Slashdot Mirror
Leave Outer Space to the Millionaires
tcd004 writes "Martin Rees, Britain's Astronomer Royal has an interesting article in Foreign Policy arguing that the future of manned space travel should be left to wealthy adventurers. He points to the fact that modern state-funded space disasters become national traumas, and argues that that gung-ho millionaires are more free to take risks because they 'don't represent a nation; [they] represent humanity.'"
That's a bit counterproductive - if the only people who're going to be travelling into space are wealthy millionaires, we'd be much slower in space-travel development than we are at current. Not that it's all that important, but.
Millionaires represent humanity?
They also represent a tiny slice of the pie - hardly all of humanity in the eyes of many of the underprivileged. At least being represented by one's country allows some degree of personal fulfillment... watching someone of higher privilege do the same by virtue of their privilege alienates; watching someone who has been trained with your tax dollars, in equipment which your economic output has contributed to in some way, someone who represents what you feel you represent, that inspires and awes.
They don't represent humanity, they represent themselves.
:)
If they represented humanity, then where's my money?
Isn't this exactly what so many slashdot readers have been suggesting for years? Private funding and competition almost invariable leads to faster, greater results that can be achieved by the government. Sounds like a great plan to me!!
---- Move SIG...For great justice!
It's a sad but true state of affairs
Not that sad... profit is what this country's all about, and it's a GREAT motivator for innovation.
~Berj
I agree this would be the most efficient way to both channel and use resources regarding outerspace, but I think at that point these space-going corporate entities lose accountability to specific governments, government in general loses power, and we really would live in a corporatocracy.
The way we reach our goals in space travel is more important than when we do it, in my opinion. I think letting corporations run the show in this context would be the wrong way.
Yes, I agree that it is a great motivator for innovation, but sometimes it seems it doens't always lead innovation in the right direction. It's great from the consumer standpoint, because that's who they're trying to please.. but when you start to look at humanity as a whole, it seems the profit motivation leads to things which are counter-productive.... Just my 2 cents, anyways.
Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
I do at the least believe contests like the X-Prize are the real future of aeronautics. They allot a prize, and say 'Make something that does 'X'', and many groups from incredibly different backgrounds and ideals come up with technology that could and will do the job.
I saw today some of NASA's plans for life beyond the Shuttle. In particular, their 'Space Plane', which looks, feels, and does the exact same thing the Shuttle does. Their 'next craft' may well have a mission 'well beyond Earth's orbit'.
Whoopie doo! What will that be, 2030? It makes me sick that NASA is willing to mortgage the future of space for 30 years because they're not daring enough to do something big right now. I'll be 65 in 2030. People don't live that long.
People die in space.
Craft are lost in space.
Space is a dangerous place.
If the most NASA believes space is good for is interesting ways to battle cancer using technology from the ISS, we do not have a real leader behind us in the space race.
Did I say 'space race'? There still is one, you know. Sooner or later, the Chinese will shoot a capsule to the moon, because they have a real interest in going there - and then America will sit back and suddenly realize that they have NOTHING that can do what the Chinese had just done. We'd have to create the Apollo program from scratch. SCRATCH.
The article makes a good point, that individuals can take more risk than a government institution. Government institutions value job security and predictability fostered by high budgets...not pure results. This is why the conclusions of the shuttle inquiry thus far have said 'That was bad. Well, back to the shuttles!' without real consideration of alternatives.
I wave my flag to the X-Prize and prizes like it that will come after. A random person will, someday soon, reinvent the Mercury program with a small group of people that NO government actually sanctions, and it is only then that it will be realized where the real advancements are being made.
"...they 'don't represent a nation; [they] represent humanity.'"
Wouldn't a trauma to all of humanity be worse than a trauma to a single nation, though?
Space represents the only positive long-term hope for humanity. Considering that we already have too many people on the earth should standards of living continue to rise, not in terms of food, but actual resources such as fresh drinking water, reasonable space for a functioning biosphere, and energy and power, the only viable expansion frontier is space.
A couple of millionaires playing space cowboy won't get us there, corporate competetion would help, but the government myust lay the groundwork with technologies and basic infrastructure (a REAL space station would be nice, a moon colony, etc).
