We have been together since 1999 and married since 2007 and for as far back as I can remember, Katie has been wanting us to invest in Space Tourism, not because she wants to go to space but because for some reason she thinks that's where the money is. (For frame of reference, she is an English major with a Masters in religious studies and has never taken a finance class of any kind, so you don't necessarily want to run out and blow your life savings on this potential investment tip). I've managed to fight this off to date but with each new announcement, it's becoming harder and harder to curb her enthusiasm.
Having said that, the aspect of this topic that I find most interesting is the public vs. private aspect and the decline of NASA support. With the threat of the cold war space race a distant memory, public support for space exploration has dried up and, like many formerly public programs, there has been a push for privatization. From the standpoint of economic efficiency and social welfare, it's worth questioning whether this is a good idea.
First, one of the justifications for public funding of scientific research of any kind is the promise of advances in technology that can benefit everyone and create positive spillover effects. We've seen profound payoffs to our expenditures in the space program. I have personally Velcro-ed about 10 things today from my son's diapers to my raincoat to a poster I hung on the wall. I downloaded data from a satellite and watched satellite TV. I also used a GPS map, made eggs in a Teflon pan, and used a memory foam pillow. Thank you space program. And that's without having any Tang today, using my cordless power tools, or writing upside down with my pen. (yes, I know some of these items were popularized by the space program, not invented by NASA, but part of the benefit of government research funding is to provide innovative firms with a buyer with a large enough scale to incubate innovation and make initial R&D investment for new products worth undertaking). Are all these things worth the cost? I don't know, but I also don't yet know how these discoveries and innovations will be used for even better things in the future. This is not to say that similar discoveries could not be made by private firms ... Branson's Virgin Galactic may very well invent the next "Velcro" product. However, given our somewhat broken patent system (see my earlier post on the topic) the likelihood of these innovations seeing the widespread impact of some of the space program advances has diminished.
Secondly, one of the problems with private markets for goods is the potential for negative externalities. The risk of private companies competing to cut costs and this resulting in a shuttle crashing on my head, space junk crashing into my house, or massive pollution events occurring concerns me, particularly as these companies can set up shop outside U.S. borders where regulation and safety may be less stringent. The scope of potential disaster seems to put the worst-case scenarios (pandemic space disease, feral alien stowaways destroying ecosystems on earth, Titanic/Hindenburg style crash resulting in asteroid-like impact and new ice age ... I'm just spit balling here) at a level would make the BP gulf spill look laughable and be prohibitively expensive to insure against. Obviously, these examples are somewhat crazy to worry about, and chosen for comic effect ... but still - to what extent would private market participants properly consider smaller scale versions of these types of risks to the rest of us here on earth?
Finally, the degree to which private space exploration is likely to lead to enclosure of public commons is a concern from a standpoint of global (and now I suppose, galactic) inequality. For years, the idea of being an astronaut (or cosmonaut) represented the epitome of meritocracy ... they represented the best and brightest of us, yet came from all walks of life. It saddens me somewhat to see this be yet another free market allocation mechanism based on price.
One the flip side though, if market competition does lead to increases in efficiency that allow it to become possible for more people to affordably experience space exploration, this could lead to a second golden age of space programs with renewed interest in math & science, and explosion of innovation, and other profoundly positive effects for society and economic growth.
My dad is very proud of authoring an undergrad paper as a college senior on "Space Law" which he wrote before any human had actually been in space and thus was all theoretical. Perhaps I should try to dig that out of the attic and see if there are any great insights we can use as guidance. In the meantime, I'd love to hear thoughts of others ... perhaps we can get our resident space and technology expert Pedar Hamm to chime in if we're lucky?
The advent of relatively “inexpensive,” privately developed, low-orbit space vehicles will lead to a burgeoning business in orbital space tourism by which thousands of people will pay tens of thousands of dollars (or yen, yuan or euros, etc.) to take a ride around the earth and watch the sun rise and set, all within a matter of two hours. Five-plus tons of “space garbage” in orbit will prove a major hazard. Each tiny speck if it strikes a spaceship can penetrate aluminum and kill someone inside the same as a bullet fired from a high-powered rifle. If such an accident should occur, a PR campaign should demonstrate that such flights—with newly added security measures—are far safer than any other mode of transportation. The new NSRA should undertake or organize an international program to sweep up the estimated twenty thousand pieces of space garbage. That should effectively overcome any temporary reluctance on the part of the public.
ReplyDeleteThe spectacular success of the Russian nuclear engine will facilitate true space tourism, i.e., excursions to the moon. The way in which the moon will be so quickly commercialized will amaze people. Since we are speculating as to how this might come about, bear with us as we brazenly attempt to predict the future. The International Space Station (ISS) has cost twelve times its original estimate and has produced little hard science to date. It will be replaced by a laboratory with permanent living quarters on the moon that will be much less costly to operate—as quickly as that lab becomes feasible.
Therefore, most probably, the International Space Station will be purchased by a consortium of private companies and adapted to the task of transferring passengers to the nuclear-powered “Moonship.” It is possible that the nuclear engine may not be allowed for manned Earth takeoff, so it will need a docking waystation where passengers can be transferred from efficient shuttles to the nuclear-powered moonship. From there it will be a two-hour ride to a docking port at the elevator in orbit above the Mare Crisium. If allowed, the nuclear moonship may depart directly from the surface of the earth and land directly on the moon. A spaceport on the moon will be less costly to operate than waystations.
You can buy this book now on any of the following websites:
Strategic Book Publishing Rights Agency: http://sbpra.com/HenryMarkant/
Amazon Books: http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Crises-Their-Solutions-ebook/dp/B00A2WZ4CK/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357573018&sr=1-1&keywords=coming+crisis+henry+markant
Barnes and Noble Books: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/coming-crises-and-their-solutions-henry-markant/1113749628?ean=2940015922875