NASA is having a hard time making people happy. Plenty of scientists and space enthusiasts are very excited about how well the missions for Spirit and Opportunity have been going. The rovers have outlived their original mission time by years, no small feat on an alien world that usually covers solar panels with talcum fine dust in just three months. (I wonder why no one installs a mechanical brush to clean the dust off.) And with the Phoenix landing safely and accurately and getting to the detailed science of Martian ice and soil, NASA seems to be showing that they can land better and better on the surface of another planet. Before the twin rovers, about a third of all missions to Mars would vanish or crash-land. In fact the rovers were built as duplicates of each other in case one crashes.
But hardcore space watchers and space-agnostic taxpayers aren't thrilled. Phoenix costs $420 million. The twin rovers cost about $800 million to build and an extra $20 million per year to operate. For the space watchers, the $1.3 billion spent on flights to Mars are too little, the investigations are too slow and the technology isn't moving fast enough for manned spaceflight. The space agnostics on the other hand are stunned that the government spends so much money on sending robots to another planet to look at... ice and rocks. To them, this money is wasted. On top of this, just like any groups with opposing views on a subject, they talk right past each other and miss the problems with their own arguments.
"We're trying to build a civilization here," say the space enthusiasts. "We need to become a space faring species and you troglodytes are penny pinching with the future of the human race to buy a new TV."
"Oh yeah?" reply the space agnostics. "Well you're nothing but a bunch of spendthrifts who want to waste money we need on flying tin cans to take pictures of red rocks and blue ice. And that government! Over a billion bucks on three robots? I tell you those government programs are so badly managed..."
But there is one thing they agree on and that's the fact that private enterprise should get involved in space exploration. The idea is that private enterprise is much less bureaucratic, works faster and is driven by people who dream big and do big things. Modern day examples are SpaceX launched by Elon Musk, the co-founder of PayPal and Virgin Galactic started by Richard Branson, creator of the Virgin hyper-brand. Then there's the muscle behind Virgin Galactic, Burt Ruitan's Scaled Composites backed by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen. There's also Las Vegas based Bigelow Airspace which is successfully launching inflatable space habitats. And this is not to mention the fact that much of the technology being launched into space has been put together by major defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing.
With the billions in private equity coming from vast pools of cash designated for investment into new ventures and experience already there, it seems logical that private industry should be working on the future of space travel rather than the government taking citizens' money to run a space program.
However, it's not quite this simple. Space X, which just launched its first craft, is still working with chemical rockets to launch cargo into near Earth orbit. They're just trying to do it cheaper. Virgin Galactic will only be offering short jaunts into space for tourists who can afford to pay the $200,000 fare for a few hours of what is spaceflight by technical definition alone. Bigelow Airspace wants to create space hotels for tourists and defense contractors who've already built space craft need a client to pay for all the materials and labor it takes to assemble launch vehicles and space probes. With the exception of Scaled Composites, they're far from creating radically new technology for launching things into orbit. Besides, they're businesses first and foremost and that means their flights need to make a profit eventually. To do something that requires no immediate ROI and is done for a combination of purely scientific research and prestige (how many nations have landed a vehicle on Mars?), you need either philanthropists with billions to give away or a government.
Right now, the new class of super-philanthropists are giving to education, healthcare, arts and to combat the war, famine and illness in Africa. Space is not a major priority for them. This only leaves the government which used about $6 billion per year on space missions in 2008. Almost all of this was used for the ISS and the Space Shuttle program. The missions to Mars were actually just a small siphon from the money left over after the shuttle and the ISS expenses were covered for the year. (see page 10) The government hauls in around $2.5 trillion, almost a million times more than the amount spent annually to build and support new interplanetary missions. Sounds like there are far more places where money is being wasted than on three Martian robots.
As for space enthusiasts pleading for science to move at a faster clip, they must realize that technology used for space travel is very complex and takes a long time to build and test. We're not moving as fast as we could be, but let's remember that the entire space program was based on competing with the USSR and beating the Soviets to the moon. As soon as Apollo 12 landed in the Pacific Ocean after its brief stay on the Moon, people began asking questions about whether it was wise to spend a few billion per flight to walk on another world since the Soviets were now behind in the space race. Space today is still a political domain and a source of pride, prestige and as of recently, even military prowess. As long as people think of spaceflight as something to show the other countries who's boss, it won't be a top priority when scientific research of the existential and esoteric comes up.
