Privatization of space, NASA and the future

Should prevail over the more bureaucratic, slow and privatization of space to run Government sponsored programmes? This was the topic of conversation today at the Online Think Tank and an individual very wise in our dialogues said:

If the space retains the ability to be privatized, there could be even more trouble brewing. I am not opposed to privatizing the space race.
Yes but the Governments of the world, and many of their leaders are rulers who seek the ultimate powers, so privatization of space seem very viable, considering the other issues? Free market solves the problems; Governments, well, they create them. Have you ever run a business?
If the Government waits until everything is perfect for doing something, then it will never happen, so where are we now, unacceptable, space takes risks. Risk is not bad but hesitation, procrastination, bureaucracy, blame games, legal strangle holds, well they're wrong. NASA has too many people politically correct in its operations and I side with Burt Rutan on this theme, is absolutely correct.
NASA should have funding, a lot of it, but the free enterprise is much more efficient, that is why the Government contracts with free enterprise to get things done, because not only can without the free market mechanism. NASA will suffer losses of shuttles, as these birds are now very old. These losses are acceptable and is 3 times less than they expected when they chose to build these shuttles, the real problem is the media and feeble-minded humans we are voting in Office to lead, they have no vision, no lack of persistence and intellects.
The forward progression takes risks, thereby minimizing the risk and go anyway. Let the politicians to do their job and let the "human plus" Superstar of humanity and nature explorers to make them. We need forward progression to win-is worth the risk.
NASA needs an update. The UN needs an update, The U.s. needs an update and the human race is now ready for the update! Competition is good for getting to efforts and NASA needs some. Let them compete, just like our training needs some competition now. Weakness is not a human characteristic, the weak are not our ancestors, the weak, dead before procreation, those here today have ancestry due to evolutionary truth of natural selection and survival of the fittest. NASA should be in the boat, is the strategy that will make Riverside afloat.
Only the media and the public can kill NASA, but if people are behind them, the power is behind them, then the money is behind them, if they can run. Wow sounds like the person posing the question may have beeen read some of the excellent Ben Bova "Sci Fi novels" and met him once at the Observatory in Tucson Columbia University biosphere II for an interview, should have been there, would have liked.

Space travel-science or fiction?

There are those who deny that Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon and maintain that the whole story was a government conspiracy. The idea that man might actually detach from our cradle of atmosphere and gravity was fiction like higher. Still a dreamer has made it a reality. What's not to believe about space travel? There will be a time when such a thing is doable?
If interstellar travel requires travel at light speed, the situation is not promising. The biggest barriers against such trips are g-forces and time. G-force is the force exerted on your body when subjected to high accelerations. Accelerate the speed of light would have to be done gradually and body would be ripped apart. It would take about 2 months and get only half the speed of light! This explains the necessity of inertial dampers, the cosmic shock created by writers of Star Trek. Inertial dampers cancel somehow the strength to respond to the accelerating force. While this solves the problem for writers, there is none of these tools in the real world of physics.
That brings us to the problem of time in space travel. Theoretically, two things happen when objects traveling at the speed of light. First, the weather becomes relative and "slow down" for moving objects. A journey of ten years on a craft star corresponds to Earth 25,000 years-do any communication impossible. In addition to this, get heavier objects travelling faster. When approaching the speed of light become infinitely heavy, why only massless objects, like waves, can travel at that speed.
Therefore, space travel at the speed of light or faster is probably not feasible; However, space travel could still become a reality. Imagine that being a microscopic mite on a flat piece of paper. The world seems to be flat; and indeed, all trials on your immediate environment would lead to that conclusion. If the world was flat, the fastest way to get the position of a point at the opposite end of the page would be a straight line. However, if the page was to bend, and you could drill a hole through the page, you should find a shortcut. This is the idea behind wormholes. Unfortunately, geometric equations Show wormholes to be incredibly unstable.
Before they could be used as vital bridges to new star systems or galaxies, one would have to find a way to keep them by pinching off the moment a speck of matter entered the Gorge. Wormholes are still our greatest hope for space travel. While wormholes are still only hypothetical (there is experimental evidence for them), are great fun and theoretical solutions of Einstein's equations. Not surprisingly, are a topic of interest among scientists and writers of science fiction in the same way.

Space tourism: Fact or fiction?

