I think I'll pass on this NASA gear

@sicc574 If you mean short-term positive results, then sure. However, do not confuse privately owned corporate capitalism “for the benefit of the shareholders” with government “for the good of the people”.

The general population will not see one dime or non-monetary benefit from privatizing space exploration.

You are completely ignoring the entirety of the side effects and benefits to all of us - for the low, low price of taxpayer budgets for the programs - across the entire technology sector (which, frankly, wouldn’t exist without NASA being a government-funded effort. Same for education systems that produced all those engineers and scientists.

Taxpayers will not see one benefit that won’t be monetized by the shareholders to return on their investment - much like medicine is today - where only the near-term profitable projects are chosen, or they are tilted to produce a revenue stream instead of long-lasting benefit to taxpayers or all humankind. This is why we have “space tourism” instead of a moon base or understanding and preparing for surviving interplanetary manned exploration. And why medicine and big pharma only produce “treatments” instead of “cures”.

Greed-fueled capitalism also ignores, or outright defrauds the public of harmful long-term effects. Tobacco and fossil fuels and waste disposal are obvious examples where capitalist incentives actually cost taxpayers and humankind far, far, more in the long run.

@mike808 @sicc574

I’m sure that completely private enterprise space travel will never have disaster level consequences for persons outside the space program. Right?

And, if there were to be such unfortunate consequences, everyone negatively impacted (or their families) will be completely made whole afterwards, right?

Doesn’t private enterprise always work that way?
Huh.

@f00l @mike808 @sicc574 Oops, accidentally drilled a hole through the hull. Oh well, a little flex seal ought to patch that baby right up.

KuoH

@f00l @sicc574 Of course. That’s exactly why coal strip mining operations have fully funded land restoration and healthcare pensions that put the land back the way it was before they mined and to provide for workers healthcare costs from black lung and cancer after they no longer work in the mines. Of course they have no reason to dump those costs on the backs of taxpayers, as all of those shareholders put aside some profit to pay for those costs of their private business. I’m looking at you, Joe Manchin.

And the fossil fuel industry. And the chemicals industry. Because that EPA so-called “superfund” is all just a hoax and doesn’t need to exist because the for-profit industry corporations self-regulate just fine and don’t need the “big hand of government” to force them to.

Corporations need to be accountable, go to jail, be subject to their freedoms being taken away, and to die, just like people do, if they want to pretend they are just like people.

@f00l @kuoh @mike808 @sicc574

Oops, accidentally drilled a hole through the hull. Oh well, a little flex seal ought to patch that baby right up.

That’s Roscosmos.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/09/russian-space-chief-vows-to-find-full-name-of-technician-who-caused-iss-leak/

@sicc574 Don’t forget that SpaceX would not exist without NASA backing & funding. The commercial cargo program, and others, kept SpaceX alive in the early days.

They have other projects going to support other up & coming launch providers.

The real problem as I see it are the bottomless cost plus contracts like Artemis/SLS (The Senate Launch System), but those are largely mandated by congress.

NASA is getting good return on their fixed price contracts, and Boeing is probably running at a loss with their screwups on their Starliner capsule. Though I’m glad they finally made a successful test flight.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/05/todays-the-day-when-boeings-starliner-takes-to-the-skies-probably/

@mike808 @sicc574 Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin are doing space tourism because that’s their only possible source of income. There’s no other use for sub-orbital flights, at least that can’t be done by cheap sounding rockets.

Blue Origin has yet to deliver an orbital rocket, or even an orbital rocket engine to United Launch Alliance (ULA), the Boeing/Lockheed joint venture.

They’re four years overdue, so ULA’s Vulcan is still a paperweight.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/06/the-large-vulcan-rocket-is-unlikely-to-make-its-debut-in-2022/

@blaineg @sicc574 So what you’re saying is that if these space efforts were not private for-profit enterprises, they would not be forced to divert resources and effort away from their primary NASA deliverables to please shareholders, thereby delaying the program goals less efficiently than the government could.

@mike808 @sicc574 That’s almost, but not quiet entirely, unlike what I was saying.

I’m saying that unlike SpaceX, Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin appear to be incompetent.

@duodec They still use both the “meatball” logo.

And the “worm”, though it fell out of favor for a couple of decades.

But I don’t see much rhyme or reason behind the choice of which one to use.