Our path to space - corporations?

[sttrekker7777]

Long time reader, first time poster.

The space program has had to struggle through the years. For many the shifting of public opinion towards NASA and to exploration related efforts is a good thing, but is the context important? Under the Bush administration's outlook on space, the moon, Mars, and other planets would be valuable only as resource deposits. Do you think the end result of further understanding other worlds justifies companies dominating exploration, or is no exploration preferable to this type of corporate expansion?

By the way, I'm interested to know how many Anandtech readers/posters are high school students in the Silicon Valley (Cupertino, Santa Clara, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Saratoga, San Jose). I'll start by posting my own contact info:

AIM: STTrekker7

- Keshav

 

[gsaldivar]

Under the Bush administration's outlook on space, the moon, Mars, and other planets would be valuable only as resource deposits.

Huh?

Where did you get this information from?

 

[tallest1]

Do you think the end result of further understanding other worlds justifies companies dominating exploration, or is no exploration preferable to this type of corporate expansion?

I honestly don't know what I think about this but from the top of my head, I would say the latter. While there is business in exploration, the fields involved involved are too narrow for companies to grow from. In addition, it would take a long time for anyone to put as much precision and care into their work as much as NASA does. The moment companies start overly seeking profits and the bottom dollar in the space industry [at this point and time], we'll only see a higher failure rate - thus discouraging us from exploring. But like I said, this is stuff I haven't really thought much about. My opinion on this could change.

But speaking of companies and space, Has anyone noticed Haliburton has had connections with NASA and the Mars missions? [ Link ]

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: tallest1

Do you think the end result of further understanding other worlds justifies companies dominating exploration, or is no exploration preferable to this type of corporate expansion?

I honestly don't know what I think about this but from the top of my head, I would say the latter. While there is business in exploration, the fields involved involved are too narrow for companies to grow from. In addition, it would take a long time for anyone to put as much precision and care into their work as much as NASA does. The moment companies start overly seeking profits and the bottom dollar in the space industry [at this point and time], we'll only see a higher failure rate - thus discouraging us from exploring. But like I said, this is stuff I haven't really thought much about. My opinion on this could change.

But speaking of companies and space, Has anyone noticed Haliburton has had connections with NASA and the Mars missions? [ Link ]

Has anyone every noticed that haliburton is one of the top 10 goverment contractors and does business will all parts of the goverment?

 

[tallest1]

Ah, I didn't know their influence went that far. Thanks for the extra info

 

[b0mbrman]

I doubt it. Space exploration and the resulting knowledge is a public good (for a public that stretches around the globe). As such, it would be hard for corporations to collect on any investment toward private space travel.

 

[Zephyr106]

In addition, it would take a long time for anyone to put as much precision and care into their work as much as NASA does.

Ever hear of United Space Alliance? It's a LockMart/Boeing joint venture that services the Shuttles:

United Space Alliance

Every program at NASA involves contractors, they're already operating at "NASA standards" because they make NASA standards. Whether that standard is high enough is up for debate.

Zephyr

 

[sttrekker7777]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Bush administration's outlook on space, the moon, Mars, and other planets would be valuable only as resource deposits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Huh?

Where did you get this information from?

Maybe I was a bit too presumptious, but when I think of "Bush," I think of:

- Tweaking government activities to benefit corporations
- Sponsoring seemingly good-willed initiatives solely to maintain a positive political image

Whether you agree with this or not is another question. But I was curious about this: Imagine two different space-faring futures. One features exploration controlled solely by the "people" and is 100% oriented towards popular goals. The other is financially backed by corporations, and, obviously, the ulterior motive for these corporations will be to eventually gain resources from other planets and Universal phenomena. But the actions taken in these two futures might be totally different; the second future might "corrupt" space exploration thoroughly, or at least to some degree.

I wanted to know if you felt the second type of future was acceptable simply becuase of the need to explore space by any means, or if it was not acceptable because only non-corrupt space exploration is desired.

Edit:

Ever hear of United Space Alliance? It's a LockMart/Boeing joint venture that services the Shuttles:

United Space Alliance

Every program at NASA involves contractors, they're already operating at "NASA standards" because they make NASA standards. Whether that standard is high enough is up for debate.

