Instigator / Pro

Should public companies retain the majority over private companies in the space sector?


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 3 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

Just a short debate this time. I'm not sure if this topic could be expanded to perhaps 5 or 7.5 thousand characters, so the purpose of this debate is to just get a sense of what the context will be. If this debate turns out to be interesting, then I'll definitely make a longer one.


So should public companies be the majority of the space sector? Even over private companies?

Round 1
Before I begin, I'd like to make the following observation. The negative resolution states that the majority of companies in the space sector should be private, but not all of them. In the minority of areas where public companies are better suited to handle the matter at hand, or when greater regulation is necessitated, a public company can exist.

Private companies are less vulnerable to the vicissitudes of the stock market.

One of the major differences between a public and private company is that a public company is invested in by the public through the stock market, while a private company is invested in by private investors. One could call space "The Final Economic Frontier." Largely untested, no preexisting infrastructure, and no way to predict the profitability or sustainability of long term advancement of the market into space. Therefore, the stability of a private sector company will be crucial to making sure that humanity's eventual expansion into our solar system is successful despite what the stock market does here on Earth. In short, in order for the market in space to be stable, private companies need to be the spearhead of investment in space to establish the market so that public companies can move in and bring stock market investment with them. There is also less trading in private companies because there needs to be a buyer for your shares. This leads to the company being more stable.

Private companies have the stable resources necessary to make the space sector work.

according to researchers from Harvard University, private companies make up more than two-thirds of private-sector employment. only 0.08 percent of employer firms are listed on a national exchange, based on data from the federal government and the University of Chicago’s Center for Research in Security  Prices/Compustat database.

private dominance will also lead to greater employment opportunities for the public.

No more characters. That's all for now.
Round 2
Happy New Year! And thanks for accepting this debate. Sorry I completely forgot about this debate over the holidays. It was a busy time. Anyway, let’s start.
You stated how private companies are more economically stable than public companies. However, many public companies, like NASA, are funded by the government, and are big enough to ensure continuous success, with no fear of shutting down. If anything, private companies like SpaceX are more vulnerable of shutting down, as one person is not as stable as an entire government.
You also refer to how private companies have more resources than public companies, but fail to provide specific evidence. However, whatever the case is, this doesn’t matter since both public and private companies work closely together. NASA and SpaceX have partnered up numerous times before, sharing their resources amongst each other.
Public companies have a different focus.
NASA has a couple dozen satellites in space. Most, if not all, have contributed to save and improve millions of lives across the globe. NASA also provides the information for free.
Private companies on the other hand want to make money. Just like Mark Rober (former NASA scientist) said: 
There is just no incentive for private companies to invest in this research, and make it free for everyone
Most of these things NASA does doesn’t have a ROI, something that private companies rarely do.
But what are the things NASA does?
Adding on to my previous point, public companies are devoted to research and science. Studying other planets, providing Earth science missions, and more. And these scientific studies are actually improving our lives. Out of the couple dozen NASA satellites in space, millions of people have been affected positively. Satellites like SMAP have provided critical weather information, and has saved billions of dollars, and countless lives.
NASA has also developed over 2000 spin-off technologies, from memory foam to complex AI recognition systems. Others include health monitoring systems, and water purification.
If private companies take over, then these services might become extinct, or come with a price.
Thank you.

Thanks to DynamicSquid for his reply.

1. Nasa is not a company public or otherwise. NASA is a federal agency under the purview of the executive branch.

2. SpaceX is a private company like my opponent said and is the only company he mentions.

Thank you.