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.

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.

[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.

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!)

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

[ddimas]

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

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.

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.

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.