The fact that there’s no reason to go back or stay awhile. I.e., there’s no money to speak of in a human space presence.
Well, there really hasn’t been much money in all our military campaigns over the last 30 years. How many trillions have/do we spend on that crap? How about corporate welfare bailouts? For heaven’s sake, all we’re doing is keeping a few million people working.
How about we keep our military at home, at a fraction of its current size, and spend let’s say - oh, around 6 trillion funding and training the Space Corps over the next 30 years. We could employ a couple few million, and spend lavishly on space tech. We could have a crewed, operating moon base, Mars base, orbiting colony, and a vast army of semi-autonomous robots mining everything they can get to in our solar system. It’d be sweet!
As long as there’s no money in it, and we’re basically just employing people. Heck.
Uh, our recent military adventures and corporate bailouts are not exactly considered shining moments for us.
But as long as we are funding childhood fantasies because they’d be “neat,” I’m waiting for the US Department of Princesses. Princesses do a lot for national prestige. Look at how much attention Kate Middleton’s marriage got. Imagine if America had its own Princess Di! Do we really want to lose to England? Do we want the history books to say “America dabbled with a few Jewish-American princesses but then turned back”? Think of all the little girls who grow up dreaming of the day they an be princesses. Do we just abandon them? And princesses do bring in revenue…all those commemorative plates, the limited edition Barbie dolls…it is very lucrative. You don’t want to see places like England locking in all those profits, do you?
There was a time that I believed we were capable of anything. I dreamed of having shiny pink dressess and pointy hats…just like every young girl in this great nation. What happened? Have we given up? If we had even a tiny bit of the money the US spends on, say, highways, we could have more princesses than any place on Earth. We could lead the world in princesses!
We’ve already got Disney Land etc, so you’ve already got your princess fantasy. What that has to do with space development is beyond me.
Aren’t we over populated and searching for new energy sources so we can - I dunno - do something about this global warming thing?
Is your princess fantasy going to help with any of that?
And you have Space X to indulge in you space fantasies.
As for global warming- princesses are a source of warmth and light! Seriously, a princess could at least do a public education campaign or something. Diana did a lot for AIDS victims and landmines. Sending human beings in to space, on the other hand, has about a 1% prospect of doing anything useful for global warming over the next hundred years. What do you think they are going to do up there? Discover the sun?
No money in space? There is unlimited renewable energy:
Plus countless trillions of minerals and rare metals:
“At 1997 prices, a relatively small metallic asteroid with a diameter of 1.6 km (1 mile) contains more than $20 trillion US dollars worth of industrial and precious metals.”
“Economic analyses generally show that asteroid mining will not attract private investment at current commodity prices and space transportation costs.[8] However, based on known terrestrial reserves and growing consumption in developing countries, there is speculation that key elements needed for modern industry, including antimony, zinc, tin, silver, lead, indium, gold, and copper, could be exhausted on Earth within 50-60 years.[9]”
Plus there is strategic strong points. Mass driver on the moon = unlimited ballistic munitions projection. Destructive power of Nuclear bomb, no fallout.
So, I guess you’re right, there is no economic or strategic reasons for going into space, why would you bother?
There is no economic or strategic reasons to send people in to space at this time. In the future, when space mining or whatever is closer to a reality, it may become apparent that we need people up there. But for now, the hassle and expense of sending people up and safely getting them back actually detracts from the missions ability to be useful.
It is like arguing that to do medical research, we need to find a way to shrink people down small enough to fit in to veins, a la adventures in inne space.
In the future space mining etc. will never come closer to reality if we don’t do the ground work now.
Your argument seems to be, lets not bother with the Wright brothers, or Bi planes, or propeller driven aircraft, but instead lets wait until we invent Concorde and 747s completely out of the blue.
On another topic, I read Linds article and found it to ne naive and simplistic rather then convincing.
His arguments appeared to based more on wish fulfillment then on any factual basis (Tenuous aint in it !).
Many people dislike the world changing for whatever reason, be it religious, greed or even because it makes them feel uncomfortable.
And his article reflected this attitude .
It would be fair to say that it said more about him then it did about space exploration.
If I had come into this debate as a totally neutral participant (Obviously I didn’t), by reading that link, logic, intelligence and common sense would have put me firmly in the pro space exploration camp.
