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.'"
I think the real future of space travel is when big corporations start to see the possibility of profit.
Anything else under the guise of "scientific research" seems like it will never take off... the quest for the allmighty dollar will always be stronger than furthering humanity
It's a sad but true state of affairs
Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
How many take offs would it take to make Bill Gates broke?
This line alone killed me:
He points to the fact that modern state-funded space disasters become national traumas
Ok...well what about national pride. I think there was a lot of pride in the USSR when they put the first satelite up. And in the US when we got on the moon. Let's not focus on the negative here people. "Disasters"...sheesh. I believe there was much more scientific discovery, national security innovations stemming from the race, and other issues that far outweigh the "disasters".
Plus...who cares if Joe Billionaire flies up there? What is he going to bring back? Pictures? Whoopty-freakin-do.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
How does a NASA astronaut who's been in the Navy for 10+ years and has been in serious training for most of it represent the underprivileged?
Besides, the point of NASA tax money is not to give the underprivileged 'some degree of personal fulfillment.' That's what welfare is for.
This is the same guy that claimed that the odds of an apocalyptic disaster striking Earth are 50-50. Of course, he never bothered to qualify the time frame (that I'm aware of), so it shows a horrible understanding of probability (after all, there's a 100% chance of disaster if you don't add a time limit), not even counting his seeming inability to properly judge the disasters he considers, instead opting just to disasterbate.
True, there's not exactly a ton of economic use at the time for space exploration. So? Like many things, the more time and money and effort spent on exploring space, the better the technology becomes around it, technology which will find other uses. It will also increase our knowledge as a species, which is definitely a good thing (as opposed to those who increase their knowledge only to keep it secret, or those who think knowledge is bad)
Given the infrastructure it takes for space exploration of any significant magnitude, how many individuals are going to pursue it just because they can? I would suspect not many. Of course, that doesn't count all the issues that would come up when private individuals start creating craft able to launch itself (and cargo) into space.
We could just let all the corporations do the exploring. And let them own everything they touch out there, to pillage as they see fit. After all, if they're not allowed to do such things, what can they do to make money? They won't bother.
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
Whoo hoo! It's like the government but without any accountability. Anyone want to bet that the first time they crash a spaceship into sopmething this all becomes illegal.
I would argue that millionaires DO NOT represent humanity and sending them out into space would only allow for the complete commercialization of space at the hands of a few unscrupulous privateers.
At least by using publicly funded sources for space travel, we can get a better guarantee that the results of the work will be held in the public interest, whereas by commercialization of space exploration and travel, we guarantee that the results will be held for private interests only.
As long we are pretending to give a damn about our fellow man, we might as well make a good show of it and keep the funding for exploration public. It could easily be funded by cutting the military back to basic killing-and-maiming stuff like guns and bullets instead of pie-in-the-sky advanced weaponry that's only 50% effective (Patriot missile system, for one).
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
Boats, Planes, Trains, Automobiles, every mode of transportation when it was initially introduced had catastrophes of varying proportions. It is difficult to suggest that only the 1-2% of the worlds population should be the ones to do all the risk taking and privatized space travel.
It will be the poor people with ambition to get to outer space that actually have the best results.
But hey, this is America, ruled by the all mighty dollar and how can we dispute what a millionaire in space says?
One day we'll have a space station, and a few centuries from now we'll all be beaming aboard space ships and going around the galaxy with solar sails.
I'm sure I'll be long dead before I get the chance to go to outer space, but it makes me happy that some millionaire will get to do it simply because his daddy was rich./sarcasm
[cx]
Well, ok, maybe not the homeless but how about the middle or upper middle class? As the article mentions, there will not be any great leaps and bounds in outer space until the price tag is cut. Now, you could say leave this to the millionaires - assuming that they would have the cash to accomplish such a feat - but in reality everyone overshoots their monetary capabilities. If I'm a member of the middle class and I take on the responsibility of space travel then my project will probably run into the millions. If I am a millionaire my space project will likely run into the billions. It's fairly simple for a middle class slob to find funding from a millionaire but it's a bit more unlikely that a millionaire could find a billionaire to fund his project due to the scarcity of billionaires.
