Space Exploration Better Done by Private Sector

[DarkenedOne]

Personally I think that the many problems that the space program in the US is caused by the way it is operated. Most of the money is given to NASA and it's large government contractors to use in very large programs such as the shuttle and now constellation programs. Personally I think that the private sector can perform space exploration much better for five reasons.

1. Many of these private sector companies are much more enthusiastic and willing to take more risks in doing more with less money. We have seen the evidence in a number of very ambitious projects started by the private sector recently including Bigelows inflatable space station technology the NASA did not want to pursue.

2. Many of these private ventures have good ideas. NASA does not have a monopoly on good ideas for spacecraft, missions, and technology. We have seen many example of how it was not the people with the most money or resources making the greatest advancements, but those who have better ideas. Many of our greatest scientists and innovators were people like Henry Ford, Albert Einstein, and Nikola Tesla were not particularly well financed when they made their greatest discoveries. A recent example of this would be spaceshipone's success.

3. Private companies are free of the political hurdles that NASA has to go through. NASA is inflicted by all of these politics that have nothing to do with space exploration. They must constantly cater to politicians who are more worried about the jobs and their state than they are about actually getting anything done in space exploration. Good thing about private companies is that they do not have to deal with all the politics and bureaucrats, therefore allowing them to operate more efficiently.

4. Private companies are willing to invest their own money along with public money that you give them. Take the X-prize for example. Even though the prize was only $10 million almost $100 million was spent by the various groups competing for it. Another example was with the recent COTS program that awarded SpaceX and Orbital with about 1.2 billion each to provide cargo transport services.

5. Private companies are willing to commercialize the technology developed in space exploration. Thing about NASA is that like all government agencies they are single minded in pursuing the goals set by congress. They are going to develop their technology for their purposes only. Ares I, Ares V, Orion, and all other spacecraft are being developed for NASA's exclusive use. Companies like SpaceX on the other hand intend to commercialize their technologies and pursue a number of different uses for their technology than space exploration.

 

[moonfie]

I definitely agree with you on most points. I've talked about this in several other threads, but I've lost a lot of faith in NASA in recent years because I'm coming to realize that they are simply too tied down by bureaucracy and beholden to the whims of whoever is in office to get any meaningful exploration done. NASA is not completely useless, though. They really shine in the fields of robotic exploration and space science; fields where there's not a lot of potential for immediate profit but plenty of long term gains in terms of understanding of the universe and future exploration and development. Government agencies like NASA and ESA did a great job with the mars landers and deep space probes like Cassini and Voyager. But when it comes to manned spaceflight, they're too tied up in red tape and beginning to falter. I think it would be great if private industry could take up manned spaceflight and do a better job with it than NASA has done so far.

Money is an issue, though. NASA struggles with funding issues constantly, but they still do get funding. The problem is that they are severely limited as to what they can do with it. I think it's good that programs like COTS exist, as long as companies like SpaceX don't just become completely tied down the way NASA has. Space tourism is a new industry, but I have high hopes for it. If they manage to make it profitable, then that could help fund further endeavors.

 

[bdewoody]

The private sector will be in space for one reason. To make money. To the degree that exploration is needed to find sources of income the private sector will explore. But to explore for the sake of knowledge, I believe that will remain in the hands of governments and educational foundations.

 

[samkent]

I think you are forgetting one of the most important rules in life.

He who has the most money makes the rules.

And clearly the government has the most money when it comes to the space arena. So now put yourself in the shoes of a congressman from Michigan or Arkansas. Both states need jobs in the worst way. If you are asked to vote for the 17 billion NASA budget, aren’t you going to expect some of that money/jobs to come back to your state? That is a big part of your job. You have to get a piece of every pie for your own state.

Why do you think we have large parts of our space infrastructure spread all over the country?

Cleveland
Huntsville
Pasadena
Huston

Can a small company like Spacex afford to spread it’s construction facilities through out the country? What if they decide to farm out it’s electronics assemblies to say China? Is that something we can accept as the tax payers? When it’s a private company the government has very few controls over how it does business.

