Should America privatize the space industry?

[notoppings]

With billions of dollars made on the communication industries in the last few years America is poised on the edge of a new private space frontier, with industries chomping at the bit waiting to use their own money to exploit space for profit, should America allow private industry the opportunity to launch their own space explorations.

When NASA began it was made up of mostly scientist and they accomplished so much in such a short time. Given that most private companies look at the bottom line and a return on investment odds are that their missions will look for a profit. Former astronauts have stated that if space exploration was privatized men would be on mars in 5 years.

NASA a DOD organization is looking towards partnerships with private industry, but that would be the same thing we have now, the lowest bidder gets the contract. Others are proposing an all out industry takeover of space.

Do you see any benefits or perils in allowing the corporate giants the chance to use space for experiments or exploitation?

[Zedicus]

“The Earth is just too small and fragile a basket for the human race to keep all its eggs in.”

This was the first thing that popped into my head when I read your post.

I do see advantages and disadvantages with the privatization of space and main one of each side comes from the same thing. Private companies can afford more risk then a government agency can now.

This means while the private company may get there quicker it most likely won’t get there safer. So is the risk worth it, and what can they do with it (private companies I mean). A private company will not lose millions of dollars just for knowledge if they cannot foresee making money from it in the future. So the easiest way for them to make money would be to A. charge for the knowledge or B. become a tourist attraction as well as gather information.

So is the information gained worth the risk, I still haven't really decided myself, but I am leaning towards yes. I would love to see man walk on Mars and Titan, I have dreamed about it since I read my first Sci-Fi book. Mind you there is always that pessimistic part of my brain saying things like "What happens when the first private spaceships crashes into a city? Would it still be worth it? Again I can't make my mind up.

So I guess I just rambled on for no reason but I have to say thanks for the post I will be thinking about this for a while.

[notoppings]

I can see your points on the problems. I don't think it would be all that unsafe. No company would be willing to lose vast amounts of money on an unsafe launch so I think that they would see to it that as many if not more safety procedures would be put into place.

I also see a great leap forward in technology and medicine as more space is available to send up more experiments. Also the minerals in the near Earth orbit objects. Also as you stated tourism would be a great potential, people that are alive today that have always read those same books, would find a way to save the money to take that trip if only for a short while into space. I can see all those who do go up looking down on this planet having their prospective change by seeing the world as a small and fragile thing, it would put it into perspective for so many.

I envision America's schools seeing a surge of interest in the sciences as more companies look for qualified scientist and doctors. I see plenty of advantages. Sure there will be problems but when ever man seeks new frontiers there are always tragedies that will happen but in the end I think we stand to gain so much from the sacrifices of the few.

[rocksteady]

All I know is NASA is great example of federal bloat. Innovation gets pushed aside for politics. I believe Sir Richard Branson is hard at work making this a reality however -

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The sleek, white plane is a larger version of the one that helped SpaceShipOne win the U.S.-ten-million-dollar Ansari X Prize in 2004 by becoming the first privately built craft to carry a person on three round-trip voyages to space.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Zedicus]

I forgot to mention one of the biggest advantages I see in space exploration being privatized would be that hopefully it would give the human race that one thing it always needs. A common goal and or threat to make it behave.

[notoppings]

NASA has announced that it will be able to put a man back on the moon in 20 years. It only took 10 to put a man on the moon the first time and that was without modern computers. Why should it take so long now.

With competition we could see advances in propulsion in a very short time, when business's compete technology jumps forward. With NASA restricting who and what we do in space it can only slow things down.

[Mozzes]

NASA has announced that it will be able to put a man back on the moon in 20 years. It only took 10 to put a man on the moon the first time and that was without modern computers. Why should it take so long now.

Because the original moon landings were a hoax... :ninja:

[Zedicus]

Because the original moon landings were a hoax... :ninja:

LMAO, I may have believed you if I thought you were serious, well not really, but the MythBusters (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)busted that myth.

NASA has announced that it will be able to put a man back on the moon in 20 years. It only took 10 to put a man on the moon the first time and that was without modern computers. Why should it take so long now.

With competition we could see advances in propulsion in a very short time, when businesses compete technology jumps forward. With NASA restricting who and what we do in space it can only slow things down.
I agree, after the Challenger explosion, Nasa could no longer afford to take risks, like they could at the start. Also over the years the same thing has happened to Nasa that happens to many Government run companies, its become a bit complacent and bloated.

[DrEast]

Are people restricted from going into space under their own power now? I was not aware of this. Why? HOW? Does the U.S. fine you for violating U.S. Space-space? Space is neutral territory, no government lays claim to it, as far as I can tell. Yet.

[Zedicus]

Are people restricted from going into space under their own power now? I was not aware of this. Why? HOW? Does the U.S. fine you for violating U.S. Space-space? Space is neutral territory, no government lays claim to it, as far as I can tell. Yet.

The US controls the airways between here and Space. So if you come up with a device that teleports you from the earth to Outer-Space you could bypass all the rules and regulations yes. Otherwise, you have to play by their rules.

[DrEast]

The US controls the airways between here and Space. So if you come up with a device that teleports you from the earth to Outer-Space you could bypass all the rules and regulations yes. Otherwise, you have to play by their rules.

Then what you're saying is, you need a license to fly your device while in U.S. airspace? Do they charge more for this if you've developed a space-going vessel, or are we just talking a standard pilot's license here?

