iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Peter Diamandis

Peter Diamandis

Posted: February 1, 2010 01:47 PM

After 30 years of doing business the same way, NASA is finally entering the 21st century by embracing competition, capitalism and entrepreneurship. In NASA's new budget, President Obama and NASA Administrator Charles Bolden have proposed spending billions of dollars to purchase commercial human launch services and invest in game changing technologies.

Many of the traditional players have translated this to mean that NASA's "Moon Mission" has been canceled, that NASA is out of the exploration business and is making a risky move turning over the 'right stuff' from Government hands to entrepreneurs and commercial industry. In reality, NASA is making a brilliant move.

During the past 30 years the cost of getting humans into space has gone up, while reliability has gone down. Rather than have two or three commercial suppliers of human spaceflight, we have been solely dependent on the Space Shuttle. When the Shuttle stands down from service in a year's time, NASA will need to send American Astronauts to Kazakhstan to launch aboard the Russian Soyuz at a price of over $50 million per person... Until, at least, new commercial U.S. vehicles are made operational.

The U.S. Government doesn't build your computers, nor do you fly aboard a U.S. Government owned and operated airline. Private industry routinely takes technologies pioneered by the government and turns them into cheap, reliable and robust industries. This has happened in aviation, air mail, computers, and the Internet. It's about time that it happen in space.

The President's plan for commercial competition will ultimately take us much farther and much faster, not only to the Moon, but to Mars, the asteroids and beyond. Private companies will drive a very high level of safety because they will cease to exist if they do not. America's capitalist engine drives reliability in our aircraft, our cars, our computers and will do so in space, as well. Private companies will also inject innovation and breakthrough technology into our space program because that is their ethos.

So, I applaud the President's bold decision for NASA to focus not on their past glories, but on building a sustainable space exploration program that can inspire all of us. Today's decision has laid the ground for the future Apple, Cisco and Google of space to be born, drive job creation and open the cosmos for the rest of us.

 
 
 

Follow Peter Diamandis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PeterDiamandis

 
 
  • Comments
  • 154
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
05:19 PM on 02/03/2010
Private industry certainly can put people into Earth orbit and even onto the Moon's surface so long as there's a profit to be made doing it. In order to make that profit obtainable the Federal Government must tear down the bureaucratic roadblocks its spent years building. Left to market forces alone, I suspect we could have Americans walking around on the Moon looking out for mining and manufacturing opportunities before the end of this decade.
12:57 PM on 02/23/2010
Of course private industry can put people into orbit; the real question is can they do so safely........If Toyota is any indication of the type of vehicles we will be riding into earth orbit....we are going in for a very short trip!!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:44 PM on 02/02/2010
"So, I applaud the President's bold decision for NASA "

hmmm, me too
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
copestir
02:45 PM on 02/02/2010
If the airline industry is an example on how well this could go, I will take NASA any day. Once this all goes to private sector, watch the outsourcing begin. This is about JOBS and where they go and how we can maintain a consolidated space program that represents the United States of America.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FerrisValyn
01:32 AM on 02/03/2010
So, what about those of us who actually want to go to space, but don't meet NASA's specs? And also, do you really think that they'll go out of the country while NASA is still paying for it?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jsgaetano
Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus
01:06 PM on 02/02/2010
Great. So that means Halliburton and Blackwater will be ruling space, too.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FerrisValyn
01:33 AM on 02/03/2010
There are decent companies out there. And neither of those 2 want it.

In fact, the Military industrial complex desperately doesn't want it to change
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Downix
12:10 PM on 02/02/2010
I see an incomplete picture. Using commercially supplied products works very well for the military. And it worked very well for NASA until Saturn. Do you realize that both the Mercury and Gemini programs were commercially supplied? NASA put out a contract bid, companies bid on them, and the best one, well, won.

Then came Apollo. It began the same, multiple proposals from Lockheed, Boeing, Martin, North American, but then NASA axed it, to design their own system. Same with the Shuttle, and everything since.

No, I say let us revert back to when NASA functioned, not only well, but excellently. I call this new program of Obamas, Gemini II, for it is, truth be told, a Gemini-style project, a far more ambitious and useful project than a simple boots n flags on moon mission. This can lead to long term deployment, months long if not full colonies. That is what we have to look forward to, a long term, far more useful program than we had before.

And the pieces are already there. ULA, SpaceX, Orbital, Sea Launch, ILS, SNC, all are either operational or in late-stage development of their pieces to the puzzle. And part of this move also is the return of pieces developed to the shuttle to the contractors. It would not be hard to envision Lockheed pulling out the Star Clipper again. Or ATK pushing forward. It's a far more dynamic field now than it was friday night.
11:48 AM on 02/02/2010
This is privatization of the aerospace industry pure and simple.
11:27 AM on 02/02/2010
What about national pride? I wasn’t alive when we first went to the moon, but everyone who was remembers watching it and reading about it. There was an almost tangible feeling of pride and accomplishment. The unmanned missions of recent times are noteworthy, but hardly inspire the same feelings.

In a time where half the country dwells only on our country’s faults and shortcomings and blames us for all of the world’s problems, it would be nice to have a reason to hold our heads higher.