That's a great example of corporations already taking advantage of NASA. Independent and private corporations are using space exploration as a medium to make money off of their products. Now, if our capitalist system was run completely by good-intentioned souls, this wouldn't be a problem. But if corporations are making sometimes insufficient standards for space exploration, what part of exploration involves the public will? Do we really want to leave this exploration, that should be intended to serve all of mankind, in the hands of a select few?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

I'm not sure that "the people" at large are intelligent enough to judge what should be a goal and what shouldn't in terms of space travel. I see no reason why *both* NASA and private corporations can't begin space exploration operations if they so choose. From what I understand there are a lot of potential medical advances that could be made as a result of zero-grav labs (and who knows what else, based on what we find on other planets...), and if some company manages to do something amazing up there, they could profit *and* the people of the world would benefit from the findings. It's definitely got the potential for a win/win situation.

Suffice to say, I just say hey, if the companies want to build ships and venture into space, let them!

Jason

 

[CaptnKirk]

I've mentioned it before - and I'll mention it again:
The posturing for space programs by the Bushies is another way to take over space activity for the Milatary.
All the Corporations will be funded by Government coffers for Military presence in space.
Period,
End of discussion.

(Give this a year to play out and it will manifest itself as such - just pay attention)

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
I've mentioned it before - and I'll mention it again:
The posturing for space programs by the Bushies is another way to take over space activity for the Milatary.
All the Corporations will be funded by Government coffers for Military presence in space.
Period,
End of discussion.

(Give this a year to play out and it will manifest itself as such - just pay attention)

You might be right, but it will take more than a year

But it isn't like eveyr president since 1980 hasn't been actively funding Military space programs. People like to make fun of Reagan over the "Star Wars" program, but it's STILL under way and was during Clinton's entire term--I know, I managed the network at the facility where they were developing a deployment spacecraft for about 6 months in the late 1990's

Jason

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: tallest1


But speaking of companies and space, Has anyone noticed Haliburton has had connections with NASA and the Mars missions? [ Link ]

It wouldn't surprise me. A lot of technology and knowledge is easily transferred from the oil industry to aerospace. I personally know someone who did testing on the space station module that is now helping Haliburton with some sort of truck used in oil drilling.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: sttrekker7777

Imagine two different space-faring futures:

One features exploration controlled solely by the "people" and is 100% oriented towards popular goals. The other is financially backed by corporations, and, obviously, the ulterior motive for these corporations will be to eventually gain resources from other planets and Universal phenomena.

But the actions taken in these two futures might be totally different; the second future might "corrupt" space exploration thoroughly, or at least to some degree. I wanted to know if you felt the second type of future was acceptable simply becuase of the need to explore space by any means, or if it was not acceptable because only non-corrupt space exploration is desired.

The assumptions you've made in your hypothetical are pretty astounding.

While you don't come out say it, you're suggesting that space exploration under a non-conservative/Republican administration would be somehow fundamentally different. Specifically, you suggest it would be "controlled solely by the "people" and 100% oriented towards popular goals". In my opinion, nothing could be farther from the truth.

Space exploration, whether performed under Democratic or Republican leadership has historically always involved a diverse mix of private and public sector resources. A tremendous amount of research is performed under federally and privately-funded programs in our nations' universities - Cal Tech (JPL), Georgia Tech, Cornell, University of California... etc. Engineering and aerospace construction is largely farmed to the private sector - Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Loral... etc.

Technology-transfer occurs when technologies developed in the course of pursuing space exploration are applied to other sectors of the economy - private, educational, etc. In addition to the benefits of furthering our knowledge of space, these domestic technology "discoveries" are a strong justification for the large expense of pursuing space exploration. It should be clear that - whether under Democratic or Republican leadership - technology-transfers from the space program to other sectors of our economy are INTENTIONAL, BENEFICIAL and STRONGLY ENCOURAGED.

Even technology-transfers that have a purely humanitarian benefit, such as the development of a thermal ear thermometer, almost never lack the involvement of a business or corporation to some degree. A discovery could be made by a private contractor working for NASA, a company which acts as a consultant to JPL, or someone at Boeing working under a federal contract... etc.

Once a technology "discovery" has been made, it is almost always in the government's best interest to transfer further development of the new technology to private sector. Corporations, by their nature, enjoy growth through the management of risk and opportunity. Firms with expertise, and deep pockets are often willing to risk capital in the hopes of refining a new technology that has a potential to be marketed to a diverse population.

