Tags: pfspace,

Resolved: Private sector investment in human space exploration is preferable to public sector investment. [Evidence file]

Introduction and Three Observations

The October Public Forum resolution asks the question of whether or not private sector investment in human space exploration is preferable to public sector investment in human space exploration.

It is an interesting question that attempts to create an intersection between two different meta-debates in space policy –

(1) Should human or robotic missions be the focus of US space exploration efforts

and

(2) Should the public sector (the government) or the private sector (private industry) lead US space exploration initiatives?

These are both interesting questions that have a substantial body of literature that supports debate on both sides of the questions.

The resolution creates a hybrid of the two questions, asking if private sector investment in human space exploration activities is superior to public sector investment.

This may or may not be an interesting question, but it really isn’t one that has much of a literature base around it.  While many scholars, policy-makers, and pundits do debate whether or not the private sector should be the primary vehicle for space exploration, there is no real debate about whether or not the private or public sector should support human space exploration.   As a result, it seems, most of the debates will simply focus on the benefits of private vs. public exploration, not as to what sector is best at human exploration.

And, on a related note, it is worth nothing that the resolution is asking whether or not public or private sector investment is superior for human space exploration.  In other words, it’s about who invests the money and the resources, not who develops space resources. There are some arguments about why it is best for the public sector to regulate safety,  but there isn’t really a debate about which investment angle is superior, especially in regards to uniquely human exploration.   There just doesn’t seem to be much of a debate in the literature about the primary focus of the resolution.

This is the reason why I don’t think NASA good/bad debates are necessarily relevant. They are relevant if the Con chooses to defend NASA investing in itself, but under the resolution the Con could advocate that NASA invest in private sector resources.

So, the first thing worth noting about the resolution is that it will be difficult to debate if you try to focus on what apparently is the central question, but relatively easy to debate if you verge a little into the meta question of whether or not the public or private sector should be the focus of US space exploration initiatives.

The second thing to note about the resolution is that the Pro only has one way to win but that the Con has two ways to win.  How so? Well, the Pro has to prove that private sector investment in human exploration is preferable to public sector investment.  The Con can win by proving either that the public sector is preferable to public sector investment or that public sector investment is just as good as private sector investment.  In fact, I even think that the Con has a third way to win by winning that both public and private sector investment should be supported. 

The coin toss seems simple to me – if I pick the Pro, I only have one way to win. If I pick the Con, I have at least two, maybe three, ways that I can win.

The third thing to note about the topic is that the resolution doesn’t ask which one is most likely to succeed based on normal real-world constraints (the budget limitations of the public and private sector), but rather asks whose investment is preferable.  In other words, if there are two investors who both have $40 billion to invest and one of them is from the government and one is from a private company, is it better to have the private company “poney-up” the investment, or is it better to have the government cough-up the cash?   What sector should invest?

In other words, the Con cannot because there aren’t many/enough private sector investors because it is just a question as to which one is preferable.

This observation pushes the resolution even farther from what the framers probably intended because the arguments will become really about the role of government in society, NASA’s internal budget issues, and the political calculations related to public sector (NASA) support.   It’s really almost illogical to think that the Pro would be able to win that private money is worth more than public money.

The fourth thing to note about the resolution is that I don’t think that it creates any room for a debate about whether robots or humans should be exploring outer space. The question of the resolution is public vs. private investment in the same object – human space exploration.

The fifth thing to note about the resolution is that there is no end on the resolution – no identified, agreed upon goal. I think that the framers of the resolution wanted to debate what sector, public or private, is better at achieving space exploration, but the resolution doesn’t say that anywhere in it.

The resolution just asks the debaters to argue about whether or not the public or private sector is preferable for space exploration…Well, follow this –

(a) Private sector is more efficient + space exploration is good = Pro

(b) Private sector is more efficient + space exploration is bad = Con

Or

(a) Private sector is ineffective + space exploration is good = Con

(b) Private sector is ineffective + space exploration is bad =  Pro

In other words, the answer to the question doesn’t only turn on the effectiveness of private sector action but also on whether or not space exploration is good.   Think of it this way –

Private sector investment in human space exploration is preferable to public sector investment because private sector investment will destroy human space exploration  and that is preferable (Pro) because human space exploration is bad.

Four Important Observations

My last observation obviously pushes the limit as to how the topic will be interpreted by judges and what arguments they expect each side to be prepared to defend.   Unless you have a very open-minded judge, I wouldn’t push the limits.

