Spaceflight: Public vs Private

[sanman]

Should the future of spaceflight be public or private?

Please answer the attached poll

 

[JohnRawls]

Should the future of spaceflight be public or private?

Please answer the attached poll

The answer to this, well it depends what you mean by spaceflight.

The standard cycle when it comes to large innovations like this even before capitalism to a large degree but even more so is that public sector invests a lot of money in to development of the foundations technologies and to keep the innovators alive and when they can sustain themselves then they go fully private and it continues being private from there on out.

The main example of the modern world right now would be Solar and Wind power technology and assortment of enterprises. There is still problems with storage/batteries but generation wise per KM2 of territory or price per KWH/MWH is way cheaper nowadays compared to alternatives like Gas or Coal. Especially with the newest itterations.

So as in case of Solar and Wind, if you mean launching cargo in to space? Yeah sure, it should be fully private. If you mean colonizing other planets or traveling to other solar systems then we are definitely not there yet. Traveling to other planets can be private to some degree even now but realistically there is no profit in that as of yet so it will remain mostly public.

 

[Helix]

I'd say both, but that's not an option. Since you're probably posting this to boost Elmo, I'll vote public.

 

[Grand Mal]

Should the future of spaceflight be public or private?

Please answer the attached poll

Depends entirely on the motive, obviously. If the motive is research and exploration to discover answers to scientific questions, then it has to be public. If the motive is finding opportunities for profit, then the government needs to not be involved and the private sector will drive it.
Why you think the two can't coexist is another question. There's an international agreement that nobody will seek ways to claim ownership and exploit the moon, like mining or building facilities, but if someone wants to sell spaceflight for a profit that's between them and their customers.

 

[ataraxia]

Not sure why it has to be either/or. We haven’t done that with air flight, ground travel, or maritime navigation. Why should it be different with space?

 

[mrjurrs]

Not only public, but global.

 

[Lursa]

Should the future of spaceflight be public or private?

Please answer the attached poll

No option for me to choose. I think both are fine as long as highly regulated and enforced. For things like debris, physical impacts on other celestial bodies, etc.

 

[Ishm]

I think the development of private companies already delivering reliable and affordable space flights for commercial and scientific cargoes is an example of how private, for profit, companies have taken over this sector. Today, the way govts spend their space research funds is often by hiring these private companies to do the work for them, rather than setting up govt controlled design and build entities. It makes sense to not try to publicly fund new development work that the private companies have already funded and perfected using private funds. Hiring them to extend their R&D into new areas of public interest makes more sense. In the same way we get Boeing etc to build military aircraft leveraging their commercial aircraft R&D into the military space.

As an example of the effectiveness of private equity in this space, look at the company called RocketLab. According to their website, RocketLab has the 2nd most US launches and 3rd most globally. The company started in New Zealand with no public funding, and not even any govt interest in space. Purely a commercial entity. Today it is based in the US where it has a 2nd launch platform to augment the one it still uses in New Zealand, where it still does a lot of it's development work. Point being that no govt funded entity would follow that same path to such a rapid and successful rise in the space market. Today this company carries cargoes for the US govt, including military cargoes, but instead of spending $billions to develop a separate capability, the govt get's competitive commercial rates that are a fbraction of what a self developed capability would have cost. Hence the govt can do more in space than it would have been able to do after developing it's own launch capabilities.

With private equity interest growing around the world, it makes no sense for govts to be spending public money on parallel developments.

 

[Safiel]

I voted private in the poll as the leadership of both commercial and non-commercial space ventures can and should be private.

HOWEVER.

NASA has a place.

1. Regulatory.
2. Safety.
3. Certain ground based support.
4. Certain high cost long range probes.

Private industry should clearly be in the lead role, but NASA still has a role.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Both, but mission dependent. The US military relies heavily on private contractors to supply the necessary hardware and software systems, but maintains mission control.

 

[VySky]

NASA is not the NASA it used to be.

Going woke has reduced its momentum.

They are lucky if they could launch a bottle rocket

Thanks Barack Obama for killing a once great program

Now just leave it to the experts. DoD contractors.

 

[Gordy327]

NASA is not the NASA it used to be.

Going woke has reduced its momentum.

They are lucky if they could launch a bottle rocket

Thanks Barack Obama for killing a once great program

Now just leave it to the experts. DoD contractors.

The lack of funding and support of the sciences is what diminishes NASA and the country in general.

 

[VySky]

The lack of funding and support of the sciences is what diminishes NASA and the country in general.

Blame Obama

 

[Gordy327]

Blame Obama

Funding and hostility towards science has been an issue long before Obama.