The benefits of allowing shareholders to shoulder some of the financial risks of advanced research & development, provide the corporation a much better chance of successfully refining a newly-discovered technology for the market. Armed with large amounts of investors' dollars, and under the intense pressure of Wall Street, the private-sector is far-better equipped to manage this risk than the government. It is because of this advantage, that it is very rare that the government chooses to develop newly-discovered technology on its own - rather than transferring it to the private sector.

While some people here are averse to any type of corporation or business involvement in space exploration, it is clear that - historically - corporate involvement in the space program is a very large part of why the United States enjoys a leadership position in aerospace technology in the world today.

While these same people criticize the government for being too "friendly" to aerospace businesses, it's questionable whether our country could have accomplished what we have to-date, without the involvement of corporations.

Rather than viewing corporate involvement as a "corrupting" influence, the government has historically - under both Democratic and Republican administrations - viewed this involvement as a complement to government-sponsored enterprise.

In my opinion, probably the biggest advantage the private-sector has over the government in space-exploration and the development of related technologies, is the shareholder.

In the public sector, when you need additional funding - you get it mandated. You lobby for funding, and get a funding bill passed which locks in your department's money for a fixed amount of time. After this is done, your main incentive to produce results rests on building a "case" for next year's funding bill. As long as your department can demonstrate its necessity, you will win your funding.

In the private sector, when you need additional funding - you sell shares. Shareholders are members of the public who purchase shares (ownership) of a company, in the hopes of reaping a future reward from the company at some future date.

While both methods allow for the accumulation of large amounts of money, one advantage to the private method is that participation is entirely VOLUNTARY. Investors who have discretionary funds, can invest as much money as they want into the commercial venture. Naturally, the larger the investment - the larger the potential reward. However, the risk of losing the investment is also a possibility.

In contrast, with the public method, once sufficient votes for a funding bill have been collected, a financial burden is imposed on EVERYONE.

If you have a group of people with large amounts of money, who are willing to pool that money in a private space exploration venture... wouldn't it make sense to allow those people to complement existing government space exploration?

Or, would you rather prevent privately-funded involvement altogether, instead burdening the public with the entire cost of government space exploration, along with all of the inherent risks of failure involved?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: sttrekker7777

Imagine two different space-faring futures:

One features exploration controlled solely by the "people" and is 100% oriented towards popular goals. The other is financially backed by corporations, and, obviously, the ulterior motive for these corporations will be to eventually gain resources from other planets and Universal phenomena.

But the actions taken in these two futures might be totally different; the second future might "corrupt" space exploration thoroughly, or at least to some degree. I wanted to know if you felt the second type of future was acceptable simply becuase of the need to explore space by any means, or if it was not acceptable because only non-corrupt space exploration is desired.

The assumptions you've made in your hypothetical are pretty astounding.

While you don't come out say it, you're suggesting that space exploration under a non-conservative/Republican administration would be somehow fundamentally different. Specifically, you suggest it would be "controlled solely by the "people" and 100% oriented towards popular goals". In my opinion, nothing could be farther from the truth.

Space exploration, whether performed under Democratic or Republican leadership has historically always involved a diverse mix of private and public sector resources. A tremendous amount of research is performed under federally and privately-funded programs in our nations' universities - Cal Tech (JPL), Georgia Tech, Cornell, University of California... etc. Engineering and aerospace construction is largely farmed to the private sector - Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Loral... etc.

Technology-transfer occurs when technologies developed in the course of pursuing space exploration are applied to other sectors of the economy - private, educational, etc. In addition to the benefits of furthering our knowledge of space, these domestic technology "discoveries" are a strong justification for the large expense of pursuing space exploration. It should be clear that - whether under Democratic or Republican leadership - technology-transfers from the space program to other sectors of our economy are INTENTIONAL, BENEFICIAL and STRONGLY ENCOURAGED.

Even technology-transfers that have a purely humanitarian benefit, such as the development of a thermal ear thermometer, almost never lack the involvement of a business or corporation to some degree. A discovery could be made by a private contractor working for NASA, a company which acts as a consultant to JPL, or someone at Boeing working under a federal contract... etc.

Once a technology "discovery" has been made, it is almost always in the government's best interest to transfer further development of the new technology to private sector. Corporations, by their nature, enjoy growth through the management of risk and opportunity. Firms with expertise, and deep pockets are often willing to risk capital in the hopes of refining a new technology that has a potential to be marketed to a diverse population.

