Except perhaps for some psychopaths, everybody hopes that the four members of the Inspiration4 mission (watch a video) will safely return to Earth. One remarkable thing is how, just a few years ago, most people would have not believed that a crew of civilians would soon orbit the earth in an adventure financed by a billionaire (Jared Isaacman) on a reusable and already-used spacecraft built by the company of another billionaire (Elon Musk). That only military missions flew to space in the past half-century illustrates how our societies are militarized.
We cannot know in advance what new and unexpected possibilities individual liberty and entrepreneurship will open, just as we may not know which ones have been foreclosed by government regulation and standardization. One does not have to love billionaires to understand this idea, dear to Nobel economics laureate F.A. Hayek. In Law, Legislation and Liberty, Vol. 1: Rules and Order (University of Chicago Press, 1973, p.56), he wrote:
Since the value of freedom rests on the opportunities it provides for unforeseen and unpredictable actions, we will rarely know what we lose through a particular restriction of freedom.
Some surrealistic poetry and fun is part of what we missed before. The first stage of the rocket, also reusable, came back to Earth and landed on one of SpaceX’s drone ships, this one called “Just Read the Instructions.” Elon Musk certainly did not just read the instructions.
The Economist writes (“SpaceX Sends the First-Ever Civilian Crew into Earth Orbit,” September 16, 2021):
The Inspiration4 mission was conceived and paid for by Jared Isaacman, the founder of Shift4 Payments. Very rich entrepreneurs going into space has been something of a trend in recent months, with Richard Branson being flown to 85km in a rocketplane built by Virgin Galactic, a company he founded, and Jeff Bezos reaching 107km in a capsule launched by New Shepard, a rocket built by his company, Blue Origin.
Mr Isaacman’s trip is different. It is being undertaken not to show off his own wares but to enjoy the possibilities afforded by someone else’s—specifically those of SpaceX, a company founded and run by Elon Musk—while at the same time raising money for St Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.
Is it surprising that none of our loving governments thought about all that before? The Economist seems to subliminally suggest that what’s happening is not really “a democratisation of space.” That is not the point. But it is a big step in opening space to consumers willing to pay for it, quite probably at decreasing prices.
READER COMMENTS
Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan
Sep 17 2021 at 7:51pm
It’s hard to know just where to draw the line between space-tourism and other sorts of space travel. Much of that in which the Soviet Space Programme and NASA engaged was primarily an exercise in public relations. And, beyond their regular astronauts, state-funded vehicles took — or attempted to take — teachers, politicians, and representatives of allied states into space.
I suspect that NASA long ago considered and rejected the idea of overtly selling tickets to millionaires (and then, when millions became less powerful and billionaires more plentiful, to billionaires). But NASA understood that, even if the price of a ticket more than covered marginal and average costs, such service would have inflamed the envious and egalitarian, while inviting intensified challenge from those who already believed that NASA were acting outside the proper bounds of the state.
Even with a private amusement ride, we see the envious inflamed, and implicit invocation of a theory that forgoing taxation is provision of subsidy.
Pierre Lemieux
Sep 17 2021 at 8:30pm
Daniel,
Good points! They may also have wanted to maintain an appearance of royal or military prerogative.
Pierre Lemieux
Sep 17 2021 at 8:58pm
[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs&t=3s[/embed]
Pierre Lemieux
Sep 17 2021 at 8:36pm
Or perhaps NASA did not want to risk that civilians spilled the beans. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs&t=3s.
steve
Sep 18 2021 at 11:26am
From the NASA site.
“The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is an independent agency of the U.S. federal government responsible for the civilian space program, as well as aeronautics and space research. NASA was established in 1958, succeeding the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.”
I have never really thought of NASA as a military organization. They did use military crews in the early years since they had the best pilot training and there was lots of risk involved. You seem to think NASA is a military organization so maybe you know more about NASA than I do. I will say that in the world of science fiction there has always been an assumption that space flight would be done by both private commercial interests and government/military groups.
Steve
Jens
Sep 18 2021 at 8:01pm
Even more so Musk has his spacecraft names from Iain M. Banks “culture” novels in which Banks assumes that no more private commercial interest exists (and individuality is protected by AI ^^). Seems like everybody has to be careful what to wish for.
Pierre Lemieux
Sep 20 2021 at 10:26am
Interesting. Nobody should hold arbitrary power, including Musk.
David Seltzer
Sep 18 2021 at 11:35am
“Since the value of freedom rests on the opportunities it provides for unforeseen and unpredictable actions, we will rarely know what we lose through a particular restriction of freedom.” At the granular level, the restriction of innovate spirit is disturbing. In Denver a kid’s lemonade stand was shut down by the health department with this regulation; “Non-mobilized food vendors need a temporary permit in order to sell food and non-alcoholic beverages at city-approved, designated sites, according to the city’s Parks and Recreation department. Its website says vendors or food trucks with no permit aren’t allowed in or within 300 feet of a Denver park or parkway unless it’s associated with a special event.”
The cost of the license application is $25. The one day fee is $100. Just ridiculous.
Jose Pablo
Sep 19 2021 at 11:10am
“We will rarely know what we lose through a particular restriction of freedom”
One area in which this could be particularly bad is aging research and reversal. Since this is an area subject to heavy regulation and where you can expect the envious and egalitarians being particularly active, you can be almost certain that we are decades behind where we could be in a “less government more freedom” kind of world.
Since billionaires becoming “free from aging” way before the rest of us is an “unthinkable thought” in our society, we condemn ourselves to not getting there ever.
The same way that we would not have cars or refrigerators if the millionaires having them first would have been an “unthinkable thought” at the time when they were developed.
Yes, it is a pity how the envious and egalitarians limit our development.
Comments are closed.