Should NASA Become Privately Owned?

The recent news of funds being cut from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) moon project has sparked a vital discussion regarding the continuation of the agency as a whole. NASA has been in existence since October 1, 1958 and is one of the larger funded programs in the national budget. Due to the economic recession and public concerns about the cost of more space exploration, the idea of continuing a publicly funded space program is questionable. Should we continue to publicly fund NASA and the space program? Some oppose the agency’s search for “little green men,” better known as the Mars Exploration, as wasteful and would like to disband the civilian space program as a whole. This is a valid argument, because since the start of the program, “mankind has set foot on precisely one other world (a moon, at that)” (McCullagh). On the other hand, the space program has made countless advancements that have become vital to our everyday lives. Additionally, NASA’s discoveries have supplied our knowledge and sparked our imaginations regarding the universe and stars above. Tax-paying Americans should have the right to know the pros and cons of continued public funding of NASA and of the consequences of privatizing the space program.

One of the main concerns about NASA is the cost to continue funding; this is why the idea of privatizing or cutting the agency has been brought to a public forum. In 2009, “NASA announced a $17.6 billion budget for [the] fiscal year” (NASA). These numbers may be astounding; however, compared to the rest of the national budget, the agency accounts for less than 0.0447%. This number is calculated by dividing the amount of funds spent on NASA (for 2009 fiscal year) by the estimated total national budget for the 2009 fiscal year. In other words, 17.6 billion dollars divided by 3.1 trillion dollars equals 0.0447% ( Stourt and Pear). Opponents of NASA state that some of the funding could be used for social programs like Medicare and Social Security. According to NASA supporters like the Space Review Organization, “for every $1 the federal government spends on NASA, it spends $98 on social programs. In other words, if we cut spending on social programs by a mere one percent, we could very nearly double NASA’s budget” (Brooks). Even though that a single dollar represents $17.6 billion, this is a large amount of money. However, it is minuscule compared to the other programs and sectors in the government. But the argument that other social programs need some of NASA’s funding loses some validity by this perspective. This same argument could be used to justify cutting military spending and redirecting it to social programs. In 2009, “President Barack Obama . . . sent to Congress a proposed defense budget of $663.8 billion for fiscal 2010” (Department of Defense). So due to the concerns about cost, the privatization of the space program is favored because it will take the funding out of the pockets of the American tax-payers and into those of the investors. This will have positive and negative effects on certain aspects of NASA and the space program as we now know them.

Privatization of many previously government-controlled sectors has demonstrated improvements and growth. The research article “Privatization and Its Benefits: Theory and Evidence,” by Eytan Sheshinski and Luis F. López-Calva, states that privatization “increases profitability and efficiency in both competitive and monopolistic sectors” (1). The other benefit of privatization is the low amount of turnover in higher administrative positions. NASA does not have this luxury since the higher administrative positions is appointed by the current executive administration. Therefore, NASA usually has a different head administrator when the new president appoints individuals to head the agency. Privatization of the agency would allow for more stability and help maintain the same objectives over decades. Economically, a disadvantage of privatizing is that every project is driven by cost and profit with the threat of losing investors or of possible bankruptcy. In contrast, “the threat of bankruptcy is non-credible under public ownership” (Sheshinski and López-Calva 435). The threat of cost and the inability to generate profit could hinder the American public’s knowledge of astrophysics and astronomy if the privatization of NASA comes to fruition.

Research, which is one of the fundamental objectives of NASA, will be significantly affected by privatization. Due to privatization, some of the current programs would not be financially sound. An example of this is the Hubble telescope, which was launched in 1990 and has cost “about $10 billion over its lifetime, including its past servicing missions” (Moskowitz). This telescope is used for scholarly studies and has provided evidence of the existence of black holes at the center of galaxies. It also helped in the accurate calculation of the Hubble constant, which is “the universe's present expansion rate” (Hubble site). Currently, knowing the exact expansion rate and the existence of black holes does not generate any profit. Therefore, it would be difficult to justify spending 10 billion dollars on a telescope to investors. Such scientific discoveries could not be possible without a powerful telescope. In the private sector, profit drives research. And some researches that investigate scientific phenomena, such as dark matter, are not profitable.

All discoveries and advancements made by NASA become public knowledge; this will not be the case in the private sector. All inventions and products will have trademarks and patents; they will be sold exclusively by that particular company. Additionally, the private companies’ discoveries would become their intellectual property. NASA’s inventions are currently founded in the market place but are not monopolized. With the current structure of patents, a company has full rights to a particular invention for “20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed” (USPTO). Inventions like NASA’s memory foam have hit the market with reasonable costs; this would be the case in privatization. One NASA invention started with a scientific need:

Memory foam, also known as temper foam, was developed under a NASA contract in the 1970s that set out to improve seat cushioning and crash protection for airline pilots and passengers. Memory foam has widespread commercial applications, in addition to the popular mattresses and pillows. (NASA)

This is just one of numerous discoveries that are in used in our homes. Products like ear thermometers, cordless tools, and invisible braces have been either invented or are a spin-offs. The technology behind the ear thermometer utilizes inferred energy that is released by the body to measure temperature. According to NASA, “this technology was originally developed to detect the birth of stars” (NASA). These technologies were invented to either help with the study of the universe or aid in space travel. The privatization of NASA and the space program will alter the possibility of future products in certain areas since research programs do not produce foreseeable profit in that said area.

This is just on more invention that NASA has invent in the pursit of scholarly research. This thermometer senses temperature by the amount of infrared being released. Most individual are not familar with how many of NASA invention or spin off of their invention are in there home.

The efficiency and management of the NASA program will be improved by privatization. Granted, there is evidence to show that privatively operated organizations are more productive and efficient than their government counterparts. Some of the flaws and inefficiencies of the agency have been evident in last few decades alone. NASA has been marked by billion-dollar project failures due to simple human error, such as the misuse of measuring system. In 1999, Cable News Network (CNN) reported that “NASA lost a $125 million Mars orbiter because one engineering team used metric units while another used English units for a key spacecraft operation” (CNN). According to Edward Weiler, associate administrator for Space Science, “the problem here was not the error, it was the failure of NASA's systems engineering, and the checks and balances in our processes to detect the error. That's why we lost the spacecraft” (CNN). Other examples like the Hubble telescope instrument or the broken wheels on the Mars Rover highlight just the few blunders by agency. Failures and mistakes by NASA have led to not only loss of billions of dollars but also to the loss of human lives like the astronauts of the Challenger and the Columbia shuttle. And according to Robert Zimmerman, of Space Watch, “the possibility of more Columbia-type tragedies - this time with an entirely new spacecraft - remains an unfortunate probability” (429).The argument that privately funded space programs will not have error and tragedies are asinine, but NASA has the luxury of not answering to investors how its billion dollar project failed due to human error or mathematical error. Looking at the news headlines today, one can see the mistakes and failures by successful private corporations like those of Toyota, which BBC recently reported as having “recalled 2.3 million US cars with faulty pedals” (BBC). These sticky acceleration pedals have led to reported deaths and injuries. According to The Huntington Post the number of alleged deaths due to the faulty pedals is up to 34, “according to new consumer data gathered by the government” (Thomas). So with the added pressure that the future mission and project depend on, the success of the present project gives private corporations a reason to not cut corners and re-examine data and mathematics numerous times. While NASA does have to request funds for projects, it is not required to show investors a portfolio of earnings or make sure that its stock shares stay at a reasonable and profitable level. But NASA’s inefficiency can be attributed to the fast turnover of upper administrators, in contrast to private corporations that may have the same individuals in higher management for decades.

The image of the Mars Rover which was the first mechine to explore the Martian surface. The image is to show one of NASA's many instruments and mechines to break or not function do to human error.

Here is an image of the crew of the Columbia. They have paid the ultimate price for NASA's mistakes. But this tragedy is never inevitable even with a private space program.

This image is to show that even successfully run private companies are not invincible to error and mistakes. This sticky gas peddle have allegedly accounted for some 34 death. This amount is larger than the Columbia and Challenger disasters combined.

At the end of the day, the privatization of NASA and the space program will have long lasting effects on the public beside the use of their tax money. Consumer’ fully understanding what NASA has accomplished besides putting inventions and people into space could make the public better appreciate the agency. Knowing that their memory foam bed they sleep on and the thermometer they use for their sick children will make the public more willing to support NASA. Also, I believe the reason why politicians have become more concerned with funding NASA is due to the worries of the national deficit. The idea that cutting funds for an agency that accounts for about 0.0447% of the national budget is foolish compared to the slight fiscal reductions of Department of Defense which accounts for 21.4% or $663.8 billion (Department of Defense). The current interest in saving money could be attributed to the vast funding needed to combat wars in the Middle East. Some of the opponents of NASA state that “we should solve our problems here on Earth before we go into space” (Brooks). But I believe that humanity is flawed and that we will never solve all our problems so that we can then go into space. NASA’s inefficiency is due to the differences in the agendas and goals of one administration to the next. For instance, the Bush administration was “focusing all of NASA's efforts on the human exploration of the solar system, starting with a return to the moon sometime in the next decade” (Zimmerman). Meanwhile, the current Obama administration recently cut funds for the moon project that was started by Bush. At the same time, as the four year turnover and the shifting of direction from one administration to the other has not helped the agency and has made some long-term projects static. Stability is necessary for growth and better efficiency. And the way I, if see it is that if we privatized NASA and the space program, we, taxpaying Americans, will be losing out on more valuable discoveries and inventions. Our advancements as a society could be set back. Given that, science is based on the concept of asking why and how certain phenomena work without the need to add the probability of making profit into the equation. Throughout human history, we have been wondering what is out there in the night sky. Now with our vast resources, we can find. But if the space agency becomes privatized, our questions and curiosities will only be answered if it is financially favorable.