[Zedicus]

Then what you're saying is, you need a license to fly your device while in U.S. airspace? Do they charge more for this if you've developed a space-going vessel, or are we just talking a standard pilot's license here?

A pilots license would be required I imagine, however there is also regulations on other things, and while I am in no way shape or form an expert, I would imagine a huge stumbling block would be if your craft was deemed a rocket, if so there are quite a different set of regulations that apply, especailly if it is a detachable 2 stage rocket where parts of it fell back to earth.

[DrEast]

A pilots license would be required I imagine, however there is also regulations on other things, and while I am in no way shape or form an expert, I would imagine a huge stumbling block would be if your craft was deemed a rocket, if so there are quite a different set of regulations that apply, especailly if it is a detachable 2 stage rocket where parts of it fell back to earth.

Well, I'd need to know the relevant law before I could decide whether privatization was a meaningful term to apply to the discussion.

Presumably, accidentally bombing your neighbors with detritus from your launch would merit its own fines and punishments, and rightfully so, from a careless attempt to voyage into the great beyond.

Beyond that, I am not aware of any restrictions on how high you get to go in your space-mobile, or of any way to enforce those restrictions if they do exist. So, by all means, fund your own Mars colony as a private venture! If there's no existing restriction, it is de facto privatized.

[Doppelbock]

NASA has announced that it will be able to put a man back on the moon in 20 years. It only took 10 to put a man on the moon the first time and that was without modern computers. Why should it take so long now.

Because the first time they did it, it was a race against the Soviets. Time was of the essence, but not cost. The Apollo program, consequently, was very expensive, and the vehicles were expensive to operate. It was fine for a race, but not sustainable as a long-term effort.

The new program is intended to be sustainable. It will cost less than Apollo and be less expensive to operate. It will take 20 years instead of 10 because the budget is spread out that long. It could be accelerated if the funding were moved forward but there just isn't the urgency there was during the cold war race to the moon.

[Tenacious B]

NASA has announced that it will be able to put a man back on the moon in 20 years. It only took 10 to put a man on the moon the first time and that was without modern computers. Why should it take so long now.
It takes longer now for a few reasons. First, at the beginning of Mercury NASA was wholly dedicated to men in space, nowadays NASA does a variety of research which takes away resources from manned space flight. Similarly, back in the cold war days NASA's budget was a significant portion of the federal budget (I want to say 16% at its peak, but don't quote that, I'll find it later), now NASA's budget is only ~0.5% of the federal budget (17.2 billion). Again, only a portion of that is for manned space flight. Third, we have a space station and shuttle program that we are obligated to maintain until the station is complete in a few years. Right now there is a huge number of people dedicated to the shuttle, and especially the station (takes lots of folks to operate 24/7/365). Once we are finished/less involved with those programs their resources will go towards the Constellation program and things will speed up.



I am all for privatization of space, however I would still have NASA participate. Some ventures can more readily turn a profit (mostly from advertising and tourism, until significant resources are found and able to be brought back), with NASA and private industry you get the best of both worlds.

It will take industry a while to catch up though, Virgin is basically in the position NASA was after Allan Shephard's first Mercury flight (1961). Granted, industry will catch up faster since they are working with experience where as early NASA was flying at full throttle through an unknown place while wearing a blindfold.

The important thing is that we keep exploring and expanding.

[Monte314]

If there is a commercial market, privatization will happen (in fact, is happening) in natural course.

Government involvement in lots of technologies is initially necessary when the cost of developing the fundamental technology is not justified by the existence of a ready market. No company could have afforded the basic research needed even to prove the concept.

This is a valid function of government funded research: developing new technologies that have commercial value benefits everyone, but sometimes only government can afford to do it.

[rewhu]

NASA has announced that it will be able to put a man back on the moon in 20 years. It only took 10 to put a man on the moon the first time and that was without modern computers. Why should it take so long now.

Because the first time they did it, it was a race against the Soviets. Time was of the essence, but not cost. The Apollo program, consequently, was very expensive, and the vehicles were expensive to operate. It was fine for a race, but not sustainable as a long-term effort.

The new program is intended to be sustainable. It will cost less than Apollo and be less expensive to operate. It will take 20 years instead of 10 because the budget is spread out that long. It could be accelerated if the funding were moved forward but there just isn't the urgency there was during the cold war race to the moon.

I agree with Doppelbock (great name / great drink BTW) but I also assumed that part of the reason was that future trips to the moon were supposed to result in more extended stays on the surface. Astronauts would set up a temporary base and then slowly expand on it, creating an increasingly larger and larger permanent moonbase with each successive trip. Moonbase! Imagine how kick a$$ that would be!

Zedicus mentioned tourism space travel. For purely selfish reasons, this is the main motivating factor for why I would support privatized space programs. I want to go. If privately own companies could make such trips more cost effective for the average Joe, I’d be all over that in a heart beat.

[Tenacious B]

All you need is about $20 million and the Russians will send you up on the next Soyuz to the ISS. It happens quite frequently.

Right now the plan is to go back to the moon in a similar fashion as Apollo, but with 6 crew members who can stay on the surface for about 2 weeks rather than 2 members for 3 days. Extending the journey to several months is possible along with construction of a moonbase derived from the ISS.

[Antares]

I can't see a lot of things wrong with the privatization of space, but I won't place it beneath the private corporations to turn space into tourist attractions instead of genuine experimentation.