NASA's Genesis Space Capsule Failure: Intentional? = NASA Needs to be Replaced by Private Sector

Depending on how the contracts are written, there can be great financial gain by companies that would not exist if the mission was successful. In other words, the possibility that the crash of the Genesis project was intentional so that more government funds could be funneled into NASA under the guise of perfecting the "failed mission." For example, rebuilding the spacecraft, investigation of the crash� and who only knows what other contracts are in the balance... I am sure that there are some companies that will make more money because Genesis failed, than if it was successful. NASA itself, being the foremost!! That being said, NASA has to be the hotbed of " If I scratch your back you scratch mine" because NASA is one of the oldest government projects! Now with the private sector jumping on the bandwagon of the space race with " The 10 million dollar prize," NASA is scared that the "Old School" will be discovered and that it will be replaced by the private sector, WHICH IT SHOULD BE!! The private sector can do it better and more cost effectively!


Please read my other posts below...

[edit on 10-9-2004 by RealFlight]

If you do not agree with me this READ THIS:

Collins said that the former Soviet Union�s R7 rocket, the first ever launch vehicle and the basis for the time-honored Soyuz booster is still the cheapest way to get to space, after nearly 50 years.

"For their own reasons, governments do not insist that space agencies work to encourage space commercialization. That means developing services that the public wants to buy, as they are legally required to do. If they had, suborbital space flights could have started in the early 1970s. I guess we would live in a very different and more prosperous world if that path had been taken," Collins said.


www.space.com...




[edit on 9-9-2004 by RealFlight]

Sorry to interrupt your fantasies but do you really believe that private sector would give a damn about studying anything other than maximizing profits?

I argee with the fact that the private sector would not care about research. The point I am making is that when it comes to operating a space program, I think that the private sector can do it better! NASA is burning up dollars (no pun intended). Subcontractors can handle many military operations at a much lower cost than the miltary can.

It is time for the waste in NASA to end. The government should contract on a bidding basis all of its space exploration activities, i.e., satellite launches, experimental studies, etc. If the amount of money spent by NASA was given in grants to the private sector for space-related programs, we would be many years ahead of the power curve. For example, the government does not build it's own aircraft, missles or weapons now. They are allowing companies such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman to develop their own ideas and award the contract to the best of the best. NASA has outlived the curve.

[edit on 9-9-2004 by RealFlight]

Originally posted by RealFlight
If the amount of money spent by NASA was given in grants to the private sector for space-related programs, we would be many years ahead of the power curve.

Or they would just put those moneys to their pockets and then tell investors how good their profit margin is.

Actually much of probes and those are build by private companies, just like Locheed Martin.
Also rocket boosters are made by private companies.
www.designation-systems.net...


And about military, weren't these big military industry corporations pretty much only ones which have been making profit continuously for decades.

Private sector takes money away from the libraries and schools from what I have seen of the trends.

The best way to go would be, set it up as a "public trust". Ensuring the money or capital. That is one of the ways I can see something as this happening.

[edit on 9-9-2004 by ADVISOR]

You actually believe that NASA crashed the Genisus probe on purpose! Are you kidding? People at NASA are doing there best, and i'd say there doing a pretty good job.

Why would NASA spend 263 million and engineers putting 6 years of there life into this, just to have it go wrong? Your adding insult to injury.

I like the private sector finally getting involved with space but we still need NASA, What we need to do is increase there budget, to around 20 billion a year.

Also, some science will still come out of this mission, it will just be harder to get and take longer to get.

BTW, I gotta give props to Burt Rutan, on the good job with space ship one. Also, he's being hinting that this isn't all hes got up his sleeve, I think that not to long after they win the X-Prize that he will unviel the Space Ship Two, one that will go 150km up (the current one goes 100km) and it will hold 6-7 people, giving them enough time to unstrap and float.

[edit on 9-9-2004 by Murcielago]

The probe was built during the "better, faster, cheaper" phase
of NASA's History...Fortunately for us, this period is over.

