SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - STS-135: The Last Launch of the Shuttle

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - STS-135: The Last Launch of the Shuttle (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=185309)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stealhead (Post 1700350)

You do realize that there are already companies in this field correct? The people backing these companies clearly can have long term goals beyond their own life span a company starting of now has the potential to be massive in the future a space exploration company might cost alot for little return to start with but has much long term potential.Any very large corporation took lifetimes to build up look at the DuPonts for example now think of a company starting in space relating things today in 50 or 100 years think of where it will be.

There are a decent number of companies out there. Most of them are either toys for the extremely wealthy, or live on government contracts.

A company starting now could indeed grow very big, and show a large profit in the future. In 50 or 100 years, it could very well be a viable industry. But if it's a money sink for a few decades before it ever shows a return, who would keep it running? How long did the DuPonts run at a loss before showing a profit? If a company is not making a profit, it's not going to grow unless someone keeps pumping more and more money into it. (And right now, the only customer capable or willing to do that is the government. Instead of NASA hiring contractors to design and build things and provides services, NASA would be contracting companies do design and build things and provide services.)

It's funny. Who besides their customers and Aviation Week subscribers wept when the Concorde was decommissioned? For thirty years there were these machines that could fly from New York to London in two hours that few people paid attention to (except to complain about the noise), yet imagine what Charles Lindbergh would've thought if he'd seen one right after his bone-chilling, 33-hour flight in a wicker chair with a periscope. It's all relative; regular flights to the Moon and Mars will seem just as boring to the hypothetical residents of 2100 as Shuttle flights do now. Boredom isn't the enemy, but inactivity is.

The Shuttle had many flaws, but it was something, which is more than can be said for the perpetual motion machines we're going to be hearing about for an indefinite number of future election cycles. I also think it is a completely false dichotomy to say as some do, that if it wasn't for the shuttle, we would have extended the Apollo missions or gone to Mars. In Gene Kranz's book, he talks a lot about the end of Apollo, and it supports my memories that the shuttle had nothing to do with the end of Apollo. All of that has much more to do with the lack of interest from the American public, the lack of general political support, and the lack of a specific leader (a President like Kennedy) who pushed the space program.

Quote:

Originally Posted by razark (Post 1700320)

If a company has to spend hundreds of millions/billions of dollars now, to start seeing a 10% profit 20 years down the road, I don't see them doing it.

Yeah, same here.