Author Topic: Is commercializing space a good thing or a bad thing?  (Read 14990 times)

Online chopsticks

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1075
  • Québec, Canada
  • Liked: 1082
  • Likes Given: 165
Re: Is commercializing space a good thing or a bad thing?
« Reply #20 on: 12/23/2022 04:55 am »
Commercializing space seems to be going well now in its infancy (as in total flights to date) but if we get to a point where spaceflight is very common (may or may not happen), there might be a need or want for decentralization as monopolies will inevitably be formed.

Just comparing it to railways for example. Passenger rail is nationalized in most countries, and other means of getting around also get subsidies.

What's different about space though is that it can connect anybody from anywhere, ie not like a highway system or railway only in one country. And airplanes always land on Earth, so are thus governed by the rules of these countries. In space there can be a third destination such as a space station or a celestial body so it will be interesting to see how the governance/international relations of this all play out. I suppose there are many different scenarios and potential outcomes.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Is commercializing space a good thing or a bad thing?
« Reply #21 on: 12/23/2022 12:43 pm »
An employee owned space company would not work.  Who is going to lead?  What projects.  Privately one person owned, the company will focus on what the owner wants.  Musk wants to go to Mars, thus he is developing the Starship/Superheavy rocket to get there.

Boeing on the other hand is owned by the stockholders, with an elected CEO by the board of directors.  It is only in the space business to make money, period.  This is basically the same as employee owned.  They would be in it to make money.  No destination.  No dream of reusable rockets.  No dream of going to Mars.  Same with anything government owned or developed.  It is whatever the politicians want. 

This is why capitalism works better than any other system.  Privately owned gets things done.  Publicly owned only provided jobs that drag out a project like SLS, to get more government money.  Again, NASA should just buy launch services, not develop a useless pork barrel expendable booster rocket. 

Offline Cheapchips

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1030
  • UK
  • Liked: 861
  • Likes Given: 1931
Re: Is commercializing space a good thing or a bad thing?
« Reply #22 on: 12/23/2022 01:13 pm »
An employee owned space company would not work.  Who is going to lead? 

The leaders of that company. They execute the visions of the founder(s). The hierarchy of cooperatives isn't necessarily flat. Where it differs is that shareholder duties fall to employees. Unlike external shareholders, they actually have an interest in the company being successful over the long term.  ;D

(Retail is a disaster area, but I'd pick out John Lewis in the UK as an example of a successful cooperative)

We are in a weird place in history with spaceflight leadership. Spaceflight isn't boring enough yet.  No ocean shipping company or airline needs leaders yacking on about the future of humanity.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Is commercializing space a good thing or a bad thing?
« Reply #23 on: 12/23/2022 01:21 pm »
SpaceX is partly employee-owned, via stock options.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Is commercializing space a good thing or a bad thing?
« Reply #24 on: 12/23/2022 01:23 pm »
Who or what is John Lewis?  Never heard of it.  Over here, I'm known employee owned companies that went bankrupt, except for farming co-ops to share expensive tractor equipment.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Is commercializing space a good thing or a bad thing?
« Reply #25 on: 12/23/2022 01:55 pm »
Who or what is John Lewis?  Never heard of it.  Over here, I'm known employee owned companies that went bankrupt, except for farming co-ops to share expensive tractor equipment.
Dynetics was actually employee owned, but they cashed out by selling the company. It made the employees a ton of money, but did mean the end of the employee owned model there.

I agree there’s some problems with an employee owned company being able to scale, raise capital, and execute like SpaceX has. I don’t think SpaceX could’ve been done in really any other way. If it had unionized (especially under typical American unions like the Teamsters, etc), it wouldn’t have gone anywhere. If it had gone public early on or if Elon had otherwise sold all his controlling shares, it also wouldn’t have gone anywhere. And if it had had the diffuse control of a cooperative, it also wouldnt have been able to do what it did.

That said, a cooperative may be a good model for continuing a company beyond the lifespan of a hard charging and capable founder/leader. If it is bought by the broader market, it becomes short term and financially focused to the exclusion of the long term vision. Being cooperatively owned and run by true believers could enable it to have the longevity to accomplish a Martian civilization, once the endeavor had scaled up enough that that became possible.

Cooperatives can still be run for a while by charismatic leaders. Mondragon Corporation is one such example. But it helps because there were ethnocultural ties among the employees. In the melting pot of the US (which is a massive strength, BTW), such cultural ties would have to be synthesized based on a common vision, like establishing a civilization on Mars.

One reason I advocate for a cooperative SpaceX in spite of the unlikeliness of that business model succeeding is that it transitions perfectly to a democratic civilization on Mars, whereas a single charismatic leader model would not be conducive to that. (And it’s almost a miracle that the US was able to transition from George Washington’s charismatic near-monarchical war leadership to a democratic republic.)

