Priorities in government and space

three problems with that is

1) a very large number of satelites are military, or are used by the
military as well as civilians. the military would not turn over the
handling of those satelites to any company.

2) companies would only be interested in doing those things that
would gain them money. any thing that did not have a good income
would get a back burner.

3) companies would most likely not have good oversght. Just look at
how much they charge of an "circular impact driving device with two
prong connector remover attachment". the military pays up to 1200
dollars for this, but you can get the same thing from a hardward
store called a claw hammer for 12 bucks. its the same thing, just
named differently.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "John Frazer"
>
> "hetrevillion" (Harvey) wrote:
> > NASA needs to get into research and development and allow
> >competing commercial firms to provide actual services with
> >the technologies by licensing. The corporations should not
> >be given 'cost plus' contracts as is now the standard mode
> >of operation, but should be given a set of requirements for
> >various missions and allowed to develop the hardware for a
> >fixed cost per mission. This would ensure that the corporations
> >actually produce the hardware at a reasonable cost instead of
> >allowing cost over-runs due to 'required accounting and other
> >overhead charges' to ensure the 'cost plus' status of the program.
>
> How about if the government gets out of the (supposedly) productive
> hardware operations business altogether?
> "Governments maintain roads, not operate trucking businesses."
> Let the companies produce vehicles and keep factory floors open and
> people employed the way they're meant to in a capitalism: sink or
> swim. Darwinism.
> If they can't field a thing that goes from A to B and back
reliably
> and efficiently (as they've manifestly proven themselves incapable
of
> doing in the government space "business"), then buy from somebody
who