The benefits of allowing shareholders to shoulder some of the financial risks of advanced research & development, provide the corporation a much better chance of successfully refining a newly-discovered technology for the market. Armed with large amounts of investors' dollars, and under the intense pressure of Wall Street, the private-sector is far-better equipped to manage this risk than the government. It is because of this advantage, that it is very rare that the government chooses to develop newly-discovered technology on its own - rather than transferring it to the private sector.

While some people here are averse to any type of corporation or business involvement in space exploration, it is clear that - historically - corporate involvement in the space program is a very large part of why the United States enjoys a leadership position in aerospace technology in the world today.

While these same people criticize the government for being too "friendly" to aerospace businesses, it's questionable whether our country could have accomplished what we have to-date, without the involvement of corporations.

Rather than viewing corporate involvement as a "corrupting" influence, the government has historically - under both Democratic and Republican administrations - viewed this involvement as a complement to government-sponsored enterprise.

In my opinion, probably the biggest advantage the private-sector has over the government in space-exploration and the development of related technologies, is the shareholder.

In the public sector, when you need additional funding - you get it mandated. You lobby for funding, and get a funding bill passed which locks in your department's money for a fixed amount of time. After this is done, your main incentive to produce results rests on building a "case" for next year's funding bill. As long as your department can demonstrate its necessity, you will win your funding.

In the private sector, when you need additional funding - you sell shares. Shareholders are members of the public who purchase shares (ownership) of a company, in the hopes of reaping a future reward from the company at some future date.

While both methods allow for the accumulation of large amounts of money, one advantage to the private method is that participation is entirely VOLUNTARY. Investors who have discretionary funds, can invest as much money as they want into the commercial venture. Naturally, the larger the investment - the larger the potential reward. However, the risk of losing the investment is also a possibility.

In contrast, with the public method, once sufficient votes for a funding bill have been collected, a financial burden is imposed on EVERYONE.

If you have a group of people with large amounts of money, who are willing to pool that money in a private space exploration venture... wouldn't it make sense to allow those people to complement existing government space exploration?

Or, would you rather prevent privately-funded involvement altogether, instead burdening the public with the entire cost of government space exploration, along with all of the inherent risks of failure involved?

When a corporation operates on a cost plus basis, there is no incentive for economy.

As I heard someone put it, the "usual suspects" are salivating for Bush's plan. I believe the chief advisor is from Lockheed/Martin?

Private corporations? Sure. Put out the mission objectives for open bids, and have them available to the public. Give Burt Rutan the same shot as Boeing, and choose based on merit and cost.

Otherwise this is a cash cow for the most pork. Lots of meat, eh?

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

When a corporation operates on a cost plus basis, there is no incentive for economy.

What about jobs?

That's a pretty good incentive, don't you think?

Give Burt Rutan the same shot as Boeing, and choose based on merit and cost.

When Burt Rutan's company is qualified to bid with the big boys, I'm sure he'll be given proper consideration. In the meantime, he seems very satisfied working with NASA on smaller contracts:

"Scaled Composites set three ... world altitude records with the Model 281 Proteus aircraft ... conducted under the sponsorship of the NASA Office of Earth Science with funding provided by the NOAA/DoD/NASA Integrated Program Office. link

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

When a corporation operates on a cost plus basis, there is no incentive for economy.

What about jobs?

That's a pretty good incentive, don't you think?

I am not sure what you mean, perhaps you could clarify your position.


There is no reason for a company to do something for a billion when it can do it for 10 times that, as long as it doesnt lose money in the process.

Edit-- Rutan will never be qualified, because he and others will be excluded by design. If you declare that only megacorps need apply, but you can too if you become a megacorp makes no sense.

I mentioned Rutan because if you look, you will see that he has what looks to be a workable suborbital plane. Innovation need not apply?

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

There is no reason for a company to do something for a billion when it can do it for 10 times that, as long as it doesnt lose money in the process.

Being barred from bidding for future contracts would be a pretty good incentive not to overcharge.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

There is no reason for a company to do something for a billion when it can do it for 10 times that, as long as it doesnt lose money in the process.

Being barred from bidding for future contracts would be a pretty good incentive not to overcharge.

Which of the ISS corps have been barred?