That said, although I’ve pushed the limits with the last observation, the first four are very important.  Your debates will generally end-up about the overall merits of public vs. private approaches and the negative can win in at least two, probably three different ways. The Pro has to defend private sector investment as being preferable, not of equal worth.   And, it’s about investment – who should do it! Not who should explore, necessarily.

With those two things in mind, I’ll move into an explanation of the Pro and Con arguments on each side.

The Pro – Private Investment is Preferable

Libertarianism.   Libertarianism is a political philosophy that argues that the only legitimate role of the government is to provide for security – military and police.  If the government uses money for other purposes, such as space exploration, it is really stealing from individuals who have properly earned that money, in order to provide for the common good.

Although not a core consideration in the private vs. public space debate, this argument is immensely relevant to the question of investment because libertarians will contend that the public sector should not be taking other peoples money against their will and investing it in space exploration.  A large file with evidence to support this argument is available [here.]  This file permission has been set for access to our Public Forum Subscribers.

There are, of course, answers to it.   Most directly, you could argue that investing in space exploration is important to US national security.  Now, of course, that isn’t true for all space programs, but it is certainly true for some.  Note: The file permission for this set of answers has also been set for access to our Public Forum Subscribers.

Although I have not written a lot about this argument, I do think it is important because it is a strong way for the Pro to prove that private sector investment is preferable  to public sector investment.   I think it is going to be hard to beat the “they are equal/support both” argument that the Con will make, but this is one way to get leverage for the Pro.

NASA budget trade-offs.  NASA’s budget has a cap; NASA cannot spend beyond its current budget allotment of about $18 billion.  If NASA invests new money in human space exploration, new funding will generally with existing funding, threating those programs (and the value of them)m as well as resulting in no net increase in space exploration.

Political consideration. If NASA invests the money, this could produce political fall-out in Congress as a result of the opposition by those who do not support NASA. Although Politics is a detailed policy argument that you do not want to get into in Public Forum debate, you can probably easily see that there would be political repercussions in this time of economic tightness to more NASA investment in space exploration.

An improved NASA.  When NASA invests in the private sector, this stimulates the private sector to innovate, subsequently putting competitive pressure on NASA.

(Alan Boyle is a science writer for MSNBC; he has won awards from the National Academies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Association of Science Writers, the Society of Professional Journalists, the Space Frontier Foundation, the Pirelli Relativity Challenge and the CMU Cybersecurity Journalism Awards program. He is the author of "The Case for Pluto," "NASA plans contests for space feats", 5/7/04, www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4907485/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/nasa-plans-contests-space-feats//avi)

What's the benefit of prizes? Sponberg said they fill a particular niche in technology development. "You want to set up something that's not impossible, but at the same time something where there's no obvious path for getting to the objective," he said. Offering a prize opens up a technological field to nontraditional players, and get more brainpower devoted to a tough-to-crack problem. "Competitors tend to spend more than the actual value of the prize, which is huge leverage," Sponberg said. But for now, there are no plans to expand the win-a-prize approach to NASA's mainstream programs, such as space station operations, robotic exploration of Mars or future human missions to the moon. Some industry observers say more competition — even in those core NASA programs — is just what the space agency needs. For example, Jerry Pournelle, who is well-known as a science-fiction author as well as a technology commentator, suggested that every NASA mission could have a parallel prize feature: "If anybody else could do it first for half the price, they'd get the money." SpaceX's Musk made a similar suggestion in this week's testimony: "One interesting option might be to parallel every major NASA contract award with a prize valued at one-tenth of the contract amount. If another company achieves all of the contract goals first, they receive the prize and the main contract is canceled. At minimum, it will serve as competitive spur for cost-plus contractors."

The public sector controls the strings and is beholden to political considerations.  Even if the Con argues that the public sector should  fund the private sector, many problems that we see when the public sector acts are likely to manifest themselves.  For example, if a Congress person votes for a particular project, they are likely to want it carried-out in a certain way, “damn the costs.”   They will put conditions on the project that are not necessarily grounded in science or economics.  These “strings” and “conditions” could undermine the project.  The private sector will only be focused on workability and cost-effectiveness.

Cooperation undermines the private sector. While public-private cooperation in investment in space exploration sounds good in theory, public sector action can take resources (technological resources and personnel resources) from the private sector. It would be better to have private investment alone.

The Con – Private Investment is Not Preferable and/or Public Sector Investment is Preferable

Private sector investment is not preferable, and both should be done together.  Notice that the tile of this section is not that Public Sector Investment is preferable. The Con doesn’t have to win that.  As explained, the Con only needs to win that Private Sector Investment is Not Preferable.

I’ll now identify some arguments as to why that is the case…

(a) Money is money, resources are resources. There is no reason at all that private money is better than public sector money.   If we are going to invest in human space exploration, who cares who does it.

(b) The public and private sectors should work together –

One, the private sector has less money (they can’t tax), but they have a profit incentive to do a good. Job.

Two, NASA has a lot of experience in space exploration. The private sector doesn’t have as much, but they have a profit motive and access to the newest technologies.

Three, the government often invests in private sector space initiatives. One way that they do this is to provide financial prizes for innovative space technologies developed by the private sector. In this way, the private sector invests in space exploration and the government invests in the private sector. This creates an outstanding synergy.

Four, the rule of international law related to space exploration is, at best, poorly developed and governments must continually negotiate the “rules of the road” related to space exploration.  If the government stops investing in space exploration and leaves it all to the private sector, significant conflicts could occur.

Five, redundancy. If they both invest, twice as much money will be available, increasing the likelihood that the investment will succeed.  Also, they could invest in different space-related projects, increasing the net amount of human space exploration that occurs.

Six, when the government works with the private sector, innovation occurs

Inslee 11 – , Jay, Forbes, Jay represents Washington state's First Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives (June 3, “How Government should Promote Innovation”, http://www.forbes.com/2011/06/03/how-government-should-promote-innovation_2.html).

 

Farmers say not to eat your seed corn. When it comes to crafting the federal budget, now and in the future, we would be wise to abide this old adage--by growing, not starving our innovative spirit, the basis of America's economic success. To accomplish this, our government must work alongside the private sector to make critical investments, using our limited resources more efficiently to cultivate a true innovation agenda. The first component of our innovation agenda must focus on the research and development tax credit. A generation ago the United States was one of the first nations to encourage private sector R&D through tax credits. Since then, a wide range of economists have agreed that every tax credit dollar stimulates anywhere from $1 to $3 in additional private investment on the part of U.S. companies. Unlike many other items in the tax code, R&D actually spurs investment and a greater return. In December 2010 the current R&D tax credits were extended. However their rates are not only uncertain in the long term, making long-term investments difficult for companies, but are far below what we can and should be doing to invest in a true innovation economy. Even though the U.S. devotes 2.5% of its gross domestic product to R&D, our country now finds itself trailing 16 other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nations when it comes to R&D incentives. Historically great innovation has come out of small companies. Yet it is small companies that don't have the resources to invest in--and successfully execute--long-term, high-risk projects. That is why R&D financial support from both the public and private sectors must focus on small companies. America needs these companies to spur the innovation economy. But in many cases, particularly in long-lead-time but critical fields such as energy and medical technology, the mismatch between private-sector investment timing and commercial success is preventing important industries from flourishing and important products from getting to market. Direct financial investment is only one method of government involvement. Innovation can also be spurred by bringing capital and entrepreneurs together. The emphasis should be on linking the best and brightest in critical scientific and technology areas. We need coordination and capital strategically applied to ideas and entrepreneurs, with the ultimate goal of speeding up efforts to commercialize. It is commercialization that produces jobs and economic growth. A prime example of commercialization and public-private financial collaboration is EnerG2, a leading energy storage startup based in Seattle. The company was spun out from the University of Washington with a mission to invent and innovate nano-structured, next-generation energy storage breakthroughs. Today devices made possible by EnerG2's products are being increasingly embraced by the automotive industry for hybrid-electric vehicles, by electronics manufacturers for enhancing the life and usability of consumer goods, and by a variety of industrial customers to deliver an ever-increasing breadth of new ways to improve energy efficiency. Without public-private collaboration, which has involved from the United States Department of Energy, the University of Washington and a number of private investors and institutions, EnerG2's materials would never have been brought to market and made an important and continuing contribution to energy efficiency. Yet R&D and entrepreneurship alone will not complete our innovation agenda. To do that we must add in additional job training and education. Without the right human capital, we will never be able to develop and market the next wave of 21st-century medical devices, biotechnology discoveries, or clean energy advances. Even in tough budget times these investments are critical. The reemergence of an American innovation economy is being delayed--perhaps dangerously--by underinvestment in education and training. According to a study from Deloitte, Oracle and the Manufacturing Institute, executives at 63% of life science companies and 45% of energy companies say they are currently afflicted with a skills shortage. And this gap will only widen as legions of accomplished, experienced and well-educated baby boomers retire in the coming years. There is no quick fix here. Certainly we need improved math and science education in our schools, but government can also play a role by offering incentives to companies that establish substantive technology training programs designed to prepare employees for the coming era of innovation. Achieving the right blend between the public sector and private industry is a complicated economic endeavor. But neither the private sector's invisible hand nor governmental heavy-handedness can be the solution. It is true that we cannot spur an innovation agenda without the government, but it is equally true that the government cannot replace private-sector market forces. It is imperative that the public and private sectors start working together. It's the combination of R&D tax credits, improved education and training, and public-private collaboration--for small companies--that's fast and efficient and will ultimately help keep our great innovations here at home, for the benefit of American workers and families. By planting our seed corn, instead of eating it, we will reap the economic benefits.

