Intellects Vast and Cool and Unsympathetic

New at Reason: Ye-e-ss, Dum-Dums? Ron Bailey says Let the Invisible Hand reach out to the Red Planet.

Comments

[Kevin Carson]

I much prefer the Massachusettes Bay model myself, so long as the exploration/development company's charter doesn't include any grant of special privileges or a monopoly on access to resources, etc.

But there are several hints in Ron's article that he doesn't have much of a problem with government financing of R&D. And I couldn't help noticing he managed to slip in biotech as a deserving candidate.

If the profits from biotech in a free market (that means no patents) were enough to pay for the costs of developing it, there wouldn't be any NEED for government R&D financing. So apparently the government is a better judge of what to do with that money than the taxpayer is.

[Jesse Walker]

Tim: Glad my M?li?s piece was able to inspire a M?li?s graphic...

[John Hood]

I am generally in favor of the free-market version of space exploration. But I do dissent in part about the moonbase/Mars gambit -- I don't have a problem with the federal government participating financially in such endeavors because of the potential for military applications.

To be more specific, the market can and would supply amply funding for useful R&D and even a larger share of basic science in the absence of government funding. But when you look at the aerospace sector in particular, one reason for so much goverment money is that the government is (properly or improperly) a major customer for whatever useful products result. In that sense, the situation resembles pharma companies that help underwrite medical research or agribusiness helped to undewrite basic research activities in botony, agronomics, etc.

Assuming that the federal government retains its constitutional role in providing for the common defense ? and please, let's not turn this into another Iraq-shlock debate ? it is reasonable not only to recruit, arm, and train the nation's armed forces but also to invest some dollars in developing new weapons systems and platforms, including satellite technology, launch vehicles, reusable spacecraft, and other more futuristic things (which may seem loony today but could prove viable and useful in the, well, future).

I don't think the potential military spinoffs of a moonbase project are dominant, but there are some. So some federal taxpayer dollars would be appropriate, I think.

Should be mostly a private-sector initiative, though, based on the potential for mining, energy production, tourism, etc.

[Jason Ligon]

I need some help with the header. Anyone?

[SM]

Jason,

It's from somewhere in the "War of the Worlds".

And i wonder what Bailey's favorite space opera is. Personal favorite - the original "Foundation" series.

[Kevin Carson]

John Hood,

The problem, at least since 1938 or so, is that the government is the main market for entire sectors of the economy. Automated control systems, commercial aviation, and miniaturized electronics are virtual creations of the federal government. The government was the source of about 80% of electronic R&D through the '60s, and virtually the only market for computer mainframes. It's not so much that the government spends "some" money, but that it has recreated the commanding heights of the economy in its own image.

[Rick Barton]

John:
"I don't have a problem with the federal government participating financially in such endeavors because of the potential for military applications."

It seems that it would be both more pragmatic and principled to wait until some actual military applications are planned before using tax dollars. Especially, given the way government funds distort results away from those desired by consumers.

"I don't think the potential military spinoffs of a moonbase project are dominant, but there are some."

From whom might we need to defend ourselves against, that our security would be enhanced by these spin-offs? What are these spin-offs?

"please, let's not turn this into another Iraq-shlock debate"

Trust me; I for one wouldn't even want to turn this into a considered Iraq debate.

[John Hood]

Kevin:

The question is whether a given level of government funding in defense-related science and R&D is sufficient and adviseable to accomplish legitimate federal defense goals, not the extent to which private actors may also want to enter the field. So I'm not, at first at least, upset by any particular percentage of government funding in any particular field, given that there just may not be enough perceived commercial application to justify the private side at any one point in time.

Rick:

The military applications are both in the short-run and in the long-run. In the former category would be the devices and launch vehicles necessary to travel to and settle the moon. In the latter would be the development of technologies, in the course of doing the moonbase project, that could turn out to have military applications. Even in a Fortress America kind of security posture, it surely would be useful to think about better and cheaper ways to launch satellites, possible space-based platforms for BMDs, possible reusable "space planes," and possible ASAT technologies.

Over time, and I trust you won't greet this simply with giggles, it will be necessary to consider how private-sector human activities in space would be protected from predation. I don't mind if this is very much in the long-term category, with relatively small federal expenditures, and absolutely we should pay for it in part by phasing out the current shuttle program (as Bush, I think, is proposing).

Basically, though, I think that any sensible settlement of the Moon and Mars will happen for profit-seeking reasons. The other shouldn't become the tail wagging the dog.

[Rick Barton]

I am one of those who love space exploration, especially when it impinges on some of the big cosmological questions as it does with the Hubble Space Telescope. But; it is clearly not ethical for it to be financed by the government. I cannot justify forcing others to pay for the entertainment of my intellectual curiosity. It isn't any more fair to those who don't share my interest to force them to subsidize it then it is to force taxpayers to subsidize the building of new stadiums for NFL franchise owners.

The most expensive tools of astronomical exploration used to be the huge telescopes and they were largely funded with non-government money. Many people love space exploration and it seems that their numbers and enthusiasm would afford many commercial and charity avenues for the financing of space exploration. There are currently private satellite launch companies in operation as well as hundreds of organizations for astronomy/space enthusiasts.

If space exploration were privatized there would be a motivation for those doing it to both educate the lay community about it as well as to cater to their scientific interests in order to generate donor support. This dynamic would tend to more actively involve the general public in the enterprise then they are with the taxpayer funded space program.

The political power wielded by those who receive tax dollars for the government space program could well prove a formidable obstacle to eliminating it. Perhaps a way to over come this obstacle and transition into private space exploration would be to give tax credits or tax deductions to those make donations to non-government space exploration during the transition period.

[K. Walsh]

For the foreseeable future, I can think of only three reasons for setting up any kind of permanent colony on the Moon, none of them having much appeal to the free market: To perform astronomical observations that are difficult or impossible from Earth or in Earth orbit, to perform geologic studies of the Moon, and to hold the military 'high ground'. This 'high ground' concept was much talked about following the Soviet Sputnik launch, but eventually people began to realize that this position would be difficult to attain and to maintain.

Since there are now indications that the Chinese are serious about getting into space and establishing a presence on the Moon, I think some military planners are once again concerned. The Moon doesn't seem so far away anymore, and the difficulties of setting up and maintaining a base on the Moon are better understood. I'm guessing the military would prefer to already have a base established there when the Chinese show up, and would not want to be caught grounded on Earth if somebody decides to start tossing rocks at us, ala Heinlein's "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress".

If the Space Command sets up a base on the Moon, the Astronomy and Geology communities could tag along. A set of astronomical and geological observatories spread across the lunar surface would allow continuous observations across the gravitic and electromagnetic spectra, free from the barrier of the Earth's atmosphere and away from the din of TV, radio and cell phone signals. These observatories could be automatic and remotely controlled, but periodically serviced by a maintenance and repair crew.
Perhaps sometime later the Moonbase could accommodate wealthy individuals looking for a really exotic vacation, and then perhaps the private sector would get involved.