Engines from Russia
Fuel tanks from Korea
Electronics from China
Software from India

Is that your version of ‘better’??

 

[Swampcat]

I think you are forgetting one of the most important rules in life.

He who has the most money makes the rules.

And clearly the government has the most money when it comes to the space arena. So now put yourself in the shoes of a congressman from Michigan or Arkansas. Both states need jobs in the worst way. If you are asked to vote for the 17 billion NASA budget, aren’t you going to expect some of that money/jobs to come back to your state? That is a big part of your job. You have to get a piece of every pie for your own state.

Why do you think we have large parts of our space infrastructure spread all over the country?

Cleveland
Huntsville
Pasadena
Huston

That's an explanation for their behavior, not an excuse. The fixation with job retention in the government "space arena" could, possibly, be holding up progress, despite its supposed "progressive" intentions.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with government HSF. I just don't see it as being the answer to a space cadet's dreams.

Can a small company like Spacex afford to spread it’s construction facilities through out the country? What if they decide to farm out it’s electronics assemblies to say China? Is that something we can accept as the tax payers? When it’s a private company the government has very few controls over how it does business.

Engines from Russia
Fuel tanks from Korea
Electronics from China
Software from India

Is that your version of ‘better’??

For the most part, SpaceX is vertically integrated, with the exception, IIRC, of turbopumps that they get from an American company. I suppose they could do what you say, but it is unlikely.

The fact that SpaceX doesn't have to have facilities spread out all over the country gives them a leg up on controlling the costs of what they do.

The government has a lot of say-so in what these companies do. They are heavily regulated.

Now, when it comes to OSC and Taurus II you may have a point, but what is the problem with cooperative projects like these? They create jobs in several countries and strengthen international trade. What's wrong with that?

 

[DarkenedOne]

The private sector will be in space for one reason. To make money. To the degree that exploration is needed to find sources of income the private sector will explore. But to explore for the sake of knowledge, I believe that will remain in the hands of governments and educational foundations.

I agree that the private sector will probably not fund it themselves.

What I am talking about is system where private organizations submit proposals to the government for research projects, and the government decides which then decides which ones to fund based on the benefits as well as whether or not they believe the private entity is capable.

This system is how much if not most of the basic research is done in America. It is done by people like professors at universities who submit their ideas for new research projects, and the government funds the ones they like. It is a very successful system, and it has also contributed to the commercialization of many technologies.

 

[DarkenedOne]

I think you are forgetting one of the most important rules in life.

He who has the most money makes the rules.

And clearly the government has the most money when it comes to the space arena. So now put yourself in the shoes of a congressman from Michigan or Arkansas. Both states need jobs in the worst way. If you are asked to vote for the 17 billion NASA budget, aren’t you going to expect some of that money/jobs to come back to your state? That is a big part of your job. You have to get a piece of every pie for your own state.

Why do you think we have large parts of our space infrastructure spread all over the country?

Cleveland
Huntsville
Pasadena
Huston

Can a small company like Spacex afford to spread it’s construction facilities through out the country?

Whether they could afford it or not is irrelevant because they would not want to do it in the first place and for good reason. It's terribly inefficient.

SpaceX is out to make space flight more affordable, not to create jobs or make the various states happy. That is probably why they will succeed in making human space flight affordable where decades of government work has failed.

What if they decide to farm out it’s electronics assemblies to say China? Is that something we can accept as the tax payers? When it’s a private company the government has very few controls over how it does business.

Engines from Russia
Fuel tanks from Korea
Electronics from China
Software from India

Is that your version of ‘better’??

What I consider better is cheaper, more productive, and more numerous. The space program is not about creating jobs. While it does do that as a side effect that is not its main objective. So if they can achieve more by outsourcing them that is find with me.

Second of all your already accepting it as tax payers. How do you think we maintain the ISS with the shuttle down? The Russians.

 

[bdewoody]

What you are describing is the way NASA already operates. NASA itself doesn't build too much except maybe for final package assembly. They tell private firms what they need for a particular mission and then the private firms build the hardware. Even the rockets are built by private enterprise, just big established corporations, not tiny struggling start ups with fancy names, high hopes and tight funding and little results to show for it.

 

[space_tycoon]

What you are describing is the way NASA already operates. NASA itself doesn't build too much except maybe for final package assembly. They tell private firms what they need for a particular mission and then the private firms build the hardware. Even the rockets are built by private enterprise, just big established corporations, not tiny struggling start ups with fancy names, high hopes and tight funding and little results to show for it.

The problem is, none of these large established corporations (as opposed to the startups) have any vested interest in seeing the costs of spaceflight reduced dramatically. No stake. As far as space goes, they have but one customer, Uncle Sam. As such, it must seem perfectly natural for a launch to cost several hundreds of millions of dollars. Why not? Why mess up a good thing?

 

[kelvinzero]

The US government would invest less if it did not create jobs, but that isnt a killer.

I dont see commercial companies as designing hardware only used once but COTS is quite an interesting idea. If this works out for the ISS it would be great to see it extended to delivering cargoes to the moon. One of my hobby horses is a robotic lunar colony doing exploration and ISRU research. Being unmanned and repeated, the companies would have more freedom to experiment with cutting corners.

Unlike launching satellites, what you put on the moon does not fall down again. The colony would keep growing. This and the experience gained could year-by-year make lunar tourism and industry more plausible until at some point commercial interests can leap at making a profit directly.

(edit: at least at first NASA would still be fully in charge of the actual science and exploration part. Any commercial interest that wants to buy cargo space for their own reasons should of course be welcomed, but not expected in the short term)

 

[samkent]

What I consider better is cheaper, more productive, and more numerous. The space program is not about creating jobs. While it does do that as a side effect that is not its main objective. So if they can achieve more by outsourcing them that is find with me.

That sounds fine until you get a new candidate running for congress who has a big patriotic streak in him. A couple of calls to 60 minutes and he will get a 20 minute commercial on Sunday night. I can hear him now “We used to build them right here in the USA! But now our tax money is going overseas and our engineers are on the unemployment line!”

The fact that SpaceX doesn't have to have facilities spread out all over the country gives them a leg up on controlling the costs of what they do.

Agreed, at least partially. They may have a perfectly acceptable rocket until the fed get their hands on the specs. Their requirements may push the costs back into orbit.

 

[EarthlingX]

I would just like to say, that job creation is not a mission for space exploration. It ruins criteria.
There are supposedly around 30 000 people employed in the Shuttle program. Job creation criteria tells this is very good.
A little math, assuming average wage for engineers and technicians, tells you it is not so great and even though it creates more jobs than maintaining and operating 5 Jumbos, not perfect, to say the least.

More jobs is side effect, beneficial, sure, but if you want jobs, start building roads or railways, perhaps to space ?

Outsourcing and moving jobs out of the country can be annoying, but people, isn't competition great, free trade and so on ? You only compete when you are winning ?

 

[moonfie]

I agree that it's a great thing that government-funded human space flight creates jobs, but that shouldn't be the be all and end all, especially when those jobs that are created don't ultimately contribute anything, thanks to funding being pulled at the last minute (X-33, Ares-1 (probably), etc). The problem with NASA, and many other government agencies, is that they exist to create jobs and not to do what they say they want to do, which is explore space. I have no problem with them continuing doing this, but my fear is that the government is going to become tired with NASA not doing anything to actually further human space flight, even though it's not NASA's fault. For the moment, though, I don't really see why the private sector and NASA can't peacefully coexist, and at the moment, they do, through programs like COTS.

But even if NASA ultimately abandons human space flight, they still have a quite robust unmanned and science program, and that also creates a lot of jobs as well as contributing to our knowledge of the universe. But I'd hate to see human spaceflight go away entirely, which is why it's good that the private industry is at least starting to show interest in picking it up.

 

[SpaceForAReason]

I would say that exploration is the venue of whoever needs it at the time. NASA, private sector... doesn't matter.