Wednesday, February 3, 2010

The Final Frontier... of Privatization?

To take a break from the more critical articles I've posted, here's something a bit less controversial: the future of NASA. Obama has recently called for the end of several key features of the government-run space program, to save money, while calling for that money (and more) to instead go to private corporations willing to do the same jobs. The proposal assigns operations in low-earth orbit (LEO) to the private sector, while using NASA trained astronauts for the actual mission content. NASA will instead focus on the long-term goal of either returning to the moon or going to Mars.

I suppose many would question the use of government funding for space exploration in the first place, given the variety of other needs here on Earth. I fear I might be among these doubters, despite my strong belief in the necessity of space exploration. Unfortunately, this necessity is not quite as necessary as the elimination of poverty and the providing of proper education.

But perhaps more interesting to talk about than the mere feasibility of a government-run space program is whether the out-sourcing of these jobs to private corporations makes economic sense. I believe not, because space yet lacks that which we have found drives all private business: profit. Space travel is set to remain prohibitively expensive in the near future, putting a great damper on any real tourism. Though the presence of valuable resources has been theorized (Helium3 on the Moon, metals in the asteroid belt), these remain out of reach even for the most heavily-financed enterprise. As such, these private space companies will be forced to live off the occasional fancy of the mega-rich, as well as the government dole.

Any thoughts?

4 comments:

  1. In the third paragraph, when you say it is more interesting to discuss the what-ifs, and talk about the possible resources of space, it just reminds of a quote said by farmer Joel Salatin: "I am amazed at how good we are at hitting the bulls-eye on the wrong target. We constantly figure out the how without asking ourselves why." Part of our economic and environmental trouble stems from our tendency to try to solve problems that don't need to be solved and in doing so create really big problems that will end up needing to be solved. Economically, maybe we should have asked whether we should try to get more less qualified people to take out loans rather than figuring out how it can generate more money. Environmentally, instead of figuring out how store the manure and associated toxins from Confined Animal Feeding Operations we could ask why we would keep animals in CAFOs. in short, I agree with the second paragraph.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I never really considered whether or not space had a market...but you are right. You can't profit from research about space in terms of money, only knowledge. Obama is choosing to fund more feasible science research: studies that can help us in the future.

    Space will be an expensive subject of science to study until we find a new enormous quantity energy source. I think it is smart on Obama's part to save money when it involves space, even though it is quite a fascinating subject. T

    ReplyDelete
  3. Actually,
    the placement of Sattelite dishes is something I can see cell phone
    companies, GPS providers, wireless internet and cable being willing to
    dish out money for (sorry for that pun). A private company could make a
    good buck by charging more for these services. In a simple way of explaining things, the reason why one company will have better cellphone coverage, or faster coverage (3G) is because they work and have launched more and more technologically advanced satellite recievers. Something that will be a
    problem in the future is that the space around the earth in which these satellites orbit is a common resource that is becoming more and more limited (there are more satellites taking up space in space) the more
    things floating around the earth the harder it becomes to safely and
    successfully launch a Satellite.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I hate it when things are privatized. The very word pisses me off so much. Maybe it has to do with being raised by parents who spent several years on a kibbutz. Maybe it's because the word Blackwater induces more terror in me than most things (okay, Blackwater was technically never privatized, because it was never public, but it's still a private corporation serving a function that the army would normally cover). It doesn't matter. It still would make me sad to see space exploration go this way. You make a good point, where is the profit? We've all heard jokes about painting the moon and turning it into a giant billboard. Maybe every newly discovered star will be named after fast food chains. I don't see it. What motive is there for a private corporation. Space exploration always seemed to me that one of the few things that was done purely in the name of the pursuit of knowledge and for the benefit of mankind. Well...and for nationwide bragging rights. I don't want everything we can learn about the universe be at the discretion of a corporate board of directors.
    E,A

    ReplyDelete