 

[VySky]

Funding and hostility towards science has been an issue long before Obama.

But Obama is recognized for killing NASA.

 

[Manc Skipper]

I voted private in the poll as the leadership of both commercial and non-commercial space ventures can and should be private.

HOWEVER.

NASA has a place.

1. Regulatory.
2. Safety.
3. Certain ground based support.
4. Certain high cost long range probes.

Private industry should clearly be in the lead role, but NASA still has a role.

Socialise the cost while privatising the profit. It's the American Way! If the private sector wants to develop space for profit, then remove government subsidies.

 

[Gordy327]

But Obama is recognized for killing NASA.

That is false. Or a lie. Obama actually advocated increasing funding for NASA.

 

[Manc Skipper]

But Obama is recognized for killing NASA.

Bush canceled the Space Shuttle program. How were NASA supposed to get to Space after that?

 

[VySky]

That is false. Or a lie. Obama actually advocated increasing funding for NASA.

How Barack Obama ruined NASA space exploration​

The Augustine Commission, so named after its chairman former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine, returned with a set of recommendations some months later. The commission found that the program then in existence, Project Constellation, was not executable under any reasonable budget. The program, started by President George W. Bush, had been underfunded and had faced technical challenges for years. The commissions offered two alternatives. The first was Moon First, which would have focused America’s efforts on a return to the moon. The second was Flexible Path, which would have sent American astronauts to every destination besides the moon—the asteroids, the moons of Mars, and so on. Both options would lead to the holy grail of space exploration enthusiasts, a mission to Mars.

The kicker was that both options would cost an extra $3 billion a year for NASA to execute. For the Obama administration, which was not shy about spending money in areas that it cared about, this price tag was too dear to bear.

The government’s response was formulated in secret. The results of these private deliberations were rolled out in the 2011 budget request that was released in February 2010. Project Constellation would be canceled, root and branch. Instead, NASA would conduct studies of heavy-lift rockets, deep-space propulsion, and other technologies that it was said, in the fullness of time, would make exploring space cheaper and easier.

Congress, which had not been consulted, reacted with bipartisan fury. The Obama administration made two critical errors. It had not consulted with Congress or anyone else when it developed its plans to kill Constellation

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/322918-how-barack-obama-ruined-nasa-space-exploration/

That Time Obama Killed A Return To The Moon​

Here’s why a Clinton administration might pivot NASA back to the Moon, Ars Technica
“Obama killed Constellation after convening a committee in 2009 that was led by Norm Augustine, which reviewed Constellation and other options for US human spaceflight programs. One of that committee’s members, former astronaut Leroy Chiao, said Monday night, “The Constellation program, frankly, had a lot of funding problems and some pretty serious technical problems. You know it probably was the right thing to do to cancel it. But it didn’t mean we should not go to the Moon.” Moreover, Chiao suggested the decision to remove the Moon as a possible destination was driven by politics, rather than what might be best for the US space enterprise. “Frankly, it came down to us on the committee to not talk too much about the Moon, because there was no way this administration was going to go there, because it was W’s program,” he said. “Ok, that’s a pretty stupid reason not to go to the Moon. I’m hopeful with this election cycle that maybe the moon will be a possibility again

That Time Obama Killed A Return To The Moon

Here’s why a Clinton administration might pivot NASA back to the Moon, Ars Technica “Obama killed Constellation after convening a committee in 2009 that was led by Norm Augustine, which reviewed Constellation and other options for US human spaceflight programs. One of that committee’s members...

nasawatch.com

 

[Gordy327]

How Barack Obama ruined NASA space exploration​

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/322918-how-barack-obama-ruined-nasa-space-exploration/

That Time Obama Killed A Return To The Moon​

That Time Obama Killed A Return To The Moon

Here’s why a Clinton administration might pivot NASA back to the Moon, Ars Technica “Obama killed Constellation after convening a committee in 2009 that was led by Norm Augustine, which reviewed Constellation and other options for US human spaceflight programs. One of that committee’s members...

nasawatch.com

NASA Marks Third Anniversary of Obama Support of Space at Kennedy​

 

[Linc]

The future of Space depends on the focus on Mars, Titan, and Fusion.
Public/private ventures would be welcomed by the first Robber Barons.
Without the world’s billionaires approaching trillionaires, you won’t make it.

The future of Energy and Space depend on the transition to Fusion.

The Fusion consortiums between countries that are mostly at odds with each other, like for ITER, are dragging their feet and appear failing to me.

