The development of space travel should be primarily entrusted to private corporations.

The private sector is ill-equipped for space travel. A. Profits and RisksAlthough there are many things that the private sector does well, the private sector is not equipped for private space travel. Because private businesses necessarily work to make money (as pro pointed out in his opening statements), should the space travel not bring in enough revenue, the project will inevitably be cancelled. Because of the high risk and cost of space travel, most private sector companies will be unwilling to make those risks. Indeed, Ian Furgeson notes (1):"In terms of innovation, the private sector is not suited to long term projects. This is because corporations are based on quarterly reporting. If a project takes 20 years to complete, or even just to show some progress, that project is less likely to receive continual funding. Managers will see money flowing into a program every quarter, but with no return on investment. Often, this will lead to a program being cut. This is, of course, why the free market is such a force for innovation; only the most efficient programs or ideas survive under this system. "Cost overruns are quite common on government contracts and NASA is certainly no exception. Take, for example, the Webb Space Telescope The Webb Telescope had fallen behind schedule and went well over budget. Furgeson further writes, "Had the Webb telescope been a project in a private company, funding would have stopped years ago. NASA continues to pursue this project not because they hope for a return on their investment, but because they see the social utility in such a project. With the Webb telescope, they hope to unlock the mysteries of the universe and find life on other planets. These are not goals that translate well into quarterly reports, but they are worthwhile goals nonetheless and can lead to unexpected breakthroughs. " Such a project would not have survived in the private sector. Neither would decade long projects for space travel or deep space exploration. Many start up companies have tried, and failed, to compete in the space travel market. Taylor Dinnerman notes in his article in the Wall Street Journal (2): "Entrepreneurial companies have consistently overpromised and under-delivered. Over the past 30 years, over a dozen start-ups have tried to break into the launch business. The only one to make the transition into a respectably sized space company is Orbital Sciences of Dulles, Va. Building vehicles capable of going into orbit is not for the fainthearted or the undercapitalized. " "The companies that have survived have done so mostly by relying on U. S. government Small Business Innovation Research contracts, one or more angel investors, or both. Big aerospace firms tempted to join NASA's new projects will remember the public-private partnership fiasco when Lockheed Martin's X-33 design was chosen to replace the space shuttle in 1996. Before it was canceled in 2001 this program cost the government $912 million and Lockheed Martin $357 million. "B. SafetySpace travel, by its very nature, is unpredictable and deadly. Thus far out of the 450 people who went into space, there have been 34 fatalities. This leaves us a fatality rate of 7.8 per cent, or 7,500 out of 100,000 (3). What were to happen if this were a private company? This is a serious risk that most businesses are not willing to risk. The government, however, can afford to take this risk. Nayef Al-Rodhan writes (4):"[G]overnments are most likely not held accountable to the same degree as private companies are, as a government can control to some degree how transparent it wants to be. Furthermore, because there were no alternatives to government space programs, accidents were seen to some degree as par for the course. For instance, while the Challenger and Columbia disasters affected NASA’s operations (including an over two year hiatus from launching shuttles), it did not halt the space program. By comparison, private companies actually have a far more difficult set of issues to face in the case of a mishap. In a worst case scenario, a private company could make an easy scapegoat if ever a government’s legitimacy were to be threatened due to a mishap. "Taylor Dinnerman writes, "NASA will have to establish a system to certify commercial orbital vehicles as safe for human transport, and with government bureaucracy, that will take years. Never mind the challenges of obtaining insurance. " (2)ConclusionI have presented a very brief case as to why space travel should be entrusted primarily to the public sector. There are things that the government can do better than the public sector. Among those things is space travel. Therefore, the government should be primarily involved in space travel. I look forward to my opponent's reply! Sources1. . https://mic.com...;2. . http://www.wsj.com...;3. . http://ivn.us...;4. . http://www.gcsp.ch...;