"Privatizing" the space industry. Yea or nay?

[I'm With Stupid]

Hmm, a shuttle costs $1.7bn, plus $450m per mission. I don't think there are many charities that can stretch to that, and I can't think of any way to make it profitable for private companies. Beardy Branson thinks he can do it though, so good look to him. Then again, given the success of his balloon missions, I don't think I'd be too keen.

[Ameri Boi]

A part of me feels that the privatization of space flight is inevitable so long as NASA's budget continues to decrease, I however am opposed to the idea of utilizing what should be a means of collective survival and understanding as a source of individual profit.

[drl2]

Anyone here ever read Red Mars?

Yep - Blue and Green too... great books, and every chapter comes with a free geology lesson as a bonus.

[I'm With Stupid]

How do they put private satellites up there, just out of interest?

[Sisifo]

Anyone here ever read Red Mars?

No, you read "The Man Who Sold the Moon?"

Nope, not yet. But Red Mars is much, much longer (and also the first part of a trilogy).

You've got more catching up to do.

I love the trilogy. As an economist and sociologist it is priceless too. It's among the few books that I move when I change countries. The rest are sent to a warehouse I have in Spain.

About Zilla question: The Space industry already contains a lot of private companies. Satelite designs and components are run by many good and private firms. But to privatize the Space Program, it would be a mistake. Short and medium range planning as required for Private companies don't get along well with the long term of space programs. Seriously, haven't we learnt already than private doesn't mean better, nor cheaper?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

How do they put private satellites up there, just out of interest?

Most of them go up on government boosters. They're working on getting private enterprise involved in that.

[my_wan]

Nay.
Private companies don't like spending money they won't make back. The only way they'll make money is through space tourism.
Then they will concentrate on what the tourists want, spending gazillions on fun, thrill seeking shite, and less on real science to go out there and explore.

This is a point Dan Brown made in Deception Point.

Yea.
Burt Rutan gives very good reasons here, even includes a response "for fun" rebuttal.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/burt_ ... space.html

The fact of the matter is that government is not innovative enough. If there was a private industry to innovate then government would have a far wider range of technologies for their missions. NASA doesn't need to be replaced, just a wider choice of private sector technologies to select from.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

zeroG Corporation appears to have the "right stuff." There's a PopSci article on private space efforts. I'll try to find it and put up a PDF of the pertinent section.

[Fact-Man]

How do they put private satellites up there, just out of interest?

Most of them go up on government boosters. They're working on getting private enterprise involved in that.

There are three launch entities one can buy a launch from, NASA, the Chinese Space Agency, and the French agency that flies Ariane (sp?). They all do commercial launch business. The French have a heavy schedule at their facilities in Guyana. Boeing at one time considered developing a sea going launch pad for throwing up commercial satellites ... in the days when everyone thought there'd be 5,000 sats in LEO doing commo for us earthlings. That didn't happen and Boeing cancelled its project.

As for the OP, I'm a veteran of almost 20 years in the Space industry, circa 1952-1970, through and well into Apollo, so do have some views.

Some part of the space industry is already privatized or has been created by private money, Branson's whole deal with Bert Rutan, who is himself an entrepreneur of some caliber, the exemplar perhaps. But the private sector has always played a big role in the space industry. Shuttle was built by private industry.

It is expensive to participate in the space industry as an operator of crewed vehicles. I'm not convinced that space tourism is a sustainable business model. Branson thinks it is. We'll see.

Launch vehicles are another beast. Some are built by NASA, some are built Privately. Then there's satellites, nearly all of which are built by private firms, e.g., Hughes, TRW. Then there's JPL's Rover's, which they build themselves I believe.

The space industry is very broad in its endeavors and undertakings and levels of risk and expense. It's bound to attract entrepreneurs, as it has with Richard Branson. It makes me think of the early days of aviation when guys like Jack Northrop and Jerry Vultee started their own airplane building companies, Bill Boeing and Donald Douglas and Paul Martin, among others, Howard Hughes, Dutch Kindleberger.

We had the NACA doing basic research, wind tunnel stuff and flying a few test birds, but it was no NASA. I was at Edwards when it was Muroc, flight testing F-89's. Everybody was testing something out there, Lockheed, North American, Douglas, McDonnel, Grumman, Vought, and NACA had its X-series going. it was a busy scene. And today, Rutan's right in the same neighborhood, over at Mojave, a hop, skip and a jump away, basically doing the same thing, except using glass instead of aluminum.

NASA did of course (and eventually) privatize the entire Shuttle launch process, which seems to have worked out well.

We can expect to see more private players but not too many will go for the manned vehicle deal, it's the highest risk and costs the most to play, and Branson got there first. There are safer bets and many of them will be played.

[Matthew Bailey]

Yea.

Private enterprise works better and is willing to take more risks.

We won't be able to say who does what up there as well as we could when the government controlled it.

Nay.

Government programs are less willing to risk human lives in the effort.

We won't be able to say who does what up there as well as we could when the government controlled it.

This, to me is a feature and not a bug.

Matthew Bailey

[Matthew Bailey]

How do they put private satellites up there, just out of interest?

Most of them go up on government boosters. They're working on getting private enterprise involved in that.

There are three launch entities one can buy a launch from, NASA, the Chinese Space Agency, and the French agency that flies Ariane (sp?). They all do commercial launch business. The French have a heavy schedule at their facilities in Guyana. Boeing at one time considered developing a sea going launch pad for throwing up commercial satellites ... in the days when everyone thought there'd be 5,000 sats in LEO doing commo for us earthlings. That didn't happen and Boeing cancelled its project.

