RE: Why are we in space?

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

Lots of reasons, which have been spelled out in many other posts, but which deserve to be collected together.

  1. Because we must

Over ten year ago, the discovery of an ancient impact crater in Mexico and subsequent exhaustive study of it finally convinced the bulk of the scientific community that it was the impact of a large (but relatively speaking, not particularly large) meteor that triggered the climate change responsible for killing off the dinosaurs and most of the species that surrounded them, rather than gradual atmospheric shifts natural to the planet. (Read James Lawrence Powell’s exellent book Night Comes to the Cretaceous for a fantastic account of the vicious oppostition put up by other scientists to this notion.)

Several near miss scares in subsequent years have shown: a) the threat is still very real; b) we lack the observational capability to give ourselves more than a few months warning (and even that is of highly dubious accuracy) of any such approaching calamity. One more meteor, one we might not even realize is on its way, and we’re all gone. I for one would like to know that there is a viable place to escape to were it to happen in my lifetime. Are we going to just pile whoever we can into whatever rocket we can scrape together in a few months (if it turns out we have that long), shoot them to the moon, and pray they can figure out a way to sustain the race before they run out of air a few hours after landing? Come on!

  1. Because we’re America

If we don’t make the push beyond earth, China will. They have a growing space program, and thanks to our consumer demand for prices so low that all manufacturing has moved to Asia, they will have all the money they need. In the broad humanist view, it might not matter what country wins the prize of the first viable moon colony as long as it happens, but I would like it to be my country, especially given that we have all the resources here right now. I would hate to think that all we have learned will go to waste because we thought we needed to save the money today.

There are two main objections to manned space flight:

  1. The risk

Ah, so suddenly, after this explosion, we’re worried about risk? Just a few short years ago, when rich idiots paid tens of millions of dollars to fly with the Russians, weren’t we criticizing NASA for being a bunch of wusses who were artificially upping the perceived risk in order to keep space flight to themselves? Now we know the risks are real, and the person who knowingly undertakes them should be given a hero’s welcome and, if necessary, a hero’s burial. All the people of the past who dreamed that their children’s children’s children would reach for the stars would not appreciate cowardice on our part.

NASA tests every step of their missions to the extent their budget allows before they go ahead with them. Why didn’t we land to the moon until Apollo 11? Because earlier Apollo missions had to lower the lander to near the lunar surface, then blast back up to make sure it could be done. Because the Gemeni program had to show we could dock vehicles in space so that the lander would have a place to go once it left the moon. Because Jet Propulsion Laboratory missions had to land on the surface first and return samples so we knew what kind of lander we needed.

People think we can get by with only our unmanned program, but it has limits. Rovers will reach Mars in 2004. If they find a scientifically significant hill they can’t climb, the rover that can climb it won’t get there until 2010 at the earliest. If there’s a hole at the top of the hill the rover can’t descend into, the rover that can won’t get there until 2016. Better to have an intelligent human there instead. But the human must travel through a vacuum for six months, live in a low-pressure, low-gravity environment for a year, and travel back, all with no supply line. We’re not even close to discovering if this can be done. It will take time. And risk.

2)The cost

Poor, poor NASA (in every sense of the term), the government’s favorite whipping-program. Any politician who wants to score points on budget-cutting screams about our supposedly wasteful space program. You’d think NASA was cramming the money into the solid booster rockets as kindling. Every dollar spent on the space program is spent here on earth, given to Americans. And the perceived enormity of the expenditure is a load of crap. For every tax dollar you gave the government last year, they gave less than a penny to NASA. Why don’t you spend your energy asking where the other 99 cents went? Using the penny you gave them last year, NASA discovered the sure existence of water on Mars (which could be used for life support or rocket fuel), the internal structure of the sun, and the fate of the universe. What the heck better bargain are you looking for?

