http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/07/24/spacewalk.for.sale.ap/index.html

I can see the pros and cons and I think Russia is smart for commercializing the Space Industry. It's an expensive cash cow, make money anyway you can. If they have signed all the proper releases and they want to do it, I say let them. I really do not think it's going to be much longer before more and more people push for similar things. It seems to me there are two camps about Space and Space Travel. One, wants to keep it government managed, driven, organized. The other wants to open it up.

There are risks in allot of things but the government surely doesn't think it's going to maintain hold on this aspect of our lives forever....or do they?

And on that note, if I had that much money I'd be the first to go.

If folks are willing to tie a big rubber band to their ankles and jump off a bridge, why the heck not climb into a big metal compartment and have an explosion set off beneath you propelling you into the atmoshpere:eek:

Seriously, if folks have the money to spend, go for it....at least it will help to keep man moving outward.

There was an interesting book called Deception Point (yes, a fiction novel - but entirely plausable) by Dan Brown about the commercialization of space. Some of the highlights were what if Nike bought the rights to carve giant swish into the moon or just suspend a 500 mile billboard in an outer orbit? What happens when Nasa stops regulating satelites and some sub-par commercial satelites crash down through orbit and kill someone or worse - take out a large building or city block.

I don't think putting Lance Bass in a space shuttle and having the Russian Space program taking him to the moon is bad - but when you let commercial interests into space there could be a lot of negatiive aspects unforseen.

Very interesting topic. Most of me wants to say screw the government controlling anything in space but on the other hand I don't want some nut job with a ton of cash getting into outerspace and having the possibility of them fubaring our much needed satelites.

Look ma, I'm a satellite!

I'm actually surprised that Nike doesn't have a swoosh on space suits already. Personally, I'd love to see a Jump Man on the side a solid rocket booster. :p

Maybe a little corporate sponsorship would bring the cost of a hammer don't to 3 or 4 hundred dollars, like back in the good old days.

I'm actually surprised that Nike doesn't have a swoosh on space suits already. Personally, I'd love to see a Jump Man on the side a solid rocket booster. :p

Maybe a little corporate sponsorship would bring the cost of a hammer don't to 3 or 4 hundred dollars, like back in the good old days.

EXACTLY! It's gotten so out of hand that if NASA were smart and capitalized it efficiently they just might have a way to help fund the program better. The Russians are smart IMO for doing so.

I'm not for someone going willy nilly with no rules or regulations but if someone is willing to fork over the dough and go thru the training necessary then so be it. Help offset those costs. I'd love to see our Space Program in full bloom again.

The only way to revitalize the space program with today's issues taking up our tax dollars is through private investment. If we want to continue to move forward in the space race, it's imperative to involve the private sector. Tax dollars that are going to other programs aren't giving the funding to NASA necessary to continue to do as effective of a job as was possible in the 60s. Serious budget cuts in other areas would be required for us to step up our space program at all (or tax hikes), and we know how well our government does with cutting spending.

The simple fact remains:

The U.S. government will not pour massive amounts of money into the private space sector in fear of losing the "high ground" they have monopolized for many decades now.

Losing dominance in orbiting vehicles (not to mention sats) would strike a big blow to the U.S. government’s control of space. Some may say that Russia has taken over in the dominance of orbiting vehicles since the downturn in the shuttle program, and they would be right. Also watch out for China, they are coming to an orbit near you.

It will take a huge push from the private sector with the corresponding innovation that will be required to break through to orbit and beyond. Vehicles like Spaceship One that flew last spring are still very much off the mark of reaching orbit. It’s a start but the private sector will have to dump thousands of times the number of dollars that it took to fly Spaceship One to make any progress towards stable orbit vehicles.



If the U.S. government holds back on funding the Russians will eclipse all others. Don't discount them, their space program has survived and excelled after the down fall of communism. They have some of their most brilliant minds tied up in their space program. The Soyuz has been flying for decades and their launch success compared to number of launches is the most successful in the world.



It's the bureaucracy of NASA and their short sightedness due to budget constraints that is the real problem here. NASA is about to take the U.S. back to the 50’s and 60’s with their “new” CEV technology. Innovation is not at the forefront it seems; pacifying NASA’s handlers (a.k.a the politicians) seems to be the rule of the day.



The militarization of space has been on the rise since the inception the hydrogen bomb and the first vehicles to reach orbit. You can bet that the “high ground” will be off limits to people like you and me for at least 50 – 100 years. By that time hopefully some maniac trillionaire will have pushed the boundaries of innovation and can get the “common folk” to orbit and beyond. Until then its military, ex-air force and scientists that will be visiting the great void.

Cheers,

NASA is opening up more to the private sector (though never enough)... and the large corporations who have invested so much into space programs (Boeing, Lockheed... ) are seeing opportunities with the private sector as well.

A good read...

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/07/27/1486.aspx