The Privatization of Space
By Carolina Beirne and Sharanya Swaminathan, 6/24/2020
Staking out Space: The Danger of Privatization
The privatization of space exploration is antithetical to the interest of all players involved. Primarily, companies have to compete with different interests in the projects they look to acquire. While an organisation such as NASA must adhere to the needs of both the government and taxpayers, companies are driven by their need to obtain profit, as well as the need to satisfy the interests of their shareholders. Because of this profit motive, private enterprises are less inclined to create programs that are centred towards general space development and knowledge without the rapid implementation of commercial applications, thus suggesting the government is still required in the field.
A prime example of this would be the Hubble Space Telescope (“HST”). The HST is a space telescope launched by NASA in 1990 that remains in operation in a low Earth orbit. It is one of the most versatile telescopes of its size and is a paramount research tool. It is not privatized, as it is a major research tool for both novice astronomers with interest in the subject, as well as a myriad of accredited scientists within NASA. A private company seeking to acquire the device would need to not only break even on the initial costs of the project but also attract investors through the generation of a profit. The obtainment is also extremely challenging to reach. First, one would charge those who utilise the HST, most likely by selling the data it obtains. A key argument against this is that it would inhibit the progress of science. A large issue pertaining to this would be the fears of a second Space Race. The Space Race was a Cold War-era competition between the Soviet Union and America to become the first nation to achieve spaceflight capability. Though this could arguably be beneficial due to the fact that competition spurs progress, and that the competitive nature would incentivise countries to develop their quaternary sectors faster. However, this is detrimental for geopolitical and international relationships. As much as competition can be beneficial, the tension this can ignite would be irreversible. Humanity already escaped one cold war and nuclear crisis, why invite the world to be subjected into another one?
Moreover, not every researcher has the financial means to purchase the data of the telescope, so those who would be making key breakthroughs in astronomy would be slow and reserved to the rich. This would be detrimental, as over 14,000 papers have been published alongside observation figures exceeding 1.3 million that were made with the use of HST, therefore these numbers would no longer increase as rapidly because non-funded researchers would be unable to continue their work. The place of government is paramount in the maintenance of the HST project, as the American people consented to the laws set by their representatives to pay $1.60 from annual taxes to keep the HST in operation for both researchers and teachers to utilise the findings for the betterment of society.
Overall, industry privatization is commonly regarded as a keystone aspect to capitalism, and though it’s common, and even useful, in some industries, it would simply act as a hindrance in Space Exploration. Not only would it limit scientific use of otherwise public resources, but some economists stipulate that it would fuel unhealthy competition that could potentially catalyse a second space race, either internal to a country or on an international level.
A prime example of this would be the Hubble Space Telescope (“HST”). The HST is a space telescope launched by NASA in 1990 that remains in operation in a low Earth orbit. It is one of the most versatile telescopes of its size and is a paramount research tool. It is not privatized, as it is a major research tool for both novice astronomers with interest in the subject, as well as a myriad of accredited scientists within NASA. A private company seeking to acquire the device would need to not only break even on the initial costs of the project but also attract investors through the generation of a profit. The obtainment is also extremely challenging to reach. First, one would charge those who utilise the HST, most likely by selling the data it obtains. A key argument against this is that it would inhibit the progress of science. A large issue pertaining to this would be the fears of a second Space Race. The Space Race was a Cold War-era competition between the Soviet Union and America to become the first nation to achieve spaceflight capability. Though this could arguably be beneficial due to the fact that competition spurs progress, and that the competitive nature would incentivise countries to develop their quaternary sectors faster. However, this is detrimental for geopolitical and international relationships. As much as competition can be beneficial, the tension this can ignite would be irreversible. Humanity already escaped one cold war and nuclear crisis, why invite the world to be subjected into another one?
Moreover, not every researcher has the financial means to purchase the data of the telescope, so those who would be making key breakthroughs in astronomy would be slow and reserved to the rich. This would be detrimental, as over 14,000 papers have been published alongside observation figures exceeding 1.3 million that were made with the use of HST, therefore these numbers would no longer increase as rapidly because non-funded researchers would be unable to continue their work. The place of government is paramount in the maintenance of the HST project, as the American people consented to the laws set by their representatives to pay $1.60 from annual taxes to keep the HST in operation for both researchers and teachers to utilise the findings for the betterment of society.
Overall, industry privatization is commonly regarded as a keystone aspect to capitalism, and though it’s common, and even useful, in some industries, it would simply act as a hindrance in Space Exploration. Not only would it limit scientific use of otherwise public resources, but some economists stipulate that it would fuel unhealthy competition that could potentially catalyse a second space race, either internal to a country or on an international level.
Promoting Innovation: The Business of Risk-Taking
The industry of international space exploration has greatly advanced since World War II and the Nuclear Arms Race. Following the Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik, the space race ensued, with countries developing satellites, rockets, and other technologies to further explore outer space. With this rapid growth of the NewSpace Industry comes the question of whether the privatization of outer space is fair and equitable for all nations.
SpaceX, an American aerospace company founded by Elon Musk, was the first privately owned company that launched, orbited, and recovered its spacecraft in 2010, marking a monumental movement towards the privatization of space exploration. On Jun 3, 2020 SpaceX launched its eighth Starlink mission, Falcon 9. The company is one of many privately owned companies that demonstrate the benefits of the efficiency, innovation, and collaboration between the public and private sectors..