I believe we are now in a "better, faster, smarter" period..

Originally posted by spacedoubt
The probe was built during the "better, faster, cheaper" phase
of NASA's History...Fortunately for us, this period is over.

That reminds me of the old truism..

"You can have it good, fast, or cheap. Pick two"

LOL muppet,

An old truism...
That means it's old, and STILL TRUE!

Nobody brought THAT up at the meetings..

I also concur that Burt Rutan is the aeronautical genius of our time, and with the right funding, any company that he would lead would make NASA look like a spawn from the dark ages. If the government would award 1/10th of NASA's funding to him and any other established proven leaders in aeronautical design, we would see ideas for the future that NASA has yet to conceive. The government has put all of its eggs into one basket which only limits innovation and design for the entire future of the space exploration program. Can you imagine if the auto industry, private aircraft, boating, computer or any technology that from the start, was limited to one group of engineers that were paid by the government? The very processes of the government inheritably limit free thinking by spelling everything out in advance. The government programs limit the need to succeed by not needing to make a profit. That is precisely why changes in the private sector happen rapidly and changes within the government take forever. If Microsoft and the computer industry were controlled from the beginning by the government, do you think that we would be here on ATS discussing this?

Originally posted by E_T
Sorry to interrupt your fantasies but do you really believe that private sector would give a damn about studying anything other than maximizing profits?

Your absolutely right. But it doesn't necessarily mean it would end up being a bad thing in the end. Their first goal would be extracting resources from space I would assume and this would provide jobs in space.

I for one would apply in a heart beat. Second, All of the junk and pollution that would be created could be shot out into deep space thus helping us keep it off Earth and get some of the junk already on Earth off.

The large corporations would dominate the business for quite a while but eventually new opportunities would arise. Take computers for example, at first it was a government project, next, large corporations dominated. But today just about anyone with the will and a little financing can make money off of the industry in various avenues such as software, hardware components, etc.

All of these things would eventually speed up the development of technology and could end up opening space to everyone, or at least our own solar system. Large corporations are going to be with us no matter what, I would love to see them at least get the ball rolling.

They may not care about research, however, a future Bill Gates of the space industry might and would probably put his or her own money into research either on his or her own or by starting their own company. The possible situations are endless.




[edit on 9-9-2004 by Weller]

NASA has made mistakes in the past, such as the Hubble Telescope, where there was a major flaw in design. NASA has also suffered greatly from previously failed missions such as the Columbia explosion and the Challenger break-up. None of these mistakes by NASA could be covered-up easily.

That brings us to Genesis. What if, after procuring the necessary funding and going through the building and launch of Genesis, there existed a flaw in the design that was discovered well into the mission? What scenario would NASA play out? Would NASA admit the error, close the Genesis program and send everyone involved home? This admission would inevitably guarantee a loss of funding for NASA�s projects and subject any future missions to greater scrutiny. Or, would NASA choose to crash the capsule on reentry, blaming a malfunction. The mission would be deemed a loss, but would still save NASA the embarrassment of a design flaw. At this point, there is absolutely no proof that this happened!

Originally posted by RealFlight
NASA has made mistakes in the past, such as the Hubble Telescope, where there was a major flaw in design. NASA has also suffered greatly from previously failed missions such as the Columbia explosion and the Challenger break-up. None of these mistakes by NASA could be covered-up easily.

Challenger destruction was as much (or more) fault of private company (Thiokol) making SRBs. They knew problems with washers and that they didn't meet their original design standards.
Fixing problem with "faulty" washers used between sections of SRB would have cost money and been bad for their reputation so they ended up just trying to cover it.

I suggest reading this book:
Richard Feynman: What do You care what other People think? - Further Adventures of a Curious Character

And Hubble's design was right, fault was in primary mirror. And ability to service it/replace instruments and devices saved it.
(I'm sure that it would have been cheaper to make in nonserviceable)

RealFlight
NASA has also suffered greatly from previously failed missions such as the Columbia explosion and the Challenger break-up.

Thats Backwards.