Going Into Space

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

Regarding the column in the Miami Sun Post, March 6, Vol 16, No 10 about whether or not we should go into space.

I think Cecil’s last sentence says it all, “But I’d be hard put to say we should send people into space just because it’s fun.” Well, I guess we should all be really glad that the queen did not say that to Columbus in the late 15th century. Think about it. Do you really think that they had any clue that this land they were about to run into would one day turn into one of the richest, most powerful places on the Earth? They had no clue. They were pretty much doing it “just because it’s fun.” Sure, they hoped for some economic benefit, but they really had no idea how it would turn out 500 years later. If they had applied Cecil’s pragmatic philosophy to exploration, our lives would sure suck.

And that is really the only reason for any research, because we truly have no clue what we don’t know and how that new knowledge will be utilized in the future. There’s no way to know what space travel will look like in 500 years, but I can pretty much guarantee that it will suck if we don’t keep at it throughout. I mean, you absolutely can’t make the basket if you never shoot the ball.

2

Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Boards, Coach, glad to have you with us.

When you start a thread about Cecil’s column, it’s helpful to others if you provide a link to the column in question. In this case, “Why do we travel in space?”. Helps keep us all on the same page, so to speak.

And, while your Columbus analogy is apt, you should note that they had a purpose – finding a short sea route to India, where there were valuable spices. That turned out to be illusory – the globe was bigger than they expected – but they at least had a purpose that seemed reasonable (in terms of cost/benefit ratio) at the time.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m in favor of space exploration, “because it’s there.” But.

3

There’s another, really good reason, IMO. Right now, the human race is keeping all of its eggs in one basket. And as you might guess from reading last week’s column, that basket is more fragile than we may think …

For another blast to compare to the one that killed off the dinosaurs, you may have to wait a bit longer. But not forever … So, shall we wait until we see one coming, then try to frantically scrape together some way for at least a few of us to escape? Or do we keep working now to find a way for humans to survive in space, on other worlds, or even (someday) in other solar systems?

4

I agree with Cecil that space exploration doesn’t result in many usuable consumer products or scientific experiments. But surely blasting things into outer-space, making sure they survive (with a few notable exceptions), and bringing them back down must have SOME scientific value. If not, then I would invite anyone to volunteer to fly in an Apollo-era rocket. No takers? Also, I think it must be pointed out that if America abandons manned space flight, it will simply be overtaken by the Chinese who will then reap any possible benefits as well as lay claim to spacial superiority. Besides, didn’t everyone see that picture from the Columbia of the sunset? That’s just cool.

5

I’m in favor of going into space to find all the scantily-clad alien babes that Jim Kirk always was gettin’ jiggy with. :smiley:
But, seriously, I’m disapointed with Cecil’s last bit too.

I think (wo)mankind has a deep-rooted psychological need to be pushing the envelope; to be stretching its bounds as far as possible. The space program is the only thing the government does that fills this need.

Who are the heroes today? Who does what none have done, and gone where none have gone?

Support maned exploration of space, and support (wo)mankind’s dreams.
[sub]this message has been brought to you by Eonwe’s organization in support of space exploration[/sub]

6

Cecil, I’m shocked! Such a closed-minded, short-sighted answer is the last thing I expected from you! Your examples aren’t necessarily “wrong”–you just aren’t looking far enough.

  1. Spin-offs–while technically true that things like Tang, Teflon, and Velcro weren’t created by NASA, they were created by independent entities to fill a need that NASA had. They later found their way into the general public, but they may not have been invented at all if NASA hadn’t been looking for new ways to fill a need. (Okay, maybe Tang is a bad example)

  2. Research–No big argument here. I’ll agree that much of the research done in space is only done for show. But I believe there are other good reasons to be in space, and since we’re there, there’s no reason NOT to do a little experimenting.

  3. Space Colonies–Here I have a real problem with your position. Space colonization is a romantic illusion? That sounds oddly like what the Pope told Galileo about astronomy, or what John Q. Public would have told the Wright brothers about human flight. It is in the nature of humankind to reach beyond our boundaries. If we stop, where will that leave us? Right where we are. I don’t know about you, but I’m not happy with the way things are just now (but that’s another discussion).

Sure, terraforming is currently a pipe dream, but if we don’t strive to achieve such goals, we’ll never know if we can. As has already been pointed out, our time on Earth could come to an end sooner rather than later because of some unknown cosmic calamity. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to colonize other worlds to prepetuate the human race? Or even absent the disaster, should we talk overpopulation? Yet another reason to spread out to the frontier.

