about a few billions here.

EDIT: **** I'm seeing the video and he's using the exact same idea I was...  or rather the reverse! And one believes one has original thoughts! Ah!

[Polpolion]

Congratulations!  You found the two least applicable exceptions.  Software is an entirely different can of worms than something like space exploration.

Now find a decent reason for any corporation to restrict said space exploration and or usage.

Whenever not restricting space exploration and usage could decrease profits? If a company made money on flights to a space station, would they want to send materials that would make the station completely self-sufficient? In fact, I would go as far to say that any generalized reason for any company to restrict the usage of their money-making device could be potentially used.

[Luis Dias]

Whenever not restricting space exploration and usage could decrease profits? If a company made money on flights to a space station, would they want to send materials that would make the station completely self-sufficient? In fact, I would go as far to say that any generalized reason for any company to restrict the usage of their money-making device could be potentially used.

This is, as far as I can tell, a complete misunderstanding of the capitalistic system. It's very simple, really. Capitalism works whenever there is fair competition between different private companies. Sure, monopolies skew and turn any economy into an innefficient feud, but they rarely stay in power if they do the kind of stupid thing that you are affirming here.

Basically, if you have a company that manages the referred station, you will look to your choices of materials delivery and pick them according to the terms of contract they are offering you. If one of these companies tells you that they will not send you these materials, they will simply lose the contract and another company will be chosen. Furthermore, if you as the "deliverer" choose to bottleneck such economies, you will fail to watch them grow and become important, and thus you will fail to profit from these markets, because you've just destroyed them.

There are more fallacies embebbed in your reasoning, but these are enough.

[Scotty]

Let's look at this from and angle that makes sense.  First, the possible interactions between companies conducting aerospace operations and those that are not.

1) Company A is conduction aerospace operations.  For the sake of the example, let's assume they're making a profit.  Company 2 has no stake in AS operations, and their profit is therefore not affected.  Neither company has a reason to restrict AS access and/or usage.  Yes, Company A has a monopoly.  No, it does not make sense to alienate the customers.  No restrictions.

2) Company A is conducting AS operations.  As above, assume they're making a profit.  Company 2 is also conducting AS operations, but is being out-done by Company A.  This provides a motivation to compete, furthering progress.  Neither side can afford to alienate customers.  No restrictions.

3) Neither Company A nor Company 2 are conducting AS operations.  There is no competition, and no customers.  By virtue of not being involved, neither company is restricting anything.  No restrictions.

So, what happens if a company has a monopoly and decides to go the "Hey, let's be dicks and restrict this stuff!" route?  Quite simply, they go out of business, and somebody who has a more business-savvy CEO and/or governing board rakes in the cash.

What happens if there is no other business-savvy CEO and/or governing board to rake in the cash?  The company flops, gives up space exploration, and the point is now moot for someone else to fill the void.

What happens if no one fills the void?  There are no restrictions on AS operations by virtue of there not being AS operations.

EDIT for me being forgetful: What happens if there is no profit being made?  Some entrepeneurial spirit either finds a way and the options above enact themselves, or there is no private sector AS operations.  Which means no restrictions.

Seriously guys, critical thinking skills.

[Luis Dias]

Actually, the Microsoft / Apple example is the perfect example on how monopolies don't actually work long term. Apple "lost" the PC wars and the end result is that Apple is now the most profitable computer company in the whole world.

Microsoft had a monopoly and behaved in a (more or less) ****ty way. Result? The Windows brand is valueless and MS is completely unable to fight over new markets except for the game industry. MS ****ed Netscape and the end result is that nowadays almost every saavy user will avoid IE, and all browsers try to follow HTML standards, deviating from MS' strategy of purposedly shifting away from the standards. The most used browsers now are open source (Firefox / Chrome / even the WebKit from Safari).

So every time a company able to monopolize stuff will behave in a ****ty way, it will win lots of profits, but its rein is doomed in medium-long term, because it just loses people's trust.

[KyadCK]

For the record, IE still holds the most users at something like 60%+ of total used browsers, and Microsoft still has a massive portion of the market. Why? Because the average user doesn't know better. The same logic applies to most other things as well, people will stick with the big company because it is known, they don't WANT to look elsewhere because there isn't a need and/or they just don't give a damn.

Monopolies are bad and competition is good, both for the consumer, but the big guy will likely stay the big guy because he's the one everyone knows. Such as Microsoft.

Also note that to be a true monopoly there must be nothing to compete against it, not mearly an overwhelming advantage.

[Nuke]

thats it, this thread gets the stamp of wank. for degrading an intresting topic into an economic debate.

[castor]

Actually, the Microsoft / Apple example is the perfect example on how monopolies don't actually work long term.

How is this a perfect example? More like an exception to the rule.

[Luis Dias]

You'd knew how I think this was a perfect example if you read the following lines. But apparently you didn't or just ignored them.

[Klaustrophobia]

thats it, this thread gets the stamp of wank. for degrading an intresting topic into an economic debate.

in an attempt to defeat the wank and restore interest to the thread, i propose the following salute to the end of the shuttle program:


everyone wear ape suits the day the shuttle returns.

[Nuke]

thats kinda difficult since they all got their brain jizz all over it. and navigating the thread could result in slipping on it and that can cause a concussion, and what do you suppose that would do the the pursuit of knowledge. anyway i dont think i can afford an ape suit. can i just drink a lot of beer instead? besides when your in yer early 20s you want to grow braincells, but by the time yer 30, you want to kill them all because they wont stop torturing you with useless information.