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.'"

Comments

Boy bands in space.

[joeware]

I agree. Let's send all the boy bands into space.

Re:Boy bands in space.

[Usquebaugh]

But who would cut the grass?

Uh-huh.

[Tidal Flame]

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.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Aadain2001]

I guess you haven't watched NASA for the past 30 years. We still use the same Shuttles. We have seen MANY great new spacecraft designs, but they were never explored because of all the buracracy invloved. There was an article in the latest Wired that talked about this. These millionars are building reusable space craft that are cheap and effective and actually made with modern ideas. They will most likely be the ones to bring us, the average citizen, into space. Let them do the research, because in the end they will want to turn around and sell it on the open market, creating practicle space travel.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize how horribly complicated the space shuttle is? It is not economically feasible to redesign a shuttle every 10 years, let alone 20-30. And these millionaires who are building reusable spacecraft are also not under the umbrella of the US government, which requires some form of safety/redundancy/reliability. Don't automatically assume that because John Carmack does something, that it is the right idea. Hundreds of astronauts have left and returned from earth safely, and thousands of scientific experiments have been completed in space, so please hold off on the negative remarks towards NASA. Yeah, great new spacecraft designs have come and gone, and you know what... your taxes are lower because they have come and gone. A new shuttle is on the way, but I don't think it is coming too late. No I don't work for NASA, but I do work for a major Defence contractor who knows that planes/spacecraft don't happen overnight.

Re:Uh-huh.

[stefanlasiewski]

You don't get to be a millionaire by pissing away your time in meetings and buying $16000 toilet seats.

No, you get to be a millionaire by SELLING the $16000 toilet seats.

Re:Uh-huh.

[phutureboy]

Do you realize how horribly complicated the space shuttle is? It is not economically feasible to redesign a shuttle every 10 years, let alone 20-30

Do you realize how horribly complicated computers are? Less than 30 years ago it was almost incomprehensible that the things would someday become a household item. The same could have been said of automobiles at one point. Never underestimate the power of commoditization.

And these millionaires who are building reusable spacecraft are also not under the umbrella of the US government, which requires some form of safety/redundancy/reliability

And private industry *doesn't* require safety/redundancy/reliability?

Re:Uh-huh.

[Aadain2001]

I do realize how complicated the shuttle is. I also know that they are required to take the entire thing apart after it returns from space, requalify each piece, and rebuild the entire thing from the ground up. This makes it MORE expensive than just building a new one from scratch! The shuttle is about as reusable as a car that has to be rebuilt every night.
NASA did do good work, 30 years ago, but they haven't done much of anything since. When NASA was founded in the 1960's (could be wrong, could have been in the 50's, so don't hold me to this), they went from capsule style launching to putting a man on the moon to shuttle launching in about 20 years. But since that time, they haven't done anything new. Sure, there have been plans to goto Mars, or build a habitat on the moon. But none of these projects were explored. So, instead of spending their budget on pushing further into space, maybe even grabing an asteroid for mining, they decided to stay at home, doing nothing more than launching expensive shuttles to perform some experiments. My tax dollars are higher because NASA has refused to scrap the shuttle. If they had actually spent the time to test/build some of these new designs, we would have much cheaper space flight.

Re:Uh-huh.

[cje]

I do realize how complicated the shuttle is. I also know that they are required to take the entire thing apart after it returns from space, requalify each piece, and rebuild the entire thing from the ground up.

This is simply untrue. I have no idea where you think you heard this from, but the type of maintenance that you describe only happens when the engineers deem it necessary (usually every 8 to 10 flights.) They do not "rebuild the entire thing" every time a shuttle returns from space, and it is extraordinarily dishonest of you to propagate this.

NASA did do good work, 30 years ago, but they haven't done much of anything since.

