When the Science enterprise at NASA sponsors a planetary probe it should be considered how this encourages launch vehicle providers, current or potential? Do extremely heavy/expensive probe projects create less encouragement for launch vehicle providers by needing fewer launches or the development and use of a very specific vehicle with little use to anyone else? Does technology from such probes have use on commercial satellites? Were manufacturing methods or volumes developed that encourage more satellites and space applications outside the civilian space programs? If all we are doing is internalizing the space business with direct revenue, and amortizing capabilities, then the longer term goal of furthering the development of space is lost.

Similarly, for our human presence in space, any vehicle development should measure its success by the degree to which that development or eventual operation can grow the market and capabilities for human access to space. Can a commercial developer benefit from the technology developed to also provide human access to space? Not in place of, but in addition to that of the civilian agency. Unless the thrust of the civil space program is toward creating advances in safety, affordability and responsiveness (many, many launches at a lower cost with great reliability) then again the investment only has direct benefit internal to the chosen industry players. The market does not expand.

Eventually, without a stated, emphasized goal to create routine, affordable access to space, and the selection of a mix of investments (technology, spaceports, probes, space transports, etc) and policy (breaking up vertical industry business structures, separating manufacturers from operators, as with airliners and airlines) that live by that goal, the civil space program every day becomes more and more an exclusive club of monopoly players. This club becomes more and more incapable every day of generating the incremental improvements (and occasional breakthroughs) that will make civilian space relevant on a national level. Over the near term any civilian national endeavor may gain supporters simply due to novelty. But over the long term a market that does not grow, and a culture that is closed to growth, will make subsequent achievements eventually appear repetitive until public support wanes to below critical levels. At that point a recovery would be impossible as the essential culture of progress, that civilian space should be a growing industry, will not be achievable at all due to years of stagnation of the entire US industry in a non-competitive closed market of select players.

Earth is a closed system, with the exception of the energy of the Sun arriving on Earth’s surface. While living systems often adjust themselves to limited resources (also called reducing the population) it’s also observed in nature that environmental change and limitations can cause once vibrant societies to perish. The first steps toward harvesting resources beyond Earth may be looked upon in the future as having been taken in our lifetimes. Or the period may be looked back upon as a lost opportunity due to an industry culture focused on maintaining a status quo of select players rather than on innovating and competing.