NationStates Jolt Archive

I've always been of the opinion that the government should take the funding they currently give to NASA and use it to give tax breaks to companies that attempt to make space commercially and industrially viable.

Companies will have much more incentive to make space start paying for itself, and it will allow for faster techonological development. Once the companies actually start turning out a profit, the government can end the tax breaks and buy the better equipment made by the companies to resume space exploration of a more scientific nature.

Granted, this makes abuse of power by large corporations a possible problem, but hey, it's a problem now...so.

I'm just intereseted in what people think of this idea, I haven't even thought through it fully, but I'm sure others can help fill in blank areas, positives and concerns I haven't thought of.

I've always been of the opinion that the government should take the funding they currently give to NASA and use it to give tax breaks to companies that attempt to make space commercially and industrially viable.

Companies will have much more incentive to make space start paying for itself, and it will allow for faster techonological development. Once the companies actually start turning out a profit, the government can end the tax breaks and buy the better equipment made by the companies to resume space exploration of a more scientific nature.

Granted, this makes abuse of power by large corporations a possible problem, but hey, it's a problem now...so.

I'm just intereseted in what people think of this idea, I haven't even thought through it fully, but I'm sure others can help fill in blank areas, positives and concerns I haven't thought of.


I don't think space should be privitized. However, i do see the economic gain and am for some commercialization--such as space tourism and the likes.

But as for space itself, it should remain an open domain. It provides the opportunity for any space agency, be it NASA or the European Space Agency, to conduct research and development. Sure these researches and space projects can be funded by corporations, but i don't think anyone entity can lay claim to space itself.

Do it for progress! :D

Why gut a program that has already been so phenomenally successful? Thanks to NASA, we have better weather tracking, adequate hurricane warnings, gps systems, cellular phones, cable tv, smoke detectors, cordless electrical products, quartz clocks and watches, the joystick and mouse, tv satellite dishes, medical imaging, bar coding, vision screening systems, ear thermometers, fire fighter suits, thermal gloves, invisible braces, advanced plastics. LASIK eye surgery, and the list goes on. We are already reaping the commercial benefits of space.

Lexopolis - There's no reason to say that other space agencies still can't use space. Private companies wouldn't be able to "lay claim" to space or territory like the moon, they are simply free to use it for commercial and industrial uses. NASA basically gets gutted because the funding is used for tax breaks to partially defer the initial R&D costs associated with starting a space program.

Getting into space is prohibitively expensive for private companies, and is probably the main reason none have tried it yet. I envision consortiums of Computer, Aerospace and Insurance companies. (Think Microsoft/Boeing/Prudential or IBM/Lockheed/State Farm) to provide all the necessary components and help spread costs around.

LazyHippies - I'm aware that NASA has given us some great things...I just think the process can be accelerated even further by turning the process over to private corporations that are in it for financial profit.

Well there are som big problems with companies taking over the roll of NASA or science in generally. Two of this problem that are connected is first science for the sake of science can be good, but humanity getting a better understanding of the universe can not always be profitable, therefore companies can have a very low intersing focus there research to who's areas.

My second is that the goverment can have a larger longterm sight then coperation that are more focus on making a quick buck, another reason for that are that coperation fear that other coperation will steal the benefits of the research. Like for example the goverment can be willing to fund the research to find a new particle but how fun is it for coperation to do it if they can't get a patent on the particle? (NO patent on particles is not a good idea) Finally my point one science for science alone can in long term lead to great invention that economically will benefit mankind. But have said this I also recon in todays world coperation can play a part to find ways for the goverment sciences to be usefull in real life and also make it econimical viable to use, so in todays world you need a combination.

LazyHippies - I'm aware that NASA has given us some great things...I just think the process can be accelerated even further by turning the process over to private corporations that are in it for financial profit.

NASA already has a wildly succesful program to transfer useful technology to the private sector. Why would you want to fiddle with something that is already working beyond anyones expectations?

I'm against the privatization of almost everything, so I think that spac should be kept how it is --- Free.

Originally posted by Volvo Villa Vovve

Well there are som big problems with companies taking over the roll of NASA or science in generally. Two of this problem that are connected is first science for the sake of science can be good, but humanity getting a better understanding of the universe can not always be profitable, therefore companies can have a very low intersing focus there research to who's areas.

Very true, but unless they intend to strip-mine the moon, they're going to have to do something along those lines, or space won't be profitable.