The next logical step is a permanent, manned moon base. There are only two viable locations that have access to full-time solar power – the poles. All other locations are dark for half of the moon’s orbit. If we allow the Chinese, Russians, Indians or even the Europeans to get there first, we will have to go through them to get anything done. We will already be paying for transportation to the space station – I thought we were against outsourcing…

As for competition, NASA subcontracts nearly all of its services, development and production to industry partners. There is plenty of competition under the current model.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FerrisValyn
01:34 AM on 02/03/2010
But no cost controls
10:58 AM on 02/02/2010
in the budget obama is cutting the middleman in student loans, saving billions. how much is he losing by adding middlemen at nasa?
03:11 PM on 02/02/2010
Its not adding a middle man, it is sourcing of reliable commercial products. This is how airlines work, how the military gets it's components and how businesses operate (ie. mostly B2B). Widespread commercial development of space products, both devices and services, will enable many new efforts.
10:33 AM on 02/02/2010
"We choose to go to the moon, to show the world that America is a second rate power........"

Your Friends in China.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClarcKing
Citizen
10:15 AM on 02/02/2010
The private sector is simply not trusted to care for the economic / security priorities that are encompassed in the NASA space program. The article never mentioned the success of the Kennedy space program that returned 13 dollars for every dollar spent in the Gemini, Apollo, and Moon missions. The American economy lived off the benefits of the space program for 30 years.

The proposed budget cuts for the NASA projects is terrible and cowardly; furthering the erosion of the productive economy. The United States must act with vigor and courage now. Great space exploration and nuclear production / generation based infrastructural projects must be activated now by the power of the Federal government acting as if in a war-time urgency. The job-mobilization in this effort will lift the economy for generations; it is the only way that economic recovery can actuate.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
robert234
10:14 AM on 02/02/2010
It amazes me as to how long I can hold my breath between journalists who think and write brilliantly---thank you Mr. Diamandis. It's always been free enterprise that uses the great discoveries and inventions of science, technology , medicine,etc. to advance human progress---from the "big"(jet airplane, Salk vaccine) to the "small"( flush toilet, fanny pack). It will also take us to the stars and beyond.
05:24 PM on 02/02/2010
"Free" enterprise with alot of taxpayer subsidies.

We paid for the development of the internet and now pay again to use it....
So nice ya gotta pay twice??

Anyway, the first people they need to send in space should be a garbage cleanup crew to clean up the mess from all the other space explorations.

Then they can move on to junking up other planets.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
robert234
07:07 PM on 02/02/2010
It's always fun to hear from a Luddite.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:00 AM on 02/02/2010
If we were not under 'globalization' and Anglo-style 'free trade' policies like the WTO, then perhaps I would feel a little different but we're not.

Privatization of NASA will send our scientific/technological innovation to 'cheap labor markets' like China and India.

Why anyone cannot see that this just another move by Wall Street/City of London to own EVERYTHING is beyond me.

No private company on earth has enough money to match a government's sovereign power to 'subsidize' scientific/technological development...none.

Do you think Wal Mart, which is supposed to be worth 200 billion has enough money to finish the scientific/technological discoveries we need for the next generations to live with space innovations?

At some point there will be a role for retailers of what we as a people discover and develop but until then we need to collective organizing of government to build the foundation for that to happen first.
04:39 PM on 02/02/2010
Under this plan NASA is will do the R&D for NEW propulsion methods and technologies, while services such as transportation to orbit based on existing technologies are purchased from private AMERICAN companies for millions of dollars instead of billions that NASA would spend to do it in house. That cost savings will allow NASA to do much more R&D, and go farther, faster than ever before to new destinations.
05:33 PM on 02/02/2010
Haahahahhahahhaa...

The military budget is OUT OF CONTROL due to private contractors.

Overbilling, overpricing...that's the name of the game with private contracts. They do this and then complain about "government spending".
photo
BlackJAC
It's better to be a black king than a white knight
09:16 AM on 02/02/2010
POPULAR MECHANICS ran an article on how all those privatized Blackwater mercenaries are actually costing the American taxpayer more money in the long run than an equivalent amount of Army infantry due to that fun little cost-plus LOGCAP. This means the average contractor not only gets compensated for parts and labor but also a bonus on top of that...hence all those Italian marble latrines and so forth. A guy I know was one of the interview subjects in NO END IN SIGHT, and he was once tasked to build an Iraqi border fort along with some private contractors: the private contractors took longer to finish theirs and it cost $1.2 million while he used local labor and did it for $200,000.
08:39 AM on 02/02/2010
Engineers and science create the innovations that can employ tens of millions of workers. This budget reflects exactly the same model that destroyed General Motors, except now it might destroy what is left of the country's innovation.

It is NOT just formal education; it is applied sciences and vocations in the middle class, designers, tool and die makers, developers, engineers of all kinds that this country was built upon.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
08:54 AM on 02/02/2010
General Motors' bad products, lack of innovation and poor strategy destroyed General Motors.
photo
BlackJAC
It's better to be a black king than a white knight
09:21 AM on 02/02/2010
I was the final person hired by the company that essentially invented the E-mail address. There were wanted posters around the gradually emptying building for the incompetent CEO who drove the place into the ground, then pulled the ripcord on his golden parachute and somehow still sits on other companies' boards of directors despite this glaring failure on his record.
04:14 PM on 02/02/2010
See post further down: "driven to disaster by union leaders and mismanagement ".
The union leaders played a major part of the GM debacle.
08:33 AM on 02/02/2010
Too bad NASA is not a government entity that wastes our money, a bankrupt company driven to disaster by union leaders and mismanagement or a “busy work” body involved with social justice with no redeeming value to society.

How can we innovate if we are just creating short term, unsustainable beltway jobs? NASA, although imperfect is an asset that needs to be taken to the next level.