Unfortunately, the Republican line is that there’s no enterprise that cannot be improved by the addition of a Profit Motive. :rolleyes:
No, I did, seeing as how I wrote it.
From my discussions with a number of men involved, I can tell you that they said it wouldn’t have swayed them one bit.
If you’d like to PM me, I can forward you their contact information and you can ask them what they’d have done differently if they were working for a private company with the same resources instead of the government. The answer will almost universally be “nothing”, but I’m happy to assist you in asking.
Even those that wanted to beat the Soviets were motivated more by a strong work ethic & seeing the end goal realized than by simply wanting to see the US do something the Soviet Union had yet to do. Almost all of them will tell you themselves that if they had to choose between not putting a man on the moon while beating the Soviet Union in another venture and putting a man on the moon absent the space race, they’d choose the latter.
Of course, as I said, if you don’t believe me, I’m happy to help you get in touch with them to ask.
Yes, because there’s no company, even today, that has the resources to fund something as major as the Saturn V–which has nothing to do with my point.
My point is simple: if the same men were given the same job by a private company with the same resources, the same results would have happened in the same time frame. These men, by & large, didn’t need Kennedy to motivate them–they just needed someone capable of giving them the necessary resources to let them do their thing & act on the results. (Again, a number of them will tell you that themselves.) Put simply, Kennedy didn’t convince them to do what they did–he convinced the government to let them do what they did & fund the end result.
What “private enterprise folks” did I credit with “single-handedly accomplishing anything”?
Nobody did anything single handedly, and the only individuals I mentioned by name did their work while on the government payroll. All I said, which I’ll say once again, was that if those individuals were on the payroll of a private company with the same end goal and the same resources as the government, they would have done the same job in the same manner. And, as I’ve said, they’d tell you that themselves.
And that is why the government, rather than a private company, got the likes of Max Faget and Chris Kraft and Gene Kranz and countless others to work for them in achieving their goal.
However, if McDonnell Aircraft, rather than the government, organized the STG with the same people & gave them the same resources that the government did, they would have done the same job. Which is my point. That I’ve said. Repeatedly.
Even if that private company that hired them had the same structure, resources, & goal that the government did?
From Post #76:
Note how many times I spell out that all else is equal. Pointing out that, in reality, all else isn’t equal does nothing to actually counter my point.
Yes, I know. The point that went over your head is that you’re failing to understand what you yourself are writing down.
Actually, it does, and this is the point you keep missing. Sure, IF private enterprise somehow could summon all the resources that a national government can, IF private enterprise can set national goals and priorities the way a national government can, IF private enterprise can set long-term goals the way a national government can, IF private enterprise can put aside overall profit considerations the way a national government can, in favor of a larger goal – then, indeed, all things would be equal. But they’re not.
Those differences are fundamental to what government is, and what private enterprise is, and the foundational distinction between them. The common way to express that is, “if my grandmother had wheels, she would be a streetcar”. Your point is fucking stupid.
No, I am.
You’re still apparently not.
Good thing I never said they were.
My point has always been a simple one:
If Max Faget was capable of designing the Mercury capsule when given enough resources, then Max Faget could’ve (and would’ve) designed the Mercury space capsule when given enough resources, whether those resources came from the government or a private company.
If, given the right team & enough resources, Gene Kranz was capable of leading Mission Control in putting a man on the moon, Gene Kranz could’ve (and would’ve) lead Mission Control in putting a man on the moon, given the right team & enough resources, regardless of whether he got his paycheck from a private company or the government.
Whether a private company could have then given or could even now give enough resources for either of those men to do the job in their employ is irrelevant to any point I’ve raised.
I was replying to a stupid point in the first place.
First it was the incredulous idea that a private company could build spacecraft, when that’s how it been from the beginning in the US.
Then someone decided that “building” meant “funding” & decided to call my point out, when I never said anything about “funding”, but instead discussed, like the original comment I replied to, “building”. To which I pointed out that the same people would do the same job regardless of who funded it.
Then you decided to extrapolate beyond “funding” to discussing how the overarching management structure wasn’t conducive to the job at hand & calling my point out, even though I never said anything on that subject (and still haven’t).
My point, like every point I make on these forums (and in real life), has been extremely narrow from the get go.
If you do as I said from the beginning & read my point for what it actually says (instead of what you think it says), you’ll see that. The things that you’re telling me I’m not getting aren’t things I’ve ever discussed, as they aren’t even within the realm of my point.
So Debillw3, your entire argument is based on defining “building” as limited to the physical act of putting the rocket together? This is the pedantic hill you want to die on?
As opposed to what?
If someone wants to clarify the point, I’m happy to discuss it, but, yes, I’m approaching it and responding from my world view, in which “build” in this context is synonymous with “put together” or “manufacture”.
I assumed that would be apparent from my first post in this thread, in which I used the world “build” to the discuss the companies that physically made the different spacecraft parts. I even stated clearly that Max Faget & Werhner Von Braun were working for the government, so I obviously wasn’t lumping them in with the companies that I said built the spacecraft.
As opposed to the difference between what SpaceX is doing and what McDonnell Aircraft did, for example.
Enjoy your hill, idiot.
Sounds more like a deep gravity well…
Both of them built the spacecraft, though.
SpaceX did it for SpaceX & McDonnell did it for the government, but it’s not like SpaceX contracted the manufacture of the Falcon Heavy to Boeing.
