0191-9067/83 $3.00 + .00 Copyright ® 1984 SUNSAT Energy Council SPACE INDUSTRIALIZATION AND THE SOCIAL AGENDA Jack D. Salmon Department of Political Science University of West Florida Abstract — Design of a political and economic regime for exploitation of space resources is complicated by disputes, frequently ideological, over how or whether to combine private enterprise and governmental enterprise, national vs. international controls, and the relative roles of rich and poor nations. Historical experience in opening "new worlds” suggests that combined governmental and private enterprise is the normal procedure. Present international conditions suggest that unilateral development is infeasible. Poor nations are concerned with how space resources are developed and with assuring themselves access to a share of the benefits. Use of'mixed models' combining private and governmental enterprise, incorporating methods to assure that the benefits of space industries do not accrue only to the already rich nations, requires forethought and a reduction in the ideological content of policy designs. INTRODUCTION Space industrialization (SI) has obvious kinship with voyages of discovery and exploration of new frontiers (1). A favorite cartoon and tee-shirt logo asks “what if Isabella had said no?,” urging us to get on with exciting new activities. But for what purpose do we voyage into space? Who will finance the ships? How will profits be apportioned? Will government or private groups control development? Will one nation, or several, or all participate? A historian of Virginia somewhere wrote that Virginians continually confuse themselves by failing to clearly distinguish between four different Virginias: Virginia that was, and should have been; Virginia that is, and ought to be. SI advocates are caught in similar confusion, less on history of space development than on definition of “is” and “ought to be" for SI. Differences arise over the virtues of free enterprise vs. collective approachas, and directly or indirectly over nationally- vs. internationally-oriented programs. Certainly these are important political questions which must be decided. But they must be decided in the real world. Many of the most heated arguments are essentially pointless, sterile indulgence of ideologues in defiance of reality, based on bad history, bad politics, and erroneous assumptions about the nature of the resource. Unfortunately, both good and bad ideas have consequences. This paper will explore some of the points at issue as SI confronts the social agenda. Free enterprise, collective (“socialist”), and mixed models of development, both national and international, will be considered in the light of contemporary world politics. We may begin by observing that the “frontier” model prominent in much literature is misleading. It calls up images of Errol Flynnish swashing and buckling,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==