All too many people argue against changes in the Human experience, thinking that somehow those things on and off the planet aren’t go to change around them whether they like it or not.
The same people who so vociferously argued against mobile phones, P.C.s, the Internet , what ever…(We’ve got on without cell phones in the past so why do we need them now ? etc) seem to quietly make full use of those things brought into society DESPITE their continued opposition to any new innovations.
Of course they tend not to mention it after the event.
If we don’t try to explore space then a whole potentially huge area of technological, and scientific development will never happen.
And the Human race as a whole will be the losers.
Actually, we are talking about pure metal (well, usually pure Fe/Ni alloys like kamicite & taenite, to be specific) as well as ores (like FeS troilite (pyrrhotite).)
Yeh, but once you get away from Fe/Ni, the “paydirt” gets a lot skimpier. The figures for platinum get bandied about a lot because asteroids contain comparitively more platinum group metals than the Earth’s crust- but that’s not saying a lot. That shuttle load of platinum ingots kind of glosses over step one: process several billion tonnes of material and efficiently scavenge the traces you’re looking for. Sure, if you’re dismantling mountains in the course of building your colony/ powersats anyway, it’s worth doing by-the-way, but with foreseeable technology it isn’t going to be competative with Earth based mining. It’s only worth it to supplament the space-based infrastructure’s needs, not for exporting back to Earth.
Exactly, I find it hard to imagine that if China’s continues a manned space program for 50 years that the US could instantly catch up in 50 years time when asteroid mining becomes economically viable.
Although to be fair private enterprise in the US is doing more than I realised when I made the OP.
Seems there are five credible manned space efforts underway in the US from private enterprise. Wouldn’t that seem to entirely kill the argument that there is no economic reasons for having a manned space presence since five private companies are doing it?
Those are meant to service the ISS – IOW, they’re hoping for government contracts. It all comes down to tax dollars.
Regarding strategic considerations, see post #66. For the rest, of course there’s wealth in space, the question is whether it can be profitable to go get it, considering the costs. We won’t be thinking of mining the asteroids until Antarctica is played out.
Yes except as I understand it, both SpaceX (Elon Musk) and Blue Origin (Jeff Bezos) are investing significantly more funding into their research than the short term funding provided by NASA.
In other words two of the most successful internet entrepreneurs see economic advantage in being in space long term and are spending large chunks of the fortunes they made on Ebay and Amazon to pursue that.
Irrelevant, thats talking about rocket based Nuclear delivery from orbit or the moon being a dud. A mass driver on the moon launching tungsten rods to targets at orbital velocities is a very real strategic weapon. So is Kinetic Bombardment from Orbit (“rods from god”)
Kinetic bombardment - Wikipedia.
A 1000 kilo tungsten rod at mach 9 is enough to mess up anyones day!
Note the Outer Space Treaty bans Nuclear Weapons in space, it does not ban conventional weapons.
Nuclear or conventional, makes no difference. Compared to surface silos and submarines, space-based weapons facilities – Lunar or orbital – are easy for any enemy with comparable technology to find and destroy. And then there’s the time it takes to get anything here from Lunar orbit, etc.
Thats a very broad dismissal you’re making. The USAF as of 2003 publicly acknowledged “hypervelocity rod bundles” in its outline of future space-based weapons.
Are you really confident to say there is zero, absolutely zilch, strategic advantage in maintaining a manned space program, and won’t be in the next 25 years?
<nitpick> The Outer Space Treaty bans orbiting nuclear weapons </nitpick>
There is if anybody else does it, of course; countermeasures in kind will be necessary. I.e., they put up their orbiting rod bundles, we develop ways to disintegrate them harmlessly, and so on. I just don’t see any point in starting it, because there’s no pressing unmet military need here – we can already wreak plenty of destruction on each other with Earth-based weapons. The Star Wars/SDI dream of using orbital technology to defend the surface from Earth-based weapons – well, that never could have worked, could it? IOW, we’ve already got destructive capacity hard to improve on. What’s the advantage of adding hyperexpensive space weapons to the arsenal?
“rods from god” are potentially deep penetrating bunker busters far beyond any capability from any earth based conventional weapon and with no radioactive fallout. It’s also very hard to detect the launch and very hard to detect them in flight.
So “disintegrating them harmlessly” is not real practical.