 

[VySky]

NASA Marks Third Anniversary of Obama Support of Space at Kennedy​

Obama's devastating Nasa cuts​

Neil Armstrong, James Lovell and Eugene Cernan

Although some of these proposals have merit, the accompanying decision to cancel the Constellation programme, its Ares 1 and Ares V rockets, and the Orion spacecraft, is devastating.

America's only path to low Earth orbit and the International Space Station will now be subject to an agreement with Russia to purchase space on their Soyuz (at a price of over $50m per seat with significant increases expected in the near future) until we have the capacity to provide transportation for ourselves. The availability of a commercial transport to orbit as envisioned in the president's proposal cannot be predicted with any certainty, but is likely to take substantially longer and be more expensive than we would hope.

It appears that we will have wasted our current $10bn-plus investment in Constellation and, equally importantly, we will have lost the many years required to recreate the equivalent of what we will have discarded.

For the United States, the leading space faring nation for nearly half a century, to be without carriage to low Earth orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond Earth orbit for an indeterminate time into the future, destines our nation to become one of second or even third rate stature. While the president's plan envisages humans travelling away from Earth and perhaps toward Mars at some time in the future, the lack of developed rockets and spacecraft will assure that ability will not be available for many years.

Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft operation provides, the US is far too likely to be on a long downhill slide to mediocrity. America must decide if it wishes to remain a leader in space. If it does, we should institute a programme which will give us the very best chance of achieving that goal.

Neil Armstrong
Commander, Apollo 11

James Lovell
Commander, Apollo 13

Eugene Cernan
Commander, Apollo 17

Neil Armstrong | Obama's devastating Nasa cuts | Open letter

Open letter: Neil Armstrong, James Lovell and Eugene Cernan urge President Obama not to forfeit America's progress in space exploration

www.theguardian.com

NASA grieves over canceled program​

NASA and President Barack Obama's administration expect to spend months working out the specifics for their new plan for U.S. space exploration, even as some within the space agency mourn the loss of its current effort to send astronauts back to the moon.

NASA and President Barack Obama's administration expect to spend months working out the specifics for their new plan for U.S. space exploration, even as some within the space agency mourn the loss of its current effort to send astronauts back to the moon.

President Obama's 2011 budget request for NASA cut the agency's Constellation program completely, effectively canceling a five-year, $9 billion effort to build new Orion spacecraft and Ares rockets.

NASA grieves over canceled program

NASA and President Barack Obama's administration expect to spend months working out the specifics for their new plan for U.S. space exploration, even as some within the space agency mourn the loss of its current effort to send astronauts back to the moon.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Linc]

Republican lawmakers oppose Musk going to Mars, wanting to keep wasteful dead-end, overlapping and unproductive Moon jobs.

 

[Gordy327]

Obama's devastating Nasa cuts​

Neil Armstrong | Obama's devastating Nasa cuts | Open letter

Open letter: Neil Armstrong, James Lovell and Eugene Cernan urge President Obama not to forfeit America's progress in space exploration

www.theguardian.com

NASA grieves over canceled program​

NASA grieves over canceled program

NASA and President Barack Obama's administration expect to spend months working out the specifics for their new plan for U.S. space exploration, even as some within the space agency mourn the loss of its current effort to send astronauts back to the moon.

www.nbcnews.com

FACT SHEET: President Obamas Accomplishments for NASA and Floridas Space Coast​

BTW, you do realize NASA budget approvals, or cuts is determined by Congress and not the President, right? Obama wanted to increase NASA's budget.

 

[VySky]

FACT SHEET: President Obamas Accomplishments for NASA and Floridas Space Coast​

BTW, you do realize NASA budget approvals, or cuts is determined by Congress and not the President, right? Obama wanted to increase NASA's budget.

He put our space program into Russian hands and opened the door for Musk and Bezos

Send him a thank you card

Obama Budget Scraps NASA Moon Plan for '21st Century Space Program'​

"President Barack Obama's 2011 budget request has effectively shut down NASA?s five-year effort to return astronauts to the moon, leaving the U.S. space agency with lofty goals — but no firm deadlines — to once again send humans beyond Earth orbit.

The budget request, released today, would scrap NASA's Constellation program to build the Orion spacecraft and Ares rockets for new manned moon missions — a $9 billion investment to date. The request calls for $19 billion in funding for NASA in 2011, a slight increase from the $18.3 billion it spent in 2010."

Obama Budget Scraps NASA Moon Plan for '21st Century Space Program'

U.S. President Barack Obama's proposed 2011 NASA budget scraps the agency's moon mission effort to make way for a 21st century space program.

www.space.com