Moreover, if NASA were to choose a 10 billion dollar solution instead of a one billion dollar one, and the more costly comes in at 9.9 billion, they would be crowing about how it came in under budget. That ignotes they spent 8.9 billion more than they need to get the job done.

I am not saying exclude the "usual suspects", but chose based on a design that works and costs less.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Which of the ISS corps have been barred?

I didn't say any company had been barred. I said the possibility would be a deterrent to overcharging.

Moreover, if NASA were to choose a 10 billion dollar solution instead of a one billion dollar one, and the more costly comes in at 9.9 billion, they would be crowing about how it came in under budget. That ignotes they spent 8.9 billion more than they need to get the job done.

I don't think what you are saying is necessarily true.

What you are describing sounds more like a shortcoming of the government-controlled bidding process, rather than private enterprise.

I am not saying exclude the "usual suspects", but chose based on a design that works and costs less.

Fire up MS Word and write a letter to your Congressman/Congresswoman proposing one.

:beer:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Fire up MS Word and write a letter to your Congressman/Congresswoman proposing one.


LOL, maybe I will.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Rutan will never be qualified, because he and others will be excluded by design. If you declare that only megacorps need apply, but you can too if you become a megacorp makes no sense.

I mentioned Rutan because if you look, you will see that he has what looks to be a workable suborbital plane. Innovation need not apply?

It makes perfect sense.

Would you trust a company with a half-million dollars in revenue, with a 50-million dollar government aerospace contract?

It would be like giving someone with a family roofing business a contract to reroof all the public schools on the West Coast.

Rutan may be a innovative and talented aerospace engineer - but if his company hasn't reached "critical mass" in terms of accomplishments, revenues, and employees, why should the public trust him to a huge aerospace contract?

Companies don't just wake up one day and find that they are industry-leaders.

Through innovation COMBINED WITH successful management and business skills, industry leadership is earned, not conferred.

I'd say that though Rutan's current federally-funded work with the government, someone higher-up definitely likes what they see.

 

[sttrekker7777]

If you have a group of people with large amounts of money, who are willing to pool that money in a private space exploration venture... wouldn't it make sense to allow those people to complement existing government space exploration?

The word "complement" is an ideal. My fear is that if corporations are allowed to utilize space exploration for their own ends, they will begin dominating exploration all together. Whenever any private party is allowed to venture into setting directions in space exploration, by the nature of this venture, the party will choose directions that will benefit itself and not the public on a whole. Pretty soon the influence of the private sector outweighs that of the government.

That being said, you did bring up some pertinent points. Let me make it clear that I agree there won't be any striking differences in the quality of space exploration under Republican, Green, Democratic, or any other political administration, although I would prefer more liberal leadership - this is my personal stance. But I can ignore this for now.

Under the current state of the world, private involvement in space exploration will, most likely, improve the efficiency, utility, and effectiveness of space exploration, and the technology transfer of discoveries made into applicable markets. But at what cost, and for how long will this assertion be valid?

We can use the analogy of drug companies. If discovery and application of medical research was put solely into the public's hands (by 'public' i mean government), advancement would most likely come at a far slower pace. You could argue that less people would be benefitted in a given amount of time. But pharmeceutical corporations are barring low-income customers from purchasing drugs at a cheaper price from Canada. So although advancement has come more quickly, the private sector has, in a way, "corrupted" the field of medicine by making it less and less available to those that need it. And I say 'less and less' because I think things will only get worse. Any venture that is intended to help the general public, but is put into private hands, will, almost inevitably, eventually lead to the benefitting of the private parties involved rather than the general public.

 

[CaptnKirk]

This may help clarify matters :<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040113/arms_satellite_1.html">Air Force spokeswoman Maj. Angela Billings gave no timetable for when sanctions currently preventing Boeing Co.
from bidding for those contracts would be lifted.</a>

And one of These and six of Those

 

[Dman877]

I would hope space exploration would be perfromed for the benefit of all but I imagine that corporations ringing profits from it would actually allow more people to experience it. It's a lot easier to become a truck driver or jet pilot then to become an astronaut and bigcorps would employ a lot more people then select popular projects.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: sttrekker7777

We can use the analogy of drug companies. If discovery and application of medical research was put solely into the public's hands ... advancement would most likely come at a far slower pace. You could argue that less people would be benefitted in a given amount of time. But pharmeceutical corporations are barring low-income customers from purchasing drugs at a cheaper price from Canada. So although advancement has come more quickly, the private sector has, in a way, "corrupted" the field of medicine by making it less and less available to those that need it.

I agree with your assertion that government-controlled medical advancement would proceed at a much slower pace than privately-controlled medicine. But I think what is missing here is an understanding of why this would be so. Using your analogy:

A private pharmaceutical venture would be primarily concerned with maximizing returns to shareholders. Since the majority of profits of a firm come from newly-developed technologies, the primary concern of a private venture would be bringing newly-developed technologies to market as quickly as possible. Early in a newly-developed product lifecycle, prices would be high, and the least accessible to people. However, these newly-developed products would provide the majority of the operating revenues to a company, as well as a strong incentive to remain in the market. As products age and become more widely used, the barrier-to-entry would decrease, encouraging competitors to enter the market. As opportunities to develop new-technologies within an industry become scarce, the incentive to remain in a given market would also decrease, encouraging a company to seek other industries which promise a greater opportunity for growth. In this fashion, privately-controlled pharmaceutical research would proceed at a fast pace, providing many newly-developed, highly priced technologies to the market in a rapid fashion. Older, more widespread technologies, would drop rapidly in price once adopted by a company's competitors and mass produced.

A government-controlled pharmaceutical venture would primarily be concerned with providing advancements to as many people as possible. The government would also be concerned with minimizing production costs, so medical advancements with the greatest yield per dollar would be selected for production. Funding for public development of medical advancements would be accomplished through legislation. The choice of which technologies to develop would presumably rest with a group of individuals charged the with oversight of the government-controlled venture. Technologies would be developed which hold the greatest potential for humanitarian benefit, irrespective of market forces, and to a large extent - cost.

Rather than making health care "less and less accessible" to those who need it, private enterprise has provided the funding and entrepreneurship to bring the majority of newly-developed technologies to market as quickly as possible. While it is true that a large number of innovations are accessible to those at a high price, this holds true only as long as a company is permitted to enjoy a monopoly with a product (patent/copyright life), or able protect against other competitors from entering its market for a product. Clearly, as a product becomes commonplace and widespead once other companies begin mass-producing a product, much of the profit potential of a product is wiped out, bringing the price of the product within reach of practically anyone.

In my opinion, the people who promote the "less and less accessible" argument clearly enjoy the fruits of living within an economy where much of brunt of research and development is footed by deep-pocketed corporations, however, they are dissatisfied with the amount of time required by a company to recoup its investment in research by charging high prices for a newly-developed product. These people look to countries with semi-socialized medicine (Canada), and the benefits of consumer universal access without taking into consideration the costs involved with bringing new innovations in medicine to market.

The main reason why pharmaceutical companies have lobbied to bar customers from importing lower-priced drugs (often produced in both countries by the same company), is because by accelerating the product life of a newly-developed drug (hastening its market penetration at low prices), a pharmaceutical company loses the financial reward for its investment in bringing current technologies to market, and the incentive to foot the bill for developing future technologies.

Herein lies the main difference between public medicine, and privatized medicine:

Under the scrutiny of shareholders and Wall Street, private pharmaceutical companies must research, develop and produce products efficiently, profitably and competitively. Shareholders voluntarily provide risk capital required for a company to explore and develop its products. If a venture is unable perform profitably, it goes bankrupt, or is acquired by a more-capable company.

Alternatively, a public venture lacks the limits of profitability. It can remain in existence so long as it is authorized to do so by law. As for funding, a public venture will receive funding for as long as is permitted by the prevailing political climate. Little if any incentive exists for the development of new-technologies. The public foots the bill and assumes the risk for all exploration and development. That a public venture lacks the ability to perform profitably is irrelevant - it can remain in existence indefinitely.

Relating this to the discussion of space exploration, I believe that fears of corporate "domination" of space are unfounded and premature.

In the beginning, as engineering costs are at their highest, private companies that are willing to bear the financial risk of space exploration will market the benefits of exploration at a high price. These high prices will reward the company for footing the large R&D bill for investing in the development of new technology, and provide an incentive for the company to remain in the industry. As time passes, and advanced technology becomes more widespread, the space exploration industry barrier-to-entry will decrease, encouraging competing companies to enter the market. As technologies age, they will be adopted by competitors and mass-produced, bringing a drop in price to a level accessible to the general public.