In 2018, two unnamed individuals will pay an undisclosed amount of money to billionaire space entrepreneur Elon Musk. In exchange, he will make them the first civilians to be launched around the moon. 鈥淟ike the Apollo astronauts before them, these individuals will travel into space carrying the hopes and dreams of all humankind, driven by the universal human spirit of exploration,鈥� announced SpaceX.
Except they鈥檒l be nothing like the Apollo astronauts. So what is the real point of sending humans round the moon in the 21st century?
They鈥檙e unlikely to be pushing any technological or scientific boundaries. 鈥淭his is basically a joyride,鈥� says John Logsdon at the George Washington University in Washington DC.
Advertisement
And they won鈥檛 be driving. SpaceX鈥檚 autonomous Crew Dragon capsule will be able to steer itself around the moon with or without passengers.
One thing they can do, however, is pay. This is a hint to the future of human space flight. Musk has been clear about his goal for SpaceX from the start: he wants permanent human settlements on Mars and beyond. But even his billions won鈥檛 be able to pay for all the R&D.
Sending tourists around the moon will defray the costs of testing the Falcon Heavy rocket and Crew Dragon capsule beyond low-Earth orbit, especially since neither have flown any humans yet. Musk has said that he hopes to run one or two such private trips a year, providing 10 to 12 per cent of SpaceX鈥檚 annual revenue.
The private takeover of space is galling to some, because nations have conventionally led the charge in this arena. But since the cold war space race and the Apollo flights to the moon, many worry that government-funded human space flight has stagnated. The shifting priorities of limited-term governments tend to undermine long-term goals. In the US, for example, NASA鈥檚 funding comes with a paralysing wrapping of red tape.
鈥淭he new normal is like the old normal 鈥� science dependent on the patronage of rich people鈥�
Frustration with government has led to the rise of a more freewheeling model, led by billionaire entrepreneurs like Musk and Jeff Bezos of Amazon.
But anyone who thinks privatisation is a novel direction is mistaken. 鈥淭he idea that the government, especially the US government, is the place to fund new science and new technology is recent,鈥� says at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. 鈥淭he new normal is a return to an old normal.鈥�
And what was the old normal? A dependence on the patronage of rich people. History is full of fortune-hunting and fortune-having explorers. The first expeditions to the North Pole were self-funded, and Charles Darwin formulated his theory of evolution while a private citizen on an exploring British navy ship. Those with means often clear a path, and this old model, say some experts, has a better chance than government of paving the way for space tourism and eventually settlements on other worlds.
That is, until governments begin to tighten regulations. So far, the US Congress has given wide latitude to commercial space companies to let them advance. However, under the Outer Space Treaty the US is responsible for any damage SpaceX might do to any other nation. So the more successful space tourism is, the more red tape it could attract. As another notorious rich person once said: 鈥渕o money, mo problems.鈥�
This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淲hat billionaires are really doing in space鈥�
