I Have a Problem with Having a Problem with Space Tourism

[Kirsten]

After all of the remarks regarding the wealthy space tourists who have been or who have attempted to make it to space, I just thought it would be interesting to look at another activity that nobody has mentioned having a problem with these financially-gifted folks engaging in. If people were consistent, we'd see exchanges on this board such as the following:

---
Does anyone else have a problem with sending random people in a train who just flip out their wallets? I am going to be paying up the wazoo just to get through train engineer school and get licensed to ride the rails, where do they get off? I don't know....I think they really went over the edge when they decided to send that N'Sync boy!

I just think it's frustrating for those who are working their hearts out for that dream and goal of running a train, but all these people have to do is flip out their checkbook. Maybe it's just a seed of jealousy, but I see, in the future, that if we send many train passengers, engineers will no longer be engineers ...they will be stewardesses.

I don't believe that their definition of a dream to ride the rails is the same as the rest of us. We study and work and live trains or things that are related to it. I have a dream, a desire, a longing to go to ride EVERYDAY of my life. I mean, I'm majoring in something that will eventually get me there. It might sound crazy, but I would have a difficult time just riding around for fun on a fall leaves tour with a glass of wine in one hand and a camera in the other when I know I am working hard to get there in order to be useful delivering lumber or something.

I don't agree with sending someone in a train who not only doesn't have experience or training in an engineering or computer field, but has no real intentions of encouraging his huge fan base to focus more education. Encouraging kids to stay in school and study science and math is the only way we will ever have a train industry. Private organizations must pave the way for train tourism. It may take a while, but it will happen. If people want to pay-to-play, they need to work through the private sector. Use of government property should be restricted to the professionals who train for years to properly operate it. We pay taxes to support a money-losing train operation. It bothers me that people want Amtrak to let anyone go on a train, but these same people don't really want to do the work required to get there.

Simultaneously, it is not enough to just encourage the study of math and science. We must rebuild the curriculum around math and science and ensure that teaching personnel are qualified in their fields.....particularly in K-12....

A lack of education and outreach may be an argument against Lance Bass becoming a train tourist but just because people are paying millions to go up doesnt mean they dont care about this sort of thing.

It would be innappropriate for Amtrack to provide any support to Lance Bass or any other train tourist.

I dont see what the big deal is just because he can sing i bet you there was probably alot of engineers that could sing better than him that already went on a train and basically the only reason he got to ride on the train is because he had the money!

What is important is that a large segment of the youth will listen and if he is singing about trains.....it is all for the better...
---

How many of you have a problem with people (HORRORS!) paying money to use government airport facilities or ride on government-funded railroad conveyances? How many of you have a problem with people eating in nice restaurants and taking nice vacations just because they have- dare I say it- MONEY?

And which of you, given a sufficient excess of money and free time, would not have jumped at the opportunity of a lifetime to visit ISS yourselves had you been the one in their places?

I can honestly say, I would have passed it by. Not because I am not passionate about space and getting there myself. Not because I feel it is inappropriate to engage in any expensive activity that someone else cannot afford.

I would have passed it by because the number one show-stopper in the last forty years for regular people going to space has been the government itself. The government has no incentive to get us there- rather it has an incentive to keep its greedy little fingers in a stranglehold around the industry. And I will not give it one single penny more out of my pocket than is taken from me involuntarily through taxes to accomplish its goals which are contrary to my own.

Kirsten

[Impalaplaya]

I totally AGREE with you that they send these people in to outer space when most of thgem have no degrees no qualifications and barely any traning, But think about it if you were nasa and some guy was willing to pay a BIG amount of money wouldnt you let him go up there??? To let a person go into space to see the earth from the moon and you get millions of dollars. If you want to hate on the rich you gotta think from their point one of them our one of their ancestors worked hard to get that fortune so you arent the only one working hard, You are right though we should be spending more time on sending qualified astronauts into space. I guess in the end Money can Buy you anything

[Impalaplaya]

Guess i should of read the other thread before i tried to reply.