I really hope Elon pulls a Washington with SpaceX eventually.
« Last Edit: 12/23/2022 01:56 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1692
  • Likes Given: 597
Re: Is commercializing space a good thing or a bad thing?
« Reply #26 on: 12/23/2022 01:56 pm »
When the general public hears the phrase "commercializing space," most of them are probably thinking about rich people paying to be astronauts.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Is commercializing space a good thing or a bad thing?
« Reply #27 on: 12/23/2022 01:58 pm »
When the general public hears the phrase "commercializing space," most of them are probably thinking about rich people paying to be astronauts.
Yup, when the goal of NewSpace companies (ala SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, XCOR, etc) is the opposite: to finally enable non-elite, non-super-rich to go to space.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Pipcard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 622
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: Is commercializing space a good thing or a bad thing?
« Reply #28 on: 12/23/2022 02:20 pm »
When the general public hears the phrase "commercializing space," most of them are probably thinking about rich people paying to be astronauts.
Yup, when the goal of NewSpace companies (ala SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, XCOR, etc) is the opposite: to finally enable non-elite, non-super-rich to go to space.
The skeptics think technology and economics will never advance and spaceflight will always be too expensive for people other than billionaires (especially when the efforts are being led by billionaires). It's called the Elysium effect (still haven't seen that movie).
« Last Edit: 12/23/2022 02:20 pm by Pipcard »

Offline Cheapchips

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1030
  • UK
  • Liked: 861
  • Likes Given: 1931
Re: Is commercializing space a good thing or a bad thing?
« Reply #29 on: 12/23/2022 02:26 pm »
Who or what is John Lewis?  Never heard of it.  Over here, I'm known employee owned companies that went bankrupt, except for farming co-ops to share expensive tractor equipment.

A very successful UK department store / supermarket chain, until recently at least. It is an old company. Ancient by US standards! To your point, even though they're owned by the employees, they still have what you could consider a regular leadership structure for that type of business.

If you think about a living and working in space future, it's the type of company structure that could help avoid some of the more dystopian risks of business.  Hard to establish without an initial benefactor though.

Offline Barley

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Liked: 669
  • Likes Given: 369
Re: Is commercializing space a good thing or a bad thing?
« Reply #30 on: 12/23/2022 03:05 pm »
The skeptics think technology and economics will never advance and spaceflight will always be too expensive for people other than billionaires (especially when the efforts are being led by billionaires). It's called the Elysium effect (still haven't seen that movie).
People also neglect the way economic growth has increased both the average per capita income and the population.  These substantially increase the number of billionaires.  If, in 2500, half the population are billionaires "only billionaires can afford it" is not much of a constraint.  The effect kicks in well before 2500, since the number of billionaires is increasing exponentially.

There are more cars in 2020 than in 1900 not just because cars are cheaper, but because people are much, much richer.  Even the poorest decile are much richer.

Offline TrevorMonty





This is why capitalism works better than any other system.  Privately owned gets things done.  Publicly owned only provided jobs that drag out a project like SLS, to get more government money.  Again, NASA should just buy launch services, not develop a useless pork barrel expendable booster rocket.

Without NASA most of small privately owned commercial space companies wouldn't exist. Its NASA funding of CRS that produced F9 otherwise SpaceX would be still flying F1 and maybe F5. Lots of companies survive because of SBIR funding with lot of SBIR projects not going anywhere.

While SLS isn't NASA fines moment its not total waste of money. A lot of money from SLS ends up in small subcontractor  businesses. SLS has given us the Artemis program, first chance to commercially open up access to moon. My guess is long term SLS will be replace by cheaper commercial ride to moon.


Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: Is commercializing space a good thing or a bad thing?
« Reply #32 on: 12/23/2022 03:57 pm »
Who or what is John Lewis?  Never heard of it.  Over here, I'm known employee owned companies that went bankrupt, except for farming co-ops to share expensive tractor equipment.
Dynetics was actually employee owned, but they cashed out by selling the company. It made the employees a ton of money, but did mean the end of the employee owned model there.

And ironically they sold out to a company that was spun out of a previously employee-owned corporation - SAIC.

Quote
I agree there’s some problems with an employee owned company being able to scale, raise capital, and execute like SpaceX has. I don’t think SpaceX could’ve been done in really any other way.

Employee-owned corporations are still corporations, and they have stock that they could trade for investment. But I think that model is likely unusual, so I agree that the route SpaceX took was likely the path of least resistance and quickest to scale.

Quote
That said, a cooperative may be a good model for continuing a company beyond the lifespan of a hard charging and capable founder/leader.

Depends on what the goals of the company are. If the company is done with innovation, then a cooperative may make sense. But the harsh reality is that companies that don't innovate don't stay competitive, so you need dynamic leadership to stay competitive.

Quote
If it is bought by the broader market, it becomes short term and financially focused to the exclusion of the long term vision. Being cooperatively owned and run by true believers could enable it to have the longevity to accomplish a Martian civilization, once the endeavor had scaled up enough that that became possible.

Bob Iger was just brought back to run The Walt Disney Company again, replacing the person he had hand-picked to replace him. Drama, drama, drama, etc. In reality it matters more about who is on the board of directors than who is CEO, since they are the ones that actually set the tone for the company. So if you have a strong board, with succession plans for the board that ensure consistent "vision", then that might work.

