The loftiest of NASA’s longest term goals include the moon, Mars, and asteroids, while also studying the other planets, and gazing off into the universe.
I"m all for discussing humanity’s prospects for colonizing nearby stars and maybe the galaxy, maybe even some nearby galaxies since they’re closer than the other side of our own galaxy, but that’s got little to do with NASA’s budget, their goals, or the current administration.
The problem for NASA is their goals, and the timetable for those goals. If you’re going to set a goal 20 or 30 or more years out, you might as well cancel it now.
Yeah…it’s going to be impossible for any long range program to survive not only multiple administrations, but whatever changes in the makeup of Congress happen in such a time period (plus the flighty nature of the US tax payer who seems to change mood on stuff like the budget at the drop of a hat). Even simply giving NASA a budget and long term goals doesn’t seem to work out very well, as every administration simply jerks them in whatever direction they want (or hangs them out to dry).
Honestly, I think that’s mostly just advertising. And also the perception that mission choice is limited to ISS, Moon, and Mars – much to space exploration’s detriment.
For instance, in less than a year, the Messenger mission will be the first spacecraft to orbit Mercury. The big “flagship” mission that’s coming up will be sent out to the outer planets (Europa being the main target). Obviously, there are plenty of others.
We (humankind) are so ignorant of so much of the solar system, it seems to me to be a disservice to sell NASA short by only considering the Moon and Mars. And, at this point and IMHO, manned missions are really impractical for everything else. Don’t stop the proposals, don’t stop the looking ahead, but (again, IMHO) go for the best return on investment at this point.
ETA: Of course missions span administrations – though I’d like to see a synopsis of timelines for the various missions, I have little doubt that most do.
I’m surprised more people in this thread haven’t pick upon this. Imagine if the sponsors of Magellan or Columbus thought ‘Oh forget it, those Spices are not worth the effort, let’s just have the Venetians or Ottomans trade it for us’ The thing is, if the US doesn’t pick up the manned space flight mantle, plenty of other competitors will do so and reap the rewards.
We’re not that ignorant about what’s out there (within the limits of practical travel/trade/exploitation imposed by the speed of light). I’m fairly confident there aren’t lush forests of conifers on Neptune just waiting to be clear-cut.
Picked up? I bloody well dealt with it head on earlier. The sally is without any basis in even the most tortured historical allegory.
It is a red herring based on a vast and historically illiterate over-simplification.
(1) The Technology used - improved sail rigging, ship building - had been perfected and tested in known and useful waters. The technological reaching in this instance is not even remotely comparable. Rather more like trying the same thing in the Roman era.
(2) The initial efforts were very, very step-wise, exploration among the African coast by the Iberians, proof of concept and potential for economic return, albeit high risk, by gradual exploration.
(3) Columbus is himself a historical accident, an ill-informed long-shot that paid off by accident. If he had not been funded, history already demonstrates the Americas would have been discovered anyway, as the Portuguese accidentally discovered Brasil when one of their African expeditions - using the same technology as Columbus - went too far out.
Manned expeditions before the technology justified on this basis is merely an irrational appeal to emotion as the actual progression by technology or effort does not apply to this [of course muddying the picture is the human versus non-human angle, but the proper analogy is to the boring, non-sexy but fundamental ship building development that preceded the moment when Iberian state/royal efforts were kicked off, as the technologies were developed privately and incrementally)
Appealing to Columbus on this point to justify manned missions is rather the opposite of rational analysis.
No…but there are very likely vast resources of water ice and minerals in small asteroids that, once the infrastructure is in place, may be more economical to extract than terrestrial sources (and certainly post less environmental impact). Our known reserves of a number of commodity metals, including copper, tin, bismuth, titanium, tungsten, and others offer less than a century of sustainability at projected extraction and use levels. Of course, we can recycle many of these materials, but that comes with its own costs and impact. Being able to supplement or replace these with extraterrestrial sources–especially from Near Earth Objects, many of which are easier to reach than Earth’s Moon–may eventually place space exploration and habitation on a positive fiscal footing (though I wouldn’t bet on this anytime in the next few decades).
Our current knowledge of the composition and distribution of potential mineral resources in space is largely based upon educated guesswork from meteorite debris. Efforts to expand and refine knowledge of useful resources to allow a permanent self-sustaining population in orbital and interplanetary space would be highly importance for planning of future infrastructure, far more so than “flags and footprints” manned missions to the Moon or Mars.
There ain’t anything out there rare enough to justify the enormous risk and expense of putting a permanent population in orbital or interplanetary space. (Self-sustaining? You’re kidding, right?) Unless you think we’re going to find Arrakis? In the solar system, where we can get to it?
You know sometimes insults wrapped in intellectual posturing is quite amusing.
It’s like you’re saying the Shuttle cannot go to the Moon, in that respects you’re right, however missing the point entirely since we already have the technological capabilities to send people to the Moon, since we have before.
Just like the preparations of the early Apollo programmes and Gemini in regards to manouvers in outerspace, the only difference there was no permanent colonisation.
Which is my point entirely, manned exploration is a constant risk and always will be, even back in the days of coastal hugging ships. The will to risk in order to venture into the unknown is what keeps us progressing. Talking about the Americas already being discovered misses the point, we already know the Moon exists, and we know there can be a number of opportunities to have a base there, so why not do it? You can argue that the Portugese sending Pedro Alvares to convert anyone and discovering Brazil was a long-shot which paid off by accident.
Who said about anything it being an appeal to emotion? Look I don’t mind if private enterprise takes up what Nasa does, just as long as Manned exploration gets going, however, usually, the only people who are able to lay the groundwork is usually the government, since they have the resources and organisational ability to do this.
However on another note, Manned expeditions which appealed to emotion (Since the Soviets were beating the US early in the space race) got us to the Moon the first place, the only problem was with the follow up, again, it’s a matter of will and consistency.
Thanks for the intellectually wrapped insults, the appeal to Columbus was to inform that being able to perform extraordinary feats is possible, and has been done plenty of times in the course of Human history, the only thing standing in our way of Moon exploration and settlement is apathy and lack of direction.
Not that I think the analogy works one for one, but what was in the new world that justified the enormous risk and expense of putting permanent colonies there? They had dirt and gold in Europe, after all, so initially at least it cost a lot for little return. It took quite a long time before a lot of the colonies in the new world became paying propositions. It also took a long time before they no longer needed to be sustained by constant resupply from the old world, especially for manufactured goods. Heck, even just prior to the Revolutionary War, the colonies were still being supplied heavily from England…and part of the beef about the Colonies were that we weren’t paying our part of the real costs in terms of taxes and such, which pissed off the folks back in merry old England.
There are a lot of resources out there, so saying that there is nothing out there worth the (initial or even residual) expense or risk (which is laughable, considering the risks run to colonize the new world) really depends on how you are making that calculation, and how, exactly, you plan to extract those resources.
As to their being no trees, that’s true enough…but then again, there aren’t any hostile natives, disease, bugs or all the other things that cost lives and treasure during the attempts to colonize the new world, so it’s probably a wash. Especially since, given even today’s technology, it’s possible to ‘live off the land’ given just the raw resources of many of the places we are likely to go (the Moon for instance, or Mars, or an asteroid), with modest resupply from back home.
They developed ships and sailing for other reasons besides plundering the new world. Once they had the ships and technology, it was relatively low cost to risk some ships and men to bring back piles of wealth.
You’re completely blowing off the development cost of getting into space and making colonies, not to mention the ongoing expenses.
Cost. Benefit. Analysis.
You’re absolutely right; there’s no natives, disease, bugs - it’s perfectly safe up there! You can just slip on some sandals and take a stroll!
Maybe, but a badly framed and conceived historical analogy remains just that.
No it is not like that at all.
Yes, on the basis of a sort of non-economical dare, and on no sustainable basis, a moon visit was made.
However, there is no demonstrable return on a near term plan to redo the non-sustainable stunt.
The spice trading analogy you made - not I, you - called on an historical situation that was driven by (i) known and tested technologies (although some fairly new and by the standards of the age, all quite new together, really quite innovative in their combination); (ii) very step-wise efforts, which were very commercially returns driven (although on a very high risk / high return basis) - returns not based on mere dreaming of possible eventual hypothetical results, but real concrete maths, i.e. bring that spice back; fairly well know exploration parameters for the vast majority of expeditions - Columbus was the real stand out exception, and I already noted the historical record demonstrates that had he not made his voyage, effectively the same discovery would have been made within a decade or two, based off of existing step-wise efforts by the Iberians.
You want to argue off of the Age of Exploration, best do so off of something more than vague emotional appeals as a model.
The Age of Exploration history of say 1400-1500 rather argues that patience and step-wise development when the necessary technologies are ripe is the proper approach.
No, it rather refutes your point, as the risk undertaken was (i) entirely tied to commercial pay off (via booty or direct commercial results), (ii) only undertaken when the explorers felt their technology justified - and generally speaking their problems were not technology as such, but lack of knowledge of other factors, (iii) obviously they had no other choice but manned exploration to delve into challenges - it wasn’t by mere romantic arguments, so certain risks past a threshold of ‘yes we think we can take this on and get a commercial return to pay off the failure risk’
The entire age of exploration was a commercial venture. Very high risk, very Venture Capital oriented, but it was not government spending for the same of research. Returns direct to the sponsors were expected (if not realised, but that is venturing). Not mere 2nd or 3rd order aspirations to returns, direct returns.
Yes and doing so in on a rational, non romantic basis is what makes venturing sustainable.
You entirely do not understand the argument. The point was that the Portuguese expedition that ran into Brazil was commercial, and operating within known commercial parameters - high risk venture capital type parameters but commercial parameters, and the collective sponsors bloody well were looking to profit.
The point was that using Columbus to argue that one should presently blast people off into space without any clear commercial return or purpose, and without real confidence in the returns is entirely fallacious.
YOU made the argument that not blasting someone off to the moon or whatnot right away was like not supporting Columbus. I am merely illustrating why the argument is without analogical foundation.
No it is a matter of utility and science.
Emotion drove the initial space race, and then humanity found out that progress and cost were not quite what was projected, that space is rather harder for humanity. Of course in the 1950s-1960s the thinking and understanding around radiation and human biology - and generally biology was rather less informed than now.
Will and consistency to engage in pointless, emotionally driven chest-beating is neither science nor rationality, nor a means to effectively attack space. It is reverting to Homer (the Greek not Simpsons) age thinking
The colonies came after the New World attracted effort by … Gold, Silver and other neat very profitable commodities. The discovery was entirely accidental, having been aimed at the known profit
Actually, no.
Europe was short on gold relative to demand and accessible resources. That’s why Mali got on the medieval maps - due to Islamic trading with the ‘land of gold’ …
Sure…they needed them to plunder the far east. No other reason to develop ocean going vessels, after all.
And it wasn’t a low cost to risk some of those ships…it was pretty high cost and high risk, and it didn’t pay off for quite a while.
No, I’m not. It cost a lot to get into space and develop colonies. It cost a lot to develop ships (many of which would sink en route), and put together both the initial expeditions and later the colonies. Costs a lot…costs a lot. What the relative costs would be, compared against the actual wealth of the nations involved verse that of the US today vs the cost of exploration and colonization in some kind of standard currency, I have no idea…but I bet it wouldn’t be THAT far out. A Mars expedition, for instance, might cost $100 billion, say…which is not even a 10th of a percent of our overall budget. What did Columbus’s expedition cost compared to the total wealth of Spain? I bet it was more than a 10th of a percent. Say setting up a colony on an asteroid would have an initial outlay of $1 trillion dollars (in a Dr. Evil voice), just as a WAG figure. That’s a bit less than a 10% of our annual budget. I’m guessing that setting up colonies in the new world initially cost a comparable amount of money.
Once said colonies are set up, depending on how wisely they are set up and where, they could be sending back heavy metals and other resources, that would be the equivalent of Spain’s sending gold, silver and gems back to Spain (but without the whole genocide thingy), but in our case, the REAL goal would be the exploration and the knowledge gained, not the treasure.
Your. Point. Being?
Did I say that? Hm…that’s not what I THOUGHT I said. What I THOUGHT I said was that the risks would be comparable, and if there are no trees in space, the other side of the equations is that there aren’t a lot of other things either. There is radiation in space, and other dangers…but then, there were storms, pirates, disease and all manner of comparable dangers to traveling to and colonizing the new world. You don’t seriously think that the loss of human life was less going to the new world than it would be colonizing an asteroid or setting up a permanent base on the moon or Mars…do you? It’s an apples to oranges comparison, at best, but that doesn’t mean that there are no commonalities at all.
You tell me…I really can’t tell, given your post. I THINK you are serious, but…
But they didn’t actually start to make a profit for quite a while. It wasn’t like ‘send over an expedition, send over some guys and PROFIT!’. It took a fairly substantial (considering the relative size of the treasuries we are talking about here) investment to before they started to get any kind of return.
You ever seen that really big landmass just south of Europe? (the point being, they didn’t HAVE to go to the new world just to get gold)
Well, unless you fear someone is going to get you drunk, throw a sack over your head and shanghai you off to spend the rest of your days sweating and bleeding in the slave mines of Tycho, I"m not sure what the risk is for you.
The expense isn’t exactly a big deal, either. NASA is something like 0.5% of the budget.
Anyway, the brave and foolhardy souls who discovered the new world are all dead. So much for their ROI. But, it’s fair to say I owe them everything, and I’m unspeakably grateful they were willing to look up at the stars and wonder “what else is under these stars?” and then go find out.
Well gee I guess we should just spend the money willy-nilly then.
And hey! If the government up and gave me (just me) fifty million dollars, that would also be risk free and really cheap. And when we’re all dead, the ROI won’t matter! I say let’s do it. And I really don’t see what argument you could possibly make to disagree.
