Seti aff •seti neg •Asteroids Aff


Privatization Fails – International Law



Download 2.75 Mb.
Page139/154
Date18.10.2016
Size2.75 Mb.
#1118
1   ...   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   ...   154

Privatization Fails – International Law


[____]
[____] The laws regarding profit in space are not clear enough to encourage investment.
American Bar Association Journal, 7/20/2009 ABA, “Revising the Outer Space Treaty”



It's not at all clear that the Outer Space Treaty as currently fashioned is adequate to deal with private exploitation of space. The ABA Journal explains that: In viewing space as the province of mankind, the Outer Space Treaty borrows principles from customary maritime law, which guarantees peaceful passage through navigable waters by ships of all nations. But in application, the Outer Space Treaty is more similar to the Antarctic Treaty System, a series of international agreements that call for cooperative management of Antarctica as a nonmilitarized environment and put off claims of sovereignty for an indefinite period. But as the prospects for commercial ventures in space increase, it will be necessary to address the issue of who will be allowed to profit from the fruits of those ventures, say lawyers in the field. “The current system works if nations accept a détente in space and all the resources are only used for the benefit of all mankind,” Keefe says. “If that’s the case, then there will never be commercialization of space and there will be little benefit for mankind. I know that’s a cynical capitalist viewpoint, but I think if everyone is afraid to launch a venture because they might not be allowed to profit from it, then nothing will happen.”

Privatization Fails – Too Long For Profit


[____]
[____] Space investments take too long to return with profit, which means investors won’t invest in private space companies.
A.J. Mackenzie, writer for the space review, 10/5/2005, “Tax Policy and space commercialization,” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/300/1
Using those criteria, space ventures don’t look that appealing. For one, they have long gestation periods. As an example, look at Virgin Galactic, Branson’s space tourism venture. Branson announced his investment in 2004, but it will be at least 2007 before the company will have a chance of recording any revenue. Worse, that’s with the vehicle technology the company needs already having been developed and tested—in the form of SpaceShipOne—over the course of several years. Those kinds of timelines would try the patience of most investors, given the plethora of other opportunities that could pay off in a much shorter time period. Second, commercial space is still a small market. When telecommunications ventures that just happen to use satellites (like satellite TV providers) are eliminated, the space industry looks remarkably small: just $37 billion in 2002 revenues, or less than a single quarter’s revenue for GM. (See “What is the ‘space industry’?”, The Space Review, July 14, 2003) Most of that is tied up in what one might call “legacy” space applications: the manufacture and launch of big communications satellites, a field where there’s plenty of competition and little chance for a startup to have much success. Even space tourism, touted by the alt.space community as the savior for commercial space, looks tiny: the Futron study shows tourism won’t get above a billion dollars a year in revenues until the end of the next decade. That’s not a lot of money to chase after in the big picture.


Privatization Fails – Safety


[____]
[____] Private sector rockets are not safe enough.
Alicia Changand and Seth Bronstein, Associated Press contributors for MSNBC, 1/31/2010 “NASA's space change: Renting the Right Stuff,”
But the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, created after NASA's first fatal accident, warned that the existing private rockets are not rated by the government as safe for people to fly on. That has to be addressed with testing and study before jumping into commercial space, the panel said. It's not that it is impossible to certify these rockets as safe enough for astronauts but it is a long process that is not spelled out, said former NASA associate administrator Scott Pace, now a space policy professor at George Washington University.
[____]
[____] Business will not be able to comply with safety regulations.
Alan Boyle, Science editor for MSNBC, 1/28/2011, “New spaceships should be safer than the space shuttle”, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41279893/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/new-spaceships-should-be-safer-space-shuttle/
NASA eventually hopes to use commercial craft to ferry astronauts back and forth to the space station as well. But the job won't be easy. In a set of draft requirements issued last month, NASA said it expected commercial companies to measure up to the same risk standards the space agency expected for itself: a 1-in-1,000 chance that the crew would be lost during a journey to and from the space station. "These are quite demanding and rigorous standards," Logsdon said. Some space veterans think the commercial companies can't do it. Apollo 17 commander Gene Cernan — who was the last man to walk on the moon back in 1972 — complained to Congress last year that the new players in spaceflight "do not yet know what they don't know, and that can lead to dangerous and costly consequences." In addition to the dollars-and-cents issue, the commercial companies are wary of being too hamstrung by hundreds of pages of written requirements. Former space shuttle program director Wayne Hale, who retired from NASA last year, warned that excessive red tape could lead to a "train wreck" for the space agency's commercialization effort.


Download 2.75 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   ...   154




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page