Skip to main content

Why Privatize Space Travel and Colonization?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Space Capitalism

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Classical Liberalism ((PASTCL))

Abstract

We urge this course of action on the basis of a brief history of state-run programs, which have been undertaken for less than stellar reasons such as the development of weapons of war, and even misguided attempts to garner prestige. We discuss alternatives to chemical launches from the earth's surface including rocket launches from an aircraft and an elevator to the sky. We remark upon the advantages of private launches vis-à-vis their government counterparts, and the implied limits of ownership. We ask of interplanetary travel, is it always an orbit? We deliberate upon the implications for property rights of space exploration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 34.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Robert H. Goddard (American), Wernher von Braun (German), Sergei Korolev (Russian) to name a few. Granted that each of these people had government-paid employment, mostly in state-run academic institutions; still, their rocket work was largely on their own initiatives in association with other experimenters. Korolev was even committed to labor camp for pursuing his research on his own (Zak 2007). That changed fast when Stalin figured out he needed his knowledge.

  2. 2.

    For more on von Braun and the early research on rocketry refer to Marshall Space Flight Center (n.d.).

  3. 3.

    One might ask why the interest in rockets. They contain all of the components necessary for combustion including both the fuel and the oxidizer. For flight in the upper atmosphere where oxygen is sparse or outer space where it is non-existent, an aircraft or spaceship cannot rely on the air to continue to burn fuel.

  4. 4.

    “V-2” Stands for Vergeltungswaffe-2 which may be translated Retribution Weapon-2.

  5. 5.

    People use the name “Nazi ” which is shorthand for “National Socialist,” or more properly the NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) or National Socialist German Workers’ Party. See on this Nazi Party, 2015. When this book uses the word “Nazi” it is intended to refer to a historical German political party or its economic and political precepts.

  6. 6.

    “… well over $1 Billion for FY 62, and that the required increases for subsequent fiscal years may run twice as high or more.” (Von Braun , W. 1961).

  7. 7.

    “Ossified?” Were not von Braun and other rocket scientists widely regarded as forward-thinking innovators of the first class? Yes, they were. And certainly, at least in the early years, they can be seen that way even today. We dare to call their thinking ossified because they essentially had one idea, innovative though it was, and never saw any need to seriously consider alternatives. So, they produced bigger, and chunkier, versions of the once highly progressive V-2. (We hesitate to use this “p” word, “progressive,” given its exact opposite meaning in political discourse as we write in 2016, but have the effrontery to do this as well.)

  8. 8.

    We detail both practical and ethical reasons for this in Chap. 3.

  9. 9.

    He was a chemical junky as well. In his later life, he relied on a mixture of drugs prescribed by Dr. Theodor Morell including crystal meth and cocaine among the 74 such substances he regularly imbibed (Colgrass, N. 2014).

  10. 10.

    At least before he began working for the state, see above.

  11. 11.

    The opinion of tyrannical bureaucrats notwithstanding.

  12. 12.

    These craft were carried aloft by heavy bombers such as the B-29 and the B-52 (Gibbs , Y. 2015a, b).

  13. 13.

    The effect is not the same for a passenger on a commercial airliner looking out of a small, book-sized window where the view is obscured by the wing. It is even less, if one is sitting in an aisle seat.

  14. 14.

    Sub-orbital flight means that the craft does not have the speed to remain in space but will fall back to Earth . It also need not endure the hellacious heat of re-entry experienced by orbital space vehicles. These vehicles are useful in their own way. However, for the technique of aircraft-launched reusable spacecraft to be serious contenders, a system to attain Earth orbit and/or escape velocity (the velocity required to escape Earth’s gravity), and to withstand re-entry from those speeds, will need to be devised.

  15. 15.

    A counter weight refers to a mass of dense material suspended over a pulley so that the unloaded elevator room does not need to be lifted. If desired, efficiency can be improved further so part of the load is balanced as well. That means that effort would be needed to lift the counter weight when there is no load, but the force needed to lift a load would be reduced. In the same way, braking, slowing down, or stopping, is also simplified.

  16. 16.

    U.S. and U.K. patents have already been granted for just such a structure to a Canadian company, Thoth Technology Inc.

  17. 17.

    22,000 miles is the height of a geosynchronous orbit (one wherein the satellite continuously maintains the same location over the Earth’s surface).

  18. 18.

    The elevator also presents major challenges for which existing technology does not have the answers, at least not yet. The biggest problem is the cable. It must be stronger than any known material and also very thin and lightweight (10 feet in diameter is suggested though thicker would not seem to be fatal to the concept). However, carbon nanotubes with an epoxy binder seem to offer considerable promise that a solution can be found within the next few years (Hirschfeld , B. 2002). More information can be found browsing for the “National Nanotechnology Initiative.”

  19. 19.

    The height of a Martian synchronous orbit is 17,000 kilometers. Because of the dynamics of orbiting bodies, this concept does not apply for some planets. If the heavenly body is in tidal lock (its period of rotation [one day] equals one revolution [one year] around the object it is orbiting) or if its angular velocity (the rate an object is spinning or rotating often expressed in degrees per minute) is too slow, the theoretical distance to a synchronous orbit would be so far that it would be beyond the gravitational influence of the planet. Venus is one such planet.

  20. 20.

    An explanation of the physics of orbits and why they are efficient can be found in the Appendix.

  21. 21.

    If one had unlimited resources, one could save a lot of time by powering straight out from the Sun in order to get to the outer solar system or from the Earth to the Moon. However, that would be energy intensive in the extreme.

  22. 22.

    Think in terms of a bolo (bola), a weapon first used in South America, which is a rock tied to a string. In order to garner great power, the stone, before being released, is first turned in a circle, repeatedly faster and faster. Or, contemplate the field sports of discus and hammer throw. These implements are catapulted by first spinning them in a circle. In a way the armament’s tether and the athlete’s arm in these examples are analogous to gravity except that, as explained in the Appendix, the particles for imparting the gravitational field cannot be detected. (This is in sharp contrast to the shot put, which is released in a straight line, although as in the other two cases, the athlete is confined to a small circular area in which he may operate.)

  23. 23.

    An analogous situation pertains on Earth . Great circle routes are the most efficient for transportation, whether in the air or on the oceans. These trajectories , too, will one day become scarce. Then, if the tragedy of the commons or of government ownership is to be avoided, private property rights, based in our view on homesteading, will have to be inaugurated. For a libertarian analysis of these earthly but analogous challenges, see Block and Nelson 2015.

  24. 24.

    At first glance, it seems preposterous to even discuss “maintaining” a path in space. However, this is explained immediately following in the main text.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Nelson, P.L., Block, W.E. (2018). Why Privatize Space Travel and Colonization?. In: Space Capitalism. Palgrave Studies in Classical Liberalism. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74651-7_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74651-7_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-74650-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-74651-7

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics