Quote:
Originally Posted by the_intrepid
Last year I worked as an intern at a local Emergency Management Agency (Owned and Operated by the County Government). We bought office supplies from a local dollar store. Do you also consider this government subsidizing?
See below.
Quote:
[quote:3swn4pry]
Without that consumer, the company would have gone out of business twenty one year ago. With this consumer, they have been able to put some money aside to have fun with "private" space. Without the personnel who have learned their stuff working on the US taxpayers' money, they would not have been able to do anything just the same. This is in sharp contrast with, say, automotive industry, who do not depend on the US govt in any way. The latter represents truly private and state-independent business, the former does not. I do not mean to say it is bad, it simply cannot be the other way around.
The United States government buys alot of vehicles from various automobile manufacturers and dealers. (Have you ever heard the cliche about all Federal Employs getting 40,000 dollars a year and a 'Buick'?) Why do you consider this a normal producer-consumer relationship and not private space flight?[/quote:3swn4pry]
Did you actually read what I wrote? I'll repeat it again here: "Without that consumer, the company would have gone out of business twenty one year ago." Would you name an automotive company that would go out of business of not for the US govt?
Quote:
I never said the capabilities were as close. I'm saying that privatized space flight is a good thing.
It's good for your ego, but it is completely irrelevant in terms of technology.
Quote:
If NASA is doing so good of a job, and their so much more useful than these 'garage hobbyists', why would the government (the same government that funds NASA) also fund (subsidize) these hobbyists? The answer? They don't. They have no reason to.
It's not government subsidizing whenever the government is a consumer.
How can you be so dense? I have said many times that the govt is not subsidizing the hobbyists. However, the companies which are getting somewhere are the companies that depend on the US govt in a significant way. For the simple reason that the govt gives them so much that they can have a little fun on the side. It is equally important that these companies have been doing this stuff on the US taxpayers’ money for decades. Look at the top guys at these competitions. They are not newcomers. They have been in aerospace for decades.
Quote:
See, the winner of the Ansari X-Prize gets several millions of dollars, so they're not sustain themselves "only through sales to the government". They're using their own capital to win a prize in a competition.
They spent more than they win.
Quote:
Old articles from Aviation Week and Space Technology (from early last year, if I remember correctlly). If you would prefer not believing me, then fine. It really matters little.
I'm just not going to spend hours looking through old magazines or browsing archives on the web in order to find an old article.
Thought so. Nothing but rumours.
Quote:
Maybe by the time SpaceShipTwentyFour Comes around, I'll be able to go up and count them myself.
Translation: "yes, only a few US reconsats have 4-inch resolution. The bulk has 12-inch or something."
Quote:
... and the KeyHole satellites had greater mobility, and nifty little features like able to clearly peer through clouds.
Did the Russians tell you "sh*t, it's too bad our babies cannot see through clouds"? Did they?
Quote:
Also interesting to note that American satellites did not need to return to Earth to drop off film canisters starting as early as 1976, where as it took the Soviets well into the 1980s in order to achieve the same feat.
The fifth generation (ca 1982) does not depend on that. They still might, though, because it makes a lot of sense security-wise. Radiolinks can be jammed, while it is very difficult to intercept a film canister dropped over the Russian territory.
Quote:
It's not just 'US Government' money ). You seem to think that any success of a country's economy is only because of government interest in whatever becomes a successful venture. I suppose WalMart only succeeded because the U.S. Government subsidizes them, which is undoubtedly true because one time, while at work (working for local government) I had to drive over to WalMart in order to buy printer cartridges?
"Without that consumer, the company would have gone out of business twenty one year ago." See for yourself if that applies to WalMart.