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

I will be presenting the case that the "development of space travel" should be primarily entrusted to private corporations. As is my right, I will be defining important resolutional terms. These are always open to criticism by the opponent. development - a cause of developingdevelope - to grow or make grow larger and become more mature, advanced or elaborateprimarily - largely or mostlyprivate corporation - a company that is not owned or managed by the government, which has the legal authority to act as a single entityAll other definitions can easily be considered "common sense" definitions and they will be treated as such by Pro. Opening Arguments1. The private sector is more efficient than the public sector.In any endeavor, it is often wise to ensure that the money used to fund it is spent in the best possible, most efficient way. Space technologies fall into this category and it should be our goal to fund the development of these technologies efficiently. Throughout recent history, the private sector has always been more efficient than the public sector. This is especially true in today's world. [1] This is not surprising, as there are a number of reasons as to why a private company would spend money better than the government.a. Private businesses necessarily work to make money, meaning extra care is taken to ensure each dollar is well-spent.b. Private businesses are smaller than the government, allowing for better oversight.c. Private businesses are more apt to specialization. (More on this later.)Given this information, it is clear that a private business would more efficiently create and utilize space travel technologies than would the government. This economic benefit alone weighs heavily in favor of the private business.2. Private businesses can specialize.There exists great economic incentive for private companies to specialize when it comes to production and manufacturing. An example of specialization demonstrates why the public sector finds specialization to be especially difficult:Suppose there exists a demand for space travel. This demand directly translates into demand for space travel vehicles. Company A produces and refines fuel, which it sells to company D. Company B manufactures engines, which it also sells to D. Company C creates life support systems and sells them to D. Now, D uses these parts to construct a full vehicle, which it sells to a company that maintains the vessels and directly sells the use of these vehicles to whoever demands them. Because each company only specializes in one area, they are able to produce each good at a lower cost. This is Economics 101, and happens because each company acts as an economy of sale, which means the average price of a good falls since they make more of it. [2]If the government were to attempt to replicate the production of these vehicles, they would be unable to specialize in any particular area, causing the net cost of each good to rise, leaving them with a significantly more expensive product in the end. -------------------------------------------------------------We've now discovered that there are economic benefits to entrusting private organizations with space travel. Is the money all that matters? Yes and no. The efficiency of production is the most important factor involved here, since it is the factor that most significantly impacts how much space travel can be produced along with how fast it can be produced. Clearly, more space travel is a boon to society, since space-age technology translates well into other areas of industry. The answer is partly no as well, since there are other factors involved. I will now cover some of these factors and demonstrate why they are either handled well already or of no concern. --------------------------------------------------------------------------3. Private management of space travel does not pose a security risk.There are a few reasons that one would prefer the public sector to do some task over the private sector, and nearly all of these concern security. As it concerns space travel, none of these apply for the following reasons:a) Private companies are already allowed to participate in the space travel industry. As of 2004, it is legal for private companies to involve themselves in the development, production and launch of space technologies. Many companies have already started to capitalize on this, like SpaceX and Virgin Galactic. Just recently, SpaceX managed to launch a rocket into space and safely land it (upright) on a floating buoy in the sea. Clearly, any harm that comes from allowing private organizations to participate in the space travel industry would already exist, since it is already legal and happening. To date, we have not seen any security risks arise from this private involvement. b) The government is not required to give private industries any information.The government doesn't have to tell private space organizations any secrets that are relevant to national security. There is no legal requirement for this. Because this requirement doesn't exist, it is unreasonable to expect that allowing private corps. into the "space game" will result in government secrets being revealed. c) Private organizations are subject to the law of the land. If there ever a security risk was borne out of the private industry's involvement with space, the government could easily correct this by utilizing the power of the law. It is important to realize that, ultimately, the government is the highest authority, meaning there is no abuse that could occur that the government could not treat. Given these facts, it is now clear that privatization of space travel poses no security risk. SummaryThis has been a rather brief case proving that "space travel" should be entrusted to private organizations. The main benefit is that the private industry is more efficient than the public sector. Specialization plays a large role in this. Additionally, we've found that there are no significant security risks involved in letting private organizations do this.Finally, we must realize that we are already headed this way. Space privitization is already happening. The government is becoming less and less able to launch into space (often times relying on private companies), whereas private organizations like SpaceX are becoming more and more involved in the industry everyday. In order to hedge against this case, the opponent would need to prove a few things:1. That there is a net economic benefit to limiting this industry to the public sector. 2. That there exists some mitigating factor more important than the economics mentioned3. That there exists a reason to divert us from the path we are already on.I look forward to reading my opponent's case. Sources:1 - http://www.businessinsider.com...;2 - https://www.boundless.com...;