Space tourist Gregory Olsen and the crew took off from the ISS twelfth Launchpad at the Baikonur Cosmodrome in their Soyuz TMA-7 about the 1 October 11:55 CEST. Olsen, who paid 20 million dollars to be a "spaceflight participant" as he calls it, joins a group of tourists in space: Dennis Tito became the first passenger pays (20 million dollars) in April 2001 and Mark Shuttleworth was the second (20 million dollars) in April 2002.
Space tourism is here and not going anywhere but up. In an article published by Aviation Week in 2000, Norman Augustine, former CEO, Lockhead Martin, predicted that the space tourism would become the main business of space. In 1997 the United States survey "National Leisure Travel Monitor" include questions about space tourism for the first time. Of 1,500 Americans surveyed, 42% said that they would be interested in flying on a cruise ship of space and would be willing to spend on average $ 10,800 for travel.
For the industry succeed, however, private enterprise will need to take the reigns from Russia and transform the space tourism company in a deal, rather than a government program. Unfortunately, the laws governing space travel and use of outer space were legislated through international treaties in the 1960s and 1970s and were focused mainly on government operations. Of course, when these treaties were adopted, Government space program were the only game in town. Not to mention that the cold war was in full swing. The attitude of "space race" favoured the complete control of the Government on space operations that soaked any need to address the rights of private enterprise. This lack of vision is and will continue to complicate the future of commercial space tourism, unless changes are made.
Current laws dictate that Member States are responsible for any outdoor space activities by public bodies or private companies. For example, if a private company in Japan launches a rocket that explodes above Alaska and causes loss of life, the Japanese Government would be responsible in addition to the company. Given this configuration, a nation can prohibit commercial space and all related activities to mitigate the risk, or alternatively can enact laws that certain standards of quality and safety to help reduce their exposure to liability.
The December 23, 2004, President Bush signed into law the commercial space launch amendments Act. This Act advances the development of commercial spaceflight industry emerging and designates the Transportation Department and FAA as agencies responsible for regulating private human spaceflight.
But if every country does its part to promote the industry, agree the quilt patch resulting national regulations will result in totally different levels of quality and safety standards. We saw this maritime sector where cheap-flag-States allow ships and crews to drop well below reasonable standards of security. Not the safest regime for those travelling in space.
The most appropriate solution would be to create an international treaty that creates a standardization equal favouring greater transparency and reliability for enterprise private space tourism or any other commercial activities in outer space. The principles of such a treaty could then be adopted in national law, thus making each country responsible for monitoring private companies under his control and enforce uniform rules.
But so far, has not hindered the necessity of standardizing those seeking their first commercial flight in outer space. In fact, there is already a waiting list. Sir Richard Branson, billionaire founder of airline Virgin Atlantic, formed the Virgin Galactic LLC, which will start launching commercial passengers into space sometime in 2008 by the American soil. The going rate for a place aboard Virgin Galactic suborbital spaceship is $ 200,000. You can secure your home today with a deposit of $ 20,000.
Will Whitehorn, President of Virgin Galactic, was quoted by SPACE.com stating that, "we have a significant level of deposits now ... almost 10 million dollars worth ... I'm sure we would have sold at least the first couple of years by the time that you start to fly. "

Buying property in outer space?

Want to buy an acre on the Moon? Perhaps a beautiful Carpathian Mountains overlooking the famous Crater Copernicus? You're lucky. Dennis Hope firm Lunar Embassy, extraterrestrial real estate, is selling a one-acre parcels for only $ 19.99. And should you splurge and become the proud owner of some early Lunar real estate, then, I'd like to sell a piece of the Brooklyn Bridge.

No matter that Mr. hope he never set foot on the lunar surface. The Lunar Embassy site, existing space law serve only to prohibit Nations to take over the Moon, Mars and other bodies and agencies, leaving individuals free to claim legal ownership on a first come, first-served basis. But no load wagons-up quite yet.

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST), described by some as the "Magna Carta" of space law, is the main document governing the activities of outer space. He is best known for "the Commons" concept that turns into a giant space of Commons for the benefit of all mankind. Much like the common areas of homeowners and condominium associations, outer space can be "used" by all mankind. But for property rights, article II of the OST prohibits national appropriation of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, of use, employment, or otherwise.

In a society of common law, if a country cannot claim sovereignty over outer space or a celestial body, then it is impossible for that country itself to confer rights owned by outer space to a private person or enterprise. As a matter of principle, a private individual or undertaking cannot do what it cannot do that belongs to the country.

A conflict arises, however, when "use" begins to look and feel like ownership-the purchase of property, with the intent of the property. Take President Bush's initiative to build a Moon base to serve as a platform for future missions to Mars. The United States will obviously choose the best location on the moon base to build and occupy this position on the basis of first come, first-served basis. No other country or private enterprise will have access to land under the operational base for as long as it is. Although the United States cannot claim legal ownership to the land below the base, some will question if their "use" is really a de facto territorial claim. When a nation operates a facility in a particular location for an extended period of time, the end result is indistinguishable from territorial sovereignty.

If a private company to build a permanent housing project on the Moon, the same challenge could be made that their "use" is also a de facto territorial claim to the land below. But if the houses were designed to move the position by position, such as a mobile home, so the challenge would have less credibility. The mobile homes would be treated as personal property, such as a car or boat, instead of real estate, that typically means ownership.

Office building or condominium unit in free space and allowing these devices orbit Earth would also lessen the likelihood of a de facto territorial claim. The private company responsible for their construction would still retain ownership over the units, but as all objects launched into outer space, the nation would maintain the registry legal jurisdiction under article VIII of the OST. For example, if the country of registration for each unit was in the United States, the laws of the United States would preside over each unit and its occupants.

The private enterprise could fund the project in advance by selling spaces for companies and individuals. The inhabitants would keep title to their living space and labour (much like holding the title of a mobile home) and pay a monthly fee for maintenance and support of life. It goes without saying that the negotiability of such units would depend on a reliable means to tug the occupants from the ground and on a regular basis.

Once established, however, the list of potential buyers may include pharmaceutical companies, producers, technology, Casino and timeshare magnates even lenders seeking to various Nations registry that have favourable tax laws. Imagine a tax haven in outer space. Many banks "offshore" and asset protection companies would be clamoring for Office space.

The opportunity to make money in outer space are certainly real and should begin to evolve in the not too distant future. But until the real estate, popular adage "location, location, location," incorporates jargon space as lure orbit track, picturesque craters and oceans without water, keep your $ 19.99 firmly in hand.