this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
238 points (97.6% liked)
Space
8748 readers
119 users here now
Share & discuss informative content on: Astrophysics, Cosmology, Space Exploration, Planetary Science and Astrobiology.
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
Picture of the Day
The Busy Center of the Lagoon Nebula
Related Communities
🔭 Science
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
🚀 Engineering
🌌 Art and Photography
Other Cool Links
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Space is expensive, and never gets the attention it deserves. Only a handful of countries could do much space exploration and as they try to explore more it rapidly gets more expensive, longer timeframe. We need to face that from a societal perspective it just doesn’t scale.
Commercializing space doesn’t just mean silly things like orbital hotels, but it means more, better, cheaper access to space and space resources. It means distributing efforts for better scalability. It means multiple funding sources so we’re less dependent on the whims f politicians. It means someone else can take care of the “easy” stuff, so NASA/ESA/JSA/CSA/ASA/etc can focus on the bigger challenges of exploration.
More international cooperation is also a huge part of this. We need to continue the model of cooperation from ISS, so we can all build on each other’s efforts, and reach out into the solar system as “humanity”
You do realize these "commercial companies" such as SpaceX are funded by government contracts right? You're not telling me anything I don't already know. And you're also not going to change my opinion. Space isn't meant to be the next capitalist playground, which is what we are trying to do.
Yes, but it will be cheaper for NASA to outsource cargo and crew transport than if they did everything themselves. Just look at the success of the NASA's Commercial Resupply Services and Commercial Crew programs. Cygnus, Dragon, and Falcon 9 are way cheaper than Orion and Ares I would have been for low earth orbit.
This leaves NASA with more resources to devote towards interesting science and exploration missions. I don't see why lunar exploration would be any different.
That is absolutely wrong. Commercialization in the space sector is - without exception - ALWAYS more expensive in the long run. Not only do you have inefficient company structures much like the public sector administration, you now also have to finance the insane profit margins of some egomaniacs like the little rat that runs shitter these days.
Yet, compare the results of having SpaceX build out launch services currently serving the bulk of world launch traffic, to the Artemis program. The commercial service developed practical reusability that NASA didn’t, refined the service to a fraction of traditional cost, and scaled up far beyond what NASA did. Sure NASA funded and supervised but letting SpaceX do it their way was a great investment and NASA never have delivered the same results. Compare that to the Artemis program, currently expecting to cost $1B/launch with limited usefulness and only four planned launches
I think space is one example where private industries actually can and do deliver cheaper, even if you just blame it on risk avoidance and Congressional interference at NASA.
More importantly, we do have a high value commercial market in satellites. We do have a global market in cooperation with other country’s space development, which are readily served by commercial launch services with only oversight by NASA.
I have no idea what the next phase of commercial development in space will be, but satellites are a resounding success
SpaceX is - among other reasons - faster because they are willing to take more risks. When a crew of astronauts dies on a Dragon spacecraft like they did on the Columbia or Challenger, people might reconsider the costly and slow public approach.
Notwithstanding, they did do some impressive design, however some prices are paid after getting what you invested in. In this case because damage control is necessary with an insecure rich snob kid that owns the place & has public temper tantrums on red wine and sedatives.
Edit: oh, and I forgot to say: basically that stupid Ambien kid alone is ruining astronomy results and polluting near earth orbit with the small dick compensation project starlink.
This argument gets made a lot when talking about privatisation. Lots basic and essential services have gotten privatised over we decades, and none of them got better or cheaper.
The only way you can benefit from privatizing something is when you make others pay for it. In this case, SpaceX is burning other people's venture capital like rocketfuel. I prefer that over spending public money, but unfortunately, they've also spent 1.9billion on a moon lander, with nothing to show.
This seems like a rather broad statement. Are there really zero cases where a privatized service got cheaper? Do you disagree with the example of NASA’s CRS and CCP programs in my previous comment?
I think stating that they have nothing to show is slightly disingenuous. They've done multiple successful suborbital hops with upper stage prototypes, and two (partially successful) launches of the full stack. I'm eagerly awaiting IFT-3, which could happen as early as March.
Space is unfathomably enormous. I'd much rather have heavy industry fucking up shit in space than destroying our planet to strip it of its resources. I say let them go up there for asteroid/moon/whatever mining.
Yes, that's true, but low earth orbit isn't. If we put too much junk up there, we can kiss going to space goodbye.
and all satellite services, such as GPS & earth observation...
I didn't say anything about LEO, as last I checked there isn't much heavy industry that would be appealing to do in that area. Asteroid or moon mining and production would be outside of LEO. But yes, too much space garbage in LEO is a bad thing that should definitely be avoided as much as possible.
I just think taking a strict anti-commercial stance in space is a bit naive and unreasonable. Like I said, it's enormous, who gives a shit what Blue Origin or SpaceX or whoever ends up doing in the asteroid belt a hundred years from now?
Did you miss the part where I said I work in the space industry, I have 10 years of engineering experience, and I've been out of school a long damn time. Don't insult my intelligence. I'm not a child, and I'm certainly not naive. Go spout off your uninformed opinions elsewhere. I'm in a bad mood today, haven't been sleeping well, and I really don't feel like explaining basic shit to you just so you understand my point of view.
It’s not though. New regulations require 5 year deorbit from Leo, and StarLink has bedn delivering on that
Yeah, China has done a bang up job of following that by blowing up satellites... they basically undid 25 years worth of cleanup efforts with that one selfish act. Seriously, yall need to go somewhere else. I'm not having this conversation with people who are uninformed. I'm tired of it.
Luckily, the moon is in Low Earth Orbit! It's good to have you on out side, comrade
The moon isn't in LEO actually. But you have to go through LEO to get there.
Regardless of what it's "meant" to be it will be the final capitalist playground.