Hey, I'm just your average shit and piss factory.
The rich and famous of a society that explore, take chances, and are inexplicably daring are often idolized by the poor and less fortunate. Look at Lindbergh. There are loads of examples.
Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
Space exploration will develop along the same lines that exploration grew in the past. The technical challenges are new but the social challenges are tried and true.
Nations will send out explorers for God, Glory and Gold (or the modern version- you come up with some nifty alliteration).
Corporations will drive exploration as the profit is seen.
Individuals will push into space as they are able because we are wired that way. Of course right now and for a while that is going to be limited to those with the resources at hand to make the trips possible.
This is not new- it has been going on for quite a while and I am obviously not the first to notice this.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
When is the last time the medical industry really cured a disease (ala Polio), as opposed to creating a temporary symptom-reliver?
Why is this presented as either sending publically funded astronauts OR sending privately funded millionaires. Let them both go. Just as the individuals can compete, the two development models can compete.
they 'don't represent a nation; [they] represent humanity.'
Oh yes, people who manage to over-charge their way into great, vast, mountains of wealth "represent humanity". It is the HEIGHT of existance to become rich. The rich are role models to be envied and emulated, bow down in respect for our new merchant kings. We should aid their rise into the HEAVENS as our ambassadors because of their righteousness.
please - I cant imagine a WORSE idea. rewarding people with respect, elevating them to roles of demi-gods all because they managed to make themselves profit???. WHO CARES? having money does not make you a great person.. in fact, i would agrue that being rich means you are, by definition NOT A GOOD PERSON.
The idea makes me sick... why dont we let these super-people sleep with our teenage daugthers while were at it? maybe they can curry some favour with our new elite?
What makes someone "wealthy", is it net dollar value, ability to influence (power) or a mix of both? Are we to say that we are wanting to endorse a non-free capitalistic system that breeds greed and descent? What goals are there to have human kind in space?
Let's tackle the questions ... Wealth is decided on monetary value, but with monetary value comes power, so obviously it's a mixture of both, BUT you rarely see new money. Most "rich" people came from rich families and were given greater opportunities than those who weren't rich. So in essence we aren't supporting a capitalistic soceity per se, but a fuedal society. The problem with a fuedal society is that eventually the lessers will outnumber the eleet by so much it's simply a matter of time before a revolt or revolution. This brings with it pain and suffering and is always a step backwards.
Humankind in space poses a strange delimna. Is there a draw to join some type of universal collective of alien life? The most complex societies on this planet are not humans but are insect and plant collectives. Together the collectives strive to benifit the whole (which is why it's so hard to exterminate them) and that whole grows stronger through group motivated individual efforts.
So did Gene Rodenberry have it wrong when he created Star Trek? Absolutely not, until we as a society can think primarily about the group as a whole instead of personal gain we are destined to never rise above our own personal limitations. A new form of thinking and governing would have to be in place. Carl Marx had a theoretical governmnent system that would accomplish this, but disreguarded two key factors, the main drive for a human is personal gain and inherintly most people are lazy and will only strive to do what is the bare minimum, hence no bettering of the collective as a whole.
So should companies and rich people be the only ones who are allowed into space? If we want to not progress the human race, then yes. Sociologists and Historians note that it will take millions of years for humankind to evolve beyond their current limits and it's questionable if we will even surpass extinction. Just makes you wonder about the big picture I guess.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
Monsanto's terminator gene.
Poorly designed, high-profit-margin SUVs.
Pollution (since being responsible with industrial waste costs money).
And, of course, Microsoft's monopoly. Or any monopoly.
That's just four off the top of my head.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
It seems to me that as soon as we leave space to the wealthy adventurers, the discoveries made from such exploration are put in the position of becoming private property. The wealthy will claim the newly discovered planets, asteroids, mineral deposits, alien technology, etc. as their own. Idealls what we would do is establish an international cooperative effort(contributions not neccisarily monitary) to continue space exploration and all members of the society take one giant chill pill so that they can relize that there are bound to be dangerous in exploring a new frontier, but the explorers accept these risks and would never wish for the exploration to stop because of their loss of life.