[SpaceGirl2028]

I am a staunch supporter of private companies driven by enterprising scientists and businessmen whose primary goal is to make space travel a viable option for everyone. However, I somehow doubt that using a train to symbolize space travel (in its current infancy) is fair.
Reviewing the gradual development of previous technological advances for public use shows us that, in fact, the wealthy make it possible for the rest of us to enjoy these gifts. Telephones, lightbulbs, cars, radios, televisions, and personal computers were all out of reach for the average citizen when they were first invented. The wealthy funded private companies and individuals in their experiments and explorations.
Now you must consider that space travel is millions of times more complicated and expensive than these items were. We are still in the very crude beginnings of discovery. Governments have historically neither funded or allowed celebrities to take part in transportation experimentation. Private companies began to pave the way for research and innovation.
We must be patient. Private groups will begin to develop the technology and wealth to support the launch of purely commercial space ships and orbiters.The $20 million pricetag MirCorp currently charges could be better spent by any of the multiple teams competing for the X-Prize, whose true purpose is to make space travel possible for the masses. MirCorp simply feeds the funds back into the failing Rosaviakosmos, ensuring that only a very select group of people can afford to partake.
In the meantime, I am would like my government to make the best use of my taxes. This means insuring that properly trained professionals will be operating and riding in multi-billion dollar equipment.

[K6-III]

At the same time, we also want the russian space program and its band of expertise to survive until better times...for making that glamourous again is one of many steps useful in inspiring a new generation in that part of the world....

[Kirsten]

Originally posted by SpaceGirl2028
Now you must consider that space travel is millions of times more complicated and expensive than these items were. We are still in the very crude beginnings of discovery. Governments have historically neither funded or allowed celebrities to take part in transportation experimentation. Private companies began to pave the way for research and innovation.
We must be patient. Private groups will begin to develop the technology and wealth to support the launch of purely commercial space ships and orbiters.The $20 million pricetag MirCorp currently charges could be better spent by any of the multiple teams competing for the X-Prize, whose true purpose is to make space travel possible for the masses. MirCorp simply feeds the funds back into the failing Rosaviakosmos, ensuring that only a very select group of people can afford to partake.
In the meantime, I am would like my government to make the best use of my taxes. This means insuring that properly trained professionals will be operating and riding in multi-billion dollar equipment.

If I understand you correctly, your problem with my analogy is that space travel is more expensive and more technically complicated than train travel. Is that correct? If so, I don't see how that has any relevance to my analogy. Please explain.

Like yourself, I would like the government to make the best use of my taxes, too. That, of course, would involve shutting down NASA which is an agency characterized by fraud, waste, and abuse. When a yahoo like John Glenn can politically finagle a joy ride in space- not once but twice, no less!- at taxpayer expense, I have a problem with that. And what about that multi-billion dollar equipment you mentioned? It might be funny what a boondoggle that was if it wasn't us paying for that unreliable, overpriced junk. And those are just a couple of a multitude of examples.

I agree that the $20 million current ticket to space would be better spent than handing it over to the same government(s) that have been wasting taxpayer money for years. However, I have a lot more respect for someone who is willing to foot the bill themselves than people who are sucking at the public tit while promoting the elitist "Only the Best, Brightest, and Government-Approved Among Us May Go to Space" hooha.

WE MUST NOT BE PATIENT! Being patient has gotten us absolutely nowhere in the last several decades. We now need exactly what the X-Prize has been shaping up- a private race to space. And we need government to get its politically-driven, bureaucratically overweight carcass out of the way of the free market.

[K6-III]

I agree that we must be patient...

...please respond to the thread that I posted in the general question and answer section and you'll see the alternative proposal I'm getting at.....a way to get to space very soon with very scarce resources at our disposal....

[PhysBrain]

I'm getting tired of listening to this whining about NASA, so I'm going to let you know, as best I can, how things are from their point of view. I do not work for NASA, although I did have an internship with them for one summer. What follows is based on my impression of NASA after having spent nearly my entire life following their activities.
---
NASA is and never was created to be the "public space access authority". They were created to advance the state of the art in space flight and to perform high-risk high-payoff research that the private sector is unwilling or unable to perform itself. They've also picked up some other missions along the way, such as some scientific exploration via remote sensing of Earth and other solar system bodies. They got these missions because scientists (with government grants) wanted to know about these things, and NASA was the only agency with the expertise to pull them off.

While the choice of the original astronauts may have had some political aspects to their selection, there were also technically valid reasons to choose people with "the right stuff", because they would be facing many unknown and possibly very hostile conditions. Today, we know much more about the conditions that astronauts will be facing, and there are less stringent requirements where "the right stuff" is concerned. However, there are still many valid technical reasons for choosing the astronauts the way that they do. First and foremost, they must support the mission; be that mission exploration, or performing science experiments, or public relations. The people who get to go up on the shuttle do so because THEY ARE the best and brightest of us all. They are the most capable of accomplishing the mission objectives. If you think you're better, or more deserving, then go ahead and apply for astronaut candidacy. They select about a dozen individuals for each new class every two years. (I plan on applying just as soon as I nail down this PhD.)

It is a mistake to think that NASA is going to lead us all into a golden age of publicly available space access. They will undoubtably contribute much of the technology and basic research which will eventually get us there, but they were never given the specific task of establishing public access space flight. It has always been assumed that private corporations will assume that task when it becomes commerciably viable to do so.

NASA is trying to make due the best it can with a very puny budget. The reserach being conducted by NASA is almost always totally new and original. It can be difficult to accurately assess the cost of programs like the ISS when it is something that has never been done before. This is a fact that the beaurocrats and politicians seem to forget when budget times come around and they see cost overruns almost everywhere.

And finally, the NASA beaurocracy may have a few too many politicians (they are a government agency after all), but nearly all of the men and women in the trenches are there because they love the work. And they are working for NASA because NASA will look into much of the speculative technology that Boeing and Lockheed Martin will not go near (or will only go near when funded by NASA).
---
So before you go blaming NASA for the utter failure of commercial manned space flight to get off of the ground, keep in mind that it is not their primary mission. The best NASA can do is to provide technical support to the private sector.

[Kirsten]

So before you go blaming NASA for the utter failure of commercial manned space flight to get off of the ground, keep in mind that it is not their primary mission. The best NASA can do is to provide technical support to the private sector.


Note: I am not blaming NASA for not having commercial manned space flight as its primary mission. In fact, that is one thing for which we are extremely fortunate.

I do blame NASA- and, I believe, with good reason- for the following:

1. Taking workers' hard-earned money and wasting it.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/7-16-97.html
http://freedom.house.gov/results/ig/nasa.asp
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/space/1641126
http://www.justicejunction.com/government_nasa_waste.htm
http://www.reston.com/NASA/bitflip/8.98.hancock.letter.html
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9810/21/glenn.safety/index.html
http://www.nasawatch.com/lerc/03.01.99.name.change.guide.html
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0202/021102m1.htm
http://www.spaceprojects.com/x33/



2. Acting in a manner which impedes private space industry.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-26-98.html
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=380
http://www.space-access.org/updates/sau84.html
http://www.bealaerospace.com/
http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-05-01.html

I believe that the best NASA can do for the private sector is to butt out.

[K6-III]

The best way for NASA to participate is to build the protypes and let others mass produce.

Best example: Space Island Group (http://www.spaceislandgroup.com)

[Kirsten]

There is no reason for NASA to participate, and the more NASA participation there is, the more NASA's Space is Expensive to Get to, Space is Hard, Space is for Professionals Only, Etc. mindset will squash innovation and creativity. NASA should butt out.

[Daniel]

I think that by saying NASA should help is saying that the goverment should help the private sector - Which is correct.
I can understand your feeling since you come from a private company, and there are enougth stories of NASA harming those (Beal aerospace for one)
But the only thing it means that the mindset at NASA regarding private sector should be changed - not that NASA shouldn't help.

[K6-III]

Much of the high level research that NASA conducts such as VASMIR, ION Propulsion, Solar Electric Propulsion....etc...I don't see private industry taking on for a VERY LONG TIME!!!

Similarly, technology that NASA has developed and is ready for primetime should be transferred...

...only when someone is prepared to take over for NASA should NASA butt out...

Similarly, NASA should give specs for what a vehicle should do, not how it should be done....

[Kirsten]

Saying that NASA/government should "help" the private sector is correct does not make it correct. How about making a case instead? Here are some reasons why it is not correct (even if we assume for the sake of argument that NASA's mindset could be changed).

1. All of the powers reserved to the federal government are clearly specified in the United States Constitution. Read it, and you will find that there is no constitutional authority for the vast majority of what NASA does- including supposedly "helping" entrepreneurial space businesses.

2. NASA/government help to a select few will come at the expense of others. People who work hard to earn their money should not have it whisked away by people who did not earn it to fund projects which they are not interested in paying for. Many of the folks in these small startups have a great dream- which I share- and I am all for them succeeding. But some people don't share that dream, and that's fine, too. They should not be forced into subsidizing our dreams at the expense of their own.

3. NASA/government assistance fosters inefficiency and waste. When companies don't have to work for something, they are not motivated to minimize the time and money that it takes to accomplish that task or make that product or whatever. Instead of functioning as lean and mean competitors in the marketplace, they start to develop financial love handles and then eventually end up as fat and flabby as the big pork-barrel driven government contractors.

4. NASA/government assistance stifles innovation and competition. If NASA or the government starts handing out information on one kind of technology for "free" (AKA, at taxpayer expense but at a great price for those who want the information), companies are now penalized in the marketplace for doing their own research and development on other competing technologies (which may turn out to be better in the long run). In order to compete with the companies using the free/subsidized knowledge, they must also go along with the trend toward conformity unless they have some rather large margin of resources that they must then waste trying to capture market share which was essentially handed to their competitors by the government. Ultimately this leads to fewer choices and greater cost for consumers- when this industry especially needs to do exactly the opposite!

I would be interested in discussing what I have presented above as well as some actual reasons why NASA/government *should* "help" the industry. It would be particularly useful if you could be specific about what sort of "help" you think is "correct".



Regarding the fact that NASA carries out much high level research that private industry is not currently carrying out and may not carry out for a long time, so what? If it isn't being carried out voluntarily through the free-market, why should a bunch of elitist academics be able to fund their pet projects by extorting money from taxpayers?

And if you think they should be able to do so, then please send me your address. I will send you the bill for your share of my study on insect populations in my backyard swimming pool. What? You don't want to pay me to do that? Well, if you're okay with getting people to fund your pet projects via the threat and use of force, then there's no justification for you denying me my fair share of your hard-earned money.

[K6-III]

The constitution says nothing about what NASA can and cannot do....

....for the constitution starts with the phrase: "Congress shall make no law..."

Despite the fact that NASA is wasteful and whatnot, it can be made to serve the common good. The human species needs access to space for reasons of survival, a situation in which we're all in the same boat, whether we recognize it or not.

An idea that has been floated previously has been to split NASA into several different departments, some responsible for development of new technologies, some responsible for spaceflight, such as to not run into the issue of conflicting interests....

I assure you that no company is currently considering anything similar to the propulsion that NASA is working on....and the reasoning is extremely simple: the propulsion that NASA is presently working on is designed for deep space. The companies presently attempting to enter the market are looking at access to orbit above all else.

Above all else, research for VASMIR is of absolute importance. This is the propulsion we need in order to move incoming NEO's should the need arise. Again, such technology benefits all quite equally.

In the United States governent assistance fosters lazyness. Perhaps we might wish to consider the business model of Airbus for a venture should it come to that....

...and I wouldn't go so far as to say that these are merely pet projects.....

What the academics are doing is contributing to future generations in the ways they know best...for the knowledge that they develop belongs to all that come after....

[Kirsten]

The constitution says nothing about what NASA can and cannot do....

....for the constitution starts with the phrase: "Congress shall make no law..."

Yes, thank you for reiterating my point. Because the constitution does not delegate the authority to the federal government for most of the things that NASA does, those things are not authorized by the constitution. Furthermore, they are explicitly prohibited by the Tenth Amendment which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."



I assure you that no company is currently considering anything similar to the propulsion that NASA is working on....

Fine. I will agree to that point. What is it's relevance? Are you suggesting that the government should work on anything that a private company is not currently working on? Or just that it should work on those things near and dear to *your* heart.



Above all else, research for VASMIR is of absolute importance. This is the propulsion we need in order to move incoming NEO's should the need arise. Again, such technology benefits all quite equally.

No it isn't, not it doesn't, and we should not pretend that either of these things. For some people, putting dinner on the table or paying for medical care is more important that doing research that they will never be able to use.

Your pet project benefits those who work on it financially while diminishing those whose money is taken from them to work on it. And, of course, those who eventually get to *use* the technology benefit much more from it than those who never do. Surely we can agree to that, can we not?



...and I wouldn't go so far as to say that these are merely pet projects.....

What the academics are doing is contributing to future generations in the ways they know best...for the knowledge that they develop belongs to all that come after....

What you think is important and what somebody else thinks is important are a mere matter of personal preference. You may be concerned about contributing to future generations while I may be concerned about starting my own business or feeding my family or contributing to charities that benefit young people or promote liberty. We are both doing what we feel is best, but that is based on our personal goals and preferences. Your goals and preferences- assuming neither of us is harming others- are no more justified than mine.

Sure, it would be handy to portray it as so, because that is a means by which you can try to claim rights to someone else's money as well as your own. But it just doesn't wash. Again, I reiterate that if you are justified in using someone else's hard-earned money to carry out your personally preferred projects, then I am justified in using your money to carry out my own. Where should I send the bill?

[K6-III]

The Constitution is a self-limiting ordinance of government telling congress that it can make no law that makes certain rights illegal....

I no way does the constitution say anthing about NASA....

I am not saying that government should work on anything that private enterprise won't touch....rather I'm saying that there are projects of merit that private enterprise won't approach now, despite recognizing long-term benefit....

What is most dear to my heart is the survival of the human species and life itself. My view is that this can only be done through space colonization and should commence with lunar colonization.

The main advantage to pursuing VASMIR is that it will provide us with a safety blanket of sorts should it be necessary....you pay insurance....this is just a different kind....

My viewpoint is that it doesn't matter what you or I want to do with starting a business or otherwise if we're all dead. First should come the technologies to ensure our survival.....often where profit is not found....

As far as what you're alluding to...it is pretty much the distinction that Mills makes between the Private Sphere and the Public Sphere. I beleive there is no such distinction....

Your decision to drive a car effects the air I breathe and the dependency of this nation on foreign countries that we would rather not deal with. Also, our troops are sent abroad to defend this supply...

Simply put, there is no decision that you can make that won't in some way affect me....and as a result we are obliged to cooperate.....

Again, I do not advocated this simply for my cause.....the entire species stands to benefit...

[Kirsten]

Originally posted by K6-III
The Constitution is a self-limiting ordinance of government telling congress that it can make no law that makes certain rights illegal....

I no way does the constitution say anthing about NASA....

Okay, let's take the issues one by one starting with the above. It would seem that you have not read the United States Constitution from your comments above. I highly recommend that you do so and will provide a link for your convenience.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html

As you can see by simply browsing the table of contents, this is a lot different from the description you give above. Just because it talks about congress does not mean it does not talk about any other branches of the government. In fact, it explicitly outlines the power of each of the three branches of the federal government as well as the states. Furthermore, the Ninth (forgot that one before) and Tenth Amendments explicitly reserves all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government to the states and the people.

In other words, if (as you have already admitted) the Constitution does not mention something explicitly as something the federal government is allowed to do, then the federal government is not allowed to do it.

Please explain to me where is the confusion over this point.

[Daniel]

Okay,
Let's assume that you say is correct (sorry don't the US constitution and don't feel like reading it) and that NASA should stop all space activity. Actually I don't know what you want from NASA - except portraying it as the most evil body in the galaxy or whatever....

The private sector without the goverment will collapse - do you even know how much it costs to Develop the technology?
I'm not talking here about launcher and satellites where the techology is here - Let's say devolping a NTR engine.
without the goverment/public support there will no space exploration - only for profit.
But profit means no pioneering - cause who wants/can invest 100 billion dollar in mars exploration?

So I think you should better clarify your point, casue I'm confused as hell regarding what is your position and what to do you want to say.

[Kirsten]

Let's assume that you say is correct (sorry don't the US constitution and don't feel like reading it) and that NASA should stop all space activity.

So how are any of your other questions in this post relevant? Are you suggesting that the federal government should ignore the Constitution and just do these functions anyway?



Actually I don't know what you want from NASA - except portraying it as the most evil body in the galaxy or whatever....

I have not portrayed NASA in that manner, nor does it reflect my opinion.



The private sector without the goverment will collapse - do you even know how much it costs to Develop the technology?
I'm not talking here about launcher and satellites where the techology is here - Let's say devolping a NTR engine.

Let's explore this. Do *you* know how much it costs to develop a NTR engine? What is that based on? Are these numbers from NASA- an agency characterized by the government as one fraught with fraud, waste, and abuse- or from another source? Why do we need an NTR engine? Why can no other technology do the same job or better job?



without the goverment/public support there will no space exploration - only for profit.

How is space exploration for profit equivalent to no space exploration at all?



But profit means no pioneering - cause who wants/can invest 100 billion dollar in mars exploration?

Explain this to me. How does doing something for profit mean no pioneering? History shows that many pioneering efforts were motivated by profit, does it not? Or are you saying that because there is nothing to be gained from Mars exploration, then nobody will do it? But if there were nothing to be gained from it and if nobody wanted to do it, then why should people be forced to pay for it?

[K6-III]

Companies will look for a quick rate of return if they're putting such cash upfront....

Colonization requires very many years for construction of infrastructure, making such a rate of return unattractive for many years to come....

There must be something more than profit to motivate us....

[Kirsten]

You make another point which deserves discussion, and which I am very much interested in working through. But let's please take the issues one-by-one to see if we can either come to an agreement on each or at least identify how close to agreement we can get before we must declare that we are at an impasse. Did you read the United States Constitution? Can we identify whether or not we are still in disagreement on that point?

[K6-III]

A fault I find with the constitution perhaps is that states are now much more interconnected than they were at the time that it was written....

...making the separation between federal and state government much more fuzzy....

I'll work this idea out in further detail....

[Daniel]

Let's assume that you say is correct (sorry don't the US constitution and don't feel like reading it) and that NASA should stop all space activity.

So how are any of your other questions in this post relevant? Are you suggesting that the federal government should ignore the Constitution and just do these functions anyway?

It does it all the time anyway :D
and to the point - the constitution IMO simply doesn't deal with this issues. is the US looking for constitution to declare war on iraq? is it written there it is allowed to attack iraq? if not is it written that is allowed to make laws that will improve the strategic position of the US in order to improve its safety?

In other words I doubt it is against the spirit of the const. and it is easy to find a loophole


The private sector without the goverment will collapse - do you even know how much it costs to Develop the technology?
I'm not talking here about launcher and satellites where the techology is here - Let's say devolping a NTR engine.

Let's explore this. Do *you* know how much it costs to develop a NTR engine? What is that based on? Are these numbers from NASA- an agency characterized by the government as one fraught with fraud, waste, and abuse- or from another source? Why do we need an NTR engine? Why can no other technology do the same job or better job?

Just the engine? if we will take the 15klbf NTR by stan B. it should be no more then a couple of billions.
And regarding fraud waste and abuse - don't you forget that private companies have at least as much - WorldCom, Enron etc....


without the goverment/public support there will no space exploration - only for profit.

How is space exploration for profit equivalent to no space exploration at all?

If you mean that launching a comm. satellite space exploration then I'm wrong.
I mean speace exploration a la colony on moon/mars and without goverment support there won't be any.


But profit means no pioneering - cause who wants/can invest 100 billion dollar in mars exploration?

Explain this to me. How does doing something for profit mean no pioneering? History shows that many pioneering efforts were motivated by profit, does it not? Or are you saying that because there is nothing to be gained from Mars exploration, then nobody will do it? But if there were nothing to be gained from it and if nobody wanted to do it, then why should people be forced to pay for it?

Was the computer you are using created for profit - Yes.
Was the enabling technology for computers created for profit - No.
It was created by the goverments.

[Kirsten]

Okay, this is again getting a little difficult to respond to again, so I'm going to go back to taking the points one by one (don't know how I got off that track, but I'll just get back on it) so we can either come to an agreement or at least identify on what points of contention we cannot agree and understand what each of our positions is relative to those points.

Regarding the United States Constitution, I am still not clear on your position.

It is difficult to take seriously the comments of someone who declines to read the document about which he is speaking. (As to your questions regarding what the Constitution does/does not allow with regard to the situation with Iraq, I refer you again to the Constitution itself- see above for the link.)

You make the point that the United States government often acts in discordance with this document. What the United States government does and what it should do are two different things. Clearly, given the record of laws which are struck down by the Supreme Court, the government is passing laws which violate the Constitution. Many laws never make it to the Supreme Court for reason unrelated to their lack of constitutional merit. And for those challenges which do make it to the Supreme Court, SC justices admit that they often put other concerns above whether or not a law actually is constitutional in deciding whether or not to strike it down.

I will grant you that the United States government is in egregious violation of the United States Constitution in many and expanding ways. In fact, I believe that I pointed out just that. That is not in dispute. The question was whether or not the United States government *should* do so.

You admit that the constitution does not deal with most of what NASA does, and you do not provide any counter-evidence negating my argument that what the constitution does not explicitly approve is explicitly forbidden for the federal government to engage in.

It seems to me that your approval of the existence of NASA and its unconstitutional activies coupled with either the inability or unwillingness to cite any portion of the United States Constitution which authorizes such agency to exist and carry out all of its activities amounts to tacit approval of a government which violates its own laws and which has no regard for the rights of those in the minority opinion.

Is that your position? I find it hard to believe that it is, but I don't see any other way to interpret your comments thus far.

[K6-III]

The point is that the constitution does not address NASA. It neither says it is or isn't allowed...

[Kirsten]

We are having a problem communicating here.

I have already agreed to that point. I have further pointed out that the Constitution explicitly states that what it does not address may not be engaged in by the federal government. Therefore, most of NASA's functions may not be engaged in by the federal government.

Where is the difficulty in understanding this?

[K6-III]

...and I responded by saying that state and federal governments are not sufficiently different to be considered thus...

[Kirsten]

Originally posted by K6-III
...and I responded by saying that state and federal governments are not sufficiently different to be considered thus...

Where exactly did you state that in this thread? I just reread everything since my post where I raised the point and I see nothing of the sort.

And exactly what is this assertion supposed to mean and what relevance is it supposed to have? Are you implying that the federal government may act as states may act? That the federal government is not bound by the Constitution?

[K6-III]

Originally posted by K6-III
A fault I find with the constitution perhaps is that states are now much more interconnected than they were at the time that it was written....

...making the separation between federal and state government much more fuzzy....

I'll work this idea out in further detail....

[Kirsten]

Okay. Saying that the separation between the states and federal government is fuzzy and saying that state and federal governments are not sufficiently different to be considered thus are totally different things.

But to address your previous point, how is the separation between states and the federal government fuzzy when the Constitution (as well as the various state constitutions) explicitly delineate certain things which these entities may and may not do? How is it not clear that the federal government may not, for example, open a factory to manufacture and give away magic eight balls for free?

[K6-III]

Give me some time...need to come up with a worthy response...(do some research)...

[Kirsten]

That's a fair request, and I'm certainly willing to wait. But know that if you are going to repeat such things, I am going to reiterate my questions about/concerns with them.

[Daniel]

Originally posted by Kirsten
Okay, this is again getting a little difficult to respond to again, so I'm going to go back to taking the points one by one (don't know how I got off that track, but I'll just get back on it) so we can either come to an agreement or at least identify on what points of contention we cannot agree and understand what each of our positions is relative to those points.

Regarding the United States Constitution, I am still not clear on your position.

It is difficult to take seriously the comments of someone who declines to read the document about which he is speaking. (As to your questions regarding what the Constitution does/does not allow with regard to the situation with Iraq, I refer you again to the Constitution itself- see above for the link.)

You make the point that the United States government often acts in discordance with this document. What the United States government does and what it should do are two different things. Clearly, given the record of laws which are struck down by the Supreme Court, the government is passing laws which violate the Constitution. Many laws never make it to the Supreme Court for reason unrelated to their lack of constitutional merit. And for those challenges which do make it to the Supreme Court, SC justices admit that they often put other concerns above whether or not a law actually is constitutional in deciding whether or not to strike it down.

