On one side, I am appalled that the nation is not renewing its unified interest in space missions. I feel a little confused that we seem more than anxious to develop our scientific interests about space, but we don't want to send people there? To me this is like an analogy of remotely learning all you could ever want to know about, say, a potentially wild and exotic (and dangerous) place like Antarctica, but never having the means to actually visit it? It seems a bit half-arsed, or something.
On the other side, as an economist, I admit that venture capitalism could have the power to drive a potentially stagnating market back into action. And that if entrepreneurs are willing to take the risk to engage in space travel methods (and they are) then this could potentially lead to contract work and eventually government purchasing in a "space sector." This option would open up the window to more people, I suppose, although, it can be argued, that window was already open in the first place, huh? I suppose if this money for scientific funding does go into competitions or private investments... or universities?... it might be okay. But who's to say where it's going, or better yet, where it's coming from.
All in all, I would say that we are probably not ready for this decision at this point. Or maybe I am just a sucker for some ideal. Symbolically, I summarize this idea as removing the American flag from the moon and replacing it with the Walmart smiley face.
I actually like Obama's take on this -- I've always thought that, if we're going to establish any kind of enduring presence in space, it's going to have to be funded by private industry. A government program is just too dependent on political willpower -- which, as the end of Apollo demonstrated, is pretty hard to keep up over a long period of time! If Obama's serious about getting private industry involved, I think that could be a very good thing -- of course, O'Keefe and Griffin made similar noises about how they'd dearly love to get private industry involved, and proceeded to do nothing about it.
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point. I fear that he will do nothing about it... in which case the step forward is a step back, I guess. My argument is primarily based on ethos, I guess: I have a dread fear of commercialism; I'd rather see the moon (and beyond) studied by nations (backed by the commercial industry) than by the commercial industry (backed by national funding).
ReplyDeleteI definitely share your aesthetic objection to crass commercialism! However, I'd say that if the options are between having a commercial 'space program' that is actually getting us somewhere, versus...well, nothing, then I'd say the commercial approach is the best option. I'm not sure there's a way to have the government "lead the way" to anything permanent in space -- the government efforts are, I think, better suited to the actual exploration and research efforts. I don't see how you can get anything sustainable, without commercial viability.
ReplyDeleteI do think that directly funding the commercial endeavors would be a mistake -- that would essentially turn them into government contractors, with all the inefficiency that that implies. Maybe a prize-based model is the way to go? It spurred private development of SpaceShipOne, which made suborbital tourism into a real market. (Although I'm not sure if they're actually flying customers, yet?)