There's also nothing to say that NASA can't continue to exist and function. I simply used their funding in my scenario because it allows for tax breaks to companies that actually engage in this extremely risky venture without the need to raise taxes.

You could always make cuts elsewhere, or just raise taxes...

My second is that the goverment can have a larger longterm sight then coperation that are more focus on making a quick buck...

*dies laughing*

So government isn't out for a quick buck, but has long term vision and goals??? That has to be the funniest thing I have ever read.

*points at medicare and social security*

reason for that are that coperation fear that other coperation will steal the benefits of the research. Like for example the goverment can be willing to fund the research to find a new particle but how fun is it for coperation to do it if they can't get a patent on the particle? (NO patent on particles is not a good idea) Finally my point one science for science alone can in long term lead to great invention that economically will benefit mankind. But have said this I also recon in todays world coperation can play a part to find ways for the goverment sciences to be usefull in real life and also make it econimical viable to use, so in todays world you need a combination.

I didn't think about the possibility of industrial espionage...and it is a legitimate concern, but I have trouble picturing technology robbery in mid-orbit until our spaceflight technology advances.

The companies will research the particle, because in space you need to know all you can about your environment, because everything is a hazard to the people and the equipment.

I agree that it should be a combination...I just don't see a lot of companies willing to take the risk unless the government helps out temporarily, and NASA's would be a convinient temporary source of capital to help spur the initial set-up and infastructure costs.

Originally posted by LazyHippies

NASA already has a wildly succesful program to transfer useful technology to the private sector. Why would you want to fiddle with something that is already working beyond anyones expectations?

Please read what I said again...

I'm aware that NASA has given us some great things...I just think the process can be accelerated even further by turning the process over to private corporations that are in it for financial profit.

...I thought it was fairly obvious that the reason I want to "fiddle" with it, is because it's my opinion that it can be made to work better than it already does (which is, as you said, very good)

Originally posted by Potaria

I'm against the privatization of almost everything, so I think that spac should be kept how it is --- Free.

But space isn't free now. The only way to get into space is to either A: Pay Russia to take you up there (not free), or B: Go to school for many years and become an astronaut (also not free). Not taking into account the cost of space vehicles and satilites (neither of which are cheap), and you'll see that there is not one thing in space, either man or man-made, which does not have a dollar value attached to it just for the privilege of being there.

I've always been of the opinion that the government should take the funding they currently give to NASA and use it to give tax breaks to companies that attempt to make space commercially and industrially viable.

Companies will have much more incentive to make space start paying for itself, and it will allow for faster techonological development. Once the companies actually start turning out a profit, the government can end the tax breaks and buy the better equipment made by the companies to resume space exploration of a more scientific nature.

Granted, this makes abuse of power by large corporations a possible problem, but hey, it's a problem now...so.

I'm just intereseted in what people think of this idea, I haven't even thought through it fully, but I'm sure others can help fill in blank areas, positives and concerns I haven't thought of.The problem is making Space Profitable. right now only Millioniares can travel so the Marketing is rather on the slim side.

Companies won't fund it (even with tax break incentives) because there is no short term gains for them.

Originally posted by Nekone

The problem is making Space Profitable. right now only Millioniares can travel so the Marketing is rather on the slim side.

True, but that's only looking at it from a commercial/tourist standpoint. Industrial uses of space have been almost completely overlooked.

Companies won't fund it (even with tax break incentives) because there is no short term gains for them.

I would tend to agree, that's why I think that if it does happen, it'll be groups of companies instead of individual companies.

Take my IBM/Lockheed/Allstate example. IBM supplies the computer components, Lockheed designs and builds the space vehicle, and Allstate underwrites the project. In this way the human resources costs are also spread around.

Privatization would also allow for smaller buisnesses to get a share of the pie early. A large consortium as I described above, can simply offer buisnesses a share of future profits for initial capital investment.

The risks are high, but so is the reward.

True, but that's only looking at it from a commercial/tourist standpoint. Industrial uses of space have been almost completely overlooked.even with looking at teh Industrial Uses of space. The moon (so far) has not produced viable quantities on usuable ore... meteors are chancy things even tho they would be rich in ores and deposts.
I would tend to agree, that's why I think that if it does happen, it'll be groups of companies instead of individual companies.

Take my IBM/Lockheed/Allstate example. IBM supplies the computer components, Lockheed designs and builds the space vehicle, and Allstate underwrites the project. In this way the human resources costs are also spread around.

Privatization would also allow for smaller buisnesses to get a share of the pie early. A large consortium as I described above, can simply offer buisnesses a share of future profits for initial capital investment.

The risks are high, but so is the reward.The rewards are long in coming tho... and should something go wrong, the Lawsuites would bury any and all companies involved.

just being Realistic after all.

I don't believe that this would be effective at the moment, because of the key words "high risk". Payoff might indeed be high, but corporations are very nervy of those words. What I'd propose is that we put more money into the nationalised space programs to come up with more efficient ways of getting larger structures into orbit. After that, then we let the corporations get in on the act.


But as an aside, how the hell do you privatise space? there's nothing there to privatise! :D

No self-respecting businessman would bother with space until it is profitable to do so, and at present, it is not. So far, the only industry which stands much chance of making money is tourism, and I don't see how much benefit that will be to humanity other than allowing normal people to see their homeworld from space for the first time.

I don't think you quite understand how expensive it is just to get into space, much less do anything significant once you're up there. No company short of Microsoft would be able to operate a profitless space program for very long before declaring bankruptcy. And I doubt we want Microsoft to get a foothold in space -- they'd never let us off the planet again with their Evil Tech Support Dreadnoughts, just in case we found an alien operating system that was better than Windows. Which I doubt would be a stretch of the imagination. We'd have to wait for their Evil Tech Support Dreadnoughts to crash before we could go anywhere...

If you want privatisation to take hold in an industry other than just satellites and space tours, you need to give them a cheap and viable way of doing it. And so far, NASA, the ESA etc are the only organisations capable of laying down the metaphorical railway lines. Once they've set up some kind of infrastructure and made available (reasonably) cheap technologies for them to use, companies will be up there.
This isn't the 1600s. Businesses aren't nearly as adventurous as they once were. Too many restrictions. Now, if you abolished such things as minimum wage and other restricting legislation, we might have something to talk about...



I'm against the privatization of almost everything, so I think that spac should be kept how it is --- Free.

Space is anything but free... hell, given enough time privatisation could bring costs down. Have you learned nothing of Britain's endeavour into state-owned industries? It simply doesn't work.

Originally posted by Nekone

even with looking at teh Industrial Uses of space. The moon (so far) has not produced viable quantities on usuable ore... meteors are chancy things even tho they would be rich in ores and deposts.

Very true. Asteroids are definetly mining ventures...but I think the Moon will pan out more as an agricultural enterprise, utilizing underground tunnel farms. The only real roadblock is water supply. Soil and power for lighting are already there.


The rewards are long in coming tho... and should something go wrong, the Lawsuites would bury any and all companies involved.

just being Realistic after all.

Yeah...I suppose an exploded space craft over a population center is not exactly something a company can get rid of by having people sign waivers!

Originally posted by Jordaxia

I don't believe that this would be effective at the moment, because of the key words "high risk". Payoff might indeed be high, but corporations are very nervy of those words. What I'd propose is that we put more money into the nationalised space programs to come up with more efficient ways of getting larger structures into orbit. After that, then we let the corporations get in on the act.

The high risk is indeed the main reason why I don't realistically believe privatization will occur. I don't think, however, that more money for nationalised space programs will help or accelerate the process to any significant degree, and I would like to see someone, anyone else, take a crack at it.

Originally posted by Mykonians

*snip*

It is indeed very expensive to travel into space, which is why if it ever happens, it will likely be groups of companies banding together, instead of individual companies...still too risky for any current company, maybe in 50 years or so.

Evil Tech Support Dereadnaughts pwn!!! :p

Hey, land is privatised, why not space.

Not that I think some corporation should be just allowed to lay claim to the entire universe. There should be a limit on how much space they can claim. For example, how much can they explore feasibly?

Hey, land is privatised, why not space.

Not that I think some corporation should be just allowed to lay claim to the entire universe. There should be a limit on how much space they can claim. For example, how much can they explore feasibly?

Not just that, I imagine that any aliens out there might be less-than-pleased to hear that they have been 'claimed' as a Microsoft 'asset'... :D

Although with those Evil Tech Support Dreadnoughts of theirs, they're sure to be able to enforce it for all of 4.28 seconds before their computers need to be rebooted and reconfigured...