What He Said

by on January 3, 2007 · 12 comments

Matt Yglesias has a sensible post about space exploration. He quotes President Kennedy, who said:

But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain. Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

Matt responds:

These analogies aren’t crazy reasons for doing things, but they do seem like odd reasons for public-sector endeavors. Rice plays Texas for honor, but also because people will buy tickets to the game, watch it on television, etc . . . football rivalries are entertaining spectacles financed by the people who find them entertaining. Mallory joined the Alpine Club to pursue his passion for mountain-climbing, he didn’t get a job at the Royal Mountaineering Agency. I’m not one of these “open outer space to more private-sector activity and we’ll have colonies on Titan in seven weeks” people but it does seem to me that there’s probably a sufficient mix of legitimate commercial uses for space and rich eccentric space enthusiasts (and, of course, there’s the intersection of the two: providing space-related commercial services to wealthy eccentrics) to keep human activity going out there without giant subsidies to the aerospace industry. A general public-sector pullback from outer space in favor of NGOs and business enterprises would be a natural corollary to the principle of outer space as international ad demilitarized. The Bush administration, in keeping with longstanding Air Force priorities, seems more inclined in the opposite direction.

I haven’t given it a lot of thought, but I think there’s something to be said for the “open outer space to more private-sector activity and we’ll have colonies on Titan in seven weeks” position. Or at least that we could do a lot more with a lot less if we had more competition. Government projects routinely cost more than their private-sector alternatives, and this tendency is greatly exacerbated when there’s no private sector to pioneer cost-saving measures. In the military, that gives us $600 toilet seats and $2 billion bombers. In NASA, you get a ludicrously expensive space station, an over-priced, under-performing space shuttle, and plans to spend tens of billions of dollars on a new boondoggle space plane when the shuttle is retired.

My guess is that if you had a private, competitive space industry, you’d see incremental but steady cost savings over the course of a decade or two. As the cost dropped, space tourism would become affordable to more and more rich people. That, in turn, would allow economies of scale to drive down costs even further. I don’t think it’s crazy to think that in the long run, getting stuff into space would wind up costing a small fraction of what NASA currently spends.

SHARE: 12 comments

About Tim Lee

Timothy B. Lee (Contributor, 2004-2009) is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. He is currently a PhD student and a member of the Center for Information Technology Policy at Princeton University. He contributes regularly to a variety of online publications, including Ars Technica, Techdirt, Cato @ Liberty, and The Angry Blog. He has been a Mac bigot since 1984, a Unix, vi, and Perl bigot since 1998, and a sworn enemy of HTML-formatted email for as long as certain companies have thought that was a good idea. You can reach him by email at leex1008@umn.edu.

Read more articles by Tim Lee.

  • http://www.cato.org/people/harper.html Jim Harper

    Just as important – efficiency is great, but don’t forget justice – people who were interested in space would spend their money on it. People who were not interested in space would not have to.

  • http://www.cato.org/people/harper.html Jim Harper

    Just as important – efficiency is great, but don’t forget justice – people who were interested in space would spend their money on it. People who were not interested in space would not have to.

  • Brian Moore

    I completely agree.

    Are we allowed to question President Kennedy? I didn’t know that! “In the middle of economic problems and a Cold War, let’s spend billions on landing on the moon!”

    ‘I’m not one of these “open outer space to more private-sector activity and we’ll have colonies on Titan in seven weeks” people’

    I’m more of a “open outer space to more private-sector activity and make them figure out if it’s really worth our time” kind of person. :)

    This new “moon base in 20 years” crap hurts my brain. Bush is trying to be like Kennedy, but the problem is, on space travel, Kennedy was an idiot. At least in aspiring to this idiocy, Bush has achievable objectives.

  • Brian Moore

    I completely agree.

    Are we allowed to question President Kennedy? I didn’t know that! “In the middle of economic problems and a Cold War, let’s spend billions on landing on the moon!”

    ‘I’m not one of these “open outer space to more private-sector activity and we’ll have colonies on Titan in seven weeks” people’

    I’m more of a “open outer space to more private-sector activity and make them figure out if it’s really worth our time” kind of person. :)

    This new “moon base in 20 years” crap hurts my brain. Bush is trying to be like Kennedy, but the problem is, on space travel, Kennedy was an idiot. At least in aspiring to this idiocy, Bush has achievable objectives.

  • Brian Moore

    The first commenter at Yglesias.com has these objections/problems with private space travel.

    “1) Liability. Sovereign nations get quite nervous about private entites launching large heavy objects over their heads. Who pays if something goes wrong? The host government can provide insurance, of course, but when governments provide something they want control. And then you are back where you started.

    2) Sovereignity. Private entity launches satellite that crosses Elbonia 6x/day. Elbonis shoots down private satellite, claiming it was spying. Freedom-of-space treaties apply to nations, not individuals. Now what?

    3) Technology. Rocket launch and satellite control technologies are essentially the same as those needed to build offensive ballistic missiles and other high-tech weapons. Nation-states aren’t real excited about parties not under direct national control possessing those technologies.”

    1) I would think this would be covered by normal liability problems. What liability did Burt Rutan have if his spaceplane crashed into my house? What liability do airlines have if their planes crash on me? Wouldn’t it be completely the same?

    2) I’m pretty sure it does apply to people too. And if it doesn’t, surely I can negotiate airspace contracts with Elbonia, in the whatever way airlines do.

