Last week, Avatar director James Cameron painted a rosy picture of privatized space exploration, suggesting that the president's anemic NASA budget will clear the way for competitive market forces to jump-start the industry. In the days since, others have come forward to praise Obama's plan to divert national funding to private aeronautics companies. But not everyone is thrilled to see NASA become such a low priority for the government (and almost no one has echoed Cameron's sentiment that "rockets really run on dreams").
- While America Rests, Others Won't Charles Krauthammer is dismayed at the thought of the U.S. falling behind other nations. "Sure, decades from now there will be a robust private space-travel industry. But that is a long time. In the interim, space will be owned by Russia and then China."
- NASA Is Irreplaceable in the Public Imagination In a New York Times roundtable, John Logsdon argues that "the principal benefits from human spaceflight are intangible, but nevertheless substantial." The moon missions of the '60s instilled in Americans a sense of "international prestige and national pride," something Logsdon thinks is best produced by initiatives at the federal level.
- A Sensible Division of Labor Foreign Policy's Esther Dyson thinks Obama's proposed marriage of public funds with private development resources is for the best. Dyson reaches back into the past for a telling analogy:
The U.S. Defense Department may have created the Internet, but had it kept control of the technology, it's unlikely the Web would have become the vibrant public resource it is today. That credit goes to the investment and activity of private citizens and private companies, starting in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
This article is from the archive of our partner The Wire.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.