3 ms·

It’s not really a space industry, it’s a Low Earth Orbit Industry. It’s technically space, but only on the loosest sense. It’s good that we’re finally driving d

It’s not really a space industry, it’s a Low Earth Orbit Industry. It’s technically space, but only on the loosest sense. It’s good that we’re finally driving down the price of lifting cargo to LEO, but sad that we’ve almost given up on anything beyond that. The total world R&D budget for everything beyond LEO would impoverish a single pharmaceutical company’s marketimg budget, so we’re probably far from deserving backslapping and high fives. Most of all, we’re far from colonies anywhere other than Earth, and barring a massive change of priorities as reflected in funding, that’s the future. Nothing about our ability to launch satellites a few hundred miles up translates to living on the Moon, or Mars.

spyckie2 8y ago
I'd argue that space research is a large enough expenditure that it can only be supported (as in systematically support, not a billionaire gifting their life savings) by the market. There's nothing sad about it, money has to come from somewhere. If you're talking between NGOs, government, or the market, which one has the most well funded and successful ventures , the market wins every time. It scales better than top down funding and provides longevity and sustained results. LEO is a great stepping stone and maturity there is a prerequisite IMO for further space exploration. The goal is not just landing on Mars - the goal is building up a space ecosystem, and this seems to be the right start.
- DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
  You can argue that, but of course the only non-LEO missions have all been government projects. It’s not as though Apollo missions were private endeavors after all. All of the US and European missions beyond LEO aren’t the function of the market. It’s also hard to see how the market would support long range probes and so much else that doesn’t offer a short term monetary reward. Still, maybe you’re right, and reality is just waiting to catch up to your bold capitalist vision of market forces solving everything.

spyckie2 8y ago

I'd argue that space research is a large enough expenditure that it can only be supported (as in systematically support, not a billionaire gifting their life savings) by the market. There's nothing sad about it, money has to come from somewhere. If you're talking between NGOs, government, or the market, which one has the most well funded and successful ventures , the market wins every time. It scales better than top down funding and provides longevity and sustained results. LEO is a great stepping stone and maturity there is a prerequisite IMO for further space exploration. The goal is not just landing on Mars - the goal is building up a space ecosystem, and this seems to be the right start.

DmenshunlAnlsis 8y ago
You can argue that, but of course the only non-LEO missions have all been government projects. It’s not as though Apollo missions were private endeavors after all. All of the US and European missions beyond LEO aren’t the function of the market. It’s also hard to see how the market would support long range probes and so much else that doesn’t offer a short term monetary reward. Still, maybe you’re right, and reality is just waiting to catch up to your bold capitalist vision of market forces solving everything.