I will grant you that the United States government is in egregious violation of the United States Constitution in many and expanding ways. In fact, I believe that I pointed out just that. That is not in dispute. The question was whether or not the United States government *should* do so.

You admit that the constitution does not deal with most of what NASA does, and you do not provide any counter-evidence negating my argument that what the constitution does not explicitly approve is explicitly forbidden for the federal government to engage in.

It seems to me that your approval of the existence of NASA and its unconstitutional activies coupled with either the inability or unwillingness to cite any portion of the United States Constitution which authorizes such agency to exist and carry out all of its activities amounts to tacit approval of a government which violates its own laws and which has no regard for the rights of those in the minority opinion.

Is that your position? I find it hard to believe that it is, but I don't see any other way to interpret your comments thus far.

Look,
I don't refuse the read the US const. It is just not important enougth for me. (at the moment - 1 is trying to have a life)

I'm wholly sold to the idea of democracy - But I just can't understand how is NASA in violation of the democratic spirit ?
How does it violate minority rights ?
How does it threatens the personal rights of US citizens ?

btw does the constitution covers space exploration at all? was the relevant parts written when space exploration existed?

And yes I really don't like red tape - and saying that NASA is illegal cause of laws is a big bunch of red tape - The somekind that prevented beal aerospace to exist

[Kirsten]

I don't refuse the read the US const. It is just not important enougth for me.

Then why are you discussing something (a) which you will not read, and (b) will not accept the comments of someone who has read it? If it is important enough for you to discuss, then you should at least read the document which you are discussing. A productive exchange is difficult otherwise.


I just can't understand how is NASA in violation of the democratic spirit ?

Nobody has argued that NASA is in violation of the democratic spirit. That's a different question than what has already been brought up, and I don't see the relevance of it since the United States of America is not a democracy.


How does it violate minority rights ?
How does it threatens the personal rights of US citizens ?

Answered in previous posts.


btw does the constitution covers space exploration at all? was the relevant parts written when space exploration existed?

First question was answered repeatedly in previous posts. Second question is irrelevant as explained in previous posts.

It is difficult to carry on a discussion if you are going to ignore my posts.



And yes I really don't like red tape - and saying that NASA is illegal cause of laws is a big bunch of red tape - The somekind that prevented beal aerospace to exist

The grammar here makes it difficult to understand what you are saying. Please clarify- are you saying that laws are nothing more than red tape and may be ignored when it is convenient for satisfying your desires? What does Beal Aerospace have to do with this?

[magician2116]

I'm thrilled when anyone that doesn't fit the astronaut mold gets into space. The implicit prejudice that space is too dangerous for "regular" people is one of those things makes NASA so much of a disgrace. Spacey, you're treading down that path when you say you're more deserving just because you are so devoted to space. Instead of whining, how about helping make space available to everyone, including yourself?

[jpeachman787]

Instead of whining, how about helping make space available to everyone, including yourself?

Magician,

Bravo!

[soyuzman]

People interested in space and space exploration share diverse views about what can and cannot (and should not be) allowed with space projects. Space exploration was confined to government initiatives for costs reasons and was not accessible to the average man.

We look at space in a different way. I have founded a company with the sole purpose of bringing a piece of space adventure to the everyday joe. We are not a company catering to collectors but rather to the non-collectors looking for something unique from space.

We are looking for people's input and opinions about our company. I invite you to visit us at www.soyuzbags.com and give us your opinion.

[irizarry]

Normally this part of the forum I stay out of. But reading the on going debate has moved me. Kirsten

(1) Are you suggesting that the rich (or anyone one with expendable income) can not spend their money the way they want to?
(2) Exempting some science fiction theme, space travel will have to be profitable and a lure to a space economy before it happens. Old monopolies will have to be broken and that ain’t happening anytime soon.
(3) America doesn’t make anything any more. So what makes you think we will be making it happen in space anyway? It won’t be us. It will be someone else who will sow the seeds and reap the harvest.
(4) Do you think if you wanted to build a reusable rocket on a relative’s farm for testing that the government would let you do that? Specially today in the midst of a war!

These things are the playground of the rich and the conglomerates. We are mere observers!

Reality bites!

Irizarry

\|/
O
/|\