Your 5,000 years estimate to get to the nearest star system is overly pessimistic. You claim this estimate is based on using “next-generation” propulsion. Twenty years ago that would have meant something completely different than what it means today. Ion drives, Solar sails? What will it mean twenty years from now? We’ll never know if we stop pushing those boundaries.

  1. Coolness–I’m sure this was said somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but even if you forget about (or debunk) all of my other arguments, this one alone is enough. Hear me out. We can’t begin to estimate the throngs of young minds that have been astounded, excited, awed, and motivated by the existence of the space program. How many of today’s brilliant scientists were first turned on to science by the “coolness” of what NASA was doing? Where would the scientific community be without them? It’s this inTANGible repercussion of the space program that is most important in evaluating its worth.

Often we look at the direct results of a thing in determining its value to society. Too often, if those direct and immediate results are found wanting, the program is cancelled. This outlook is perpetuated by our political system, in which elected officials are best served by supporting programs that show results during their present term in office. It does a politician no good to look at the big picture or the long-term benefits of a program. Until we all “expand our horizons”, not only the space program, but the very health of our society will continue to slide.

Try looking beyond…

7

Cecil seems to have forgotten to mention satellites. Those things are pretty damn useful. Can we get them up there and repair them successfully unmanned?

8

Why do humans go into space?

The succinct answer is: because they’re human.

That’s what we humans do. We explore, move on, advance, learn, expand, develop, grow. We do it to find out what’s there, and what it’s like, and to see what we can do with it and how we can handle it. Pioneers are pioneers because they want to get away from the old and build something new, and figure it’s worth the risk that comes with living on the fringe.

All other explanations are just spin-offs of that basic, fundamental human trait called curiosity.

But the spin-off explanations are worthwhile, too. The potential economic benefits are quite literally incalculable. An entire solar system filled with raw materials? Kinda makes the industrialization of North America look like a kid playing in a small sandbox. Energy in virtually unlimited amounts, free for the taking. Aluminum, iron, copper, hydrogen, water - all just waiting to be harvested.

Yeah, yeah - getting them won’t be cheap. It’ll be a century or more before we have an efficiently operating space-going culture. So what? Pulling our heads into our shells like a race of tortoises isn’t going to get us there any faster. The only way to develop the technology is to do it, starting with the baby steps we’ve been taking. And yeah, I’ve heard the “robots can do it better and with less risk” folderol. Twits who’ll ride a greased board down a sheer mountain face at seventy miles an hour will sit in a bar that night and pontificate on the “unnecessary risks” of people going into space. The point is, humans take risks, and don’t mind doing it, because we want to explore, move on, advance, learn, expand, develop, grow. We like the thrill. And sooner or later, we’ll want elbow room. We might as well start learning how to get there now, so in a century or two, we’ll be ready and able to do it.

A previous poster mentioned Columbus, and the metaphor is worthwhile. It’s easy to sit here in the 21st century and say “Columbus was a dope! He should have just waited until somebody invented trans-Atlantic jets and ocean liners, and then he wouldn’t have had to take those foolish risks.” But progress doesn’t just happen; we have to make it happen, one dangerous step at a time. The risks that Columbus (and Magellan, and countless other explorers) too were necessary steps in getting us to the point where we can now cross oceans like hopping mud puddles.

Why do we go into space, Cecil? Because we’re humans, not tortoises. And most of us like it that way.

9

I am 100% in agreement with Cecil’s column. Buying a little illusion of hope with the needless, pointless sacrifice of the lives of some of our brightest and best individuals may be the worst possible bargain humanity could strike with a universe that is cold and does not care. Everything that lives, dies, including all of the marquee species that have preceded us as the Big Kahunas on this planet. Our time in the sun will be as brief. Better we should work to make human life on Earth a little more tolerable for however long it should last.

Of course, sacrificing others in order to advance your noble goals is always very easy. I don’t see a whole lot of those making the Columbus argument lining up to volunteer for trips into a frigid, airless void in 20- and 30-year old craft with loose parts. Until I do I’ll just have to take those kind of arguments for what they’re worth.

In brief: you wanna colonize space? You go first then.

10

Two points:

  1. From the column: “Using next-generation propulsion systems it’d take 5,000 years to reach the nearest star.”

OK, it takes 5,000 years. that’s several sucky lifetimes. If it came down to survival of the species, though, we’d do it.

  1. Also from the column: “We could colonize our own solar system, but who’d want to go? The other planets are inhospitable rock piles, toxic cauldrons, or frigid balls of gas.”

Sure, they’re inhospitable rock piles and toxic cauldrons now…

11

Where can I suit up? I’ll go, tomorrow if allowed. Tonight if a
day’s notice isn’t available.

I would get up and walk away from my computer at this instant
if NASA called and said they needed someone to fly the Shuttle.

And there are countless millions like me.

  • jam
12

Where do people get the idea that we are “sacrificing” people to the great demon Space Exploration? It’s not like you can be drafted into going on a space flight or that people have to do it for the money. Every person on those spacecrafts knew the risks and accepted them. I would gladly take the risk for an opportunity to travel into space. Obviously, we should make space flight as safe as possible because human life is precious, but don’t act like we’re sending lemmings off the side of a cliff.

13

Mr. Arctus, your remarks are a direct insult to everyone who has ever died working in a dangerous profession with a worthwhile goal, and a particular insult to the people who have died in the space program.

I worked for NASA, at the Kennedy Space Center, Mr. Arctus. I’d have gone up in a heartbeat, had I been selected. Instead I did what little I could in launch control to help those who were selected to get there, because I knew they wanted it as badly as I did. It was the best job I ever had, working with some of the finest people I’ve ever known. I was standing outside the launch control center, watching, on the day Challenger didn’t fly. It was a bad day. But I’d still go up, gladly, on the next flight or any flight, without hesitation, if I were selected. Knowing that I might die would not keep me from trying. And the waiting list of people willing to take the risk grows longer every day.

You have a different opinion. You’re afraid to go, and that’s fine. Stay in your snug little bed and live the easy and comfortable life that countless explorers and pioneers from centuries past made possible for you, by what you consider “needless, pointless sacrifice”. Those who have the courage to try, and to take the risks, consider the effort neither needless nor pointless.

14

I just can’t believe what I read in this article. I thought Cecil was the smartest person alive, but the truth is he just can’t possibly be if he doesn’t know two of humanities basic characteristics.

  1. Humans have to emplore the unknown. We have always ventured into the unknown risking our lives just to know the answers. Risking out lives! Humans have always felt that the search for answers is more important than their own lives and we always will. To avoid this and catagorize it as “cool” just shows how out of touch Cecil really is with the human race.

  2. Cecil completely avoided an even stronger drive in humans, and that is to survive. The only way humans can possibly try to survive to the end of the universe is to leave this solar system. Now it is true that this need has not even come close happening yet, but it will come eventually. When it does humans will do everything, regardless of the limits of the universe, to colonize and move beyond our solar system, and we WILL succeed. But before that happens, humans will face the threat Earth will be destroyed by something, a meteor may be, and to avoid that humans WILL try and colonize other planets in the solar system, and we WILL succeed.

Cecil’s can’t do attitude is reprihensible. Someone please send him that completely relevant book about the little train that could.

And if Cecil doesn’t like it, tough. We don’t need his stupid view points or permission to do it either. The sad part is it is very clear Cecil has biased the truth with his closed mind. So much for finding the answer to this question here; look somewhere else becasue the truth is not in this article.

Finally, if NASA needs more volunteers to risk their lives to do this then I would like to know where I can sign up because I would smile all the way to oblivion just to get the chance to go into the unknown.

BOOOO to Cecil!

15

In Cecil’s defense, leaving the solar system won’t help us survive the end of the universe (I guess the point at which entropy leaves too little energy around to get any work done).

It will help us survive the death of the sun.

I guess his point is that whatever sort of space travel will help us leave the solar system will be so unlike what we’re doing today, that what we’re doing today is a waste of effort.

Still, the part about the rest of the solar system being uninhabitable is something that could be solved in the next few thousand years.

16

Dr. Cobweb put it as well as Robert Heinlein would have, and I agree completely with both of them.

Consider Mr. Arctus’s comment: “Our time in the sun will be as brief. Better we should work to make human life on Earth a little more tolerable for however long it should last.”

Does anybody really believe that the tiny pittance of money spent on space travel would be better spent on building the next incrementally better electronic device? Well, you’re the kind of person that would have invested in corsets instead of the Wright brothers.

It’s true we don’t know all the benefits we’re working towards, or how long it will take to get each. We’re no better off than those dreamers and tinkerers who invented flight or the automobile, or discovered America.

If you believe the ‘sacrifice’ of a few dreamers isn’t worth the benefits they work towards, stop driving automobiles. I heard some people died in them. Stay out of airplanes, too. And trains. And don’t use or consume any items transported in any of them.

Dammit, you morons! This planet is a limited resource, and IT’S RUNNING OUT!

17

I, too would be ready to go at this instant. Heck, I’d go in an Apollo capsule if that was the only way. If I had ever thought I had the slightest chance to be an astronaut, I would have tried.

We need space exploration because it provides a frontier, a positive challenge for us to meet. Something to do other than lob missles at each other and buy more SUV’s.

Are there challenges to be met here on Earth? Heck yeah, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t look beyond the horizon.
Peace,

tdc

18

I must also defend Cecil. I am afraid that the Columbus analogy is not accurate or applicable. Columbus did it to be the FIRST to do it. Many people also attempted to be the first to reach the North Pole but it is not now a major tourist attraction.

Dr. Cobweb, I want to take nothing away from the men and women who actually work for NASA. As long at the program exists, they do an amazing job and should be commended. I am just not sure that there is a viable purpose to the program any longer.

To all those who say that the purpose of space exploration is the basic human need to push the envelope, fine. I can accept that as truth but who says that it needs to be subsidized by my tax dollars?

We’ve been to the moon. Nothing worth going back for or we would be going there regularly.

(Going to get clobbered for first post but feel it’s important)

Hobie.

19

The dismissal of the Space program as being nothing more than a “cool” thing to do and of little value is very short sighted.

Certainly, as it stands right now there is little chance of it doing anything that will be usful to mankind in the immediate future. However, from small steps come big things. You both ignore the main drives of human beings, our need to expand out, to aquire more, to roam and the overwhelming need to see what is beyond the next hill. We desire to push beyond what is considered impossible and make it mundane.

For example heavier than air flight was seen as an impossibility and once shown to be possible it was dismissed as being impractical. After all what use was that rickety one man craft that could only travel a few feet in the air. Now some people wouldn’t give a second thought to an aircraft flying over head with many passangers travelling all over the world.
Our genius as a species and our innovative nature means that we will one day be able to travel faster and farther. Not in our life time but one day. I guarentee it.

We created the science of physics we will change those rules by our actions. There is a necessity for the exploration of space. We could sit here and wait for the inevitable collision or for our sun to die out or we can plan for our eventual escape from the bounds of this planet.

But to get there we must send people up in tin cans and test and learn our limits and how to overcome them. Our first attempts are crude, much like the early men who tied logs together to move down the river but we must start here before going out on a greater journey.

I look at the achievements we have made in the 20th century and then what has happened in my lifetime alone and I have to wonder why anyone would think there is anything we can’t eventually do.
Romantic illusion? Maybe now, but our illusions have a funny way of becoming reality.

20

Where do I sign up? I’d be there tomorrow if I thought I could be on the next shuttle flight.

…

Regarding Cecil’s claims that manned space flight has limited applications, I’m surprised no one has yet gone to the well - Robert Heinlein, in July 1979, was called upon to testify before U.S. House committees on “Applications of Space Technology for the Elderly and the Handicapped.”

The story and a version of his testimony is available in his collection Expanded Universe, under the title “Spinoff.”

You really should read the essay (and the rest of the book) yourself, but here’s the heart of his words…

Microminiaturization, of any sort, owes its existence at some point to the space program. His examples (chosen to address the topic given) included -

Image enhancers - used routinely these days in medicine.

Portable kidney machines.

Computerized-Axial Tomography (CAT scans).

Doppler Ultrasound Stethoscope.

Weather satellites (And if you cannot see the connection between accurate weather forecasting and the handicapped, just give it a bit of thought. I have faith in your intellect.)

And these are just the ones that he mentioned that applied to a rather specific subset of the population. Incidentally, all, except for the satellites, played a role in Heinlein’s own recovery from a life-threatening medical condition.

Now, granted, some of advantages from the space program would have been developed if we had never sent men up. But there have been so many advances created for the express purpose of monitoring and protecting the health of the astronauts that we will all someday benefit from them, regardless of who we are.

For Cecil to overlook what is to me obvious technological development in favor of a joke about Tang is surprising, to say the least.

Ron