What can you mean? Poor people don't pay taxes, silly. The same "rich jerk" is in a 40% (or higher) tax bracket and is dumping TONS of his money into the federal, state, and local community coffers. So what if he wants to take some of that money and have fun with his time?
It should be inspiring for a poor person to see what hard work and perserverance under pressure and during hard times, the requirements of building wealth, gets you. It gets you a way to fulfill your dreams and passions.
Instead, you say it would be inspiring for a poor person to watch someone hitch a free ride on other people's money. Worse yet, you say it is the poor person's money. In U.S.A. 46% of the people pay 96% of the taxes. TRANSLATION... 54% of people in America only contribute %4 of the money it takes to run the country. SOURCE: IRS.
Their money indeed.
Space is a long way from becoming a routine travel destination, and NASA needs to treat it as such, and stop with the friendly pussy designs, and get back to the business of exploration and pure scientific research. Taking people into space only to be spam-in-a-can for marketing purposes is a waste of our tax dollars. We need to stop treating space as cool until we can manage to put stuff up there without having to cross our fingers at the launch pad.
Put someone like Burt Rutan in charge or stop wasting my fucking taxes on studing how frogs behave in space, you bastards!
I'd like to see some examples of innovations for profit being counter-productive for humanity...
DRM.
The Ford Pinto.
Any weapons research whatsoever (by a contractor, to satisfy the "for profit" condition).
Religion (and if you don't consider this either an "innovation" or "for profit", I have a bridge to sell you).
Lawyers.
Need I go on?
So, since the human race will eventually outgrow this planet, we need keep sending people into space. Make the mistakes and learn from them, so we can continue to push the boundaries further out. I know the mistakes can be tragic. But, just as we are willing to send young men to die to give Iraqis freedom so too should we accept and honor the sacrifices of those we send in space. Because, when human population swells to the point that the earth can't sustain it, we won't be talking about national trauma but global.
PS-For those worried about their tax money being wasted. Nasa budget is very small part of the national budget. I don't think it is going to improve your tax return greatly if we abandon it. Let's just keep this in this community for a little while longer before we hand it over to greedy corporations
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Remember, space is a total vacuum that allows for ultra-pure manufacturing not available on Earth. It also allows for almost unlimited power (Solar collectors), space (add modules as needed), and mineral potential (asteroid belt) for the company willing to exploit it. The current problem is not a conundrum best left to wealthy adventurers because our current obstacle is getting to space, not developing it. As soon as a means becomes available to get to lower Earth orbit for inexpensive sums, space will commercially develop at a break-neck pace, likely in a Wild West fashion.
For some unknown reason, many of us here in the US seem to think that if casualties are possible, it should not be done. This applies to warfare (Look at the furor over the ~100 killed in the recent Iraq skirmish), supersonic aircraft travel (Concorde; didn't stop flying until its one accident in 20 years), space travel (Columbia et. al). Letting a plutocratic clique explore and stake claims to space and the solar system prevents everyone else from getting a chance. If the success of the internet were translated to space, the international community would be very leery of one or even a handful of corporation controlling 95% of all space business.
Do we really want to see a potential case of three or four corporations (via wealthy individuals) dominating space? Would they then be allowed to restrict who travels into space and who remains on earth? It is unacceptable to allow a few individuals to set the pace for space exploration exploitation. Instead, I'd rather see either nationally-funded exploration of space or extraordinary tax breaks for companies great and small dedicated to getting into space. Space elevators are the key to getting up there IMO, so I figure chemical companies dedicated to polymers and their manufacture of such an elevator should be first in line. Combine a profit mechanism with the federally-subsidized R&D and allow the two to combine forces as a driving vehicle of space exploitation. A highly competitive commercial situation for getting to and exploiting space would also drive technology faster than a monopolized or oligopolized situation (look at operating systems). Just my 2c...
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
Any "wealthy adventurer" will be in space representing him/herself, not humanity.