As for the OP, I'm a veteran of almost 20 years in the Space industry, circa 1952-1970, through and well into Apollo, so do have some views.

Some part of the space industry is already privatized or has been created by private money, Branson's whole deal with Bert Rutan, who is himself an entrepreneur of some caliber, the exemplar perhaps. But the private sector has always played a big role in the space industry. Shuttle was built by private industry.

It is expensive to participate in the space industry as an operator of crewed vehicles. I'm not convinced that space tourism is a sustainable business model. Branson thinks it is. We'll see.

Launch vehicles are another beast. Some are built by NASA, some are built Privately. Then there's satellites, nearly all of which are built by private firms, e.g., Hughes, TRW. Then there's JPL's Rover's, which they build themselves I believe.

The space industry is very broad in its endeavors and undertakings and levels of risk and expense. It's bound to attract entrepreneurs, as it has with Richard Branson. It makes me think of the early days of aviation when guys like Jack Northrop and Jerry Vultee started their own airplane building companies, Bill Boeing and Donald Douglas and Paul Martin, among others, Howard Hughes, Dutch Kindleberger.

We had the NACA doing basic research, wind tunnel stuff and flying a few test birds, but it was no NASA. I was at Edwards when it was Muroc, flight testing F-89's. Everybody was testing something out there, Lockheed, North American, Douglas, McDonnel, Grumman, Vought, and NACA had its X-series going. it was a busy scene. And today, Rutan's right in the same neighborhood, over at Mojave, a hop, skip and a jump away, basically doing the same thing, except using glass instead of aluminum.

NASA did of course (and eventually) privatize the entire Shuttle launch process, which seems to have worked out well.

We can expect to see more private players but not too many will go for the manned vehicle deal, it's the highest risk and costs the most to play, and Branson got there first. There are safer bets and many of them will be played.

I was under the impression that Boeing were still doing Launches while the Sea Launch Platform was being refitted. Their launches are being done from Baikonur. Least, that's what their page says.

Matthew Bailey

[Fact-Man]

I was under the impression that Boeing were still doing Launches while the Sea Launch Platform was being refitted. Their launches are being done from Baikonur. Least, that's what their page says.

Matthew Bailey

Hmm, well, I'd not claim to know better than this. Maybe I'll do some research on this and report back. I just don't recall ever seeing any news go by of launches from their sea going platform. And even though I'm sort of tuned into those kinds of news channels, e.g., Aviation Week & Space Technology, this doesn't mean that such never occurred.

[my_wan]

Back to the question at hand. If it were a "not-for-profit" organisation, they maybe a "yay" from me.

I don't get the objection to making a profit. Certainly predatory buisness practices must stop. It's not the profit making that is bad, it's the lack of rules that must be abided by to make those profits. Our paychecks are in fact our profits, irrespective of whether you work for somebody else or not.

Neither am I suggesting that government entities should get out. But having a healthy innovative private market driving the technology would be a huge boost to technologies available for government science missions. Keep NASA, woods hole, NSF, etc., but drop the insistance that nobody make a profit. That just means fewer paychecks and toys for us, like this computer I'm using to say this.

[Fact-Man]

Back to the question at hand. If it were a "not-for-profit" organisation, they maybe a "yay" from me.

I don't get the objection to making a profit. Certainly predatory buisness practices must stop. It's not the profit making that is bad, it's the lack of rules that must be abided by to make those profits. Our paychecks are in fact our profits, irrespective of whether you work for somebody else or not.

Neither am I suggesting that government entities should get out. But having a healthy innovative private market driving the technology would be a huge boost to technologies available for government science missions. Keep NASA, woods hole, NSF, etc., but drop the insistance that nobody make a profit. That just means fewer paychecks and toys for us, like this computer I'm using to say this.

Quite so.

However, the issue has always been that profit can interfere with considerations of flight safety. This is the main reason we have an FAA to certify new airplane entrants into the commecial flying industry, to inspect airline ops and maintenance practices and procedures, and to certify flight crew through a process of licensing and medical examinations.

Remember ValueJet?

[my_wan]

Back to the question at hand. If it were a "not-for-profit" organisation, they maybe a "yay" from me.

I don't get the objection to making a profit. Certainly predatory buisness practices must stop. It's not the profit making that is bad, it's the lack of rules that must be abided by to make those profits. Our paychecks are in fact our profits, irrespective of whether you work for somebody else or not.

Neither am I suggesting that government entities should get out. But having a healthy innovative private market driving the technology would be a huge boost to technologies available for government science missions. Keep NASA, woods hole, NSF, etc., but drop the insistance that nobody make a profit. That just means fewer paychecks and toys for us, like this computer I'm using to say this.

Quite so.

However, the issue has always been that profit can interfere with considerations of flight safety. This is the main reason we have an FAA to certify new airplane entrants into the commecial flying industry, to inspect airline ops and maintenance practices and procedures, and to certify flight crew through a process of licensing and medical examinations.

Remember ValueJet?

Yes I remember that crash. That comes down to enforcing the regulations I spoke about above. We don't demand that airlines become not for profit in order to continue operating, we enforce the regulations. The same would go for any for profit space based enterprise. Burt Rutan will not get the leeway he now has if he ever starts taking customers.