• SHARE

Russia’s mostly privatized space agency, Energia, like a good capitalist company, wants to make money by carrying a private paying passenger to the International Space Station. NASA, the U.S. government’s space agency, opposes this procapitalist venture.

How things have changed. It used to be that the United States and the Soviet Union debated the merits of their respective economic systems, with the former favoring free markets and the latter liking government-owned and operated enterprises.

he passenger, American Dennis Tito, did not select the ISS as his destination of choice. Facing difficult economic adjustments, Energia had decided to scuttle its Mir space station and accept NASA’s invitation to become an ISS partner. Fortunately, in December 1999 MirCorp, a company 40-percent owned by private Western investors and 60-percent owned by Energia, was formed to make Mir financially self-supporting. To that end, MirCorp accepted Tito’s offer of a reported $20 million for a flight to Mir. Unfortunately, NASA helped block MirCorp’s efforts and in the end the Russians could not keep the station in orbit. The 15-year-old station was allowed to burn up in the atmosphere.

Tito and Energia figured it would be an easy matter to simply switch stations. After all, Russia is a partner with NASA on the ISS and has supplied the modules that constitute the core of that station.

ut NASA objects to Tito’s trip, calling him a “tourist” and suggesting that he might endanger the station and his fellow station dwellers. But “tourist” is a misleading term. Tito is not some camera-toting joyrider. To pursue his dream of flying in space, he has been undergoing training since August 2000 in Russia with cosmonauts who don’t feel endangered by his presence. Indeed, they briefly refused to train in America for a joint mission with NASA when that space agency said it would not let Tito fly.

This situation is ironic. NASA objects to a private Russian company selling a trip into space to a private individual in exchange for private funding. But NASA itself saw no problems when it gave trips into space to Sen. Jake Garn and Rep. Bill Nelson, neither a professional astronaut, in order to secure taxpayers’ funds for its programs. (Let’s grant that Sen. Glenn was qualified to fly, though his shuttle mission was more PR than cutting-edge science.)

Concerning Tito, NASA administrator Daniel Goldin asks, “Just because someone says they have that money to fly, is that reasonable?” The answer is, “Yes!” The people with money are called “customers.” They pay for goods and services. In a free market, eager entrepreneurs meet their demands.

No matter what the outcome, the lesson of NASA’s fight with Tito is clear. Top NASA officials will run the space station the way old Soviet apparatchiks ran their factories. The station’s costs will be far higher than the goods and services it produces. And those officials will have no clue or care about whether the station meets real market demands.

The solution to the problem is the same as for the old Soviet factories. When the station is complete it should be spun off as a private entity or at least be operated on a commercial basis by private companies. The Russians are rediscovering the benefits of free markets. It’s about time NASA did the same.

In a time of both misinformation and too much information, quality journalism is more crucial than ever.
By subscribing, you can help us get the story right.

SUBSCRIBE NOW