Quote
One reason I advocate for a cooperative SpaceX in spite of the unlikeliness of that business model succeeding is that it transitions perfectly to a democratic civilization on Mars, whereas a single charismatic leader model would not be conducive to that.

Elon Musk has always positioned SpaceX as the transportation entity for Mars colonization, so from that standpoint I've always assumed that there would be a separate managing entity that would take care of the actual colonization. If so, then SpaceX could continue to be a separate for-profit entity, but hopefully with part of its charter being that it will devote "X%" of its profit to supporting Mars colonization. Or something like that.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Pipcard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 622
  • Liked: 275
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: Is commercializing space a good thing or a bad thing?
« Reply #33 on: 12/23/2022 04:44 pm »
The skeptics think technology and economics will never advance and spaceflight will always be too expensive for people other than billionaires (especially when the efforts are being led by billionaires). It's called the Elysium effect (still haven't seen that movie).
People also neglect the way economic growth has increased both the average per capita income and the population.  These substantially increase the number of billionaires.  If, in 2500, half the population are billionaires "only billionaires can afford it" is not much of a constraint.  The effect kicks in well before 2500, since the number of billionaires is increasing exponentially..
That sounds more like a Zimbabwe-esque hyperinflation scenario, though.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Is commercializing space a good thing or a bad thing?
« Reply #34 on: 12/23/2022 04:52 pm »
The Us has had genuine per capita income growth, yes even adjusting for inflation.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Barley

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Liked: 669
  • Likes Given: 369
Re: Is commercializing space a good thing or a bad thing?
« Reply #35 on: 12/24/2022 04:44 pm »
The skeptics think technology and economics will never advance and spaceflight will always be too expensive for people other than billionaires (especially when the efforts are being led by billionaires). It's called the Elysium effect (still haven't seen that movie).
People also neglect the way economic growth has increased both the average per capita income and the population.  These substantially increase the number of billionaires.  If, in 2500, half the population are billionaires "only billionaires can afford it" is not much of a constraint.  The effect kicks in well before 2500, since the number of billionaires is increasing exponentially..
That sounds more like a Zimbabwe-esque hyperinflation scenario, though.
No it's real growth.  Because of inflation it's hard to measure, but it would be very hard to argue that there have not been at least an order of magnitude increase in per capita wealth since the industrial revolution.  This appears to be ongoing.

Offline TrevorMonty

The skeptics think technology and economics will never advance and spaceflight will always be too expensive for people other than billionaires (especially when the efforts are being led by billionaires). It's called the Elysium effect (still haven't seen that movie).
People also neglect the way economic growth has increased both the average per capita income and the population.  These substantially increase the number of billionaires.  If, in 2500, half the population are billionaires "only billionaires can afford it" is not much of a constraint.  The effect kicks in well before 2500, since the number of billionaires is increasing exponentially..
That sounds more like a Zimbabwe-esque hyperinflation scenario, though.
No it's real growth.  Because of inflation it's hard to measure, but it would be very hard to argue that there have not been at least an order of magnitude increase in per capita wealth since the industrial revolution.  This appears to be ongoing.
Wealth represents stored energy and work. We have access to variously more energy and cheap work from machines than 100 years ago. One example is what one man can achieve today with digger in 8hrs compared to 100 years ago with pick and shovel.
« Last Edit: 12/24/2022 06:08 pm by TrevorMonty »

Offline Barley

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Liked: 669
  • Likes Given: 369
Re: Is commercializing space a good thing or a bad thing?
« Reply #37 on: 12/24/2022 06:36 pm »
Wealth represents stored energy and work. We have access to variously more energy and cheap work from machines than 100 years ago. One example is what one man can achieve today with digger in 8hrs compared to 100 years ago with pick and shovel.
Nitpick:
I agree with the point, but not the timeline.

The Panama Canal was built over a hundred years ago with steam shovels.  Two hundred years ago the Erie Canal was built with pick and shovels.  There were some picks and shovels in Panama, just as there are on a modern construction site, but they did not do the bulk of the work.

There's probably some historian out there that will point out that the devices used to build the Erie Canal where much advanced over the ones use on the Bridgewater Canal 60 years earlier.  And compare those to Chinese construction over a millennium earlier.  Even things like cheap steel shovels are technology.

The nit may matter when considering the time scale for the future.

Edited to extend remarks.
« Last Edit: 12/24/2022 06:44 pm by Barley »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Is commercializing space a good thing or a bad thing?
« Reply #38 on: 12/27/2022 10:11 am »
Going nip this one in the bud.

Gotta agree, and add the following characterization regarding the all too common level of analysis you respond to, which is:  People with an unsavory past can never atone for their pasts, and therefore an entire government agency is suspect and its work is invalid.

Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline daedalus1

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 929
  • uk
  • Liked: 477
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Is commercializing space a good thing or a bad thing?
« Reply #39 on: 12/27/2022 10:23 am »
Getting bact to the thread question.  It already has proved to be a good thing....mass communication.

Tags: R-7 ussr design bureau 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0