The Columbia crash happened because the government spent too little, not too much. NASA has been telling Washington for years it needs to go ahead with building the next generation of shuttles that have already been designed, but Washington says no. The first of these was to have been a Crew Return Vehicle for the Space Station, which George Shrub canceled as soon as he hit office. Forgive me for morbidity, but having displayed such stupidity, he deserves to have Columbia smeared across half his state (you know, the one where all the money to train the astronauts and monitor the flights at the Johnson Space Center is spent). He also cancelled the Centifuge module for the station, so it won’t be America who finds out if humans can survive long periods in low gravity. Hope the Chinese are willing to share the moon.

The mistake we constantly make is to demand that the space program pay off in the short term. You can argue about where specific products come from, but NASA and its Technology Transfer Program has been instrumental in shaping the way we live our day to day lives. In the end, the space program, manned and unmanned, is about long-term goals. Always has been, always will be. And shame on any of us so short-sighted as to think it must be otherwise.

2

And the column being referred to is Why are we in space?

3

I’m surprised the military hasn’t been more financially supportive of the space program. I know, I know, they’ve given plenty, but it’s only a drop in the bucket compared to their R & D resources. The high ground is always the more tactically advantageous ground to own…

4

A little thing called the Anti-Space Proliferation Treaty, where the US an the Soviets (and a bunch of other countries) agreed not to expand weapons into space.

5

Realit-check-time. Spare me the romantic drivel about reaching for the stars. We have many more less sexy, earthbound problems that need the attention of all those “dreamers” out there. Perhaps if we spend a little more energy and resources solving issues such as water and food supplies, pandemic diseases, and getting along with each other without feeling the need to slaughter one another, we would have more luxury time to pursue travel in space.

And the risk of being anihilated by an asteroid without anywhere to go? Pu-lease! If we are unable to address the problems facing us today, we will likely not need to worry about it. And besides, is the human race in our current state worth inflicting on another piece of real estate? Lest we soil our nest…

harrmill

6

OK, harmill, I’ll spare you the romantic drivel (for now) and give you the reality you’re looking for. I’ll begin by saying the country has numerous problems that deserve the lion’s share of the money we spend. By contrast, the space program should get very little.

They do.

During FY2003, the government plans to spend a total of $2,128,000,000,000. Of this money, NASA will get $14,900,000,000, a ridiculously large sum compared to your paycheck or mine, but almost nothing compared to the total wallet.

Let’s assume for a minute that the government treats us all the same (ha!), and get these numbers down to something manageable by dividing these budgets among the US population of 282,000,000, which I rounded up from the
US Census Bureau’s total for 2000.

The government will spend $7546.10 on your personal behalf this year. Of this amount, they will give $52.84 to NASA to fund everything they do, or 7/10ths of a penny for each dollar in the total budget.

You could cancel the entire space program today, and you’d have an extra $52.84 to try and solve problems that the other $7493.26 were apparently inadequate to deal with.

Certainly if the situation were that dire, the 53 bucks should be spent. But is it?
If you had a dollar’s worth of change in your pocket and gave a penny (almost 150% of NASA’s money relative to the federal budget!) to a guy with a crazy, risky dream that will really only pay off years from now, should you really kick yourself that you only have 99 cents to give the homeless guy or whoever else needs it?

The NASA budget gets a lot of congressional and press attention because it’s a big number in terms of actual dollars and it’s an elaborate dream (only serious influx of cash would make it an extravagance). Again, if we’re really in that much trouble financially, the space program should go. But I’ll take a good hard look at where Washington spent the other $2,113,100,000,000 before I demand NASA’s money back.

Does what the government spend on NASA pay off right now? Does it matter? I’ve known people who spend more than 53 bucks every weekend on lottery tickets. For my 53 bucks, if nothing else, I get more total entertainment value from a year’s worth of Hubble pictures than any 7 movies playing at the multiplex.

