Maintaining interest in the new 'private' space race

[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?

 

[russ_watters]

So, my question is, why did the government fail, where now, a private company will most likely succeed...

I'm not clear: what, exactly are you saying the government failed at?

 

[Stephen Tashi]

You take it for granted that maintaining public interest in space exploration is a good thing. If we assume that it is then your questions seem to be about matters of marketing - how to "sell" space exploration to the public.

 

[Posy McPostface]

I'm not clear: what, exactly are you saying the government failed at?

Ah, my misunderstanding. The government or NASA succeeded in being the first to the moon. However, it would seem that the next logical step would be to establish a lunar base, yet that did not come about. So, I think the gist of the thread is still pertinent to maintaining interest in a goal of establishing a lunar base.

 

[Posy McPostface]

You take it for granted that maintaining public interest in space exploration is a good thing.

Why wouldn't it be a good thing? Part of my post is in regards to having the role of the government as an entity that sets directives (in this case being a space-faring civilization). What's wrong with that?

If we assume that it is then your questions seem to be about matters of marketing - how to "sell" space exploration to the public.

So, it would seem that Elon Musk did half the work in setting it as a goal (or as you say, sold the idea to the public) to return to the moon or Mars. Wouldn't it seem logical to have the government also state this as an important goal to pursue in tandem with private industries that I talked about and not just rely on one person to do that for whatever reason that compels them to do so?

 

[Stephen Tashi]

Why wouldn't it be a good thing? Part of my post is in regards to having the role of the government as an entity that sets directives (in this case being a space-faring civilization). What's wrong with that?

There's nothing "wrong" with setting a goals to cure cancer, make more realistic Western films, become a space faring civilization, or invent new types of music. As to the priorities of such goals, the critieria for judging their right-ness or wrong-ness is a subjective matter.

 

[Evo]

Ah, my misunderstanding. The government or NASA succeeded in being the first to the moon. However, it would seem that the next logical step would be to establish a lunar base, yet that did not come about. So, I think the gist of the thread is still pertinent to maintaining interest in a goal of establishing a lunar base.

What would we do with a lunar base that would offset the cost of establishing and maintaining one?

 

[russ_watters]

Ah, my misunderstanding. The government or NASA succeeded in being the first to the moon. However, it would seem that the next logical step would be to establish a lunar base, yet that did not come about. So, I think the gist of the thread is still pertinent to maintaining interest in a goal of establishing a lunar base.

I'm not sure that was an answer. Are you saying that NASA failed at "maintaining interest"? I don't see how that's part of NASA's job description: NASA's job is to make the space exploration that Congress orders it to do happen.

 

[Posy McPostface]

What would we do with a lunar base that would offset the cost of establishing and maintaining one?

I don't understand the logic behind this question. Are you suggesting that every investment must have a return on it? I mean, where private entities fail, that's when a government steps into either fund the issue or not.

But, to answer your question, there are countless benefits of having a moon base. Mining of various elements like Helium-3, having a base where it would be easier to send interplanetary missions from, etc.

 

[russ_watters]

Why wouldn't it be a good thing? Part of my post is in regards to having the role of the government as an entity that sets directives (in this case being a space-faring civilization). What's wrong with that?

What's right? "Maintaining interest" is about funding and winning votes for Congressmen. It is only barely related to NASA's mission. So I'm not sure if it is good/right/wrong, but I don't see all that much relevance.

So, it would seem that Elon Musk did half the work in setting it as a goal (or as you say, sold the idea to the public) to return to the moon or Mars.

Half of what work?

Wouldn't it seem logical to have the government also state this as an important goal to pursue in tandem with private industries that I talked about and not just rely on one person to do that for whatever reason that compels them to do so?

I don't think that's a sentence, so it is hard to interpret. Who is relying on Musk for what? The government is relying on Musk for goal setting? Does the government care? Should they? What do you get for "goal setting" that adding $5 to won't get you a cup of coffee for?

 

[Posy McPostface]

Are you saying that NASA failed at "maintaining interest"? I don't see how that's part of NASA's job description: NASA's job is to make the space exploration that Congress orders it to do happen.

No, I'm not saying it was NASA's fault or anything like that. I don't understand what we're arguing over here. I misstated that NASA didn't complete the goal of setting a lunar base when that wasn't the goal in the 60's. That's all.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't understand the logic behind this question. Are you suggesting that every investment must have a return on it? I mean, where private entities fail, that's when a government steps into either fund the issue or not.

SpaceX is a private company so it must turn a profit in order to survive, yes. Government has no such constraint, yes. So they are fundamentally different from each other.

But, to answer your question, there are countless benefits of having a moon base. Mining of various elements like Helium-3, having a base where it would be easier to send interplanetary missions from, etc.

We have no use for Helium-3 and a moon base won't provide much of a benefit as a jumping-off point...and, of course, even if it did, you would then have to justify the interplanetary missions. Do you have any more benefits you can list?

