“In Traveling to the Stars, Risk and Cost”

Mouawad, Jad. "In Traveling to the Stars, Risk and Cost." The New York Times. The

New York Times, 03 Nov. 2014. Web. 04 Nov. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/04/business/in-traveling-to-the-stars-risk-and-cost.html?ref=science&_r=0>.

      Space enthusiasts and the government have controlled space travel in the past but now, billionaire entrepreneurs and private companies are backing space travel. The article discusses the hazards of government run space travel and private run space travel and its benefits while showing how private run space companies are changing the course of the way space travel will be done.  Billionaires such as, Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, are setting up companies, Jeff for example, founded Blue Origin. Two other big names in private space travel started by entrepreneurs are SpaceX and Virgin Galactic. Two recent accidents are bringing up the case whether or not private space travel is safe. One accident was a Virgin Galactic space plane explosion during a test flight and the other was an orbital sciences rocket carrying supplies. Virgin Galactic is sending costumers into space but they are also receiving heavy criticism after this accident. Although few were killed or injured, it does bring up the risks of space travel. There are also benefits to having private owned space companies. Most of these private companies are searching for ways to reduce the costs of space travel this allows NASA to advance technology for pubic benefits such as, planetary science. For example, Orbital Sciences is trying to reuse old soviet rocket engines and refurbish them, at the same time, SpaceX is trying reusable Falcon 9 rockets. Overall, the article sheds light on the dangers of space travel, private owned and government run and shows the benefits to having both government run space programs and private owned space programs run by billionaires.  

            This article is relevant because of recent cuts on the NASA space program. With recent budget cuts, NASA is restricted from innovating new and cheaper rockets. Private owned space companies could be a helpful with these budget cuts because while they are inventing cheaper ways of using the budget, NASA can continue to innovate. This is also relevant because it shows how companies and billionaires such as, Jeff Bezos from Amazon, are now having an impact in space. It shows that now space is going from a purely scientific endeavor to a profitable market for businessmen. This affects society because it could become an entirely new market of business and it could become more popular for people to travel into safe if made safer. This could potentially benefit NASA because that way more money would be given to NASA and there would be a greater need for safer space travel. My opinion on private owned space companies is that they do benefit space travel. These companies are able to take more risks than NASA and perform more experiments because of their less limited budgets. They are also more motivated to find cheaper ways of going into space because of the business profits to their companies. They also give NASA competition so not only are they more motivated but NASA now has competitors to worry about. I also believe that there should be more money spent on programs such as, NASA because of their importance to science. It is amazing how little we know about the universe and how we have never been to another planet. This is important because it will further our knowledge of these planets and the more we know about our universe, we will be able to discover more about earth and find a more exact end date.

            This article is good because it shows both the strengths and weaknesses of having privately funded space travel. It shows two good current examples of space travel failures in our lives but the article could have included more of these failures and concerns for space travel. I also wish this article went into even further depth on how this is changing the way space travel is being viewed from a business perspective. The article does an excellent job in explaining the differences between what private owned companies' goals are and what NASA's goals are. I also wish that the article had gone into even more depth in NASA's struggle with budget cuts and how this is effecting their research. Overall, this article is great because of the little bias between private owned space companies and government owned space companies and shows the strengths and weaknesses of both.