There are plenty of private sector spaceflight companies involved in spaceflight. That has been the case for decades now in regard to satellite manufacturing and launch. Many of those missions are wholly private and have zero government involvement (other than regulatory oversight).
That may be.
You do realize that there will still be crews coming and going to the ISS? The end of the shuttle is not the end of manned space. The ISS will continue to be supplied with crew and consumables by the Russian program. Yes, even Americans will continue to get to the ISS via a Russian rocket. Like it has been for several years now.
Patents have nothing to do with any of it. We, as humans, would benefit greatly if they were abolished on Earth. Businesses and commerce are going to thrive if the rent-seeking inherent in patents were removed. There was never any evidence that patents enhanced innovation.
Patents protect research investment. Getting rid of them is not a good solution. Just look at what happens in China. Companies spend tons of money on research and then, as we see in China, place there just steal that property and profit from it without the original inventors getting any benefit. If a system like that is made global why would anyone really want to invent new things? They would just be stolen. Better spend your time waiting for someone else to invent something and then just steal the idea.
They only beat the hasty retreat under the weight of liability payments. Look how many people die every year while riding motorcycles, jumping with parachutes, and scaling mountains, and nobody is beating any hasty retreats.
These words are meaningless blabbering. How do you measure "hardness"? And it's the government made access to space as expensive as it is now, not physics.
Well, that's fine. First we develop the cislunar space and then you'll repeat the same mantra about "Earth-Mars axis" or whatever is the boundary where private industry has not yet conquered.
This is a bogus argument in that the original inventors still receive the benefit, even in China. They do not receive the benefit of government-backed rent-seeking, is all. But that is still enough to drive innovation.
So, the founders did not know how destructive patents are going to be in 21-st century. They did not even have perpetual copyright back then either.
When someone steals your ideas, market equipment based on your IP without paying any licensing fee then tell me how one receives a benefit? Do you define aa benefit as a warm fuzzy feeling form know that people liked what you invented, because you are not getting any money for your hardwork.
Huh? Do you unerstand patents and IP? The government only issues a legal recognition that you invented something first, they provide a means to recoup damages. It is not 'rent.'
I would welcome seriousness. So far your comments on IP have been a great comedic break.
So your arguement, which seems very short on any facts BTW, is that when HTC sells an Andriod product that causes someone to also by an iPhone ?
As does most of the world hence why no one is rushing out to abolish patents. I did some research for a paper that I wrote not too long ago about open source and patents in pharma. What I found was that each system ended up feeding the other and that open source benefited more in areas where patents existed as did the vis versa as companies wanted to stay ahead of the open source movement in order to provide more value for their products.
Actually they knew them to be, and has history has proven, very valuable to business and innovation.
You missed the point of jshawley's comment. The STS-1 flag was left there to be retrieved by the next crew launched from the US.
I understand. But it sound from his comment that he thought the ISS was being abandoned.
That's because people continue to buy boatloads of motorcycles and mountain climbing equipment. The market for rocket launches is much smaller, and it might shock you, but customers do consider the number of launch failures before selecting a launch service provider. Investors happen to know this.
Really? Which government? Why aren't there private companies in Europe or Asia or anywhere else just launching things willy-nilly into space? Did all those governments make it hard?
Please give me an example of *any* private space enterprise that is comparable to these government accomplishments: the Apollo program (1961-1975), the development and operation of the Space Shuttle (over 40 years), the development, construction, and ongoing operation of the International Space Station (30+ years). Too big / not fair? How 'bout the Pioneer probes (25+ years), the Voyager probes (30+ years), the several recent Mars missions (20+ years), or the Hubble telescope (well over 20 years)? And those are just the US government. The USSR/Russia, Japan, India, and groups of European nations have also accomplished large programs.
If that were true, why haven't there been dozens of low-cost space transportation businesses formed in third-world countries? "Flags of Convenience" are nothing new; why haven't they enabled private space transport? The only active launch site in a third-world country is owned by the French, and the only reason it's there is to take advantage of its equatorial location.
Now you're talking! Give that man a cup of tea in a patriotic flag mug!
You can put this strawman away, because Virgin Galactic are not relevant to the access to space in the near term. How about we discuss Boeing CST-100. You know, the low-cost commercial entry from the same guys who built the space station. Think they do not know how manage a thermal balance of a manned spacecraft in LEO?
Considering I work for the space side of Boeing, and work directly with some of the guys who solve these sorts of thermal problems, I think they'll find a solution.
The CST-100 that Boeing is floating as a contender for crew transport to ISS under NASA's CCDev initiative? Sure, they know how to build spacecraft.
Not sure what "problem" you're referring to. If you're trying to capture why the shuttle is being retired, it's unrealistic to think that can be accurately summed up in one word.
Maybe, but what's the significance of that comparison? It also costs more to drive a bus across town than it does a passenger car. Should I draw some sort of conclusion from that?
Originally, it was intended to also be launched from Vandenberg, which would have allowed polar launches. After Challenger, those plans were cancelled. So?
The most wasteful way to build expertise, congrats.
Where the heck are any comparable customers?
We would've already had a bas on the Moon if U.S. Government had not set us on the path of the heavy lift. The heavy lift made us to pee away 50 years in the development of space. It also won us the race of the Moon, mind. But don't try to pretend that heavy lift is in any way necessary for the development of space. Now of course Mr. Musk may disagree, because has a heavy lift to sell. And so do Senrs Hatch, Nelson, and Shelby, because they looooove government wasting untold billions on the heavy lift in their districts.
Oh please. We even have private deep space comm and tracking network now - despite the unfair competition from the government. "Pioneering" techniques, is this something that even Chineese do now? Also, where is my boom docking? Oh right, not being developed by the government, but one guy in his garage in Colorado.
What does matter that government did "pioneering" work that saddled us with ballistic missile cost structure? Am I supposed to be thankful for that? Your basic fallacy here is: government did X first (in its typical wasteful way), therefore government must continue doing X to the exclusion of the private sector. Even Congress understood how fallacious that was, that's why we have the Space Act (which NASA wilfully violates at every turn; they even announced that CCDev is going to move from SA procurement to FAR (that's A as in Acquisition, not Aviation)).
