[Kerrigan]

The jury seems to be out on this issue. It is surprising that the US has no means of sending astronauts into space. However, SpaceX is sending a test capsule to the ISS in November, meaning that the US may quickly regain its manned space travel ability.

The government contractor approach to spaceflight could turn out to be highly successful. Boeing, BAE Systems, etc., are all shining examples of how the government and private enterprise can team up to develop excellent defense systems (no sarcasm here--they're excellent companies).

It is essential that the US remains competitive in space flight. Obama's greatest legacy may turn out to be his decision to unleash the private sector into space travel. It could rapidly speed up progress, while lowering costs (hopefully, we won't here any more of those pie-in-the-sky commitments to send humans to Mars in 30 or 40 years).

What do you all think?

PS: if the government contractor model fails, I have a gut feeling that the Air Force will ramp up its space abilities, which could have bad consequences.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

PS: if the government contractor model fails, I have a gut feeling that the Air Force will ramp up its space abilities, which could have bad consequences.

How so?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

PS: if the government contractor model fails, I have a gut feeling that the Air Force will ramp up its space abilities, which could have bad consequences.

I don't see that as troublesome at all. Let them spend bucks on something that will matter in 10 years rather than upkeep on a fleet of stealth bombers that aren't stealthy anymore.

The private enterprise approach will work right up until someone is killed in the process, and then lawsuits will tie up the industry in a matter of days, and for years. The NASA model works because they are the aggregator, and as such can't be sued (effectively) for negligence with something that is inherently dangerous.

PE might be able to do it offshore, but not in this litigious country of ours.

[Uncle Skeleton]

What legal system do you sue under if you're killed or maimed in orbit? Is the space station or modules considered to be part of any country, like embassies?

[Kerrigan]

Well, NASA is a federal agency and is therefore protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity--you can only sue them with their own consent.

Government contractors also (usually) fall under the protection of sovereign immunity, which is why Boeing, Lockheed, etc., continue to build planes, helicopters, and other such systems that result in non-defense related deaths all the time.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What legal system do you sue under if you're killed or maimed in orbit?

Easy. Just look down.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Easy. Just look down.

Which way is "down" with no gravity?

[Kerrigan]

The negative PR resulting in an astronaut's death inside of a privately built, government contracted spacecraft would be roughly akin to a test pilot dying in a Harrier jet or helicopter crash. It's a federal government employee dying while piloting a risky, privately built piece of machinery, undertaking a highly dangerous job.

It would be nothing like the PR fallout if a Virgin Galactic craft went down.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Which way is "down" with no gravity?

There's always gravity. Weightlessness around our planet is simply perpetual falling.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Which way is "down" with no gravity?

Once you've been killed in space, it's pretty much all down.

[subego]

I wonder how many people the Sovs killed actually in space.