I agree with you entirely that the problems of Earth should not spread beyond our atmosphere. A lot of people in this country feel the same way. Does every country that can build a rocket feel that way too, or should we take advantage of the existence of so many altruistic Americans and spend the money to make sure at least THAT space dream is fulfilled? I fear this conversation started by my great grandchild circa 2060:

“Mommy, can I live on Moon someday, too?”
“Probably not, dear. The Moon is owned by another country that doesn’t want to share. If America had done it first, the Moon Base might be open to everyone who helped build it, like the first Space Station was, but your great-grandpa wanted to save a few cents…”

7

Very good post, scotandrsn, except for this part:

[Quote]
originally posted by scotandrsn
I agree with you entirely that the problems of Earth should not spread beyond our atmosphere.

[Quote]

There were several attempts to settle ideal communities in the New World (generally referred to as utopias). It didn’t work then, so I guess we’d better call off pioneering space, since it won’t work there either.

8

[sup]& always preview[/sup]:smack:

9

I’m not suggesting some unattainable utopia (hell, Jane Goodall’s research with chimps strongly suggests that war existed among primates before humans even evolved). But most of the folks at NASA are dedicated to the idea that no one person or nation owns outer space. And they put their money where their mouth is by opening up the International Space Station to funding from over a dozen countries, each of whom gets time to use it proportional to their contribution.

This attitude has pervaded our idea of space exploration to the point where we think that if we abandon our space program now, the rest of the solar system will always be free and open for us to go to later. But I don’t think that all space-capable nations have this same notion of access for all. And I think the last thing that anyone in this country wants is to have to fight a war for the Moon or anywhere else should it turn out we really do need to colonize.

At least if we establish a firm presence of this ideal while we’re still capable of it, there’s a better chance that we and everyone else will be able to enjoy whatever fruits space has to offer in the future.

10

Cecil was totally wrong about so much stuff. But that is besides the point. He, like most people suffer from the "Spend it in space " stupidity arugement.
Money spent on the space program does not go into space. It goes into earth’s economy.

Moreove, it gets paid to the SMARTEST people in the world, and they do do research. Even if you reject the tons of real valuable discoveries that Nasa is responsible for (as Cecil idiotically did - god he never even mentioned GPS), then it still the single best pure research around. We ARE learning things even if some people think what we are learning is worthless.

It STILL is money well spent, even we are learning “nothing” because real science is as much about learning what we can not do as it is learning about what we can do.

In conclusion, the money is being spent in a far better way than almost any other government project. It goes to the smart people and the best technological companies rather than the military and social program cesspool of waste and porkbarrells.

11

Check out this link on international treaties (via the UN) regarding space use.

http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/treaties.html

12

Well, I have to say I agree with scotandrsn! You have put forth a very cogent and simple argument without mixing in a bunch of emotion. I agree that the money spent on the space program is not a big chunck of change in the grander scheme of things, and we certainly do spend money on more wasteful things.

Now, my other point is where is it all going? Do we have any guarantee that our peaceful explorations will not turn into some sort of military program for getting missiles up in space to aim where we please? History teaches that technology always ends up in the military.

13

harrmill, there are no guarantees in life. Just like there’s no guarantee there won’t be a terrorist strike tomorrow on the Capital building, or you won’t be involved in a fatal car accident tomorrow.

However, if you look at the link I provided, you will find several international treaties regarding space and preventing use for military purposes, including specifically for missile platforms. So there is some statement of intent.

Also consider that even if we stop our manned space program, that does not prevent unmanned use, which is what a weapons platform most likely would be. Giving up all space program would cede that advantage to the rest of the world. Europe has a viable unmanned space program, Russia has a program (albeit financial problems), and China has embarked on a new space program. So not only do we lose access to the resources of satellites (weather, communications, GPS, surveying, etc), but we also risk putting ourselves at a disadvantage to some other country wishing to continue their program, and eventually use it for military purposes.

Far better for us to have our own program, as a deterrent to someone else developing weapons because of our ability to keep up, if necessary. Not that we would want that scenario.