Correct. Other than the Shuttle program itself (which is aging but still a marvel of human engineering) and all of the science that has resulted from it, the Voyager missions to explore the outer solar system, the Viking and Pathfinder missions to Mars (the latter of which involved JPL actually driving a rover around on the surface of the planet) and the resulting hundredfold increase in mankind's knowledge of Mars, the Galileo mission that spent years studying and providing unprecedented amounts of information on the Jovian (that's Jupiter) system, the Cassini mission that will do the same in the Saturnian system, the Deep Space 1 mission that involved an actual rendezvous with comet Borrelly, numerous Earth science projects that enable us to map this planet, monitor resources, respond to disasters, and deal with everything from famine to forest fires, the International Space Station, and the Chandra X-ray Observatory. Oh, and then there's that Hubble thing, which has expanded mankind's knowledge of the universe more than any other instrument in history. And I'm sure I'm forgetting several prominent projects (sorry, fellas.)

Other than that, yeah, NASA's been pretty much inert.

My tax dollars are higher because NASA has refused to scrap the shuttle.

Oh, for God's sake. NASA's budget is approximately one quarter of one percent of the entire federal outlay. If you pay (for example) $400 in federal taxes for each paycheck, less than a dollar goes to NASA. (And if you get paid every two weeks, this means that you pay about $25/year to NASA.) Even at the height of the Apollo program in the late 1960s, NASA's budget was only slightly over 4 percent of the national budget as a whole. If you want to complain about "your tax dollars", start pointing your fingers at certain Senators who order aircraft carriers that the military doesn't even want just so that a company in their Congressional district can land a lucrative contract.

If we could cut all of the self-serving pork out of the federal budget, we'd have enough money to fund ten NASAs.

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Millionaires represent humanity?

Re:Really?

[Carnivorous Carrot]

> Millionaires represent humanity?

As opposed to what socialist nonsense?

Homer Simpson, "averagenaut"?

(Oh, and thanks for the setup. I'd have posted your comment anon just so I could post this reply. But I knew someone would come thru!)

Re:Really?

[zangdesign]

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).

Space should be left to corperations

[Eric(b0mb)Dennis]

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

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[Eric(b0mb)Dennis]

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.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[GoofyBoy]

The point of the article is that the "overinflated male ego which still needs to prove that he is still sexy to any 20 year old girl" will push us to Mars and back with still enough energy to develop a working Dysan Sphere.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[RatBastard]

Never underestimate the power of a good-looking 20-year old girl.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[Moofie]

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.

Re:Space should be left to corperations

[ddimas]

It's been quantized. 1 millihelen (remember Helen of Troy?)is the amount of beauty needed to launch a single ship.

Interesting, but...

[mgcsinc]

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.

What about national pride?

[chia_monkey]

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.

What?

[mikeophile]

gung-ho millionaires are more free to take risks because they 'don't represent a nation; [they] represent humanity.'

Pretty sad world when nations aren't considered to represent humanity.

You know what will happen, don't you?

[L. VeGas]

When they come back to earth, they will be forced to wear iron collars and chains because they keep saying, "Damn, dirty apes!"

On NASA, and where we're going next

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Rubbish

[Saige]

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.

Re:Rubbish

[smallpaul]

Of course, he never bothered to qualify the time frame (that I'm aware of),

The time frame is 100 years.

Riches don't necesarily alienate....

[reverendG]

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.

History of Exploration

[stoolpigeon]

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.

Either/or

[smallpaul]

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.

Re:Wow

[moitz]

ten bucks says someone builds a golf course on the lunar surface

This hole is a par 5, 19km. The green is at 18.5km, and up 17 meters.

-moitz-

Just pray...

[Kjella]

...that they don't run into ET out there. Could you imagine the first impression they get if they meet a bunch of boy bands? Excuse me, I'll just go dig a bomb shelter now...

Kjella

Re:That is...

[forii]

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.

Regressive Progress

[Michael.Forman]

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). ;P

Michael.

NASA, the wrong stuff

[Teahouse]

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.