From where I stand, where “build” equates to “physically manufacture”, there’s no difference in that context between what SpaceX did and what the other companies back when did, hence my reply.
Indeed it has. I think “myopic” would be a better term. To say that the same results would have been achieved by two completely differently constituted entities if only those entities had been constituted identically is a useless truism and a fucking waste of time.
I’m now reminded of another little discussion I had with you, to which you never responded. Here you ask, in what appears to be a Trump-supporter meme, how this Consulate General’s heartless denial of a woman’s medical visa could possibly have anything to do with Trump, when the consulate staff had been in place for a year before his election.
It’s as if it cannot penetrate your thick skull that exactly the same people behave in entirely different ways depending on the policies, goals, and culture that are being promulgated by the leadership above them. This appears to be your fundamental problem: things that you think are equivalent, aren’t. If you really can’t understand this I can recommend some excellent reading.
Again, I’m happy to help you get in touch with a number of these men, who’ll tell you for themselves, as they’ve told me, that they wouldn’t.
Good idea–I’d suggest starting with “Failure is Not an Option” & “Flight: My Life In Mission Control” (despite the factual inaccuracies with the latter), where you can read about Gene Kranz’ & Chris Kraft’s motivations from the horse’s mouth.
“Go Flight” is another good one, which was written with the cooperation of a bunch of different flight controllers.
I’d argue that the biggest engineering project in history was The Manhatten Project.
Got it. If you ignore all the differences, then there’s no difference. Brilliant argument.
No, if you start from a place, as I have, where when discussing “building” spacecraft, the entities in question are North American, McDonnell, etc., rather than Faget, Von Braun, etc., then SpaceX built the spacecraft in the same way that North American, McDonnell, etc. built the spacecraft.
If, however, you start from a place where “build” is less narrow and encompasses a number of things, then differences start to emerge between what the likes of McDonnell did & what the likes of SpaceX did.
To be frank, I generally have these discussions on boards devoted to the topic, where nobody would think twice about saying “McDonnell.” when asked “Who built the Mercury capsule” and the only additional information that would come up would be who manufactured the various components. Design, funding, management structure, etc. wouldn’t come up, as it’s a purely technical question.
So, when on this board, talk arises of incredulousness at the thought of a private company building spacecraft, I didn’t see a need to shift my view, and I responded in the same way I’d respond there (if someone else didn’t beat me to it). Same thought, same verbiage, (to me, anyway) same response.
I’m always genuinely reluctant to conclude that someone is a fucking idiot, and I’m not quite there yet with you. I’m going to kindly assume that you simply can’t see the forest for the trees. Gene Kranz and Chris Kraft did not put a man on the moon. What put a man on the moon is the greatest engineering project in human history, billions in public funding, and coordination among thousands of entities, public and private, and hundreds of thousands of people on a scale that required the development of an entirely new project management methodology. It not only took the full commitment of the US government, it was a commitment that few other countries could have matched, let alone some of your vaunted imaginary private enterprises, who were – and still are – selling can openers, vacuum cleaners, and fingerlings.
You’re just myopic and naive. Look at the post I quoted about the woman’s appeal for a medical visa and the attitude you expressed there. You just have a childlike naivety about how the world works. Yeah, how could the same consulate staff possibly act any differently under a different administration? How could the same people do different things under different leadership? It’s the same people! Maybe your education should start with something like The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William Shirer.
I agree with you on that, as they would.
As I said earlier, when you accused me to giving credit to private enterprise for doing it single handedly, I didn’t (and wouldn’t) give credit to any ONE individual or organization.
Still no disagreement from me. Heck, when people say “We were able to do it in the 60’s; why can’t we do it now that technology’s improved”, I make an almost identical comment.
Still agree with you 100%.
Well, in the entire above post, you haven’t said anything I disagree with. Heck, I’ve made similar points on other forums when the subject came up.
You’re arguing with a Muskophile. They’re masters at this.
Debillw3 is clearly not an idiot (seriously, what’s with “idiot?” We can do better than that in the Pit, people!). But y’all are definitely arguing cross-purposes. ISTM, as an interested observer, that the core of the issue is this:
Debillw3 is absolutely correct that the actual work of designing, constructing, and launching spacecraft has always involved civilian contractors. But the question is whether or not civilian companies would have done any of it on their own hook, without government impetus–and the answer is obviously “no.” There wasn’t enough money in it for private industry to do it on their own.
Until now, at least.
.
The things that Elon Musk are calling ‘flamethrowers’ that you can also put together in a visit to a hardware store aren’t much like the flamethrowers the US army used in WW2 and Vietnam. These basically take a propane tank and a burner that makes a short (1-2 foot) jet of flame, then strap it into something you can easily move around. They don’t fire to a significant range, and don’t fire a fuel that sticks to the target and burns the way that military flamethrowers do. They’re not really significantly more dangerous than a gas grill, and aren’t really useful for ‘nefarious purposes.’ I mean, if you’re trying to kill someone, a knife is cheaper, easier to move, easier to hide, and has better odds of success. If you’re wanting to do big damage, a gallon can of gas and something to ignite it will do more than a short jet of flame and is again cheaper, easier to move, and easier to hide.
I saw an article saying that someone in congress was going to push a law to ban flamethrowers because of the Elon Musk stunt. Ironically, the law they pushed defined a flamethrower as anything designed to fire flame more than six feet - which wouldn’t actually affect these ‘flamethrowers’ since they don’t fire flame that far.
they’re roofing/weed burning torches in a funny case.