Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
@Mondoz: Nah.. it just reminded me of the zoo.. I went there earlier this year and saw these lil beasties and was all like awww that's awesome.. then the workers there explained a few disturbing things about the state of forestry there.. 1 example is the fact that their deforestation is accelerating faster than any other tropical place in the world. It's definitely important for people to pay more attention to this and hopefully the satellite images will help bring to lite this and the many other issues their forests are facing every day and help to preserve these and other cute animals, yes?
@DeusExMach has jumped the snark: Welcome back! But damn, the claws already? No RnR? Be nice to Dancekat who actually has nice posts.. it's Mondoz who's the Negative Nancy.. this is all off topic now! Clearly I set the tone to be about the wonders of satellite based imagery of awesome cute animals.. :)
If money were no object, I'd say that they should build a base on the Moon where they can build something to send a crew of, like, 100 people to Mars. Do it all 2001 style with an enormous spinning ring to simulate gravity and all that.
NASA's relationship with private contractors has been a source of accidents in the past, when not enough safety and money is devoted to solving problems. The Columbia Accident Report blames, among other things, a culture in which space travel is viewed as more "operational" than it really is. Every flight is still "experimental," the percentage of accidents remains higher than people realize, and compared to the millions of airplane flights during its first 50 years (with airplanes used multiple times) the number of objects launched into orbit remains only in the thousands, with almost all used only once.
Arguably, commercializing space flight will lead to the same innovation that occurred with airplanes, but not without catastrophe. The Space Shuttle is the most complex machine ever built, and private companies may not fully understand the complexity of the challenge, or the amount of resources it takes to get the job done. NASA and Congress have underestimated the necessary resources in the past as well, so it's inevitable the these first generation space companies with dramatically lower budgets are going to encounter the same kind of problems.
With 10% failure rate for space shuttles, the question isn't whether first generation private space ships - seemingly routine, actually experimental - will crash and burn, but what happens when they do.
Suffering from faulty CO2 scrubbers? Suffer an injury from a defective robot arm during a space walk? Aren't you tired of waiting for your meager settlement? Well Cucinowicz Rhoda & Martin will see that you get your cash payments today. Currently located in orbit above South Africa, we can provide you with extraterrestrial counsel that you can count on.
The whole private vs. government arguments made above are not really true. ULA (formerly Lockheed Martin and Boeing / Titan IV/Atlas II/Atlas V vs. Delta II/IV are 'private' in the same way that Orbital Sciences Corporation and SpaceX are. NASA currently uses OSC, and ULA for launching it's payloads as it has for some time (expendible launch vehicles).
NASA has always relied on the private sector to develop technology dating all the way back to the beginning of the space program.
That said, SpaceX worries me with their arrogance (ahem Tesla Motors as an Elon example) in how 'simple' it is to get to space and how 'dumb' ULA and Orbital Sciences are. There are just some laws of the universe that spaceX will realize it cannot circumvent and still have a reliable launch vehicle (like an Atlas V).
@nganeer: Indeed, it is written into NASA's charter that they must use privatized companies for anything that they don't need to do themselves. Granted, this is still an unusual situation in that all the previous private launches haven't had human lives depending on their success. Just, you know, TV signals and Howard Stern's meager hopes for retaining a career.
It's not just a question of outsourcing, it's the competitive factor between the two companies that will drive innovation.
I didn't hear that either company had gone beyond LEO, so I'm curious if there's a projected 1st launch date for either side.
In any case, this will very possibly be looked at as the tipping point for a commercial presence in space. When you start having billions on the values of contracts, things are going to get done.
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
It says here that the babies lose their pajama like coat after their first year. Isn't that interesting honey?
07/14/09
Hurray!
07/14/09
is that a better comment?
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
...I think my week away from Giz has made me lose my touch...
07/14/09
07/14/09
05/05/09
05/06/09
05/06/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
That paves the way for too many "willy" jokes.
Space travel in the future is far too serious.
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
. . .
I said, my nose.
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
12/24/08
Arguably, commercializing space flight will lead to the same innovation that occurred with airplanes, but not without catastrophe. The Space Shuttle is the most complex machine ever built, and private companies may not fully understand the complexity of the challenge, or the amount of resources it takes to get the job done. NASA and Congress have underestimated the necessary resources in the past as well, so it's inevitable the these first generation space companies with dramatically lower budgets are going to encounter the same kind of problems.
With 10% failure rate for space shuttles, the question isn't whether first generation private space ships - seemingly routine, actually experimental - will crash and burn, but what happens when they do.
12/24/08
12/24/08
The whole private vs. government arguments made above are not really true. ULA (formerly Lockheed Martin and Boeing / Titan IV/Atlas II/Atlas V vs. Delta II/IV are 'private' in the same way that Orbital Sciences Corporation and SpaceX are. NASA currently uses OSC, and ULA for launching it's payloads as it has for some time (expendible launch vehicles).
NASA has always relied on the private sector to develop technology dating all the way back to the beginning of the space program.
That said, SpaceX worries me with their arrogance (ahem Tesla Motors as an Elon example) in how 'simple' it is to get to space and how 'dumb' ULA and Orbital Sciences are. There are just some laws of the universe that spaceX will realize it cannot circumvent and still have a reliable launch vehicle (like an Atlas V).
Best of luck.
12/24/08
Indeed, it is written into NASA's charter that they must use privatized companies for anything that they don't need to do themselves. Granted, this is still an unusual situation in that all the previous private launches haven't had human lives depending on their success. Just, you know, TV signals and Howard Stern's meager hopes for retaining a career.
12/24/08
I didn't hear that either company had gone beyond LEO, so I'm curious if there's a projected 1st launch date for either side.
In any case, this will very possibly be looked at as the tipping point for a commercial presence in space. When you start having billions on the values of contracts, things are going to get done.
12/24/08
SpaceX did send a few all the way to the other side, if that helps.
12/24/08
12/24/08
12/24/08
Hey, it's ambitious to the point of not being feasible with today's engineering materials, but there's nothing out there to suggest it's impossible.
12/24/08