    3) And every private biological or chemical research lab on the continent can make anthrax or other bio weapons. It’s a lot easier to tell if Burt Rutan is mounting air-to-ground missles on Spaceship One than if a biologist is cooking up a plague in his sink.

  • Brian Moore

    The first commenter at Yglesias.com has these objections/problems with private space travel.

    “1) Liability. Sovereign nations get quite nervous about private entites launching large heavy objects over their heads. Who pays if something goes wrong? The host government can provide insurance, of course, but when governments provide something they want control. And then you are back where you started.

    2) Sovereignity. Private entity launches satellite that crosses Elbonia 6x/day. Elbonis shoots down private satellite, claiming it was spying. Freedom-of-space treaties apply to nations, not individuals. Now what?

    3) Technology. Rocket launch and satellite control technologies are essentially the same as those needed to build offensive ballistic missiles and other high-tech weapons. Nation-states aren’t real excited about parties not under direct national control possessing those technologies.”

    1) I would think this would be covered by normal liability problems. What liability did Burt Rutan have if his spaceplane crashed into my house? What liability do airlines have if their planes crash on me? Wouldn’t it be completely the same?

    2) I’m pretty sure it does apply to people too. And if it doesn’t, surely I can negotiate airspace contracts with Elbonia, in the whatever way airlines do.

    3) And every private biological or chemical research lab on the continent can make anthrax or other bio weapons. It’s a lot easier to tell if Burt Rutan is mounting air-to-ground missles on Spaceship One than if a biologist is cooking up a plague in his sink.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14019452 Steve R.

    I am very frustrated about our (non-existent) space program. Putting the focus of the debate in the context of “opening” space to the private is simplistic and wrong since it overlooks certain sociological trends. Please don’t view this as any defense of NASA. Accidents happen, it is inexcusable that NASA was not prepared to deal with accidents, has failed to replace the shuttles that have been lost, and has failed to build the next generation of shuttle.

    In simplistic terms, the private sector has failed to take the initiative in “opening” space. For example, Boeing (in theory) would be expected take the lead in opening space for the private sector. Despite Boeing’s pet jingle of “Forever New Frontiers”, I believe Boeing is simply living off easy to get Government contracts and has lost the initiative to undertake risky projects. Despite, my negative comments, the behavior of Boeing is quite natural from the sociological perspective. Many companies that were technological leaders fail to adapt or appreciate new technologies that arise. Sony would seem to be falling into this trend as an innovator breaking the rules with the VCR but now seeking to “freeze” technological innovation.

    Also in terms of the failure of corporate America to take the initiative in developing a private space program, where are the “Robber Barons”? The reason I ask this, is that excessive executive compensation is getting a lot of bad press. While I believe that executive pay is outrageous, the point of my question is: What are they doing with the money? Are they making productive investments promoting economic growth or simply building ego boosting trophy houses? A productive investment could be made into a privately funded space program, such as Bert Rutan’s Space Ship One. Since the new robber barons don’t seem to have space fever, I assume that our corporate leadership simply does not have an interest in pursuing a private space program. To “open” space, private industry needs to step up to the plate and assume the leadership role.

  • http://www2.blogger.com/profile/14380731108416527657 Steve R.

    I am very frustrated about our (non-existent) space program. Putting the focus of the debate in the context of “opening” space to the private is simplistic and wrong since it overlooks certain sociological trends. Please don’t view this as any defense of NASA. Accidents happen, it is inexcusable that NASA was not prepared to deal with accidents, has failed to replace the shuttles that have been lost, and has failed to build the next generation of shuttle.

    In simplistic terms, the private sector has failed to take the initiative in “opening” space. For example, Boeing (in theory) would be expected take the lead in opening space for the private sector. Despite Boeing’s pet jingle of “Forever New Frontiers”, I believe Boeing is simply living off easy to get Government contracts and has lost the initiative to undertake risky projects. Despite, my negative comments, the behavior of Boeing is quite natural from the sociological perspective. Many companies that were technological leaders fail to adapt or appreciate new technologies that arise. Sony would seem to be falling into this trend as an innovator breaking the rules with the VCR but now seeking to “freeze” technological innovation.

    Also in terms of the failure of corporate America to take the initiative in developing a private space program, where are the “Robber Barons”? The reason I ask this, is that excessive executive compensation is getting a lot of bad press. While I believe that executive pay is outrageous, the point of my question is: What are they doing with the money? Are they making productive investments promoting economic growth or simply building ego boosting trophy houses? A productive investment could be made into a privately funded space program, such as Bert Rutan’s Space Ship One. Since the new robber barons don’t seem to have space fever, I assume that our corporate leadership simply does not have an interest in pursuing a private space program. To “open” space, private industry needs to step up to the plate and assume the leadership role.

  • http://lippard.blogspot.com/ Jim Lippard

    I thought private companies were already taking the lead on space travel at this point. Virgin Galactic starts flights in 2009.

  • http://lippard.blogspot.com/ Jim Lippard

    I thought private companies were already taking the lead on space travel at this point. Virgin Galactic starts flights in 2009.

  • http://www.techliberation.com Tim Lee

    Jim, that’s an excellent point. However, I suspect that you’d see a whole lot more private activity if NASA weren’t effectively subsidizing commercial satellites by letting them use the shuttle at below cost.

  • http://www.techliberation.com Tim Lee

    Jim, that’s an excellent point. However, I suspect that you’d see a whole lot more private activity if NASA weren’t effectively subsidizing commercial satellites by letting them use the shuttle at below cost.

Previous post:

Next post: