Space Exploration: Best in the hands of NASA, Not Private Companies
Introduction
For the last few decades leading to the new millennium, space exploration was predominantly a race between Russia and the United States. The two countries were the leading contenders in human space flight. However, as we approached the 21st Century, other nation-states entered the space exploration arena. Such include China, which in 2003 became just the third country to put a person in orbit. Nevertheless, since that time, the sector has undergone tremendous changes. Rather than a race between powerful countries, space exploration is now a competition between private companies and their government counterparts (Zheleznyakov and Korablev).
In this new race, termed “space race 2.0,” billionaire owned companies such as Virgin Galactic, SpaceX, and Blue Origin are quickly setting the pace. Driven by the passion of their respective chief executives, the primary objective of these companies is to reduce the cost of traveling to space. However, even with this objective, some critics argue that commercial space travel is an overly optimistic picture. According to them, a majority of these space flight companies are over-selling what they are likely to under-deliver (Holmes). This paper will argue why government-funded agencies such as NASA should be at the forefront of space exploration and not the private sector whose primary goal is to make a profit.
Thesis
Ultimately, the core objective of space exploration is to enhance the progress of science. This goal is made possible by the government whose role in the field is to do things that the profit market cannot otherwise support, but are beneficial to the general populace. When the government, through its space agency, sends a spacecraft to collect information about a particular planet or phenomenon, we the citizens comprehend that science is crucial to our existence. We understand that studying the universe is essential to our community. We simply understand the invaluable aspect of knowledge and how the acquired information can be useful, though sometimes at a later stage. However, such an exploration exercise is not practical for private companies only because it does not provide value for money (Frost). In other words, there is no way, at least not in the near term, a private company can make a return for their investment after undertaking such an exercise. Take the example of the Hubble Space telescope and imagine if it was privately owned. For the company to make a profit from the project, they would have to sell data gathered from it and also charge researchers to use it. Such an action would be a blockade to the growth of science as a discipline (Frost).
One of the most conspicuous factors associated with space exploration is high project costs. Costs overrun are standard with most government contracts. NASA is not an exception, as demonstrated in the case of the James Webb telescope that fell behind schedule and also went beyond the budgeted cost. Given that estimating the cost of such megaprojects is next to impossible, odds are stacked against private companies. The Webb telescope case is sufficient evidence of why space exploration should not be opened to the private sector. Had this been a private company’s project, chances are funding would have pulled a long time ago, and the project brought to a halt. However, since it is a government-sponsored project, NASA continues to pursue it not because of investment returns, but because they are aware of its significance. They hope that one day the telescope will help unlock the mysteries of the universe and also assist in detecting extraterrestrial life forms. Such goals are not in alignment with quarterly profits or other monetary values that form the basis for private company funding. This certitude further works to discredit the private sector in their pursuit of a role in space exploration.
In yet another detriment to private space exploration, experts warn that increased private activities will also exacerbate the issue of space junk, perhaps in the same magnitude as private commercial use of the sea has polluted international oceanic space. In a matter of time, accidents like the 10th Feb 2009, collision that occurred between Iridium 33 and Cosmos 2251 over Siberia will be a common phenomenon (Klinkrad). The catastrophic end of the two satellites underlined the growing problem of space debris. According to National Geographic, there are more than 23,000 human-made debris bigger than four inches orbiting the earth. But this is not all. This figure represents only those than are big enough to be tracked. In addition to this number, there are an estimated 500,000 pieces of debris between 0.4 and 4 inches (Wei-Haas). The majority of these junk is contained at the “Low Earth Orbit,” which is home to a multitude of satellites and, most importantly, the “International Space Station.” Even the tiniest of these floating debris can cause problems to spacecraft and other objects orbiting the earth because of their high traveling speed. The advent of private space exploration will contribute immensely to the pile-up of this debris hence increased risks of space accidents.
Also, regarding the issue of space waste, scientists estimate that close to 150tonnes of human-made space junk fall back to earth every year. While most of them burn up, some manage to reach the ground damaging private property or causing injuries to humans and animals. Private space exploration will substantially increase the number of craft traveling to space. Consequently, there will be an increase in space debris reentering earth, thus placing property and human life back on earth in jeopardy.
Lastly, launching rockets and payloads is filled with danger, and chances of backfiring are always high. Launch accidents affect a variety of nations differently. However, costs affiliated to the space station are often exaggerated and bears severe economic consequences to a struggling country. Progressively, developing countries heavily depend on private companies to launch their satellites and other space objects. Therefore, if the private company incorrectly launches an object and ends up causing damages in space, the impoverished country is left to foot the bill. Even in the specific cases where the launch process fails because of a misfortune or an innocent mistake, such companies (mostly western) end up not paying for the damages as they have impervious contractual clauses that protect them from liability.
The private sector can revitalize space exploration and contribute substantially to the race to the final frontier. Proponents claim that the entrance of the private companies will lead to a paradigm shift in space exploration, offering numerous opportunities to understand and relate with the universe. However, evidence shows that such a move will have negative consequences, not only to the field of science and to the accumulation of space junk, but also on small economies that do not have launching capabilities. For these reasons, I believe space exploration should only be an undertaking of government-funded agencies; hence the private sector should stay away from it.