Re: Nasa/faa
- From: blue.planet <blue.planet.23ogxn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 05:38:53 +0000
John Savard Wrote:
The cost of launching payloads into orbit has been maintained at an
Although one very *basic* fact is wrong, it certainly _is_ true that
space travel is so expensive as to be totally uneconomic in relation
to
rewards for private companies. A company the size of Microsoft might
go
into space as a *very* long-term investment... but don't hold your
breath. So I basically agree with you, even so.
artificially high level by the way it's been funded. Government
contractors have been paid on a "cost plus" basis. They are paid for
the cost of the product delivered(ex. shuttle launch) plus a percentage
of that cost as "profit". The more the launch costs the bigger the
profit. There has been no incentive to reduce the costs of space
launches by NASA contractors.
Private companies on the other hand are going to have to find the
cheapest way of delivering mass into space or their customers are going
to find a cheaper alternative. And like in the early days of air travel,
if you start offering a new service you will create a clientele that
didn't exixt before.
--
blue.planet
.
- References:
- Nasa/faa
- From: blue . planet
- Re: Nasa/faa
- From: jacob navia
- Re: Nasa/faa
- From: John Savard
- Nasa/faa
- Prev by Date: We Are Prisoners Of Fire
- Next by Date: Bigelow launch vehicle mistake
- Previous by thread: Re: Nasa/faa
- Next by thread: Re: Nasa/faa
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