Besides this, space travel is too expensive for individuals to undertake on their own - barring the Bill Gatesian megarich types. Similar historical endeavors that rich adventurers embarked on were nowhere near as expensive as space travel is today, even relative to the technologies and economies in their days. The current NASA budget (around $15B yearly) is enough only to launch a couple of probes and a few shuttles every year, and maintain the current meager rate of development of new flight technologies. Well-known pilots of the 20's had to hire small teams to design and build their plane, but not an entire aerospace corporation or two like you for any successful spacecraft built so far. No one tycoon is going to want to expend so many resources on one task (no matter how cool).
I tend to see the development of space travel as being more like that of seagoing travel in the West. Early on, trading centered around Europe, especially the Mediterranean and Northern Africa, and didn't really spread much. Who could forget Columbus' famous trip to "India," paid for by the Spanish gov't of the time? It took a while before permanent settlements and serious commercial operations got set up across the Atlantic, which unlike (nearby) space least leads to places with a breathable atmosphere. So... it may be a while before we have a serious extraterrestrial presence, is there really a rush? (Besides the small but ever-present possibility of asteroid impact, that is...)
They represent the 0.000001% of humanity who care to fritter away obscene amounts of money on vanity projects, rather than, say, feeding the starving.
I feel obligated to point out that people starving is usually not a matter of money, but a matter of politics. Take Zimbabwe, for instance, where the US now sends half a million tons of food aid, when the country used to be a net food exporter. Why? Because President Mugabe seized the most productive farms in the country because they were owned by whites. And now those farms lie fallow and the people starve.
Political causes are at the root of famines in Ethiopia, China's "Great Leap Forward" (The worst famine in recorded history), and even the Great Irish Potato famine, where there was actually enough food even after the potato crop failed, but the other crops were taken to port under military guard and exported to other countries.
Throwing more money at the famine problem is not likely to solve it, despite what Sally Struthers et. al. would like to have you think.
Since when has any gung-ho millionaire ever represented humanity? Millionaires don't become millionaires that way. It requires seeking profitable returns in everything and looking beyond the effect on the humans involved in achieving those profits. Who cares if there are layoffs as long as the owner's bank account has grown?
I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
If you look at the course of technological history, when was the last time a -government- came up with a significant advance that pushed us into the future? Science is pushed by people, not governments; it's made by sleepless cracked engineers in labs at universities or in garages; it's made by the Wright Brothers and Edison and Tesla and Einstein, patent clerks and hackers. Technology becomes pervasive when Money picks it up and runs with it, to whatever end they might imagine -- and in pursuing their profit, the everyday guy on the street gets ahold of a gizmo and finds a hundred new uses for it. So yeah. I don't think our next big space jump is going to come from NASA, much as I like them. I think it's going to come from other people, and it'll get big when some businessman or corporation figures out a reason to get involved. What we do with it after that remains entirely up to us. :)
This story is disturbing on so many levels.
The first is spending wealth and resources on an endeavour with no contribution to mankind other than giving us the satisfaction that yet another person has been in space. Wealth does not correlate strongly with the skills necessary to perform meaningful science in space.
Even more disturbing is, that the separation between the rich and poor in our society is so great that individuals are on the threshold of being able to afford space flight, while at the same time the real hourly wage of the average American worker fell 14% since 1973. The richest Americans are now able to do for leisure, what once only an entire nation could afford!
(Here's hoping that my moderator is not a billionaire who dreams of space flight).
Michael.
Linux : Mac
As far as the aliens are concerned, we're probably considered to be an entire planet full of spammers, blasting our radio and tv signals out into space 24x7.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I have seen:
I don't think space should be left to any specific group. Everyone should be trying a hand at it or every possible type of available clientele, investors, researchers etc. should be in. Not left to any one of them.
Who knows which method is going to bring about innovations, spur the space industry etc.
IMHO, state or state sponsored agencies (who might depend of corporations on clientele etc.) has many important roles to play: following tracks that 'profit-only' corporations or entreprenurs won't go or try to pioneer, being one of them.
Again, IMHO, filthy rich billionares could provide a source for exta bucks to fund the programmes of NASA et. al. or the corporations involved.
Similarly, corporations could jump in to exploit the markets that pop up in the field.
Leaving space to one particular group may not be the best idea.
Thank you.
GrimReality
2003-07-02 01:01:13 UTC (2003-07-01 21:01:13 EDT)