10/04/2004

Space and the private sector

Quand le secteur privé se penche sur les voyages dans l'espace:

Fly to space 'for the price of a cruise'
By Roger Highfield
(Filed: 09/04/2004)

An aircraft designer has been given permission to fly to the edge of space in an experimental re-usable rocket plane that could launch the era of space tourism.

Burt Rutan, who designed Voyager, which flew non-stop around the world on a single tank of fuel, now has a licence to test a high-altitude manned supersonic light aircraft which, if successful, "will mark the renaissance for manned space flight".

Mr Rutan talks of a future, "hopefully within 10 years, when ordinary people, for the cost of a luxury cruise, can experience a rocket flight into the black sky above Earth's atmosphere, enjoy a few minutes of weightless excitement, then feel the thunderous deceleration of aerodynamic drag on re-entry."

His approach, under development since 1996, consists of a rocket plane, dubbed SpaceShipOne, and the White Knight, an exotic-looking twin turbojet aircraft designed to carry it aloft for a launch at 50,000ft. The spaceship drops into gliding flight and fires its rocket while climbing steeply for more than a minute and reaching 2,500mph.

SpaceShipOne, funded by Paul Allen, the co-founder of Microsoft, has completed nearly a dozen preliminary test flights and broke the sound barrier last year on the 100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers' powered flight over Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. Mr Rutan, the head of Scaled Composites, based in Mojave, California, has made his latest craft from graphite and epoxy. It has already reached an altitude of nearly 13 miles in a test flight.

The new licence, granted by the United States Federal Aviation Administration, allows the spacecraft to reach the edge of space, about 60 miles up, not enough to complete an orbit but offering a similar view at much lower cost.

The licence is a prerequisite for the coveted X Prize, an international space race that will give $10 million to the first company or person to launch a manned craft to 62.5 miles (100 km) above Earth, and then do it again within two weeks. The craft must be able to carry three people.

The X prize is sponsored by a privately-funded foundation in St Louis. Supporters include Erik Lindbergh, the grandson of Charles Lindbergh, the Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin and the actor Tom Hanks.

 

A ce propos, vous pouvez vous procurer des livres très intéressants : Free Space , Space: The Free-Market Frontier

 


 

Privatize the Space Program


By Robert Garmong
 
        After years of declining budgets, public apathy, and failed missions, NASA has gotten a big boost from the Bush Administration's recent promises of extravagant missions to permanently settle the moon and eventually explore Mars. No one knows what it would cost, but a similar idea in 1989 was estimated to cost up to $500 billion.
        Rather than lavishing money on new missions of dubious value, President Bush should consider a truly radical solution for America's moribund space program: privatize it.
        There is a contradiction at the heart of the space program: space exploration, as the grandest of man's technological advancements, requires the kind of bold innovation possible only to minds left free to pursue the best of their thinking and judgment. Yet by placing the space program under governmental funding, we necessarily place it at the mercy of governmental whim. The results are written all over the past twenty years of NASA's history: the space program is a political animal, marked by shifting, inconsistent, and ill-defined goals.
        The space shuttle was built and maintained to please clashing constituencies, not to do a clearly defined job for which there was an economic and technical need. The shuttle was to launch satellites for the Department of Defense and private contractors—which could be done more cheaply by lightweight, disposable rockets. It was to carry scientific experiments—which could be done more efficiently by unmanned vehicles. But one "need" came before all technical issues: NASA's political need for showy manned vehicles. The result, as great a technical achievement as it is, was an over-sized, over-complicated, over-budget, overly dangerous vehicle that does everything poorly and nothing well.
        Indeed, the space shuttle program was supposed to be phased out years ago, but the search for its replacement has been halted, largely because space contractors enjoy collecting on the overpriced shuttle without the expense and bother of researching cheaper alternatives. A private industry could have fired them—but not so in a government project, with home-district congressmen to lobby on their behalf.
        There is reason to believe that the political nature of the space program may have even been directly responsible for the Columbia disaster. Fox News reported that NASA chose to stick with non-Freon-based foam insulation on the booster rockets, despite evidence that this type of foam causes up to 11 times as much damage to thermal tiles as the older, Freon-based foam. Although NASA was exempted from the restrictions on Freon use, which environmentalists believe causes ozone depletion, and despite the fact that the amount of Freon released by NASA's rockets would have been trivial, the space agency elected to stick with the politically correct foam.
        It is impossible to integrate the contradictory. To whatever extent an engineer is forced to base his decisions, not on the realities of science but on the arbitrary, unpredictable, and often impossible demands of a politicized system, he is stymied. Yet this politicizing is an unavoidable consequence of governmental control over scientific research and development.
        Nor would it be difficult to spur the private exploration of space. Phase out government involvement in space exploration, and the free market will work to produce whatever there is demand for, just as it now does with traditional aircraft, both military and civilian. Develop a system of property rights to any stellar body reached and exploited by an American company, and profit-minded business will have the incentive to make it happen.
        We often hear that the most ambitious projects can only be undertaken by government, but in fact the opposite is true. The more ambitious a project is, the more it demands to be broken into achievable, profit-making steps—and freed from the unavoidable politicizing of government-controlled science. If space development is to be transformed from an expensive national bauble whose central purpose is to assert national pride to a practical industry with real and direct benefits, it will only be by unleashing the creative force of free and rational minds.
        Extending man's reach into space is not, as some have claimed, our "destiny." Standing between us and the stars are enormous technical difficulties, the solution of which will require even more heroic determination than that which tamed the seas and the continents. But first, we must make a fundamental choice: will America continue to hold its best engineering minds captive to politics, or will we set them free?

Robert Garmong, Ph.D. in philosophy, is a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

 


16:34 Écrit par Kathy Schmurtz et Had | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0) |  Facebook |

Les commentaires sont fermés.