I'm sorry, I rather overstated the case there through poor choice of words.
You're quite right, of course. None of that hardware is built by NASA. But it's built to NASA requirements for NASA-defined missions. If there was a commercial case for doing the majority of space science, private-sector industries would be doing it already. But the only remotely scientific space-based activity that private-sector industry has figured out how to make money on is earth imaging. The data is useful to so many people who are willing to pay for it that there is a business case for putting satellites in order to get it. The same is not true for, say, fine-detail measurements of the cosmic microwave background.
So suppose we have an instrument X that is required in order to obtain observations Y and Z. Is there really so much difference between NASA saying "We'll pay you $FOO to build instrument X so that we can use it to obtain observations Y and Z, and possibly other observations later," or NASA saying "We want observations Y and Z, and will pay $FOO for somebody to build instrument X and get them"? Except that in the first case, NASA then has the instrument and can use it to get whatever additional observations it decides it needs, while in the second case, if no-one thinks they can make money flying the instrument, NASA doesn't get the observations at all? If a private company is operating the instrument, it probably costs them as much to do so as it does NASA — probably more, if they're using time on any government facilities to do it, or if they ahd to build their own tracking and monitoring facilities — and then they need to make a profit on top of that.
I really think this is a case where the private sector is not necessarily the best answer. While I'm a minarchist, I do think there is a case for the government funding and sponsoring basic research that there is no compelling case for the private sector to perform, particularly in this age of bottom-line-managed industry where anything that doesn't show up as a direct net profit on the bottom line of this quarter's balance sheet is an unnecessary expense that can be axed to improve the numbers.
no subject
You're quite right, of course. None of that hardware is built by NASA. But it's built to NASA requirements for NASA-defined missions. If there was a commercial case for doing the majority of space science, private-sector industries would be doing it already. But the only remotely scientific space-based activity that private-sector industry has figured out how to make money on is earth imaging. The data is useful to so many people who are willing to pay for it that there is a business case for putting satellites in order to get it. The same is not true for, say, fine-detail measurements of the cosmic microwave background.
So suppose we have an instrument X that is required in order to obtain observations Y and Z. Is there really so much difference between NASA saying "We'll pay you $FOO to build instrument X so that we can use it to obtain observations Y and Z, and possibly other observations later," or NASA saying "We want observations Y and Z, and will pay $FOO for somebody to build instrument X and get them"? Except that in the first case, NASA then has the instrument and can use it to get whatever additional observations it decides it needs, while in the second case, if no-one thinks they can make money flying the instrument, NASA doesn't get the observations at all? If a private company is operating the instrument, it probably costs them as much to do so as it does NASA — probably more, if they're using time on any government facilities to do it, or if they ahd to build their own tracking and monitoring facilities — and then they need to make a profit on top of that.
I really think this is a case where the private sector is not necessarily the best answer. While I'm a minarchist, I do think there is a case for the government funding and sponsoring basic research that there is no compelling case for the private sector to perform, particularly in this age of bottom-line-managed industry where anything that doesn't show up as a direct net profit on the bottom line of this quarter's balance sheet is an unnecessary expense that can be axed to improve the numbers.