Election Day 2012

[Regulus]

So you're okay with cutting funding for NASA, and allowing SpaceX or any competing companies to take over? I don't necessarily disagree with that but...

Does SpaceX really care about safety? They are a corporation, and they will cut corners wherever possible to save money. As long as their butts are covered legally, they won't get in trouble for saving $10 for not replacing a broken seal which could lead to a loss of dozens of lives. NASA would probably not be willing to take that chance, simply because they are not trying to make a profit. Remember, that's basically what happened with the BP oil spill. They tried to cut back on their safety measures to save money (because Bush and friends let them), and look what happened.

Is space travel really profitable to begin with? I think it can be, considering the asteroid belt is rich in rare-earth minerals, which cost thousands of dollars per ounce. But what if it's not? Then, we won't have any sort of space program.

What if SpaceX monopolizes the industry somehow? This one is kind of a stretch, but I'm throwing it out there anyway.

[Azdgari]

[quote="Regulus"]Remember, that's basically what happened with the BP oil spill. They tried to cut back on their safety measures to save money (because Bush and friends let them), and look what happened.[/quote]
The dagger to the heart of people who argue against govt. regulation.

[DGFone]

That's why you need competition, not Regulation. Resupplying the ISS uses robotically-controlled rockets, so if it fails during launch (likeliest time to fail), no one gets hurt. But it will hurt the reputation of SpaceX, and potentially cause it to go out of business. So if one company falls, you need to have another ready to take it's place.

And the difference between space and the BP oil spill: You can't get a ticket to an oil platform. But people want to go to space. There is an entire future industry, which no doubt is what SpaceX's goal is: to be the first space tourism company.

Now you can imagine what a failure during launch will do to public perception of safety of the company. A failure can kill the space tourism future for SpaceX before it will even start. Safety, I can assure you, is one thing that SpaceX is NOT skimming on. And not because the government is telling it that it can't.

[Regulus]

BP's oil spill nearly caused them to go out of business, but they still took the chance of not maintaining their safety equipment.

[DGFone]

They still didn't bet on the safety of the oil rig on a potential new business. They nearly went out out of business yes, it cost them a lot, yes.

It didn't cost them a new undeveloped industry that doesn't exist yet, which is what I am certain SpaceX is doing.

Or to put it into laymen's terms: SpaceX develops a rocket to resupply the ISS. It blows up. Then SpaceX tells the public: Go ride in our rocket to space! Guess what won't happen.

[Azdgari]

Or you could regulate, and no rocket blows up and nobody dies. Because what if the rocket that blows up isn't the refueler, but the first commercial flight?

[DGFone]

[quote="Azdgari"]Or you could regulate, and no rocket blows up and nobody dies. Because what if the rocket that blows up isn't the refueler, but the first commercial flight?[/quote]

I have to argue with you on this one. I know you weren't alive during Challanger, but Columbia blew up in 2003. Both of these tragedies were caused by an unmovable bureaucratic system that couldn't adapt to the situation at hand. Apollo 1 was the same thing. The government said "get the job done" and no one was able to stop and say "hold on. It's not safe anymore." What do all of these three tragedies have in common? Someone knew something was wrong before hand, but either didn't or couldn't raise their voice loud enough to be heard over the noisy bureaucracy machine.

When it comes to space, regulation kills, not saves.

[Azdgari]

I actually meant to talk about in general, not space.

[DGFone]

Well, the term "in general" is rather bad to use, because specific elements can vary so much. This is the same reason why I say that we shouldn't abandon the state level government, like Regulus thinks we should.

Some things, like the military budget and other national-level things should be regulated so that they won't get out of control. Plus, as much as I support the military, some of the things we're spending tax dollars developing sound like they came out of a dystopian sci-fi book. So some things do need to be regulated, preferably by the people and not the government. A great example is SOPA/PIPA, where the public rose up to force the government not to regulate the Internet.

But for the few things that do need regulation, everything else needs as little regulation as possible. Both to improve innovation, and to avoid accidents caused by bloated bureaucracies.

[Tora]

All I have to say is,