Or the freaking Web for that matter. Ground breaking research always seems to be funded by society at large and then spat upon as inefficient and stupid by the manly men who will now make a profit off of it.
For the Shuttle, however, that research occurred in the early 1970s. The $200B that has since been spent flying the shuttle did not constitute ground-breaking research in any respect. It's simply operating a tragically expensive space truck. I'm thrilled to see the back of it, and hope that this will allow NASA to return to its primary mission of doing ground-breaking research, while buying its space truck services far more cheaply on the open market.
More here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDWvsdEYSqg Also, a presentation on Mars Direct http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T52-Qu78TjQ&feature=BFa&#...
Libertarians certainly have something to crow about! It's amazing how much more can be accomplished by a private, selfish actor compared to a selfless government agency with the same resources.
Once the basic research and exploration has been done, certainly.
It's as if different kinds of organizations were both good at doing different kinds of things, and both worthy of a place in society...
The basic research was done by the Germans at the end of WW2 and dont forget Russia, they got there first. Nasa wasnt even around then.
It's not just a rocket, it's a rocket capable of reaching orbit and returning [1]. But the things that NASA (along with russian space agency and others) did was things like figuring out, e.g., reliable ground-orbit radio communication, deployment and use of satellites, and a hell of procedures regarding pretty much everything from setting up a spacecraft, to lauching it, to orbiting, deorbiting and landing it, not to mention occasional orbital transfers to other planets. And let's not even get started about ground-side logistics.
There is LOT more to a space mission than just building a rocket. NASA and others did a fine job of doing that, and building neccessary experience in the process.
[1] - yeah, I know, ICBMs can do that too.
Libertarians virtually never have valid points, private industry efficiency is one of the most common urban myths. The incentive for efficiency is valid, but the efficacy and safety issues almost always outweigh it.
I'm excited for the future of private spaceflight, but I am hoping that this allows NASA to contract for cheaper launches while maintaining their scientific research ability.
What private company could survive the Hubble debacle, for example?
But the Dragon still cost less to develop than a single launch of the NASA space shuttle. That's remarkable.
It's a pretty good day to be a libertarian.
It's called "standing on the shoulders of giants". I'm glad the industry is at a point where it can be run by companies instead of governments, as I'm sure it will be more efficient, and likely innovative as well.
But those of us without an ideological axe to grind are pointing out that it got to this point thanks in no small part to government involvement.
None of these items were developed in a vacuum; it's almost impossible to separate private and public contributions once you start talking about education and the public safety/infrastructure that created the right environment, but I don't think it's fair to imply SpaceX would never have happened without NASA or other public research. History, at least, has presented some counterexamples.
To be fair, it's less naive than Anarchism. (To be honest, I'm killing with faint praise.)
Yes.
Would SpaceX be happening now if there had never been a Space Shuttle? Quite simply we have no way of knowing and we never will, because we can't roll back history, change variables and make new experiments. But there's no particular reason whatsoever to think that the technology required by SpaceX would not (have been|be) developed just because it wasn't funded by taxpayers. If you're going to play with alternative scenarios, it's equally possible that privatizing space travel research decades ago would have led to more progress, not less.
But, for better or worse, we have what we have here today. I don't think any Libertarians are playing "triumphalism" here, so much as just pointing out that now is clearly a good time to start transitioning certain elements of space travel to the private sector. It's fun to argue about what might or might not have happened under other scenarios, but it's not a very productive discussion.
Always? A far more accurate version of this statement would be "Often, in modern times, ..."