14

From an article I posted somewhere out there waves hand…

In Defense of Space Exploration

 I respectfully disagree with the opinion expressed in the anti-space program editorial in the March edition of the newspaper.  Its premise is that we should base our future development on a misinterpretation of a science-fiction TV show syndicated in 1969 which predicted that 23rd century walkie-talkies would be the size of a small brick and that mid-21st century doctors would diagnose a patient with a malfunctioning “autoimmune system”.  (However, in my completely unbiased opinion, it is still the best multidecade TV program ever).  
 According to the editorial, we should abandon space exploration until 2067, which it claims was the date of the first space program in Star Trek.  In “reality”, however, that was the date of the first warp (faster than light) flight, accomplished by Zephram Cochrane (be quiet, Freud), and was preceded by a great deal of space exploration.  Now that this has been established, let us turn our attention to real life.
 After the Columbia tragedy (the use of the word “travesty” in the title of the aforementioned editorial, defined as “a grotesque or farcical imitation for purposes of ridicule” was either a typo or an extremely skewed interpretation of the incident), the worst possible way to honor the dead would be to cancel the space program that they risked their lives to advance.  The loss of life is a tragedy, but it is an inevitable consequence of any program that seeks to expand the human race beyond its boundaries.  Human history has been a series of these advances; the lack of any of them would have dramatic consequences for life as we know it.  Imagine what would follow if a television broadcast in 15th century Spain had read “Contact with Expedition 17 to find a western route to the Indies has been lost, presumably due to man-eating sea monsters.  There has been an enormous backlash against the exploration program, resulting in the royal family of Spain turning down a request for funding by one Christopher Columbus.  And now on to sports …”
 The editorial dismissed spin-offs from the space program, mentioning only MRI, which it claims often does not work.  Actually, MRI is a very powerful and accurate tool, allowing high-definition “slices” of the body to be shown without surgery.  The other products that the space exploration has produced are legion.  Miniaturization of myriad appliances (cell phones are one example) is the most evident.  Satellites are another example of products generated by the space program; they are indispensable for the aforementioned cell phones, as well as for information transfer, GPS, and weather forecasting. 
 But these are small potatoes compared with the possibilities offered by space exploration.  After all, the main products of Columbus’ expeditions were not new ideas for ship design or a stronger material for sails.  There is a finite amount of many materials on Earth, and space could be an answer to the eventual lack of some of them.  Asteroid mining is one of the most promising sources of metals such as iron and nickel, and could provide other useful and more exotic materials such as iridium, one of the densest, hardest, and rarest, elements, which could have widespread uses, such as radiation shields (as from computer monitors).  The possibilities of other space products are quite literally beyond the imagination.  Many useful materials can be manufactured best in zero-G, such as carbon nanotubes, tightly coiled rods of carbon “thread” which are hundreds of times stronger than steel.  
 It is not only beneficial to go into space, but the alternative, remaining on Earth, is also dangerous.  Space is the only way to assure the survival of humans.  A species that cannot adapt and spread as conditions allow is eventually doomed to extinction.  Having all humans on only one planet is truly putting all eggs in one cosmic basket.  Earth is approached by approximately 1,500 asteroids that are large enough to cause global catastrophe if one was to strike the earth.  The resources delegated to near-earth object spotting are not sufficient to prevent this (Murphy’s law: anything that can go wrong, eventually will).  Astronomers were taken by surprise when a meteoroid passed within a few million kilometers from Earth, a very small distance in space.  We do not want to meet the same fate as the dinosaurs – becoming extinct through the collision of a meteoroid.  Setting up colonies on other planets can help to minimize the effects of this inevitable occurrence on the survival of our species.
 This essential endeavor cannot be advanced by canceling it as the editorial suggested, any more than hunger or war will end if we simply let them simmer for a few decades.  What will happen that will magically make a casualty-free, 100% efficient, warm-and-fuzzy space program?  The only logical answer would be Vulcans coming to Earth.  Just as one cannot jump from arithmetic to calculus, it is not possible to expect problems with spacecraft to solve themselves over a half-century.  After all, the entire point of the space program is to test out space-related technology, something that cannot be done in a laboratory.  If anything, the spacecraft after the proposed hiatus will be less safe, because the newer technology that would have been developed would not have been tested in the demanding conditions of space.  Imagine what would happen if the first humans abandoned making canoes because they couldn’t get to another continent, fishing was not yet profitable, and people – gasp – actually die on these early missions.  Abandoning canoe-making for a half-century would not miraculously create a fleet of functional galleons.  No pain, no gain.
 Saying that we should not pursue space exploration because there are still problems in the world is akin to a parent saying “Don’t eat all your food because there are starving children in the world”: not eating the food will not help one starving child.  The amount of NASA funding is currently chicken feed compared to the national budget, and diverting its few billion dollars will not make a significant difference in any major endeavor.  In fact, colonizing other planets or the moon will eventually increase food production and alleviate world hunger, since almost all arable land in the world is farmed.  Hydroponic agricultural colonies on the moon or on Mars can provide the needed food.  Additionally, while eliminating the ills of humanity is an important (though not totally attainable) goal, to say that we must either abandon the space program or give up all hope eliminating these problems is to present a false dichotomy.
 It is clear, then, that humans must continue their outward push into space.  The benefits are too great, and the consequences are too dire, to stop such an endeavor.  Let us, therefore, not flinch from the future, but shoulder the burden and continue our trek to the stars.
15

Ergh…here it is with page breaks

From an article I posted somewhere out there waves hand…

In Defense of Space Exploration

I respectfully disagree with the opinion expressed in the anti-space program editorial in the March edition of the newspaper. Its premise is that we should base our future development on a misinterpretation of a science-fiction TV show syndicated in 1969 which predicted that 23rd century walkie-talkies would be the size of a small brick and that mid-21st century doctors would diagnose a patient with a malfunctioning “autoimmune system”. (However, in my completely unbiased opinion, it is still the best multidecade TV program ever).

According to the editorial, we should abandon space exploration until 2067, which it claims was the date of the first space program in Star Trek. In “reality”, however, that was the date of the first warp (faster than light) flight, accomplished by Zephram Cochrane (be quiet, Freud), and was preceded by a great deal of space exploration. Now that this has been established, let us turn our attention to real life.

After the Columbia tragedy (the use of the word “travesty” in the title of the aforementioned editorial, defined as “a grotesque or farcical imitation for purposes of ridicule” was either a typo or an extremely skewed interpretation of the incident), the worst possible way to honor the dead would be to cancel the space program that they risked their lives to advance. The loss of life is a tragedy, but it is an inevitable consequence of any program that seeks to expand the human race beyond its boundaries. Human history has been a series of these advances; the lack of any of them would have dramatic consequences for life as we know it. Imagine what would follow if a television broadcast in 15th century Spain had read “Contact with Expedition 17 to find a western route to the Indies has been lost, presumably due to man-eating sea monsters. There has been an enormous backlash against the exploration program, resulting in the royal family of Spain turning down a request for funding by one Christopher Columbus. And now on to sports …”

The editorial dismissed spin-offs from the space program, mentioning only MRI, which it claims often does not work. Actually, MRI is a very powerful and accurate tool, allowing high-definition “slices” of the body to be shown without surgery. The other products that the space exploration has produced are legion. Miniaturization of myriad appliances (cell phones are one example) is the most evident. Satellites are another example of products generated by the space program; they are indispensable for the aforementioned cell phones, as well as for information transfer, GPS, and weather forecasting.
But these are small potatoes compared with the possibilities offered by space exploration. After all, the main products of Columbus’ expeditions were not new ideas for ship design or a stronger material for sails. There is a finite amount of many materials on Earth, and space could be an answer to the eventual lack of some of them. Asteroid mining is one of the most promising sources of metals such as iron and nickel, and could provide other useful and more exotic materials such as iridium, one of the densest, hardest, and rarest, elements, which could have widespread uses, such as radiation shields (as from computer monitors). The possibilities of other space products are quite literally beyond the imagination. Many useful materials can be manufactured best in zero-G, such as carbon nanotubes, tightly coiled rods of carbon “thread” which are hundreds of times stronger than steel.

