The thing that I don't understand is why, if this group of private individuals can put a small, cheap (relatively) craft into space, for virtually nothing ($25 million), NASA, with its billions, has never done the same.
Because anything government does is, by it's very nature, costly and inefficient.
Its not their $$$$$, after all. Why should they do anything cheaply?
There is already talk about the FAA getting involved in thise recent endeavor..
FAA is considering whether it should institute "safety" regulations covering such space flights..
Rutan, et al, has responded by saying such regulation will place undue financial burden on it's newborn industry..
Such regulation may actually kill it before it can get on it's feet and start becoming financially viable..
The thing that I don't understand is why, if this group of private individuals can put a small, cheap (relatively) craft into space, for virtually nothing ($25 million), NASA, with its billions, has never done the same.
///////////////
if its not your money then cost is no object.
this has always been the case and always will be.
the proper role of government is to cultivate industry--that said I think some of the best money the US government spends is on research--both as spending on federal labs and as grants to universities and corporations for research purposes. As well, it has been a new innovation of nasa and darpa lately to create competitions for set projects which give out prize money for the winners. I have seen darpa papers that show that for every 1 million they pay out in prize money--they have to spend 12 million to administer the project. However, the research work that's generated by teams competing for the prize is worth about 120 million.
for that reason I think that any focused federal research project should include research funding for federal labs, research funding for universities and prize money.
my favorite targets for this approach would be research to kill the costs of producing hydrogen and desalinized water.