Stakeholder #1

NASA. "STS-36 Rollout" via wikimedia, 4/8/09. Public Domain.

There are many key stakeholders in the argument over privatized space flight. Varying from NASA to the companies themselves, to the workers who build and design the components, all of them have different views and claims. Read more about one of them below.


NASA is the definitive source of space exploration for the entire world. Ever since the landing of man on the Moon on July 20th, 1969, NASA has been the figurehead for space advancement. With recent budget issues and the destruction of Challenger and Columbia, two shuttles that exploded, NASA has lost its grasp on the world as noteworthy news. Often, this institution is on the news or on the internet for a new advancement, technology, program, or to just post update by astronauts on the ISS, the International Space Station. Their most recognizable building is Kennedy Space Center, a large white building with the NASA logo on the side in the middle of Florida lowland, leading to their launch center, where almost every notable rocket has launched off from. The thick, humid air, is signature next to the bright sunny days that most of the launches occur on. The roar of a rocket launch is always memorable, along with the long, wispy, smoke trail that follows the launches and blows away when the rocket is not within sight. This along with some of the most quotable lines in history, such as, "The Eagle has landed," ring through my mind when I think of NASA, the most famous space agency in the world, that has lost its luster in recent years. 

NASA's Claims:

• "Facilitate U.S. private industry demonstration of cargo and crew space transportation capabilities with the goal of achieving safe, reliable, cost effective access to low-Earth orbit." This claim is not meant to play on our emotions, but designed to take an optimistic look at the future of its new program, to allow commercial companies to make space flights to the ISS.  While NASA itself is a very credible actor in the debates, they are a famous public entity who usually makes safe decisions with the budget they have, but at the time, didn't have to facts to show that this new partnership would be safe and reliable, or cost efficient. This institution has a similar mindset to the majority of the private companies and workers out there, as they are optimistic about the future of private flight, and not willing to see how hard and dangerous it is to go into space.
•  "These new partnerships are intended to help companies accelerate their development efforts while enabling the nation to reap economic benefits from previous NASA work." This claim is meant to show that the new partnership will bring about positive benefits to previous NASA work, which is not explained very clearly. It is meant to be vague, but I believe refers to the ne access to the ISS, and more innovation. There is not much of an emotional appeal but rather a credible claim by NASA that this new partnership is in their best interest, and will make use of previous NASA work, better than they alone could, which follows along the line both private companies and engineers or workers involved in the companies.
•  "The COTS program was a great success -- not only for NASA and the commercial space industry, but also the American taxpayer." This claim is meant to show that their previous claims were successful, and that it pay off, not only to the industry, but to the taxpayer. This claim is based upon roughly a year of successful launches by private entities, which is followed in more recent times, by consecutive failures of rocket to the ISS. This claim is premature I believe, and also does not state how much money American taxpayers saved, which is an appeal to the pocketbooks of the audience members, who are assumed to be Americans. This claim would be supported by private companies, but may be disputed by workers who still see the risks that are coming with more space flight and don't exactly see the financial benefits yet.