Tuesday, May 29, 2012

SpaceX, a somewhat critical look


www.csmonitor.com
by Massimo Pigliucci

I’ve been a bit baffled recently by the enthusiasm that so many friends and colleagues have been displaying for SpaceX and the whole idea of commercial space “exploration.” Here is a typical comment, by my friend and skeptic colleague Phil Plaitt: “Woohoo!” (actual quote from his G+ stream...). All right, Phil did have several more articulate things to say about this, largely agreeing with his friend Fraser Cain, who commented: “I've got to admit I was more excited to see it blast off than almost any other recent mission. When the Falcon 9/Dragon got off the ground, I really felt that everything had changed: space exploration is now in the hands of people with both the willingness and resources to push outward into space.”

I don’t get it. I don’t doubt that what SpaceX is doing, and what surely other commercial companies will soon follow suit in doing, is important, and yes, even historical. But I seriously doubt that it has much to do with space “exploration.” More likely, space exploitation. Don’t get me wrong: space is, to some extent, a resource for humankind, and it is perfectly reasonable for us to exploit it. And history has certainly shown that the best way to accomplish that sort of task is to hand it to the private sector (of course, that’s not at all without potentially extremely serious drawbacks in and of itself, but that’s another story). What history has also clearly shown is that basic science and exploration are best done by scientists who work without the constraints of financial interests, and these days this means government funding (in Galileo’s time it was the government too, but in the form of some rich nobel family running the city).

When Cain optimistically says that SpaceX is an organization with “both the willingness and resources to push outward into space” I really wonder on what he bases his judgment. Why should a private enterprise push the human frontier into outer space? It’s uncharted and dangerous territory, and that’s not what private companies are in the business of doing: the risk is high, the likely short-term gain low. Take the example of medical research here on earth. Yes, we can all point toward the occasional new breakthrough drug developed by a pharmaceutical company. But most of the basic research necessary for those applications is actually done with NSF and NIH funded grants, usually in government labs or universities. Which, again, actually represents an obvious and logical division of labor between private and public, or between the applied and academic worlds (yes, I know, no such distinction is really sharp and without nuance, but there still is a distinction).

I think the current enthusiasm over SpaceX and what will follow ought to be at the least tempered by a sober pondering of a sad fact: NASA is no longer in the business of doing much of relevance in space. Don’t take my word for it, consider instead what former astronaut Story Musgrave recently said: “COTS [the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services which made SpaceX’s Dragon mission possible] is a default program which spun out of failure ... What is the space vision today? Where is the visionary? We’re not going anywhere... There is no where, there is no what, and there is no when. ... There is no Mars program, none. There is also no Moon program. There is no asteroid program.” Not exactly an enthusiastic endorsement of where we are arguably un-boldly not going, is it?

Please understand, this isn’t a condemnation of capitalism or of private enterprise. Nor is it a naive endorsement of the marvels of government programs (I’m aware, for instance, that the “discovery” of the Americas was a government-financed exploitative enterprise, though that was a few centuries ago, and the government in question was an absolute monarchy). It is a simple worry that basic research done in the public interest is highly unlikely to be carried out by companies whose main (only?) concern is the bottom line. I do not doubt that the people working for SpaceX are genuinely interested in what they do, and maybe some of them even really think that it has to do with space exploration. If so, I wish them good luck. But when I saw the images of the various Space Shuttles being flown all over the country to be turned into permanent museum pieces I couldn’t help feeling sad about a pioneering age coming to a premature end. (Indeed, one could argue that the Shuttle itself was already not at all about exploration, but reflective of an inward-looking turn at NASA, more and more concentrated on what can be done in orbit around Earth than on going after the big prizes out there.)

I also think it interesting that I could find very little in the way of critical commentary even among my fellow skeptics (maybe I didn’t look hard enough: anyone out there have relevant links?). Seems like we ought to have a discussion about these issues, perhaps even start a grassroots push nudging Congress to re-finance and re-conceive NASA to work in parallel with SpaceX and other private enterprises — not in the subordinate fashion that is unfolding under our very eyes, but following the model of the relationship between academic and private research’s division of labor. My friend Neil deGrasse Tyson has recently argued that we need new bold space exploration initiatives so that the next generation can dream big. I can quibble with his optimism, and perhaps I will in a future post. But his vision of space exploration is far more enticing than the kind of mining and tourism that is likely to develop during the next few years.

28 comments:

  1. Very thoughtful Massimo. It’s hard to dream big when so many Americans are ambivalently watching the government cut education budgets and listening to congressmen talk about cutting taxes on the richest Americans who have benefited so greatly from making a living in the American economy and who clearly do not give back a fare share of their earnings. People are afraid to oppose these things because it all seems so complicated to them. Science should be funded by the government and focused at a general policy level on supporting research that can advance our knowledge and provide benefits for our citizens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: "... the richest Americans who have benefited so greatly from making a living in the American economy and who clearly do not give back a fare share of their earnings."

      Two things. First, what a nonsensical string of words. As if the American economy were something other than the sum total of individuals who exchange privately held goods & services for an expected profit, and thus individuals (or groups of individuals) who make sizable profits no more benefit from this process than anyone else.

      Second, the 'fare share' nonsense reminds me of a little poem I once heard: "What is a socialist? One who has equal yearnings for unequal earnings." I think this nicely applies here.

      Delete
    2. Just to be clear, Patrick, your sin is in defining the 'American economy' as some sort of entity in and of itself. I suspect you do likewise for 'society' as well.

      Delete
  2. I agree that this deserves a bit more scrutiny, although to SpaceX's credit, they have been downplaying the revolutionary nature of their launch (which of course is supported financially and operationally by NASA).

    But I have to disagree on other points. Mars? Asteroids? Whose dreams are these? They are the dreams of generations past, not generations to come. The generations to come want to solve the problems of hunger, poverty, and global warming. The pioneering spirit that took us to space is mostly dead, and for good reason. Manned space flight has not provided the useful knowledge that it promised. Sure, we have memory foam, scratch resistant lenses, and better ceramics than before, but these trickle down technologies are hardly the kind of science we expected from a 1.6 billion dollar a year program. Those zero-G medical experiments never really paid dividends.

    I do not mean to downplay knowledge for the sake of knowledge. I still think astrophysical research has a place in government funded research programs. We should be exploring our universe, but with unmanned probes and satellites rather than with manned space missions. In order to do that, we need a cheap and effective delivery system, and this is exactly what SpaceX and its competitors are set to offer.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pawelotti,

    well, I was sure to disappoint someone with this post! However, nothing you said actually challenged the substance of my post, I'm afraid. To begin with, NASA's lack of vision can be attributed to Congress' myopic treatment of NASA, particularly in terms of funding. It's not that NASA scientists and engineers don't know what to do with money, it's that they aren't given much.

    Second, I haven't questioned either the spectacular achievement or the boldness of SpaceX, I am questioned why people keep talking about space exploration instead of commercialization.

    Third, Musk can mention Mars all he wants (you know, so did Bush...), but - contra your assumption - I perused SpaceX's web site thoroughly and I didn't see anything other than what I expected: talk of "customers," high volume commercial activity, and low orbit engagement. Which is fine for a private company, but has nothing whatsoever to do with space exploration and basic research. Hence my justified skepticism.

    Kantian Flavor,

    I actually agree with you. That was hinted at in my post when I said that I could come up with arguments for why deGrasse Tyson's call for bold new programs of manned space exploration is actually questionable. But, of course, that's a different type of criticism from the one I am addressing here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you read up on Elon Musk or seen any interviews? I think that would help inform you, rather than relying what the website currently states.

      You juxtapose commercialization with exploration, wherein the latter is all about the science. Well, the market I mention contributes to this in a spectacular way. The coming decades such trips can be tens of millions cheaper, which means much more bang for buck: for science too.

      So you seemed to have missed Elon Musk's ambition as well as the invaluable indirect benefits of opening up this market. And as I said in my previous post: not to mention morale.

      Even the mere fact that Musk succeeded gives the next entrepreneur who does want to focus on "exploration" the way you deem fit, major advantages.

      I am not sure what you expect of Musk: the point here is that he did the only conceivable thing considering the capital intensive endeavors like this - it's a first step and a major one.

      Delete
  4. 'When Cain optimistically says that SpaceX is an organization with “both the willingness and resources to push outward into space” I really wonder on what he bases his judgment. Why should a private enterprise push the human frontier into outer space?"

    Apparently, you have not heard Elon Musk explain his motivations for creating SpaceX. He has said on numerous occasions that one of his primary objectives for SpaceX was to enable humans to go to Mars, and to make humanity a multi-planet species.

