USS Private Enterprise?
4/3/10 19:01![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
a-new-machine.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsSo, we all know that NASA's most recent attempt at human low Earth orbit fight, the Constellation program, has been scuttled. Now, NASA is looking at a new approach: funding the private sector and letting them experiment with the next wave of space exploration.
Now normally, I'm all for privatization where possible and efficient. I'm wondering if this is either, though. Of course there are efficiency gains from competition, but those generally come from the marketplace's function. I can't see how the government awarding a contract to five different companies, with five different methods of reaching space, gives any incentive for true competition.
I'm also wary of the very high costs of negative externalities in this area. We already have a lot of space junk floating around endangering satellites, the ISS, and our space-based communication system. Imagine a rocket capable of carrying the first long-term lunar colony exploding in space because one company wanted to beat another to the cheese. We already had a space race - there's no need to recreate the ups and downs of that era with unnecessary competition, effects which we're still feeling.
Finally, I wonder about the scientific necessity of a new round of exploration, theoretically culminating with a permanent human presence on the moon, and a mission to Mars. Certainly there's a lot we can learn, and learning is categorically good. But is this the best way to conduct scientific inquiry? Will private corporations be able to monetize science experiments and their copyrighted video of Neil Armstrong Jr. stepping foot on Mars, or are they more likely to go for resource extraction, tourism, and other less "noble" goals? Is that the sort of thing we want to be funding into orbit?
Now normally, I'm all for privatization where possible and efficient. I'm wondering if this is either, though. Of course there are efficiency gains from competition, but those generally come from the marketplace's function. I can't see how the government awarding a contract to five different companies, with five different methods of reaching space, gives any incentive for true competition.
I'm also wary of the very high costs of negative externalities in this area. We already have a lot of space junk floating around endangering satellites, the ISS, and our space-based communication system. Imagine a rocket capable of carrying the first long-term lunar colony exploding in space because one company wanted to beat another to the cheese. We already had a space race - there's no need to recreate the ups and downs of that era with unnecessary competition, effects which we're still feeling.
Finally, I wonder about the scientific necessity of a new round of exploration, theoretically culminating with a permanent human presence on the moon, and a mission to Mars. Certainly there's a lot we can learn, and learning is categorically good. But is this the best way to conduct scientific inquiry? Will private corporations be able to monetize science experiments and their copyrighted video of Neil Armstrong Jr. stepping foot on Mars, or are they more likely to go for resource extraction, tourism, and other less "noble" goals? Is that the sort of thing we want to be funding into orbit?
(no subject)
Date: 5/3/10 00:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/3/10 00:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/3/10 00:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/3/10 00:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/3/10 00:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/3/10 00:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/3/10 00:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/3/10 00:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/3/10 01:46 (UTC)There does however need to be some well thought out regulation on what people can do in space, where and how fast etc.
The whole thing about space-junk for instance is no bug-bear, but has serious potential consequences for the future development of all of humanity.
Having to delay colonisation of the moon or Mars for a few decades or centuries while we clear the crap from some idiot who left 100 thousand (more) high-speed kinetic missiles floating around in orbit is something that could be hugely detrimental to all of humanity. High-speed objects accidentally impacting the Earth's surface are another potential threat.
(no subject)
Date: 5/3/10 02:36 (UTC)Oh, there would certainly be regulations owing to the fact that government love to do that sort of thing.
How well-thought out those regulations will actually be is anybody's guess.
Regular folks can do ill-advised things. But for good old fashioned stupidity never underestimate the legislature.
(no subject)
Date: 5/3/10 04:04 (UTC)No-one ever said the political process was perfect, only that it's better than the alternatives.
(no subject)
Date: 5/3/10 09:33 (UTC)I'm just saying it's mediocre.
(no subject)
Date: 5/3/10 01:05 (UTC)I think its a great idea! The public sector generally leads on stuff like this but then needs to get out of the way. Devote NASA money to more robotic probes and ideally a manned mission to Mars.
(no subject)
Date: 6/3/10 04:39 (UTC)Right, although the misconception that NASA was somehow turning over all exploration to private companies is quite commonplace -- even Burt Rutan fell for it.
IMHO, there's no reason for NASA to spend its limited resources on building rockets for getting to LEO, when commercial is quite capable of doing that. As you say, NASA can then focus more on beyond-LEO exploration and developing the game-changing technologies needed to make beyond-earth exploration sustainable.
Unfortunately, it's looking increasingly unlikely that things will play out that way. There's some highly formidable factions in Congress who are rather vested in having NASA be a rocket-building bureau, and with the current economic climate they're quite hostile to the possibility of losing jobs in their districts.
(no subject)
Date: 5/3/10 01:21 (UTC)Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty) is what they can do under international treaty. Full treaty here (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty_of_1967).
Not sure about resource extraction or tourism on the Moon. But I'm pretty sure a corporation that wanted to build an orbital resort hotel or (even better)an orbital factory could do so under the treaty.
Personally, I want corporations to build factories in orbit.
(no subject)
Date: 5/3/10 12:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/3/10 01:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/3/10 01:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/3/10 01:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/3/10 02:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/3/10 12:50 (UTC)But then we've also referenced Pokemon and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and my professor admitted to making themed exams where the questions he asks exist mostly for the sake of the jokes they allow him to crack. It's an interesting class, to say the least.
(no subject)
Date: 5/3/10 16:49 (UTC)Extropianism FTW
Date: 5/3/10 02:30 (UTC)I'm not so sure I'd want the government to fund an orbital hotel though. That would be harder to justify to taxpayers.
Re: Extropianism FTW
Date: 5/3/10 02:51 (UTC)But let's get real about one thing here. Most of the people who go to an orbital resort will bring along a partner and spend most of the time exploring the possiblities of zero-g fucking. :p
I know I certainly would.
Re: Extropianism FTW
Date: 5/3/10 04:09 (UTC)Re: Extropianism FTW
Date: 5/3/10 09:35 (UTC)Re: Extropianism FTW
Date: 6/3/10 04:48 (UTC)As an aside, the orbital hotel/research facility maker Bigelow Aerospace has launched two space station prototypes into orbit so far, entirely on Bigelow's dime. NASA has been in talks with them though to possibly buy one of their modules to add capability to the International Space Station, though, at a price quite a bit lower than any of the current space station modules. I think NASA's also potentially interested in buying a couple modules from Bigelow and spinning them around, to generate artificial/centrifugal gravity.
Re: Extropianism FTW
Date: 6/3/10 05:36 (UTC)Re: Extropianism FTW
Date: 6/3/10 08:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/3/10 03:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/3/10 04:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/3/10 05:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/3/10 04:53 (UTC)Yup, the Outer Space Treaty poses some serious problems for the private exploitation of space resources: http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2009/07/revising-the-outer-space-treaty.html
(no subject)
Date: 6/3/10 05:39 (UTC)