There has been talk of letting the space shuttle go to the private sector so that it could fly commercial missions and conduct more research in the biomedical fields. This dedicated research could lead to great leaps in medical technology from better monitoring equipment to more effective drugs. Right now the shuttles sole mission is to construct the ISS with no research opportunities. Also, if put into the private sector, safety modifications could be made significantly faster since it would not get caught up in the political process.
What are your thoughts on this? Please provide rationale for your answers.
2006-08-27 03:08:23 · 9 answers · asked by RocketScientist 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Engineering
If moved to the private sector the current space shuttle would not run at all. It cannot be operated profitably now and the risk (including insurance costs) would be too high to justify with unknown future value.
2006-08-27 03:28:21 · answer #1 · answered by marsel_duchamp 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What's to keep the private sector from launching its own space shuttles right now? It's because it is not something that can be profitable. The private sector does currently do launches of communication satellites and other commercial activities, but manned space exploration and scientific missions in space are not "profitable" and therefore of no interest to the private sector.
2006-08-28 15:31:27 · answer #2 · answered by Steve K 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, that's a great idea, because if the Space Shuttle were moved to the private sector it would die!
The Shuttle has been a disaster; it costs billions of dollars that no private investor would pay for. The only positive use for space exploration has been the communication satellites. Industry would be willing to pay for them.
2006-08-27 10:14:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The space shuttle is a typical government project: can't do the job and costs far too much. The private sector could come up with much cheaper and safer launch vehicles, but politicians wouldn't have the opportunity to divert your money to their friends who build this stuff.
2006-08-27 05:38:34 · answer #4 · answered by stevewbcanada 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe a bit but the shuttle is a very old design from the early 70's that was a good design but was also a compromise from the start and really needs to be replaced with a modern design.
2006-08-27 03:15:57 · answer #5 · answered by booboo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I hear what you say. I were given my account suspended (and that i turned right into a suitable contributor) because some bigot that works for yahoo did not like my answer and couldn't supply me a note for note rationalization of how they justified what I stated as a contravention. obscure motives for postponing debts in accordance to racism and bigotry is the norm on the following. take a seem in any respect the stupid nonsensical questions that do not get violations or deleted. that's the norm those days and basically stumble on assistance on a thanks to stay round all the twits that artwork at yahoo and are having a foul day! in the adventure that they droop your account basically make yet another one :)))
2016-10-15 21:44:51 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
absolutely not. Next you'll be suggesting that we should outsource the military to a merc unit - that was how Rome fell....
If there was money to be made in space shuttle launches, corporations would be jumping at the chance, but it's a money pit, which is why the government is in charge of it.
2006-08-27 03:17:41 · answer #7 · answered by ceprn 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
First of all, a space shuttle is inefficient, period.
Second,
the American government doesn't let you know, why they're spending billions of dollars to "explore" space. The moon isn't as far away as you think it is.. You know what the "Biosphere" is.?..
2006-08-31 05:34:50 · answer #8 · answered by mc2_is_e 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes! Always os room for something better!
2006-08-27 03:11:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