[Dig1t]

This is incredibly regressive thinking. Any technology or human progress changes the world around us. Do you lament the construction of new buildings or roads because they change the natural landscape? Would you prefer we never explore space or build anything new?

IMO it’s a marvel to look up at the sky and see man made objects flying through the sky, it’s incredibly inspiring to see the great feats of engineering that humans are capable of.

Also if you look up at the night sky you can still see ALL the stars, it’s just that you can now see a few extra tiny dots flying by, it subtracts nothing from the average stargazer’s view.

Your children will get much more amazing and inspiring sights from space telescopes and spacecraft that this new space industry will enable. They will benefit from new science and manufacturing techniques that are enabled by cheap access to space.

>when it’s the government

The government had a monopoly on space access for the past half century and barely managed to put a handful of extremely expensive objects in space. They were never capable of creating reusable rockets or lowering the cost of access to space in a meaningful way. Maybe it feels nicer when governments do it, but cheap access to space will never happen if they are the ones running the show.

[digitaltrees]

I am a progressive. But ownership of the commons is something that requires careful policy decisions. The same applies to utilities, the open ocean, wireless spectrum.

We shouldn’t allow monopolies in the name of progress or the monopolistic rent seeking will stifle progress.

The government could have absolutely done all of this and more if there was any commitment to the investment. Instead nasa had its budget gutted.

My kids won’t have a future with any opportunity if resources are so concentrated that their bargaining power can’t have any effect in the world.

[Dig1t]

>The government could have absolutely done all of this

Yeah they totally could have, so why didn’t they? World governments have had massive budgets for space agencies for like 70 years, yet they were never able to build reusable rockets or do anything other than send a handful of extremely overpriced novelty science projects into space.

You say they could do it, but there’s no evidence to support that they ever actually would.

[digitaltrees]

The space shuttle was reusable.

No private company would have been able to bootstrap the basic research upon which spaceX is now building its business.

The government isn’t a commercial for profit enterprise. It serves a different function, specifically providing services for which markets won’t be functional like fire departments, policing, broad categories of infrastructure.

And your argument is a distraction. Just because government doesn’t do something well doesn’t justify granting a monopoly to a private actor. And if a monopoly is necessary then it should be a regulated utility like power generation, telecom etc.

[Dig1t]

The space shuttle was laughably bad compared to SpaceX’s rockets and they were not really rapidly reusable. They required an extensive refurbishment which involved disassembling the entire craft. The process took upwards of 6 months to re-fly. It also cost close to 1 BILLION per mission to fly it (that’s more than 10x what it costs to fly a SpaceX rocket).

What exactly are you saying is a monopoly? SpaceX is not a monopoly by any stretch, they are competing with Rocket Lab, Blue Origin, ULA, Relativity, and others.

>providing services for which markets won’t be functional

We are talking about a situation (launches, satellite constellations) where the government had a monopoly for 70 years and then transitioned to a market model. Since switching to a market model mass to orbit has gone through the roof and costs have fallen off a cliff. So much so that entirely new types of missions are now possible because of the increased access to space (Starlink is one such example).

We are specifically seeing the opposite of your “markets won’t be functional” statement; the market is so much better than the state-run enterprise that the idea of returning to the old model would be unthinkable.

[dash2]

By this logic we should also enjoy every time someone puts a motorway through woodland. Just look at the human achievement embodied in all that concrete!

[Dig1t]

Well some creations are more marvelous than others, maybe you wouldn’t find a concrete road beautiful or interesting, though arguably you totally could (many people still to this day find the enduring road/aqueduct infrastructure of Ancient Rome to be beautiful and inspiring), but looking at a city skyline with massive skyscrapers and intricate infrastructure is very inspiring.

Humans are capable of incredible feats of engineering and many man-made things are extremely inspiring.