This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Education

If the government won't fund the space program …

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
October 10, 2012
Filed under , ,

Weird Facts That You Didn’t Know About E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial, io9
“6) E.T. was Spielberg’s response to the “stalled space program.”
That’s what Spielberg said in 1981, adding: “If the government won’t fund the space program, to allow people’s imagination to soar, then all I can do is make movies that bring space down to earth and make it more accessible to the imagination.”

Keith’s note: Of course, E.T. was also a hacker.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

10 responses to “If the government won't fund the space program …”

  1. Andrew Gasser says:
    0
    0

    It amazes me people think that the government should do it all.  Is this how we settled the wild west in the 1800s?  Did we have the National Expansion of the West Administration?  

    We had Lewis and Clark… would Apollo kind of be like a Lewis and Clark expedition?   

    It was the private sector did the heavy lifting with some government support here and there.  To say that the government did all the work is just ridiculous. Our government simply cannot afford the lead role in space exploration and settlement too much longer.

    Soon, it will be private entities that will explore and settle, and the government will profit with tax revenue.  If we are to hope to settle space and make it a place economic activity to take place, we must have a private space program…

    …and we will.

    Respectfully,
    Andrew Gasser
    TEA Party in Space

    • npng says:
      0
      0

      Andrew,

      Nice idea, but I fear you’re rather out of date.   Take a moment to remember, back when you were a kid, you know, in the 1800s.  Federal, State and all tax structures and levels were fundamentally different then (granted tea, alcohol and tobacco carried the load).  Ongoing Federal taxes didn’t even begin until the early 1900’s.  Today in 2012, look at the (staggering) level of Federal taxation.  Face it, we’re in a far more socialistic condition today, centuries away from a republic, so your Wild West comparison just doesn’t apply well now.

      A considerable number of corporations chuck-out a lot of billions in Fed and Corporate taxes (and 20 other taxes) today.  If you asked most of them “Hey, why don’t you invest in space and take a lead here?!”, they would instantly slam you with “Hey Buddy, we pay billions in taxes So The Feds and Agencies have our cash to go do those things.” 

      If you would be so kind as to revert out Nation back to the tax and government size and control in 1800, the sure, I’d agree with your “our government …cannot afford… much longer.” statement.  We just burnt a trillion dollars on a few wars (to what end?), so I can’t really buy the angle that the Nation didn’t have a fraction of a spare trillion.

      As for exploration and settlement by private sector firms, of extremely hostile environments that cost millions to get to and billions to live in, I don’t see large settlements in Antarctica (indigenous population = zero) or the Mariana Trench, or Mount Everest that are somewhat less hostile and less expensive to get to and live than space (albeit ~2000 people have climbed Everest…yeah Keith).

      I would rewrite your last statement to say:  Yes, a private space program has purpose and value, but given the current configuration of the United States, its government and industry, it is essential the government take very specific steps to construct a value-chain that extends from fundamental research, across the well known valley-of-death, to the point where the commercial sector can analytically justify (invest at-risk) private sector activity and business in space.  The Comms/PNT/GPS sector has managed this, at least so far.

      The proper and effective architectures and frameworks must be established in order to ensure that both Government AND the private sector can execute in the portions of the value stream in which they are most competent to ensure the necessary collective results are secured. 

    • ASFalcon13 says:
      0
      0

      It’s interesting that you mention Lewis and Clark.  Their expedition focused not only on scientific study, but also on specifically finding out how the regions they explored could be exploited commercially.  When people headed out West, they went because there were resources available that they thought they could exploit for a net gain in some form or another.  Fur trappers went to trap animal furs that they subsequently sold for profit back East, for example.  Apollo had the science part, but very little in the way of finding out how to exploit the Moon for commercial development.  The same holds true for most of NASA’s scientific missions to date.

      Companies rarely do things out of the goodness of their hearts just to benefit mankind at their own expense; there has to be some way to profit and sustain a business in order to get them involved.  Apart from the ISS – which is a government-funded artificial target with a limited lifespan – have we actually found any profitable and sustainable commercial reasons to put humans into orbit?  If there are reasons, how large and stable are the markets?  What capabilities do humans in space offer that can’t be produced or approximated more affordably through other technologies?  Do the capabilities that are unique to human spaceflight produce enough return to make it worth a company’s time and efforts to invest in them?

      That being said, it amazes me that folks think governments are the only players in spaceflight.  The truth is that there is already a significant commercial presence in space; we already have the private space program that Andrew Gasser speaks of.  Companies like DirecTV, XM Satellite Radio, Globalstar, GeoEye, and many more have been making money off of space for years.  The invisible hand of the free market has done its thing, and it turns out that the viable ways to make money in space aren’t the sexy, Star-Trek-style things we see in sci-fi movies – the applications in space that we’ve found that make money pretty much exclusively involve management of data, either measuring it (remote sensing) or moving it around (communications).  Unfortunately, the current applications of space that have been shown to be profitable don’t require the presence of humans on orbit.

      Ultimately, the mere existance and “wow factor” of space on their own aren’t enough to sustain commercial markets.  Until a way is found to exploit human spaceflight for real commercial gains, it’s unreasonable to expect companies just to step in and magically fill the gap without government subsidization in one form or another.  Unfortunately, I don’t believe we’ve truly found an independently-sustainable case for commercial orbital human spaceflight yet.  As an interesting side note, I recently got a chance to hear SNC VP Mark Sirangelo discuss Dream Chaser.  During a response to a question in the Q&A, he admitted that without NASA as a customer and ISS as a target, it was unlikely that there was a sound business case for the Dream Chaser.

      Real commercial space is already here, and it’s uncrewed.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        Commercial human spaceflight will require a vast reduction in cost. Without such a reduction we will never see more than a handful of government specialists in space.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      I think we already do. We just have to get the old fashion on board!

      Lolol

      How can we get both sides to work together to their strength Mr. Gasser??

      The big magic trick that’s bigger than just Space programs which our very survival may depend on.

  2. John Gardi says:
    0
    0

    Folks:

    Don’t think Lewis and Clarke or even the government help the railroads got in the mid 1800s, we’re not quite there yet. Think about the dawn of the aircraft industry when government inspired commercial competition and eventually offered contracts for delivering cargo (mail) to the winners.

    SpaceX won just such a competition and used those winnings to develop a launch system and capsule at a fraction of the cost and time then previous government development programs anywhere on the planet, including America. Now, SpaceX is already in that second phase, delivering cargo (and mail) to the ISS and, like the aircraft manufacturers of the ’30’s, are free to sell their services to commercial customers.

    tinker

    BTW: ET’s little trick with the ‘Speak & Spell’ inspired me to become a… hacker. I literally hacked a hole in my first computer, a ZX-81, so that a daughter board I’d made would fit in the case. Never looked back.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Tinker,

      The air mail contracts were not the whole story and, I suspect, would not have done the job as well or as quickly, if at all, by themselves.  At the same time that the mail started, the military was using DC-3’s just as fast as they could get them, and using them in all kinds of ways.  The military employed far more planes and carried a lot more weight, so this analogy, like all analogies, is only partly relevant, since today’s military buys only the same old things in quantity, launch vehicles, and therefore offer neither NASA nor the aerospace companies very much work/money for new designs or products.  There is certainly some, but DOD treats space the same way they treat airplanes — just upgrade/update what we already know works.

      Steve

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        The Airmail act was passed in 1925
        http://www.centennialofflig

        The first DC-3 prototype flew on December 17, 1935, over ten years later and long after airmail and even passenger service had been initiated. The military utilized the C-47, a militarized version of the DC-3 incorporating numerous changes, which did not fly until December 23, 1941, 16 years after the passage of the Airmail Act.

        Finally, although there was talk of the contractors investing their own money, the military ultimately paid the majority of development cost for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles, which were essentially “clean sheet” designs, not upgrades. http://www.globalsecurity.o

  3. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Imagine Mr. Spielberg running NASA.

  4. Harold says:
    0
    0

    After working on the shuttle program at KSC for 32 years, I’ve seen so much WASTE on a NASA program.  
    I saw NASA civil servants that did nothing but attend meeting.
    I saw contractor personnel who did nothing during their work week and collect huge salaries.
    I saw contractor personnel that ran their own businesses out at KSC.  
    I saw a contractor quality personnel that spent all his time on second shift selling watches and other items.
    I saw contractor personnel that spend 25 hours a week socializing with other coworkers.
    Nepotism is rampant at KSC.  
    Favoritism is rampant at KSC.
    So many of the contractor management (i.e. United Space Alliance) lied to their employees and may management had affairs with their employees.
    I just went back out there two weeks ago and nothing had changed.

    Going back out there give me some more time to look for employment elsewhere.  But that’s difficult because so may companies discreetly discriminate against anybody over 50 years old.

    SpaceX can do it cheaper!