# Why are we in space? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [March 5, 2003, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-space/159346 "2003-03-05T21:18:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2003, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-space/159346/41 "2003-03-10T09:10:16Z")
**ritchiepage** said: > [@](#): > > anywho, one of the questions adressed in the column was that of the energy needed to propel a vehicle at extra light speed. what about utilizing the energy already present in space, namely solar power. would it be possible to build a ship with sensitive enough panels, enough of them to keep them pointed at the nearest available energy source, and fast enough computers to keep them continually pointed at same? would this scheme provide enough energy to propel the ship? No. First, our solar power tech is not that refined. Look at the size of the panels needed for ISS. However, even assuming we developed more efficient solar cells - heck, you can make the things as big as you want - you still face the problem that the further you go, the more quickly the energy source is reduced. It’s an inverse square law, just like gravity. The energy density spreads out the further from the source it gets, so there is much less energy being picked up by your solar cells at the orbit of Pluto than at Earth’s orbit. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2003, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-space/159346/42 "2003-03-10T21:20:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas \* > **we need to get to space so when nutjobs on this planet blow the whole thing up and Apes take over,** A planet where apes evolved from men?! ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2003, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-space/159346/43 "2003-03-10T22:00:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Wirehead \* > **Also, NASA is currently investigating a low-thrust ion drive that produces a constant boost of perhaps 1/100 of a gravity.** [NASA already launched a space probe that used such a drive in 1998.](http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ds1/) ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2003, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-space/159346/44 "2003-03-11T01:12:12Z")
Regarding spin-offs, it is true that Teflon, Velcro, and Tang were not invented by the space program. However, I don’t judge a debate on the Senate floor an appropriate place to evaluate the contributions of the space program to terrestrial science applications. While the specifics of “synthetic pig teats” and “portable ice rinks” probably involved much ground development work, the idea of a spin-off is not that the item jumped whole onto the shelves, but that the research gleaned from space applications was then _applied_ to the terrestrial needs. The needs of the space program led to discoveries/inventions that were then used as the starting point for an Earth application. One spin-off directly from space suit development is protection suits for children with light sensitivity - porphyria. These children get severely burned by exposure to regular sunlight. NASA space suit engineers worked with industry to develop protective suits so they can go outside. Another application is using the cooling technology (i.e. water-cooled undergarments) for multiple sclerosis patients who overheat. These two projects were not passing out NASA space suits, but the idea behind their conception came from solutions to space problems. I think Cecil discounts the role spin-offs play without looking at the true way they produce their value. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2003, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-space/159346/45 "2003-03-11T08:20:23Z")
[Apollo astronauts speak out on NASA.](http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts107_vision_030310.html) Jack Schmitt’s comments are particularly enlightening: > [@](#): > > “The question raised about whether humans should be in space at all is an old one, usually raised by non-exploration scientists who want NASA money to go to their pet ‘robotic’ projects,” Schmitt said. > > “I know from history and personal experience on the Moon that during exploration, humans will provide instantaneous observation, interpretation, and assimilation of the environment in which they work and a creative reaction to that environment unavailable from any other source,” Schmitt said. Of course, many will consider Schmitt to be a biased source. ---
**Author:** ![LurkMeister](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3da27b/32.png) [@LurkMeister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LurkMeister)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2003, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-space/159346/46 "2003-03-11T12:24:08Z")
Related to _Irishman_\*'s post: Several years ago my wife developed an infection for which the easiest treatment was an oral penicillin-related antibiotic. My wife is allergic to penicillin, and the next-best treatment could only be administered in IV form, twice a day for 7-10 days. Normally this would have meant either having her stay in a hospital or having to have the equipment set up in our house and having a nurse come in twice a day; either way, she would not have been able to work. Instead, they sent a nurse to the house to install a shunt on her arm and we were given a supply of the medication in plastic containers the size and shape of tennis balls. These could be plugged into the shunt and over the course of an hour the medicine would be delivered into her bloodstream. During this time she did not need to be tethered to an IV; in fact, we were given a fanny-pack carrier for the “medicine ball” which allowed her to walk around while using it. She was actually able to take her supplies to work and with the assistance of the nurse there take her medicine during her lunch break. We were told that this had been developed because of the space program’s interest in a providing IV-type medication in a zero-g environment. ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-space/159346/47 "2003-03-13T01:19:02Z")
It would be fine by me if robotic probes are developed which can deal with contingencies on their own… they might need to have millions (billions?) of man-hours worth of programming in their repertoire, but if they survive and thrive, that is good enough for me… one day perhaps they will invite us up there as equals, or (perhaps) as their pets. * * * [http://www.orionsarm.com/](http://www.orionsarm.com/) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-we-in-space/159346.md?page=2)