Today, private firms play a crucial role in humanity鈥檚 space activities. To give just one example, Elon Musk鈥檚 company SpaceX currently provides the only rocket capable of taking astronauts from US soil to the International Space Station. This would never have been possible without Lori Garver. As deputy administrator of NASA between 2009 and 2013, her time at the agency was revolutionary. After a long history of NASA controlling all its activities itself, Garver set it on a new path. She wanted to create a whole new space industry, building up companies so that they could do some of the agency鈥檚 work more efficiently and cheaply.
Up until now, these companies have mainly been operating in Earth orbit. But the US is planning to return people to the moon in 2025 through its Artemis programme, and private companies are going to be a crucial part of that effort. Both SpaceX and Blue Origin, which is owned by Jeff Bezos, have been tasked with building landers that can ferry humans to the moon鈥檚 surface, while numerous contractors will design other systems too, such as new spacesuits for astronauts. 快猫短视频 caught up with Garver to see what she makes of this new era of lunar exploration.
Jonathan O鈥機allaghan: You played an important part in creating a private space industry. What initially motivated you?
Lori Garver: At the time, NASA had a very full plate and the space shuttle programme was expensive. Freeing up budget from human spaceflight was a huge motivation; we wanted to offload some of the expensive routine activities. That really was driven by what I believe is the government鈥檚 raison d鈥櫭猼re for investing in these things, which is to benefit society. Reducing the cost of transportation and other activities in space was an obvious goal for NASA.
Advertisement
Do you think there are good reasons to send people back to the moon now?
Human spaceflight can offer transformative change for us. In the long term, being a single-planet species puts humanity at greater risk of extinction than if we were a multi-planet species. So it would be good to aim to go to Mars in future, and the moon is a first step.
And is US human spaceflight in general on the right path?
Ever since we went to the moon, we鈥檝e been wanting to go back, but we have been struggling to recreate a purpose for the 13th person on the moon. But maybe that鈥檚 not the right way to look at this. The other way to work a problem is to reduce the costs 鈥� I think that鈥檚 the right path.
At the moment, NASA is spending a lot of money on SLS [Space Launch System, a rocket designed to carry people back to the moon]. SLS is probably not sustainable at this cost, so we should be looking at systems to replace it.
The reason we are going back to the moon now is really because the building of SLS created jobs for US workers, and members of Congress with those jobs in their districts wanted to keep them. Some better reasons would be in order to inspire people, for reasons of geopolitics and for economic return. We should be going about it in a way that maximises those goals instead.
We do have a much-cheaper-to-run rocket: SpaceX鈥檚 Starship. Can SLS exist alongside it?
If the private sector can deliver systems that are reusable and more efficient, SLS won鈥檛 have a future. It would be like us building airplanes at 20 times what others cost just in case they fail. I think it鈥檚 just a matter of time before this is taken over by the private sector.
Did you expect commercial companies to have such a big part to play in the return to the moon?
I did not. Without Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos as outside visionaries who want to put their own capital at risk, this lunar programme would not be sustainable. They seem willing to put their own money in and not make money on contracts. That is something we at NASA never really envisioned.
Are firms going to be able to make money from lunar excursions?
Well, of course companies make money working with NASA already. Will they have customers beyond NASA? That is a good question. The answer is very much related to how much the costs of getting to the moon come down. NASA鈥檚 goal should be to incentivise systems that lower the cost.
Are there any downsides to allowing companies to operate on the moon?
The development of lunar and other celestial resources requires regulatory frameworks that aren鈥檛 as fully developed. We need increased focus on that to manage private property rights and to make sure people are sharing limited resources successfully. All the reasons we have laws and regulations on Earth, we need to find ways to have in space. At a minimum, we need to not allow these companies to operate off the grid.
Do you see the military playing a role in lunar exploration?
I hope not. There are certainly people in the military who have an interest in it. But I鈥檓 not aware of why we would need it. Expanding military operations should not be a goal for society. I understand there鈥檚 significant advantage to our national security from space activities. But let鈥檚 hope a shooting match on the moon is not our future.
Elon Musk鈥檚 activities can be somewhat erratic. Are we comfortable handing him the keys to US human space exploration?
I don鈥檛 see it as handing over the keys of space exploration to an individual. We require astronauts on the [International Space Station] and we pay SpaceX for that service. They鈥檙e no more in charge of this than United Airlines is in charge of air travel.