Of course the real limitation is government - if I could get those fuckers out of my ass i'd'a been in upper orbit about three or four years ago, but good luck getting the supplies you need when fuck stains control the supplies.
This is an excellent point.
/. story about missles flying through space and bombing things within 2 hours. What about a civilian use of that? Imagine if you could have an affordable, 2 hour flight to Asia? Thats not just for the rich; thats for south-Asian immigrants who just want to go home for a wedding, funeral or a simple visit. Again, everyone wins.
Remember that cars started out as something for th very rich. Then the rich. Then we had mass production, or, cars for everyone. Cars used to be a status symbol (just owning one, I mean). Now, I don't care how far you are below the poverty line, if you are in America, you most likely own a car.
Did a few people get very rich? Yes. Did everyone win in the end? I believe, the answer is yes.
There is a
The government monopoly certainly won't deliver on that goal. Why not let the private sector give it a shot?
Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
"Isn't going into space if you have enough money" atleast a great leveller- if you want to go, and you have the dosh, you launch.
And there's also the point that all new technologies start out expensive and get cheaper over time- cars started that way; airflight started that way, computers started that way, cell phones started that way. This means that it is likely that if right now only the very rich can afford it; in future most or all of us will.
So, me too, I want Gates to go, and come back; if he goes every multi-millionaire will suddenly want to go- that will create a market, and the price can only come down.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Space isn't hard, NASA's bureacy and lack of vision are.
x-33 - Cancel it
SRV - Cancel it
Saturn 5 - Cancel it
Shuttle - Build it as a bastardization of the Dynasoar (which would hhave been flying by about 68-70.)
Space Station - Overpay contractors and then retreat from space and fix the permanent crew at 3 instead of 7...oh, did they mention that there will be absolutely no science in a station manned by 3. It takes 3 just to keep it maintained? Our "scientific" space station isn't very scientific is it? $60 bill down the tubes.
Frankly, I would be willing to bet if we gave 4 billion a year each to Rutan and Orbital Sciences and told them they would get a $1 bill prize for the first to put a permanent station on the moon, it would be there in 5 years. Let them hire millionaires if they want, just PLEASE don't let me see NASA start and cancel another program after blowing 2-3 billion on it.
Human Space Exploration rules, NASA sucks.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
That's true on earth but when these corporations are light years away, how do they face punishment for unethical or illegal behavior? It's not like government would be able to cut a supply line or order an expedition to return home.
I think the author underestimated exactly how ruthless explorers need to be. Corporations are ideal for the job if they can profit from whatever they find. I'm a little annoyed with how much time the author spent convincing me to abandon NASA in favor of corporations only to conclude that corporate exploitation would be bad.
It's a choice. If we let government call the shots, we must accept the consequences of a slow, tedious and cowardly program. If we let corporations call the shots, we must accept their rights to whatever they find.
We can learn from the exploration of the new world. NASA can issue charters with restrictions on how much power they hold over their claims (i.e., corporations keep mineral rights, US keeps territory.)
It all depends on how we want to relate to exploration and how quickly we want to get to new worlds.
The author's claim about pioneers destroying the American West is pretty shallow. I'm sure it's easy to spout nonsense like that from old Europe. Descendants of those pioneers are the people that keep it protected.
Laws are for people with no friends.
What NASA spends on space flight has no necessary relationship at all to what it would cost free enterprise.
Efficiency, mostly. The greatest problem with current rockets is that they have to lift several times their own mass in fuel and then spray it all over the place, wasting the potential energy generated by lifting the fuel. With a space elevator, this need is removed. Also, objects going down can be used to generate and store energy, instead of burning it all away as heat from atmospheric friction like a shuttle does.