Proper Relation between Government and Space

My previous post was discussing Burt Rutan and private space industry. This post is a follow-up. It will answer the following questions: Why is Burt Rutan's achievement worth mentioning if NASA has achieved more than him? Should government be involved in Space development at all?

Burt Rutan achievement is very important because his achievement is a private one. NASA has landed on the Moon, and does make a few space flights every year (this number has remained the same for couple of decades, though, which is pathetic), but NASA is a publicly funded organization. Its budget are billions. Burt Rutan's budget was 25-27 million dollars for SpaceShipOne, most of which came from Paul Allen. I won't speak of the ratios here (budget/achievement), as they are irrelevant to the discussion, even though they are in favor of SpaceShipOne.

Before I tackle second question concerning government's role in Space, I need to identify basic premises. Why is getting into Space good? Who benefits from it? Whose effort will be required to achieve it? What is the best way to reach Space?

The first two questions deal with humans. The proper standard of value is a human life. Every value judgement must derive from it. Space provides humans with more resources and chances to improve their lives. Thus, Space is good, and it is good for humans. So, Space is good, however, one must remember that this alone does not mean that any way to get into Space is good. The end does not justify the means.

What does it take to get into Space? The answer is the effort of individuals. Getting into Space is not an easy task, and requires individuals with solid and clear grasp of reality. No amount of praying can further this task. Furthermore, there is no set amount of money that will do the job either. An example is NASA that has spent billions of dollars across several decades without accomplishing goals it was designed to do - get humans in Space. As for right now, it can send a dozen a year at a price of around half of billion dollars and a death rate of 1 in 60. Clearly, this is not a solution. It is a failure.

The solution is indicated by the success of SpaceShipOne. It was developed with very little money and in just a few years with zero help from the government. What does this indicate? It indicates a flaw. In its simplest description it can be stated as: government sucks at reaching Space, private effort does not.

So, why does government work in Space anyway? It is a common idea today that the government should "help" people. From what I've seen, those who thinks so, rarely define what that "help" entails. It is usually described as something good without considering the details or requirements for the action of "help." This view is important to understand as it is commonly used as the reason for government Space program.

Under this idea, social security is "good," since it helps poor. Free education is "good," since it helps all kids (including poor ones) get education. Space program is "good," since it shows the might of humans. The essence is that whatever is good for someone must be good. Of course, here the error is made by ignoring the question: at whose expense? Neither social security, nor free education, nor Space program grow on trees. Goods and resources must be produced, collected, invented, etc. by someone else, by somebody else's effort. Therefore, these things cannot be free. There is only one way to make them "free," and it is by taking them away by force, and then claim them to be free, and for the good of the "people." (Note, that in this rationalisation, the term "people" is not used to define all the people of a particular group, but only those that need whatever product is being stolen.) This approach is immoral, of course, as are rationalization that use it.

So, public Space program is not "good," if it is accomplished through a stolen effort. A good example is Soviet Space program that was done for the "bright future" and "for the people" while starving most of the country. NASA programs are funded with taxes. Taxes as such are not good. They are products that are taken away from individuals without their consent. Government does need funds to defend individual rights, so some form of support is required. Modern taxes are badly designed, however. There are better ways.

But lets assume that tax system has been redesigned and greatly improved. Would Space program be OK then? It would be OK, if the program was funded through non-compulsory funding, such as an additional optional tax that an individual could pay to support government Space program. If, however, it is funded via compulsory program, then somebody's products are being used against their will or consent, which would be immoral.

So, coming back to my second original question ("Should government be involved in Space development at all?"), I can answer that government should not be involved in Space. Even if some people really want to spend their own money into such program, it must not use the resources of the government that are in any way funded by common taxes.

So, what is the correct way to approach Space development and exploration? The way is via private effort and private funds. Those who want to achieve it, who want to risk their money and time on it, are the ones who should be working on Space program, and they are the ones who should profit from it as well.

Coming back around, this is the reason why SpaceShipOne is such a great achievement. It may be the first successful step in the chain of events that finally leads to a private exploration and exploitation of Space. And this is the only way that the rest of us can get into Space as well, by paying for those services.