Prepare for Liftoff

The future of space exploration will be driven by private markets, not government spending.

BY ESTHER DYSON | FEBRUARY 8, 2010

The U.S. Defense Department may have created the Internet, but had it kept control of the technology, it's unlikely the Web would have become the vibrant public resource it is today. That credit goes to the investment and activity of private citizens and private companies, starting in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

With Barack Obama's new spending proposals, the same sort of thing could happen to space travel and exploration. Critics of the new NASA budget have described the U.S. president as "cutting" manned space exploration and abandoning the hope of a return to the moon. But in fact, Obama's novel approach signals a much more far-sighted view of space travel than Washington has had to date. The U.S. government should be leading the way in rocket science and space exploration, but it should leave exploitation of those advances to the private sector.

The new space budget will provide encouragement and funding for the private sector to do what it does best -- move from technology research to technology development. To quote Rick Tumlinson , cofounder of the Space Frontier Foundation, a space advocacy group, there's no need for the government to be "driving the trucks in low-earth orbit." It should focus on opening up the far frontiers while businesspeople deliver the goods.

The budget also devotes extra resources to keeping the International Space Station in operation.  The station was slated to be shut down, a crazy notion given that the United States has invested almost $100 billion and 30 years to build it and we have just started to make use of it. We have just moved to the six-person crew it was designed for, and it's a fine initial hub for other space activities, including commerce, research, and exploration.

However, common sense doesn't always rule in politics. When the Internet opened up to commerce, there were objections from the high priests of the cyberspace, who didn't want anyone to turn their holy calling into a business.

In the case of space, there are jobs at stake and, more importantly, politicians' careers at stake. Obama is proposing to cancel some $25 billion in NASA programs -- with most of the cuts affecting jobs in Alabama, Utah, and Texas, whose congressional delegations are now up in arms.

HO/AFP/Getty Images

 

Esther Dyson is chairman of EDventure Holdings and an investor in a variety of start-ups, ranging from Internet services such as Eventful.com and genetics service 23andMe  to XCOR Aerospace and Space Adventures.

BRETT

11:42 PM ET

February 8, 2010

because the United States

because the United States will end up with both an innovative, long-term government space program

How the hell are they going to get an "innovative, long-term government space program" if they're nuking anything necessary to get beyond LEO? Seriously, they nuked Ares, the only heavy-lifter that is realistically going to get finished in the next ten years, in exchange for . . . what, exactly?

This Wall Street Journal article basically says it all. They have no plans to get astronauts beyond LEO anytime between now and 2020, and their plan for ultimately getting them there is "a new US heavy-lift rocket is likely to be operational in the next decade or two", although they have no details other than that they're hoping it will use "brand new technologies" (presumably so Obama can claim that he's Promoting New Technologies to Create New American Jobs at Home for Americans - Good Green Jobs! ).

NASA's scientists and engineers get the opportunity to work on more speculative, long-term research and exploration projects.

You mean like sending people beyond LEO, the hardware for which they just cancelled?

Politically, the fuss is mainly about jobs that can help politicians get elected, and not about space exploration itself.

Oh, the irony. I'm sorry, but it's about killing the only hope for the US to have any capability to send people beyond LEO for the next 20 years.

The station was slated to be shut down

Good riddance. The station has been a boondoggle sucking up funding that could be sent on more important manned missions (like longer-distance off-world manned exploration and colonization). It also allows countries like the US to fob off any real effort on the manned spaceflight program.

 

BLUE13326

11:02 AM ET

February 9, 2010

Aren't we just paying the

Aren't we just paying the Russians for these services instead?

I don't see how that gets us to 'both an innovative, long-term government space program.'

It's kind of like saying we shipped all our manufacturing jobs to China to get a long-term government manufacturing industry.

Something does not compute here.

 

JOHNHUNT

11:49 AM ET

February 9, 2010

The Right Rationale

There is no virtue in spending billions more on the ISS just because you've already spend $100 billion. If the ISS serves little purpose (purer chrystals are probably not worth tens of billions) then the ISS should be handed over to the highest bidder and the money saved should be better spent.

The fundamental issue is one of rationale. Obama isn't handing over Earth to LEO to the commercial firms so that NASA can focus on going beyond LEO. He's canceling all of Constellation including lunar landers and outposts. He has no obvious rationale. Inspiring kids to go into science or even doing something we've never done before (e.g. human visit of an asteroid) are both insufficient IMHO rationale. Our rationale should be to ensure that humanity has a second home in case we destroy ourselves mid-century with our own self-replicating technology. So yes, let the commercial firms handle Earth to LEO. But NASA should continue towards developing a lunar colony.

 

KARIMIAN

3:36 PM ET

February 9, 2010

Russians

Aren't we just paying the Russians for these services instead?
Social scan

 

SJLOGAN88

6:32 AM ET

February 10, 2010

...

Are we paying Russians? I was shocked when I first heard about Obama cutting NASA funding.

Sam Logan
SJL Web Design

 

ANOBAMANAUT

5:20 PM ET

February 14, 2010

driven by private markets, not government spending???

This has so much twisted logic, it's just mind boggling - how do these people get into these positions???

1. "driven by private markets, not government spending"
The Merchant7 ARE being funded by government spending via NASA's budget being diverted from the old (and very very bad) Constellation program. Just because Constellation was bad, doesn't mean taking the opposite pole to privatization is better.

2. DOD's web technology was not replaced by the internet moguls, DOD still has their inhouse and (mostly) well-controlled cybersystems. NASA also has a long history of appropriate commercialized technology spinoffs. But ya wouldn't want to privatize NASA any more than ya'd want to privatize DOD, or privatize Social Security, or privatize Medicaire, or (ya get the point there?).....

3. It's the non-profit nature of NASA quality and safety practices in human space flight that has been the root cause for it's success. Can you say Toyota, Continental??

Geesh, where do they find these people??