Sixth, the government could focus on military space exploration (led by humans) and the private sector could focus on more commercial uses.  This advocacy allows the Con to escape the libertarianism argument that was articulated above.   And since the private sector may not invest in weapons systems that are not “profitable,” or at least not as profitable as other commercial applications of human space exploration, a preference for private investment could threaten US military readiness.

Only the public sector really has the resources. Substantial increases in space exploration would costs 100s of billions of dollars.  Only the public sector really has the resources for that.   If we are deciding who should invest, we should look practically at who has the most resources to invest, and in this case it is the public sector.

Hickman 99 – , John, JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY, Volume, Associate Professor of Government, Department of Government and International Relations, Berry College (4 November 1999, “The Political Economy of Very Large Space Projects”,http://www.transhumanist.com/volume4/space.htm)

 

 

When space development enthusiasts describe how permanent human communities might be established in space, they often draw analogies to the European colonization of the Americas and to the “winning” of the western frontiers of the United States and Canada, analogies which are often given a very contemporary libertarian spin.  Complex historical processes are offered up as examples of the triumph of individualism and private enterprise.

The unspun truth about European colonization in the Americas, and in Asia and Africa, is that the state played a central role in all colonial enterprises.  European colonies often emerged out of trading ventures organized as joint stock companies chartered by the colonizing state and  in which the crown invested both its prestige and its capital.  Colonial territory was conquered  and defended by soldiers and sailors paid either by the colonizing state or the local colonial state.  Plantations and mines were often directly owned by the local colonial state.  Trading monopolies and tax privileges granted by the colonizing state to the local colonial state were used to attract capital investment.  Indeed, conceptual distinctions between public and private economic activity which seem so clear today were much less clear in the heyday of colonialism. The unspun truth about the “winning” of the western frontiers of the United States and Canada make for even poorer libertarian dramas.  Notwithstanding all the hardy pioneers in their covered wagons, the western frontier of the United States was really “won” by the U.S. Army  and the construction of the railroads which were capitalized by enormous Federal land grants.^[5]  Similarly, the western frontier of Canada was “won” by cash grants, subsidies, loans, and the guarantee of bond issues by the Canadian government to finance the construction of the railroads.

A better historical analogy for establishing permanent human communities in space is actually provided by one of the greatest civil engineering project of this century--the construction of the Panama Canal.  As would be true with any very large space development project, constructing the Panama Canal required that tough new engineering and science problems had to be overcome in an unforgiving environment, a labor force had to be imported and supported, and sufficient capital had to be invested despite the fact that private investors could not or would not provide the financing necessary to complete the task.  After twenty years of failed efforts by private French firms to dig a canal across the isthmus of Panama and the failure of a private American firm to dig a canal through Nicaragua, it was the United States government that successfully completed the construction of the Panama Canal.^[6]  Financing by the United States government and management by U.S. Army engineers succeeded where the private sector failed.  Engineering problems more difficult than those which were encountered in constructing the Suez Canal were solved, yellow fever and malaria were effectively controlled, a new sovereign nation-state was created, and world commerce was facilitated.^[7]  Not bad for government work. Very large space development projects should be understood as massive public works projects constructed to provide the environmental and economic requirements for permanent human settlement beyond Earth.  If these new human settlements are to attract and keep the kind of people needed, then they will have to be livable communities.  Making them livable will provide plenty of scope for private firms to profit from the provision of goods and services.  But private firms will not do the heavy lifting necessary to finance the construction of the very large space project within which and around which such a livable community may grow.

Space leadership.  If the US relies on the private sector to develop space resources, this could be seen as abdicating US global space leadership. This could undermine our overall global leadership. Without a global leader, the a series of conflicts could break-out around the globe

International cooperation. If the public sector does not invest resources in itself (in NASA), it will not be able to work with other governments in outer space. Cooperation at the governmental level may be necessary to solve problems like space junk and establish “rules of the road” for cooperation in space.