The privatization of outer space exploration is a matter that is heavily debated in the international community. Developed countries are among the main supporters of privatization, as they contain relevant companies such as SpaceX and Magellan Aerospace who have made astronomical gains in both technology and funding. The United States is the most productive country in this area, with Bezos leading with Blue Origin, Musk and SpaceX, SpaceshipOne, Virgin Galactic, and more. The advantage in utilizing private companies is that they have greater room to take risks which leads to greater innovation and learning. A report by Business Insider found that the crew risk number is 1 in 276, and Musk reported that Falcon Heavy had a 50% chance of blowing up, but he took that risk anyway. When it comes to privatization, public companies like NASA and ESA have chosen to work with rather than against private companies, for work can be better distributed resulting in more efficient production.
Private companies tend to focus on three main aspects - space tourism, space mining, and space launch vehicles. With this, come a series of laws and regulations that are important to recognize in terms of territory and exploration. The Outer Space Treaty, the Space Liability Convention, and the Registration Convention are just some of the treaties and conventions that the United Nations has passed to ensure proper regulation of outer space. COPOUS (Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space) also has subcommittees that focus on this fair treatment. There is always a need for more indemnification policies and clauses to be added to these treaties, but they are a key asset in the world of fair space exploration.
Private companies allow humanity to explore living conditions on other planets, develop new understandings of objects in outer space, and increase our standard of living. With diplomatic relations between nations and the sharing of space technology, countries can find ways to aid their citizens. For example, the University of Guelph in Canada leads the world in research for building greenhouses in space using hydroponics, experimenting in Nunavut with conditions very similar to those on Mars. With the aid of a symbiotic relationship between the public and private sector, nations can perhaps create technologies in one country and use the existing technology of another country to launch it into space.
With the success of SpaceX’s most recent launch, the accessibility to the ISS and diplomatic relations when it comes to sending astronauts to space will begin to change. Since 2011, NASA and Russia have formed a mutually beneficial relationship with NASA needing Russia to send astronauts to the ISS and Russia benefiting from NASA’s money. But with this new shift with SpaceX and NASA working together, this dynamic may begin to change. Dmitry Rogozin, director of Russia’s Roscosmos, has publicly congratulated NASA and SpaceX, but the statistics show that Russia seems to have relied on NASA’s money for its production – the Space Threat Assessment Report 2020 shows that 17% of their Roscosmos budget came from NASA. The shift towards privatization as seen in the United States will surely have some impact on diplomatic relations when it comes to space.
In a rapidly expanding industry, nations should be encouraged and given opportunities to work with private companies for maximum productivity and innovation. With the United States in the lead and success of private aerospace companies who have achieved profitable and reliable technologies, the benefit of this regulated collaboration holds lots of hope for the future of space exploration.
SpaceX, an American aerospace company founded by Elon Musk, was the first privately owned company that launched, orbited, and recovered its spacecraft in 2010, marking a monumental movement towards the privatization of space exploration. On Jun 3, 2020 SpaceX launched its eighth Starlink mission, Falcon 9. The company is one of many privately owned companies that demonstrate the benefits of the efficiency, innovation, and collaboration between the public and private sectors..
The privatization of outer space exploration is a matter that is heavily debated in the international community. Developed countries are among the main supporters of privatization, as they contain relevant companies such as SpaceX and Magellan Aerospace who have made astronomical gains in both technology and funding. The United States is the most productive country in this area, with Bezos leading with Blue Origin, Musk and SpaceX, SpaceshipOne, Virgin Galactic, and more. The advantage in utilizing private companies is that they have greater room to take risks which leads to greater innovation and learning. A report by Business Insider found that the crew risk number is 1 in 276, and Musk reported that Falcon Heavy had a 50% chance of blowing up, but he took that risk anyway. When it comes to privatization, public companies like NASA and ESA have chosen to work with rather than against private companies, for work can be better distributed resulting in more efficient production.
Private companies tend to focus on three main aspects - space tourism, space mining, and space launch vehicles. With this, come a series of laws and regulations that are important to recognize in terms of territory and exploration. The Outer Space Treaty, the Space Liability Convention, and the Registration Convention are just some of the treaties and conventions that the United Nations has passed to ensure proper regulation of outer space. COPOUS (Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space) also has subcommittees that focus on this fair treatment. There is always a need for more indemnification policies and clauses to be added to these treaties, but they are a key asset in the world of fair space exploration.
Private companies allow humanity to explore living conditions on other planets, develop new understandings of objects in outer space, and increase our standard of living. With diplomatic relations between nations and the sharing of space technology, countries can find ways to aid their citizens. For example, the University of Guelph in Canada leads the world in research for building greenhouses in space using hydroponics, experimenting in Nunavut with conditions very similar to those on Mars. With the aid of a symbiotic relationship between the public and private sector, nations can perhaps create technologies in one country and use the existing technology of another country to launch it into space.
With the success of SpaceX’s most recent launch, the accessibility to the ISS and diplomatic relations when it comes to sending astronauts to space will begin to change. Since 2011, NASA and Russia have formed a mutually beneficial relationship with NASA needing Russia to send astronauts to the ISS and Russia benefiting from NASA’s money. But with this new shift with SpaceX and NASA working together, this dynamic may begin to change. Dmitry Rogozin, director of Russia’s Roscosmos, has publicly congratulated NASA and SpaceX, but the statistics show that Russia seems to have relied on NASA’s money for its production – the Space Threat Assessment Report 2020 shows that 17% of their Roscosmos budget came from NASA. The shift towards privatization as seen in the United States will surely have some impact on diplomatic relations when it comes to space.
In a rapidly expanding industry, nations should be encouraged and given opportunities to work with private companies for maximum productivity and innovation. With the United States in the lead and success of private aerospace companies who have achieved profitable and reliable technologies, the benefit of this regulated collaboration holds lots of hope for the future of space exploration.