 

[Posy McPostface]

What's right? "Maintaining interest" is about funding and winning votes for Congressmen. It is only barely related to NASA's mission. So I'm not sure if it is good/right/wrong, but I don't see all that much relevance.

Well, part of the problem is that we lost interest in the lunar missions after we landed on the moon. Perhaps there's no way to increase interest in going back to the moon, that could be directly done by the government.

Half of what work?

Of inspiring people to want to explore space. Are we speaking two different languages here?

I don't think that's a sentence, so it is hard to interpret. Who is relying on Musk for what? The government is relying on Musk for goal setting? Does the government care? Should they? What do you get for "goal setting" that adding $5 to won't get you a cup of coffee for?

In case you didn't read the OP, I stated that the government could utilize the technology developed by Elon Musk to go to the moon.

 

[russ_watters]

No, I'm not saying it was NASA's fault or anything like that. I don't understand what we're arguing over here.

This is your thread, so it is up to you to give it a point. I'm trying to figure out what that point is...

I misstated that NASA didn't complete the goal of setting a lunar base when that wasn't the goal in the 60's. That's all.

...ok...so you're saying that NASA didn't fail at anything (related to this thread)? So where does that leave us? What is the point of this thread? Again, here's your thesis from the OP:

So, my question is, why did the government fail, where now, a private company will most likely succeed...

So I repeat: fail/succeed at what? What is it you want to discuss?

 

[Posy McPostface]

...ok...so you're saying that NASA didn't fail at anything (related to this thread)? So where does that leave us? What is the point of this thread?

Here's the gist of the thread:

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.

 

[russ_watters]

Of inspiring people to want to explore space. Are we speaking two different languages here?

It really feels like it, yes. So, you're saying NASA has the job of "inspiring people to want to explore space" and SpaceX has done half of it? I don't have a clue what that means.

In case you didn't read the OP, I stated that the government could utilize the technology developed by Elon Musk to go to the moon.

I did read the OP. It made very little sense. But assuming this statement is true, what does it have to do with anything?

 

[russ_watters]

Here's the gist of the thread:

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.

There's no such thing as a "hybrid private/public space race" (heck, there's no current space race at all!). You're implying NASA is racing against SpaceX. They aren't. And again: what goal?

 

[Posy McPostface]

There's no such thing as a "hybrid private/public space race" (heck, there's no current space race at all!). You're implying NASA is racing against SpaceX.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I had meant to say that NASA could use SpaceX as a private contractor to enable setting up a moon base. I believe we already do this to a large degree with sending stuff to the ISS.

And again: what goal?

The goal, I would hope, is to have enough interest in setting up a moon colony or living on Mars. Again, this will most likely be done by a partnership or joint venture between NASA and SpaceX or SpaceX could do it alone with enough resources from private entities interested in such a thing. I don't think that is too farfetched.

 

[Evo]

The goal, I would hope, is to have enough interest in setting up a moon colony or living on Mars. Again, this will most likely be done by a partnership or joint venture between NASA and SpaceX or SpaceX could do it alone with enough resources from private entities interested in such a thing. I don't think that is too farfetched.

And again I ask, what would be the benefits that would offset the costs? Do you even know what would be required to make such a thing feasible? Don't just throw random questions out if you haven't done any research.

 

[Posy McPostface]

And again I ask, what would be the benefits that would offset the costs? Do you even know what would be required to make such a thing feasible?

Well, we did it on July 20, 1969. Why can't we do it again, with the intention of staying there permanently?

This is somewhat strange this to try and justify. It would seem intuitively obvious that having a space-faring civilization is something that makes sense or feels like the right thing to do. Maybe this boils down to human psychology, that is, the desire to want to have people living on the moon; but, then what's wrong with that?

I mean, why fund missions to Europa, Venus, or other planets if we won't see them within our foreseeable lifetimes?

I think, there is more to it than material gain, to want to go back to the moon and permanently live there.

 

[Evo]

Well, we did it on July 20, 1969. Why can't we do it again, with the intention of staying there permanently?

Why would we do that? We had a reason back then, to beat the Russians politically.

And again, you didn't answer my question. Please answer my question.

 

[Posy McPostface]

Why would we do that? We had a reason back then, to beat the Russians politically.

Well, you seem to have answered your own question, as to why would we want to go back again(?). To prove to the world that we are capable of more than starting wars and restore our eminence in the theater of world history. These would seem to be things that strongly align with matters of national interest, no?

 

[Evo]

Well, you seem to have answered your own question, as to why would we want to go back again(?). To prove to the world that we are capable of more than starting wars and restore our eminence in the theater of world history. These would seem to be things that strongly align with matters of national interest, no?

No, I asked you repeatedly

What would we do with a lunar base that would offset the cost of establishing and maintaining one?

and you have repeatedly avoided answering. Thread closed.