SOC said:
Kadija_Man said:
Commercial satellites? I'll grant you that but basically they were all lofted by Government owned and managed instrumentalities. What demand there is for private space corporations comes from demand from Government.
They were all lofted by government boosters partly because of the prevailing attitude problem around here: if the government will do it for you, be it buying your food or orbiting your satellite, why do it for yourself? Take away the government as an option, as is increasingly the case now with space access, and surprise, commercial space companies with their own booster designs are appearing.
They are appearing in the US. I'm yet to see any, anywhere else. Europe? Nope. Russia? Nope. China? Nope. India? Nope. Even Japan hasn't got any of those commercial space booster building companies. Most commercial satellites even in the US are lofted by NASA. A few LEO satellites have been done by private enterprise but they are in the minority. All those commercial telecommunication satellites, launched by Governments. It may be that commerce sees it's easier to utilise the experience, knowledge and proven designs that Government has produced for a reason. If you want a cheap, safe satellite launch, use an R-7 or Long March based booster.
Kadija_Man said:
So there's the contradiction - Libertarians proclaim they don't want Government but the space visionary Libertarians are reliant on demand from Government for their dreams to be fulfilled.
How do libertarians require the government to do it if private industry is coming up with ways to do it?
See above. Private developed boosters are still a long way off and even then, they'll only loft small payloads initially. Not going to be used for most satellites because they won't be able to compete on price when Government decides to drop the prices when competition starts.
The development of the latter precludes the former. Plus, libertarians don't want no government, they want less government intrusion and regulation, i.e. a much smaller government bureaucracy. A libertarian government that canned NASA would also through deregulation make it simpler for private corporations to develop space assets.
Depends on which sort of Libertarians you're talking about. The more extreme, as represented by some here essentially want NO Government, if their blogs are to be believed. Their attitude towards government regulation amounts to being little different to anarchy. The reality is that today's society requires bureaucracy to function, to provide the services which make a society well, a society instead of a collection of misanthropes.
As we have seen with the Global Financial Crisis what happens when deregulation occurs. Who is going to check on the safety of your deregulated space launchers? There will be, as you suggest, no government to do it. There will be no regulations that they must adhere to, if the Libertarians have their way. There will be though, a bunch of Libertarian cowboys set free to do what they want without care or responsiblity.
Kadija_Man said:
BTW, if Republicans are so in favour of Space, why has NASA's budget been cut so much under their administrations?
Until the idea that returning to the Moon was the plan, there were no hugely significant new programs I don't think. The ISS and the Shuttle were already there. Mars missions went ahead even though NASA smeared one of the landers. There's also been more international cooperation with organizations like the ESA for scientific missions, meaning it costs less than if NASA wanted to do it by itself. So, without a lot of the need behind the funding, I can see why you'd have a budget cut. Plus, just because you have a Republican in the White House doesn't mean you have a Republican-controlled or otherwise cooperative Congress, which is where the budget comes from in the first place.
Perhaps not but some here talk as if it is only the Democrats who are unfavourable to space. What most of them forget is that it was Kennedy who started the whole thing off. What is lacking is vision and I'd say that the myopea is abundant on both sides of the political spectrum in the US polity.
The last Republican administration was more willing to pour trillions of dollars into invading other countries and killing people than going anywhere outside the Earth's orbit. Where is the replacement for the Shuttle? Where is the replacement for the ISS? As it is, we generally see the same Libertarian and Right-wingers here propounding the virtues of wasting squillions on ICBMs and nuclear weapons than on increased space exploration.
Kadija_Man said:
...are, while they have the ability to make some good points, largely delusional and combined with the neo-con movement part of what's wrong with the Republican party and conservatism in general these days.
I agree. Unfortunately both groups have moved the Republicans to the far right, taking control largely from the moderate right wingers who can appeal to the majority of voters with sensible policies. Sensible policies attract voters, extremism doesn't. Which is why Obama won twice and more than likely if the same crop of crackpots are put up next time, the Democrats will win again.
Kadija_Man said:
hard-line Libertarians who want essentially no Government, to the point of being IMHO anarchists.
...again, no, it's "less" not "none".
Depends on whom you read.
And in some cases there's a delineation between concepts related to federal and local government, i.e. some issues should be handled at the local or state level and the government should leave it alone. Plus there are a bunch of different flavors of liberalism, and while some do tend to be far more anarchic in their overal lpolitical stance regarding the existance of government that is not representative of the movement as a whole. That'd be as wrong as saying all Tea Party people are racists because a news channel finds one dumbass to interview. Robert Byrd was in the KKK, the same logic used to smear the Tea Party (or any other political group) dictates that one must agree that all Democrats are therefore racist. Which is clearly asinine and not actually logical whatsoever.
Agreed but one goes by what one reads, both in the MSM and in alternative places such as blogs and the Blogs claim to be representative and who am I to doubt them? One notable here is always railing against all government regulation.
Also, NACHOS! Now I want nachos. Thanks a lot, Abraham!
Go and make some then but please, use real ingredients, not pre-packaged crap.
Personally, I'm settling down to a nice curry. ;D