    There are probably dozens of enterprises he could have poured his time, energy, and resources into that would have turned a quicker and more robust profit than starting a rocket company from scratch. Yes, he is an entrepreneur, and yes, he is a savvy businessman, but first and foremost he truly believes that he can and should turn around the dismal decline in space launch capability that has been in progress since the Apollo program wound down. He's doing this because he feels that it is important, and it needs to be done.

    So, Fraiser Cain has it exactly right. Elon Musk does possess both the willingness and the resources to build rockets and spacecraft which will enable humans to resume more ambitious activities in space. You may be skeptical of whether or not you think he can pull it off, but I think he has sufficiently demonstrated that his motivation and vision for SpaceX go well beyond the business-as-usual approach that has been the norm for so long now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eric,

      > Apparently, you have not heard Elon Musk explain his motivations for creating SpaceX. He has said on numerous occasions that one of his primary objectives for SpaceX was to enable humans to go to Mars, and to make humanity a multi-planet species. <

      Apparently, you have not read my comment above. Yes, he said that. But, interestingly, that's nowhere to be found on SpaceX's web site. Presumably because "we have to go to Mars" is not a business plan, and wouldn't make any money to any possible investors in SpaceX. Hence my skepticism.

      Delete
    2. This is why I called your post "naive". OF COURSE "going to mars" wouldn't have been a business plan and yes even having that on the website when trying to do what they succeeded in now, would have been more than just crazy. Why? Because everyone considered this already to be plenty crazy.

      Hence, your skepticism is really premature and odd in light of the facts. Elon Musk is quite obviously set out to do what Eric here correctly mentions and I would not be skeptical due to facts that are inevitable: Elon Musk could practically not kickstart this thing differently.

      Delete
  5. Elon Musk's personal vision notwithstanding, he wouldn't attract many investors if he didn't have a business plan that includes a low level of risk and near-certain profits. Therefore, either he has such a plan or he intends to play roulette with his own fortune.

    For the moment, profitable space exploration by the private sector involves having a government acting as a wet nurse. This, I would guess, is the low risk portion of Musk's business plan.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Massimo,

    You have provided a very interesting injection of skepticism into the current, perhaps understandable, enthusiastic response to the SpaceX launch. You are not entirely alone in your skepticism, indeed, your friend Neil deGrasse Tyson expressed almost exactly the same view in this excerpt :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQd7zqyd_EM

    Pam

    ReplyDelete
  7. Massimo-

    I have thought about this situation for quite some time, and I disagree with your conclusions here.

    Your lamenting over the Shuttle's retirement is, I think, misplaced. For one, it couldn't go beyond low-Earth orbit (which is what Neil is actually unhappy about). It was not a great vehicle for exploration; moreover, the next generation of heavy lift launchers planned by SpaceX will be able to carry more payload to orbit and beyond than the Shuttle could.

    But the basic disagreement I have is over how I perceive you're thinking about NASA's relationship with its rockets. NASA hires contractors to build them, although there's a lot of NASA input, of course. So SpaceX launching new rockets doesn't *hurt* NASA's plans at all; it can only add to them. NASA can still plan, build, and execute all the science and/or exploration missions it does now, and with SpaceX has more flexibility on how to launch them. So in this very basic way, science and exploration actually benefit - it doesn't matter if SpaceX only wants to make money.

    Moreover, there's an indirect benefit to science due to SpaceX: lowered launch costs. If NASA spends $2000/kilo to launch with SpaceX (say), that's a huge savings over the current $20,000/kilo. That's money NASA can spend elsewhere (assuming their budget doesn't simply get cut to match new funds).

    Another: as I mentioned above, SpaceX is building a heavy lift vehicle which will have twice the payload mass capability of any rocket existing. That means bigger equipment can be launched, or lighter equipment at higher speeds. Science benefits: more supplies for longer crewed missions, or building a bigger lab to go to Mars, or getting a probe to the outer planets faster.

    Also note that in many cases exploitation and exploration go hand in hand. Planetary Resources is a company that wants to mine asteroids. We have to understand them first, so there will be observations, characterization, mapping, and more going on in that process. Again, science benefits.

    And one more bonus: if launch costs drop, that means more and more people can experience space travel themselves. I only see this as a strong plus for humanity. For now only the super-rich can do this, but that will change, as it did for every kind of travel. It may never be as cheap as air or train travel, but it will be open to a great many people.

    *That* is why we are so happy about this Falcon 9 launch and Dragon docking. It frees up NASA to do more, for less money. If Congress and the White House don't screw this up, in even the short to medium term this can mean we'll see more science, not less.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hey Massimo, my perspective is that government needs to provide the basic research that helps to decrease the risks and unknowns in space exploration. They need to help figure out if ion propulsion is a viable technology, or if humans can actually survive in space without going crazy.

    Beyond that, it needs to encourage private enterprise to take over whenever enough of the risks have been hammered out.

    In the past, NASA and government agencies hampered the attempts of private companies to participate in the business of spaceflight - turning the space shuttle into a dangerous cargo vessel for political reasons. But with the launch of Falcon 9/Dragon, it felt like the right balance was struck. NASA worked out the big risks, and then a private company was able to fill in the need for a commodity service - getting payloads to orbit. And as Phil said, now NASA can free up those resources to spend more time on basic research.

    Sometimes a revolution appears as a workable compromise.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Not sure why that didn't register as me... any way... I said that ^

    ReplyDelete
  10. Phil,

    as you know, I have a high respect for your opinions, but in this case I think I have good reasons to disagree. For instance:

    > Your lamenting over the Shuttle's retirement is, I think, misplaced. For one, it couldn't go beyond low-Earth orbit <

    Yes, I know, perhaps I wasn't clear: I was lamenting the termination of the Shuttle program as symbolic on NASA giving up on designing its own vehicles.

    > NASA's relationship with its rockets. NASA hires contractors to build them <

    Yes, but this is a qualitative game changer, otherwise there would be no sense in hailing SpaceX's (real, valuable) accomplishments. NASA is taking a back seat, and I think that's bad.

    > there's an indirect benefit to science due to SpaceX: lowered launch costs. <

    Maybe, this will depend on how much a private contractor will be able to charge the government for use of its vehicles. Judging from how much the Pentagon overspends with all sorts of contractors, you may turn out to be a bit too optimistic.

    > Science benefits: more supplies for longer crewed missions, or building a bigger lab to go to Mars, or getting a probe to the outer planets faster. <

    Again, if "science" is going to be able to afford it. Besides, I never said that *no* benefit will accrue to science from private science exploitation, which applies to your next comment:

    > Planetary Resources is a company that wants to mine asteroids. We have to understand them first <

    True, but there will be all sorts of exploration-related missions that will simply not be cost effective or interesting enough for a private company that has to watch the bottom line. Imagine if we delegated all bio-medical research to the pharmaceutical industry. Would you really expect progress across the board in fundamental cell and molecular biology?

    > that means more and more people can experience space travel themselves. I only see this as a strong plus for humanity <

    Why? First of all, for now and the long-term foreseeable future, space travel isn't "travel" because there is no destination other than space itself. At best we are talking about tourism. And I fail to see how increased space tourism is going to benefit humanity more than putting our money into more urgent problems, like poverty, education, climate change and the like.

    > If Congress and the White House don't screw this up <

    Oh, just watch them. Now they have an even better excuse to cut NASA completely: the magical private sector will do it better, faster, and more cheaply. Or so they say.

    Fraser / Unknown,

    > my perspective is that government needs to provide the basic research that helps to decrease the risks and unknowns in space exploration. <

    Yes, I have no problem with that. I just don't buy that a private company will get much into the business of exploring (or doing basic research), precisely because it's not a business.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Massimo,

      Re: "Yes, I have no problem with that. I just don't buy that a private company will get much into the business of exploring (or doing basic research), precisely because it's not a business."

      AT&T Bell Labs, Intel, IMB, Microsoft, Apple, and many more private companies were either involved in or spearheaded scientific research. Granted much of the research was funded via government monies, but much of it was not.

      The idea is not to replace publicly funded scientific research with the private sector entirely, but rather to recognize that (1) the private sector, on balance, is an extraordinary engine of efficiency and technological advancement and (2) publicly funded research itself relies in great measure on a strong for-profit private sector.

      Delete
    2. And Massimo, you know I respect you. :)

      But the last time NASA designed a rocket - Ares - it was bloated and behind schedule. The time before that was the Shuttle, which was HUGELY bloated and was never able to live up to the promise of cheap, easy spaceflight. My point: when NASA designed rocket systems, they tend to be overdone. There are lots of reasons for that, including that government involvement (read, Congress and the WH) means their thumbs are on the scale.

      Private companies can build these rockets cheaper, safer, and more reliably. NASA doesn't need to designed rockets to do that; and in fact they shouldn't. They should be pushing technology limits and designing new things. Let private companies take what's learned and strip it down to what's necessary.

      I think that this will save NASA tons of money in the long run. I do agree with you that with the perverse thinking Congress does now, they might use this as an excuse to cut NASA, and that's something the informed voter - a rare bird indeed - needs to be aware of. But I see SpaceX as doing A Good Thing.

      Delete
  11. Funny, I just had exactly the opposite reaction: the spaceX launch actually showed me, for the first time, what could be a point in capitalism...

    I mean the mere existence of billionaires baffles the mind (mine at least): while pure equality is obviously non-sense, something is as obviously 'wrong' in a society that reward some individuals billions of time more than others. If nothing else, surely giving that big a share of the common good to individuals is not efficient, as you are reduced to hoping that they actually care about the common good, without being able to do anything about it...

    ...unless there is something like space exploration, that no government in his right mind would really pursue (unless they are in a silly contest of who got the biggest with their best enemy) as it cost an arm and a leg for very little (short term) rewards, and is kinda hard to defend to voters. There, having a single guy making the decisions, deciding what to do with his money, and pursuing his dream can make things happen...

    Either that or my desire to see us going out there is blinding me a tiny bit...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Pawelotti,

    > Have you read up on Elon Musk or seen any interviews? I think that would help inform you, rather than relying what the website currently states. <

    As I said, I have, but I find it revealing that the site - which is the official source of info about the company - doesn't mention anything beyond standard commercial applications.

    > I am not sure what you expect of Musk: the point here is that he did the only conceivable thing considering the capital intensive endeavors like this <

    I'm not expecting anything from him. Indeed, I'm expecting less than you and other enthusiasts seem to expect from him!

    > This is why I called your post "naive". OF COURSE "going to mars" wouldn't have been a business plan and yes even having that on the website when trying to do what they succeeded in now, would have been more than just crazy. <

    You really ought to stop throwing the word "naive" around to label opinions you disagree with. Please stick to the substance.

    Yes, "going to Mars" is a crazy plan for this kind of company, which is why it ain't gonna happen.

    > I would not be skeptical due to facts that are inevitable <

    I don't see anything at all inevitable in any of this. Do you have access to a crystal ball?

    Eamon,

    I'm afraid your libertarian streak has highjacked your logic my friend:

    > AT&T Bell Labs, Intel, IMB, Microsoft, Apple, and many more private companies were either involved in or spearheaded scientific research. <

    All those companies have developed applications, not advanced basic science, and nobody was expecting them to do. The partial exception, of course, was Bell Labs. Which doesn't exist anymore, and for good reasons, from a private capital investment perspective.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If we talking partial exceptions, IBM researchers did win several Nobel prizes in Physics for pretty basic research. (I assume that's who Eamon meant with IMB.)

      Your point still stands, though.

      Delete
    2. Massimo,

      Your basic question is why people are enthusiastic about space exploration as opposed to commercialization. One does not in fact require a crystal ball to know commercialization is a major step towards exploration. It's that simple.

      I explain to you why the site doesn't mention "mars", you keep replying it is "revealing" that it doesn't. I mention that Musk has clearly spoken out his ambition, you tell me that it is I, not you, who expects "much of him": I expect he is not a bald-faced liar at this point And I expect that a with this guy with this kind of perseverance and now track record will certainly go for it: http://dcurt.is/elon-musks-determination Then I mention drastically lowered costs and you ask me if I have a crystal ball. But it's already reality.

      I'm repeating myself, but you ignore the points: if within a decade SpaceX can make deliveries and spaceflight drastically cheaper (which they're already doing(!) with their innovations), directly and indirectly (a market is created), then how good is that going to be for science, you think? A whole lot more bang for buck for everyone.

      These things really do not require a crystal ball. This is a huge development to be enthusiastic about, whether Musk will or will not be involved in a mars mission a decade from now. What do you think other countries will do now that SpaceX has had this kind of success? Especially since it's an U.S. company. This will "pull" on the whole world to do more in space. If you think "exploration" would have to mean very concrete plans at this point to go beyond where we've gone, then I repeat: you're expectation is unrealistic.

      There are always things to be skeptical about, but if after long decades of underwhelming space programs you cannot get excited about a private company moving into space, and you won't acknowledge a minimum of inevitable positive development that has already commenced (such as drastic lower development and launch costs), then I don't know anymore what miracle it is you expect.

      Delete
    3. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/122923-spacex-ceo-claims-he-can-send-you-on-a-round-trip-to-mars-for-500k

      From March this year:

      "Musk says that the “average person” could afford the trip since it will only cost $500,000. I’m not sure which average person he means, but you can bet I am going to be getting a second job for the next ten years to try to make it!"

      Do you just how shockingly cheap that is compared to what NASA would spend? This means NASA can pay the same 500K so to speak(or 5 million for all I care, this is "crumbs" compared to "normal" costs) to do science. NASA would spend billions.

      "Nevertheless, SpaceX seems to be on the right track when it comes to space travel. With NASA’s planned trip to Mars most likely not happening until 2030, and with billions of dollars of one-use parts, it seems that private companies like Musk’s have a much better chance of making the dream of walking on Mars a reality."

      The argument that the absence of this on the website is not revealing for reasons mention previously and approaching it rationally Musk's character has shown to be anything but one of hot air. I rest my case.

      I'll speak to you in a decade. ;)

      Delete
  13. First off I should tell you up front that I am not very knowledgeable about the subject matter so I may make some fundamental mistakes or incorrect assumptions.

    I'm not really sure of what your quibble here is with SpaceX.

    In paragraph two you seem to make a distinction between space exploration and space exploitation. I infer that by exploration you are talking about the pursuit of knowledge for it's own sake and that by exploitation you are talking about the use of space travel to fulfill peoples wants & needs in order to make a profit. It seems to me that these two are not inversely related but actually directly related. In both cases, space travel is the common element. Any improvements in the proficiency & safety of space travel, which would likely come from the financing of space exploitation, can only benefit the endeavor of exploration.

    In paragraph three you questioned Cain's statement about SpaceX having "both the willingness and resources to push outward into space". On what does he base his judgment? Probably on the fact that SpaceX has already demonstrated both. Musk spent $100 million of his own money in SpaceX and the company has produced working boosters and spacecraft.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Pawelotti,

    I fear we may be speaking at cross purposes, but let me try again:

    > Your basic question is why people are enthusiastic about space exploration as opposed to commercialization <

    No, that wasn't my question at all. My question had to do with why so many people seem to confuse the two. Yes, of course they are related, but in the inverse fashion to what you state: basic research propels application, and the latter occasionally feeds back into the former - not the other way around.

    > I expect he is not a bald-faced liar at this point <

    I don't either. I have no quarrel with Musk, and I don't see why you feel the need to so vehemently defend him. I am simply saying that what he is doing is significantly different from what NASA ought to be doing, and that the former is no substitute for the latter.

    > then how good is that going to be for science, you think? <

    A little bit, depending whether "science" will be able to afford to use SpaceX. As my example of military contractors pointed out, it is often not at all cheaper for federal agencies to use private firms.

    > then how good is that going to be for science, you think? <

    Where did you get that? I think SpaceX and Dragon are huge developments, they just have little to do with space exploration and basic science, as far as I can tell.

    > the “average person” could afford the trip since it will only cost $500,000 ... Do you just how shockingly cheap that is compared to what NASA would spend? <

    It still doesn't make it at all something that the "average person" can afford. And at any rate: what is the point? This would be luxury space tourism, not exploration or basic research.

    Gerry,

    > It seems to me that these two are not inversely related but actually directly related. <

    Yes, they are, but - again - not in the way that some commenters seem to think they are. Take again the case of pharmaceutical companies: they can develop their drugs because of a large amount of basic research done at universities with federal money. But they rarely do basic research themselves, because it doesn't pay off in the short term. Mind you, I think this is a perfectly fine model, a good division of intellectual labor. But I wouldn't shut down NSF and NIH or direct their funds to Pfeizer.

    > you questioned Cain's statement about SpaceX having "both the willingness and resources to push outward into space". <

    That's right. Musk has shown, as you say, what he can do. It's just that what he has shown has little to do with exploration and research, and there is no reason to think that that will change (pace Pawelotti's hopes to the contrary).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It still doesn't make it at all something that the "average person" can afford. And at any rate: what is the point? This would be luxury space tourism, not exploration or basic research."

      I have already said this, Massimo: If SpaceX realizes 500K mars travel, you have trouble seeing how NASA and other research institutes can exploit this versus current billions that would need to be spent on a mars mission? Really? You have trouble seeing how dramatically lower space transport and travel costs will benefit science? They will, spectacularly so.

      "A little bit, depending whether "science" will be able to afford to use SpaceX. As my example of military contractors pointed out, it is often not at all cheaper for federal agencies to use private firms."

      SpaceX has ALREADY cut costs drastically by their own in-house development, boasting efficiencies that were not there because there is no real market. This is basic economy, Massimo, and it concerns me you continue to ignore these arguments.

      "
      I don't either. I have no quarrel with Musk, and I don't see why you feel the need to so vehemently defend him. I am simply saying that what he is doing is significantly different from what NASA ought to be doing, and that the former is no substitute for the latter."

      I don't feel the need to defend him, but you post an article in which you come up with all sorts of reasons why you suspect SpaceX does not mean any progress for space exploration and science, AND you doubt Musk when he is quoted on his intent. Your basis for this is only that the website doesn't mention it, but I have argued over and over again, it would not make sense to mention it yet. Mars will on the website within a decade. Since you doubt Musk concretely, rationality compels me to mention he has a rather amazing track record to make things happen virtually the whole world considers crazy.

      Finding it suspicious the website doesn't mention mars or other major exploration is like finding it suspicious Microsoft mentioned their plans for Windows 9, but wondering why there is no mention of Windows 9 on their website before the release of Windows 8. Or Apple mentioning iPhone 6 when 5 is underway. Similarly, SpaceX has just done their first successful cargo mission and they have a big contract with NASA. This whole undertaking of Musk was(and by many still is) considered crazy. So I say again: of course there is no mention of major long-term plans. One thing at a time.

      Not to mention there are all sorts of commercial concerns, such as for now having to focus on transport (for the NASa and similar contracts), rather than to show off that not only is Musk crazy with his SpaceX, he also is ALREADY working on even crazier stuff, like Mars.

      Please tell me you do see some sense in the above?

      Delete
  15. Massimo,

    Private concerns (both those I have named & others) have advanced scientific progress in invaluable ways, despite your appeals to the contrary. If we, as we should, add to this the financial contributions of private entities to universities and research institutions, and not to mention private research institutions themselves (e.g., Rockefeller University, the Carnegie Institution for Science), the contributions to scientific research are tremendous.

    But I do grant that, on balance, the lion's share funds allocated by private companies goes towards more practical scientific research. Though in many ways this advancement of practical research spills over into pure research in direct and indirect ways. (See, for example, the advancement of computer technologies, which has been primarily made via private companies.)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anecdotally, the "R&D" that we do in my profession (software/IT) is aimed at finding the cheapest & most effective way to implement the business requirements that we're handed. Usually, that effort starts with an evaluation of tools & techniques already developed and used by someone else (whether the source be public or private is irrelevant). At most, the effort might entail a minor improvement in those tools & techniques, which we may or may not share with peers outside the (private) company.

    I'm less familiar with the norms of other professions - e.g. those which develop computer hardware, commercial spacecraft, pharmaceuticals, etc. - but I assume that they aren't radically different than mine, assuming the profit motive is involved.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm almost in accordance with you, I think that private exploring of the universe won't take us as fast and as far to the stars than the public exploration would. But, as a non american I sincerely hope that China and maybe Europe (if they manage to overcome the actual economic crisis) will continue the work that US has slowly abandon.
    In the other hand, let me make a clarification: you said "the 'discovery' of the Americas was a government-financed exploitative enterprise" but that's just half true. Although the monarchs of Spain did indeed sponsor the first travels of Colon, the truth is that most of the conquest was made by "private" initiative. Hernán Cortes, Fransisco de Montejo, Fransico Pizarro and other conquerors financed their on expeditions. Of course, they had the word of the king who had promised them to be "gobernadores" and "encomenderos" of the lands and people they conquered. This organization, never the less, caused, in the late 1500's, rivalries between the progeny of the conquerors, who wanted to maintain the control over the lands they fathers had conquered, and the crown, who wanted to establish total control over its lands. This tension led to problems and, in the case of Peru, even to a civil war between the conquerors and their progeny and the crown. Maybe we can extract important lessons from this passage of our history.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.