societies which accept at least some of the rhetoric and practice of collectivism, now account for a majority of the world's population and governments. They demand a voice in SI. It will not be possible to ignore that voice. Rather than engage in the favorite pastime of the ideologue, passionate metaphysical debate about the virtues of nonexistent pure cases, we should borrow part of the market ideology — pragmatism — to explore the potential of public-private mixed models for space industrialization. MIXED MODELS: IS THERE ANY OTHER CHOICE? The famous Club of Rome models and photos of Earth from space helped shape perceptions of “Spaceship Earth'' as a planet of limits. World population is still growing, many nations are only beginning to climb the resource consumption curve associated with economic development, and there is no reason to expect rapid dawning of ecological enlightenment and international cooperation. From such arguments it is easy to design a world future scenario of severe limitations and social-political upheaval (11). Advocates of space industrialization condemn the Club of Rome and all its ilk for a failure of imagination (12). Instead of a zero-sum game of beggar-my-neighbor on both the individual, national and international scale, these “frontier” visionaries call for a great new adventure to expand our resources: we have only one Earth, but Earth is not all we have. The SI agenda thus includes social goals such as an improved resource base and improved life quality for all of mankind. But it is not clear how we will go about these great deeds: on the model of the market or collectively, with or without international cooperation, “rich people only” or everyone? Tapping the resources of space will be a long-term and expensive enterprise, highly complex, requiring planning and coordination of the central efforts (e.g., launch vehicles, in-space construction) over many years. We have little experience with entirely private long-term (i.e., more than one decade), coherent, large-scale frontier enterprises in which the big payoffs may be postponed for many years. Although ingenious proposals for private funding of SI have been made (13), there is little reason to think free enterprise alone can plan, organize, and finance programs on this scale. Certainly this has not been the case so far. In the US and other market countries space programs have been cooperative government and private activities, with government as the central planning, organizing and funding agency. The Apollo program, communications satellites and space shuttle all have followed this basic pattern. Indeed, this is so ordinary a policy that much of private industry expects, requests, and sometimes insists upon using it for at least the initial stage of expensive and risky new development (e.g., commercial nuclear power) (14). For either mixed or collectivist models, the first requirement is a governmental determination that the general interest will be served. To return to the initial analogy, Isabella must say yes and provide the governmental framework for further activity. Private industry has a demonstrable reluctance to invest its own money in large, long-term programs until there is government policy and law on the matter. Basic R&D and some technology development may be done prior to establishment of the legal framework, but full-scale development awaits governmental support and protection. Conversely, except in ideologically-committed collectivist societies such as the USSR, there is excellent reason to incorporate private enterprise where possible. Addition of private to governmental resources will ease the immense resource bur-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==