Big projects require bountiful resources, and many of the world’s most audacious endeavors have traditionally been undertaken by governments. Transcontinental railways, prolonged wars halfway around the world, social services for hundreds of millions of people – enormous projects all, managed with varying degrees of success by governments with global reach. Does the same principle apply to exploration – a pursuit pushed forward by obstinate individuals as much as by collective action? Is government necessary for truly ground breaking exploration?
In the past, this scale dependence may not have been a pre-requisite: it was relatively easier to get a hold of a boat than a spaceship, leveling the playing field for those willing to take risks. The Gjoa, in which Amundsen became the first person to cross the Northwest Passage by boat between 1903-1906, is almost comically small – a craft that would have been accessible to thousands of his contemporaries.
Today, however, it costs a lot of money to build a spaceship or a submarine capable of pushing new boundaries. And despite recent high profile individual efforts (see Cameron, James), last year’s most significant step in our exploration of the universe – the Curiosity Mars rover – is a product of the U.S. government.
Patrick Atwater is the author of A New California Dream, co-founder of Stag Hunt Enterprises, and an ardent believer in the importance of a pioneering spirit in government. “The great European and Chinese voyages of discovery in the Renaissance were all financed by government and government-backed enterprises,” he notes. “There’s substantial excitement at the commendable technical progress achieved by private sector companies like Space-X., but it’s worth noting that the vast majority of their revenue comes from government contracts.”
As Atwater sees it, only government has the resources to make grand exploratory ventures happen and – critically – the institutional capacity and capital commitment to manage the follow through. “Consider the magnitude of risk involved in a mission to Mars, for example," he says. "The transit time between earth and the red planet is well over a year for the foreseeable future (using chemical propulsion and standard orbital insertions). And what if there needs to be an evacuation? What if valuable resources are discovered and substantial equipment needs to be shipped? Such questions hint at the huge degree of uncertainty involved in nourishing a colony millions of miles away.”
Furthermore, while sustainable private enterprises must find a way to turn a profit, public efforts can pursue goals that might not bolster the bottom line. “Government is far from a perfect actor," Atwater cautions, "but it is the one institution capable of standing for all of us, offering at its best the potential to take on these sorts of big projects that push the human race forward.”
The major drawback, however, is risk management. A government’s projects may be buffeted from market forces, but they’re more susceptible to the forces of public opinion (at least in a democracy). It’s a paradox that has arguably stymied our full potential: government may have the resources and the mandate, but only private entities have the luxury of unilaterally taking big risks that could lead to big rewards.
For hundreds of years, governments have spearheaded exploratory expeditions, often in the pursuit of long term self interest. And while private companies and individuals are making important gains, particularly in terms of funding trends and technical capacity, government remains an essential piece of our exploratory machinery.
