- #1
Posy McPostface
It's said that expectations drive the economy.
So, how do you maintain interest in something that has no immediate bearing/benefit/utility of a population? I would think the answer to that question is to manifest a 'goal', in this case being an interplanetary species or even just building a lunar base as a stepping stone to Mars, is through making it a government imperative.
Yet, we've tried this once before during the space race in the cold war, and after winning the space race to the moon, we sort of just gave up on further missions to the moon. Some would say that the economics of the whole issue was too burdensome to undertake such a mission to establish a lunar base at the time. However, I would contest that through a commitment to the goal of establishing a lunar base on the moon, the economics or cost would sort itself out through reducing costs.
Back to the present day, we have a private company doing just that. They've (SpaceX) reduced costs to such a degree that building a lunar base is no longer a fantasy. So, they've sorted out the economics of the matter.
So, my question is, why did the government fail, where now, a private company will most likely succeed, with the help of the said private company, as I highly doubt SpaceX will succeed without the help from the government (U.S.). I've read that it is highly likely that SpaceX will be some form of private contractor for the government or NASA to establish a lunar base before going to Mars, as Trump seems highly interested in going back to the moon before any other nation and with that establish a permanent lunar base.
Now, to answer my own question, which I leave for you to judge if sound or not, I think that private companies serve as a vehicle or means to achieving a goal. Whereas, the government serves as a directive setting institution. However, for the government to realize said goals or aims, it needs the help of private industries to figure out a way to make said goals achievable through cost reduction. Does that make sense? I mean, in reality, there are some governments that don't rely upon private enterprises to help them achieve a goal; but, they suffer from not being able to realize said goals if there is no means (private industries) to reduce costs. We know what happened to the Soviet Union after all.
My only fear, in this hybrid private/public space race, is that people will lose interest in the goal and the same outcome might prevent or rather slow the amount of progress in this new space race. After all, expectations do drive the economy to a large degree.
Thoughts?
So, how do you maintain interest in something that has no immediate bearing/benefit/utility of a population? I would think the answer to that question is to manifest a 'goal', in this case being an interplanetary species or even just building a lunar base as a stepping stone to Mars, is through making it a government imperative.
Yet, we've tried this once before during the space race in the cold war, and after winning the space race to the moon, we sort of just gave up on further missions to the moon. Some would say that the economics of the whole issue was too burdensome to undertake such a mission to establish a lunar base at the time. However, I would contest that through a commitment to the goal of establishing a lunar base on the moon, the economics or cost would sort itself out through reducing costs.
Back to the present day, we have a private company doing just that. They've (SpaceX) reduced costs to such a degree that building a lunar base is no longer a fantasy. So, they've sorted out the economics of the matter.
So, my question is, why did the government fail, where now, a private company will most likely succeed, with the help of the said private company, as I highly doubt SpaceX will succeed without the help from the government (U.S.). I've read that it is highly likely that SpaceX will be some form of private contractor for the government or NASA to establish a lunar base before going to Mars, as Trump seems highly interested in going back to the moon before any other nation and with that establish a permanent lunar base.
Now, to answer my own question, which I leave for you to judge if sound or not, I think that private companies serve as a vehicle or means to achieving a goal. Whereas, the government serves as a directive setting institution. However, for the government to realize said goals or aims, it needs the help of private industries to figure out a way to make said goals achievable through cost reduction. Does that make sense? I mean, in reality, there are some governments that don't rely upon private enterprises to help them achieve a goal; but, they suffer from not being able to realize said goals if there is no means (private industries) to reduce costs. We know what happened to the Soviet Union after all.
My only fear, in this hybrid private/public space race, is that people will lose interest in the goal and the same outcome might prevent or rather slow the amount of progress in this new space race. After all, expectations do drive the economy to a large degree.
Thoughts?