**The Perfect Master wrote:
As I suggested in the column, I’m happy to reverse that view if someone comes up with a plausible mission.**
How about exploitation of resources? Everyone would agree that the resources on our planet are finite and will eventually be exhausted.
The question then becomes, would mounting missions to claim resources on the moon and other planets be too expensive over intense reclaimation programs here on good ole Terra?
Hmmm, maybe I should have read the thread more carefully before posting glibly. My apologies.
I am locked in a personal turmoil over issues like this. You cannot argue that the spinoffs we have seen so far are worth the many billions of dollars spent on manned space exploration. That would be like throwing thousands of 20 dollar bills out your car window on the way to the bank to withdraw five bucks, and say it was worth it. Well, that’s an exaggeration, but the point is the spinoffs are not why we send people into space. As important as they are (and they are), they cannot now be the main thrust of space exploration. They should be a happy dividend, until and unless one pays off so handsomely that it makes the effort worthwhile all by itself.
Satellites need not be repaired by people; the vast majority are autonomous and are replaced if they fail or become obsolete. Upgrading Hubble, for example, costs a lot of money; in many ways it can be argued that it would be cheaper and better to build a new 2.4 meter telescope with upgraded tech than to upgrade Hubble itself. Bear in mind I used the upgraded Hubble for many years as well. I don’t say this lightly.
Cecil says we need a goal, and I think about that often. What should this goal be? If we want material gain, then I say we go explore near-Earth asteroids; since they pass relatively slowly they are easier to get to than other planets. The light gravity makes landing on them simpler, and they may very well contain enough metals to pay off the space program for 100 years. But we can explore them with robots vastly more cheaply than with humans, and can even mine them remotely.
Mars is a noble goal, like the Moon was in the 1960s. But I am still not sure that sending people there is a reasonable thing to do just yet. Eventually, sure! But we need to continue with our faithful robots for some time yet. I want to send humans to Mars, but I want to make sure the technology is tested and reasonably safe first.
The argument that we should go to space because it’s “cool”… that’s glib, but perhaps, in the end, is essentially correct. You can argue that it’s way too expensive to do this because it’s cool. However, the NASA budget is a tiny fraction of what is wasted by the U.S. Government. And what NASA does to inspire kids, to learn, to dream, to strive… that’s beyond the dollar. When we continually cut back on direct spending on education, it’s important to give those kids something to aspire to, to look up to, to dream about.
I have direct knowledge here; I have given talks to schools about space. My day job is to develop educational materials for school kids. We give these materials out for free to teachers across the country. To be honest, our materials are only tangentially related to manned space flight (they are based on the science of astronomical satellites, some of which are launched via Shuttle), but the teachers love NASA materials. And most new teachers are amazed that these materials are distributed for free.
I’ll leave you with this thought, too: the 20th century had many dramatic events which changed the world, and the very nature of the lives we lead now. If you ask people what was the single event in the 20th century that stands out, that sits on top of every other thing that happened in that long 100 years, what do you think they’ll say?
Many will say “man landing on the Moon”. I would. I’ve been spending quite a bit of time studying the Apollo missions, and I still get a chill when I see the pictures. I get overwhelmed, sometimes, battling the people who deny we ever went to the Moon. But then I think of what NASA accomplished, and I am ready to fight another day.
How many people know the names of the robots that went to the Moon before a man ever did? How many more know the names Aldrin and Armstrong?
I think this says a lot about the nature of exploration, and about setting goals beyond our immediate grasp.
Regarding the “NASA is cool” line of reasoning…
I, personally, would cheer if all the money put into Shuttle missions and the ISS was, instead, devoted to heavy research into better launching and propulsion systems. I would love to see rocket engineers utilizing more radical systems, such as nuclear-powered launchers and such. If it were up to me, I’d gladly dump the manned missions program - aside from what is absolutely necessary to maintain a roster of ready individuals who know how to operate in space - and instead focus on developing better means of travel (nuclear engines, solar sails, whatever).
But I know that this won’t happen. Such devotions of money have no big, flashy, cool-to-watch immediate results that John Q. Public - and his teeny, tiny, impatient little brain - can say “Ooh” and “Aah” over. Remember, this is a society that needs its presidential race dumbed-down to “The Dumb One” and “The Wooden One”. If you tell them “We spent $50 billion dollars working on the development of a SCRAMjet”, they say, “So?” However, if you say “We spent $50 billion dollars and now we have a space station, JUST LIKE IN STAR TREK!!!”, they’ll happily sign the check and fork over further funds for even more space toys.
It’s an unfortunate statement, but really, the human touch of manned space exploration is what makes the ignorant masses enthusiastic about the whole idea.
I said…
… Add in there, “Unless it blows up.”
sford: << I guess I’m “no one” >>
Cecil Adams" << My apologies >>
Holy hoppin’ sh*t, sford… I was gonna post that being called a “no one” by Cecil Hisself was a major compliment. And then you got an apology? from Cecil?? That’s one of the signs of the end of the world as we know it, for sure.
You should read more carefully. The post in question didn’t say “surviving the end of the universe”. It said “surviving TO the end of the universe”. I made the same error on the first read.
I’m an engineer so I can’t say much about the scientific applications in space, but from the standpoint of practical usage of the resources and environment the major problem is gravity. We live in a rather large gravity well (which is good for us in most things, keep the atmosphere on etc) that makes it very energy intensive to put anything in orbit. This means that most things we do in earth orbit are not worth the cost of getting there. This will always be true no matter what kind of propulsion system you use (your only hope is to develop a system that uses a very cheep form of energy). Then you have the problem of shedding all that energy to land again on earth, see Colombia. This does not mean space is worthless; the key is to side step the disadvantages of our position in the solar system. Lift only what you need to get started from Earth, then “live off the land” by exploiting resources in low-g areas such as the Moon and asteroids. This concept of space colonization put forward by O’Neill and others is the only one that offers a practical true space fairing existence. Once ready access to water, energy and mineral is found there is no reason to lift additional payload from Earth and the colony can be self supporting. The two major problems are: finding the source of water (water may be on the moon, it probably available in the asteroid belt but in any case is the key as it provides fuel, air, drink, and the means to grow food) and getting any body to fund your starting costs (which will be large). Unfortunately this plan works best when you send nothing back to Earth (the only practical import my be energy microwaved back) thus provides little incentive for the rest of humanity to start you off.
Yep. God help us if we would actually have to go to a library to find a book. I guess some folks think that if it isn’t on the Internet, it doesn’t really exist.
I see too that you still aren’t reading (not surprising, given your apparent adversion to books) - I didn’t suggest ‘everyone’ provided evidence of spinoffs from the manned space program, just that ‘some’ did.
But since you seem to need an electronic version of evidence before you take it seriously, I’ll point you to this source.
I better warn you, though, there’s reading involved.
Ron
Yeah, so? The same can be said for air travel. The Wright Brothers flew in 1903. My grandfather was born in 1909, my parents were born in 1944, I was born in 1969. I wouldn’t say air travel was routine (for people who weren’t wealthy) until Reagan deregulated the industry.
At 94, my grandfather is still travelling, but I’ve probably flown more times than he has. I’ve definitely flown more times than my parents.
Space flight is taking longer in part because governments are keeping the private sector out. I can’t say for certain that’s not the right thing to do (imagine if 9/11 had been perpetrated with something fueled up to reach orbit instead of to reach the West Coast), but you can’t turn around and say that means space flight is inherently impractical.
How about this: given a space elevator (one of the posts here linked to a book that claims one could be built within about 15 years), and the capability to mine the asteroids, we could move factories into space and stop polluting our biosphere. We wouldn’t want to do it without a space elevator, of course, because the pollution of liftoff would be just as bad.
Yes, because space colonization is necessary to enable those remaining on Earth to survive at all with anything even close to our current standard of living. Relative impoverishment is better than extinction.
Not huge ones, but that’s largely because of the nature of the bureaucracy. The initial plan specified four shuttles and a bunch of spare parts. After Challenger blew up, they used those spare parts to build Endeavour. But those are used up now, and building a new shuttle would require putting out a whole new bid and getting somebody to start up a custom production line. These things aren’t built out of off-the-shelf components, after all, which is why they built them all at once in the first place. But it means that all the shuttles are built to the same design, so there hasn’t been room for any visible progress.
The on-board electronics have been improved, of course; but the engines and such have not.
The one improvement I know of is that the shuttles after Columbia (which was built as a one-off prototype) are lighter, which means that they can fly higher. Columbia couldn’t reach the ISS, but the surviving shuttles can.
It’s not a shuttle. There are lots of designs for better craft, some reusable, some not. The general technological background has advanced quite a lot in the last 20-30 years, after all.
We can certainly get them up there unmanned; the Europeans do it all the time. And repairing them isn’t really a concern; if we didn’t already have a manned space program, it’d be cheaper to send up a new satellite than to repair a broken one. The Hubble is the only satellite I know of that got repaired, and that was a special case, too expensive to throw away. (Also too embarrassing; I don’t imagine anybody at NASA liked hearing it referred to as “the only orbital telescope in the Universe with dark glasses and a cane”.)
What is your reasoning behind this? I am serious, not sarcastic. Do you have a cite for that? There are actually incentives for private industry to go to space, like the X-prize.
I think what’s keeping the private sector out is cost. It costs a lot to get to space. Once someone figures out how to do that cheaply, and loft payloads comparable in weight to what NASA/ESA/etc. can do, then things may change, and rapidly.
The answer to the question “what is a low-earth-orbit space truck good for?” is orbiting the earth right now. If we have the sense to continue building it, and then use the experience and knowledge we gain to build others, we’ve taken the first step to anywhere in solar system we want to go. Launching a manned mission to Mars, or back to the moon, or anywhere else, directly from earth is not practical. You have to get out of the gravity well, and vehicles such as the shuttle are intended for that purpose. Once we have learned enough to build a permanent orbiting station, we’ll be able to launch from orbit and go elsewhere.
Should we be developing a better vehicle? Absolutely. We should have done it long ago. The shuttle was a crummy compromise to begin with. We already have the know-how to do much better; we just haven’t done it. Research into launching systems that don’t rely on expensive chemical rockets should also be pursued; we’re a long way from being there, but we won’t get there by not working on it. And one thing is certain: nothing has ever been, or ever will be, accomplished by people who say it’s impossible, it can’t be done, it’s pointless, it isn’t worth the time, the effort, the money or the risk.
Is NASA an overly bloated government bureaucracy? Definitely. Private industry could certainly do it much cheaper (though almost certainly not more safely), and would be much more interested in making it more profitable.
But the primary question - Cecil’s, not the original corespondent’s - of whether humans should even bother going into space is purely a philosophical one, and not really subject to logical debate or proof. Arguments about the efficacy of the shuttle, or whether NASA is obsolete, or even about the potential tangible benefits (resources, deflecting killer asteroids, lebensraum, whatever) might be interesting and even fun, but they don’t address the core issue, which is simply whether humankind should voluntarily place itself in perpetual confinement on one single little ball of rock, or leave its cradle and stride among the stars? And the question is actually moot, because regardless of what the timid and unimaginative may say, there will always be those who are willing to take the risk and leave the cradle.
“Who would not risk his life for a star?”
–Bucky O’Neill
People keep comparing the current manned space program to Columbus, or the Wright Brothers. IMO, that’s much too advanced. Right now our space travel is basically on par with the Vikings early explorations. They had regular travel to Europe, had a small colony on Iceland, and sent people to Greenland and North America, which never amounted to much. We’re still raiding the coast of Europe, and wondering why we lose so many ships out past Iceland.
Or, look at the Montgolfier brothers. The first manned flight was in 1783. For over 100 yrs, manned flight was basically a diversion until the development of heavier than air flight. If you’d asked somebody in the 1830s what good was manned air flight, what would they have said?
We’re still waiting for the Wright Brothers of space flight, and whatever that is, the current space shuttle ain’t it.
If I didn’t know better I’d swear that Cecil was trolling with his latest column. I don’t think we’ve seen so many new posters since some unpleasantness with another board. Anyway, this lot looks to be a worthy bunch, so welcome!
Frankly, I’m even surprised at Cecil’s comments in this thread.
Surely, Cecil, you must realize that an emotional arugment is not necessarily a wrong one. I can’t put a dollar value on, nor adequately describe, the effect a painting might have upon me, but that doesn’t mean that art has no value, or that a photograph of a painting is as good as the painting itself. To throw out an argument simply because it has an emotional component to it, is to throw pretty much everything but mathematics. Why send humans into space? I don’t know, other than I feel the need that we should be doing so. Why spend all the money on fighting disease, preventing war, ending poverty, or any of the other humanitarian tasks mankind has undertaken, when so far, they’ve failed to completely eradicate the problem? Because we feel the need to do so. We’ve spent a 100,000 years or so working on the problems and mankind has yet to express the desire to throw in the towel on them as of yet.
Sure, NASA lacks focus, but I have to wonder if the sole reason we went to the Moon when we did wasn’t primarily because the President who proposed the idea was assassinated. Perhaps, the real reason we went to the Moon wasn’t to beat the Soviets, but to fulfill the dream of one man, who’s life was cut short before our eyes.
Because, as noted elsewhere, robot probes don’t excite the voters, and thus don’t (for the most part) excite the politicans making the budget decisions.
As was said in The Right Stuff, “no bucks, no Buck Rogers”.
(Whether I agree NASA is the best tool for the job or not is another issue, and one that I’m too tired to go into, tonight.)
I agree with Tuckerfan. I realize emotions and romanticism do influence my opinion of the space program, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. They also influence my opinion on funding of the arts, and humanitarian aid, and war memorials.
I also don’t think we’ll be seeing colonization anytime soon, if you have a short-sighted perception of what “soon” means. A colony around alpha Centauri by the year 5000 would be fine with me. 
(Yeah, I know it would take longer than that with next-generation technology, but what about fifty generations from now?)
Noted, but unsupported. And unsupportable. The robotic probes DO generate a lot of public interest and excitement. Viking’s long-ago landing on Mars (before most of you were born), the early Jupiter and Saturn fly-bys, Gallileo showing us moons with possible oceans, the Mars rover … I mean come on! Front page photographs several times for each mission! Lots of radio and tv coverage! Whole sections in Time and Newsweek! If you don’t remember any public interest in those events, then you slept through them.
But just as robot probes wear thin after a while, manned spaceflight loses its novelty in a hurry too. Remember the scene in Apollo 13 when the Nasa space broadcast wasn’t carried by any of the networks? That wasn’t invented by Hollywood for dramatic tension. Many of the moon landings went almost unnoticed by the general public. Ditto with the Shuttle. When it was brand new, people were impressed. After a year or two, only space afficionados paid any attention.
It’s not humans in space that make the public interested in space. It’s NEW THINGS in space. Sending another probe to Jupiter won’t generate NEARLY the same level of interest that Gallileo did because Gallileo showed us cool pictures that we were never able to see before. A second Mars rover won’t capture the nations attention either, even if it’s a much better rover. Now Cassini’s arrival at Saturn probably will pull in a lot of viewers, as would a Pluto mission. So would bringing core samples of Mars back to Earth.
And besides, it’s not the voters that keep the U.S. space program funded by Congress. It used to be fear, and now it’s prestige and ego. That’s one reason the ISS lost so much support - we can’t point at it and say, “that’s OURS!”