It is not only beneficial to go into space, but the alternative, remaining on Earth, is also dangerous. Space is the only way to assure the survival of humans. A species that cannot adapt and spread as conditions allow is eventually doomed to extinction. Having all humans on only one planet is truly putting all eggs in one cosmic basket. Earth is approached by approximately 1,500 asteroids that are large enough to cause global catastrophe if one was to strike the earth. The resources delegated to near-earth object spotting are not sufficient to prevent this (Murphy’s law: anything that can go wrong, eventually will). Astronomers were taken by surprise when a meteoroid passed within a few million kilometers from Earth, a very small distance in space. We do not want to meet the same fate as the dinosaurs – becoming extinct through the collision of a meteoroid. Setting up colonies on other planets can help to minimize the effects of this inevitable occurrence on the survival of our species.
This essential endeavor cannot be advanced by canceling it as the editorial suggested, any more than hunger or war will end if we simply let them simmer for a few decades. What will happen that will magically make a casualty-free, 100% efficient, warm-and-fuzzy space program? The only logical answer would be Vulcans coming to Earth. Just as one cannot jump from arithmetic to calculus, it is not possible to expect problems with spacecraft to solve themselves over a half-century. After all, the entire point of the space program is to test out space-related technology, something that cannot be done in a laboratory. If anything, the spacecraft after the proposed hiatus will be less safe, because the newer technology that would have been developed would not have been tested in the demanding conditions of space. Imagine what would happen if the first humans abandoned making canoes because they couldn’t get to another continent, fishing was not yet profitable, and people – gasp – actually die on these early missions. Abandoning canoe-making for a half-century would not miraculously create a fleet of functional galleons. No pain, no gain.

Saying that we should not pursue space exploration because there are still problems in the world is akin to a parent saying “Don’t eat all your food because there are starving children in the world”: not eating the food will not help one starving child. The amount of NASA funding is currently chicken feed compared to the national budget, and diverting its few billion dollars will not make a significant difference in any major endeavor. In fact, colonizing other planets or the moon will eventually increase food production and alleviate world hunger, since almost all arable land in the world is farmed. Hydroponic agricultural colonies on the moon or on Mars can provide the needed food. Additionally, while eliminating the ills of humanity is an important (though not totally attainable) goal, to say that we must either abandon the space program or give up all hope eliminating these problems is to present a false dichotomy.
It is clear, then, that humans must continue their outward push into space. The benefits are too great, and the consequences are too dire, to stop such an endeavor. Let us, therefore, not flinch from the future, but shoulder the burden and continue our trek to the stars.

16

There was another, longer thread about this subject. Cecil came in and expanded his position, stating that the current space exploration program is flawed. It focuses too much on putting men in space for the purpose of “research”, rather than using that money for research on the ground that would better the space program.

I agreed with him after he said this. I’ve been seeing ideas such as the SCRAMjet and nuclear-powered rockets, which have greatly increased speeds and efficiencies compared to conventional launchings. Frankly, I believe these are needed far more than finding out how a flame will burn in zero-G or if a spider will spin a perfectly symmetrical web.

I’m a huge supporter of the space program. Frankly, I’m of the opinion that it’s the most important long-term program. However, without a more efficient, more viable means of getting stuff out of our atmosphere, and from there to other destinations. No, I don’t believe that we’ll develop FTL travel or laser guns or anything like that (despite my dreams to own my very own Star Destroyer)… however, I fully expect the next couple of centuries to have us setting up permanent - and probably self-sufficient - colonies on other planets and planetoids in our solar system.

At the very least, in the upcoming decades, where we’ll have more and more automation in our society, space research will become easier to do. So it’s something that’s going to happen, eventually. I just see no reason why, especially given the overall miniscule cost of it, we shouldn’t be working on it now.