Space policy hasn’t a topic of major interest in American presidential elections since the 1960s. But this year, the planned retirement of the Space Shuttle, and its implications for the Space Coast, meant that both Obama and McCain actually spent some time on the issue. In between restructuring the American economy, negotiating an agreement at Copenhagen, getting the USA out of Iraq, fixing health care, and whatnot, Obama, or his staff, given that the boss might be a teeny bit busy – face some important decisions in a relatively small but highly symbolic policy area – what to do about the US’s human spaceflight program.
The first thing to note is that the NASA budget is essentially lost in the overall budget noise, and Obama has already promised extra funding. So it’s unlikely that the space program is going to go away. But it’s at a rather delicate stage. One of the few things that George W. Bush got right (and Al Gore got mostly wrong, incidentally) was the general thrust of the US human spaceflight program. The Space Shuttle failed to achieve its (overambitious and constantly stretched) goals as a cheap, reusable, and safe launch vehicle. The International Space Station has showed that low earth orbit is not a particularly useful place to put humans for months on end. And multi-national government-funded multi-decade engineering projects, good diplomacy as they might be, are prone to add extra cost and complication.
So back in 2004, in the wake of the Columbia crash, Dubya announced the Vision for Space Exploration. This proposed to finish off the Space Station by 2010, and retire the shuttle once that was complete. To replace it, a new family of spacecraft were to be built more along the lines of the Apollo capsules, first as a replacement bus to the Space Station, then to the Moon, where a series of long-duration missions and ultimately a station would be constructed, and then on to Mars with the experience gained some time in the 2020s or so.
There are two problems with this plan, one short-term logistical one, another more fundamental. The short-term problem is that it will leave the US without a (public) capability to reach the Space Station until at 2013 or so. That would leave the Space Station dependent on the continued availability of Russian Soyuz rockets. So there are a number of people and organizations advocating that the Space Shuttle’s life be extended until the replacement capsules come online. However, there are forces pushing back the other way; the shuttle remains a high-risk launch vehicle, it will be very expensive to crank up the supply chain to keep a 30-year-old vehicle flying, and there’s a belief that the best way to ensure that the Shuttle’s replacement actually flies on time is to concentrate the mind by killing the shuttle program.
The longer-term issue is that there a lot of people who aren’t terribly excited by the prospect of spending years base-building on the moon. There’s a view that the Moon isn’t a high priority, either as a scientific destination or as a testbed for further afield. The moon appears to be a largely geologically dead world with a uniform crust, little in the way of useful resources (notably accessible water) and awful conditions. It’s also, arguably, less like Mars (pretty much seen as the long-term goal by all with an interest in human spaceflight) than parts of Earth are. So there are groups – notably the Planetary Society – arguing that going back to the moon is actually a fairly low priority, and should be a priority only if it can be clearly demonstrated to help with missions to places like near-Earth asteroids. In addition, uncrewed missions to assist preparing for crewed Mars mission, such as a mission to retrieve rocks from Mars and bring them back to Earth, should be a high priority.
There are contrary views, both on the Shuttle retirement and on the steps beyond it. As this article in The Space Review mentions, here’s a position paper advocating strongly for the Shuttle to be kept running until the new-generation launcher can be finished. Their argument – and it’s got some logic behind it – is that it would be lunacy to reduce access to the Space Station now that the damn thing is finally built.
On top of that, there’s the uncrewed scientific program, worthy of a post in itself. Bush thoroughly neglected that side of things; a more science-oriented President Obama will probably look to revive that. And then there’s the possibility that SpaceX, the new startup space launch company mentioned here a couple of times, might have their crew vehicle ready by 2011 or 2012.
In any case, this is another chance for Obama, if he’s wise, to help push the USA out of its rut.
may I just be the FRIST to say I could think of one or two (or 1,000) higher priorities than this for Pres Obama? Space travel is just lovely, but unpersonned probes have a lot going for them. Astronomy is progressing very nicely regardless of astro/cosmo/nauts ….
Ambi: sure. But you could make the same argument that unpersonned probes are a waste of money compared to giving out an extra couple of thousand postdoctoral fellowships.
But – aside from the fact that I’m a space nut and thus I find it interesting – the point is that there will be decisions made on this issue within the next few months which will affect the space program for decades to come.
Fair points, all.
Is the manned space program so inflexible (like turning around the ‘Queen Mary’) that decisions now, will affect it for DECADES? Nothing wrong with being a space nut, Robert. In moderation, at least
Must one be a petrol hoon, to become a space travel enthusiast?
Robert, the Indians, Chinese and Japanese are doing a fine job of filling the gaps, the US might want the “prestige” of it, but they simply don’t have the dough.
Then again, they could start up the printing presses on a project like that as was discussed in the “Spend spend spend” thread, although without a compelling and threatening competitor, people might just shrug.
[despairing sigh]
The lack of interest in even this thread says a lot.
I’m interested in the reasons for the lack of interest, because it obviously used to be something that really captured the imaginations of many, and not too long ago.
Watching the Ted Turner intervie on Letterman recently really illustrated the change in humanity in the last few decades; not for the better by my standards.
I’m still waiting for my space elevator…
Space policy has been a topic of even less interest in Australian politics, but it is actually a significant and important area of science that is about much more than moon landings – that’s just the stuff that understandaby captures the public imagination.
I would argue it has been to Australia’s detriment that we let our early advances in this area whither away.
A Senate Committee has just completed an inquiry into this topic – the report can be viewed here.
Another factor to be considered is the entry of both China and India into the space equation. Both new spacefarers are heavily influeneced by the Russian “if it works, keep using it” philosophy – that has made the decades old Soyuz technology virtually the last one left standing. There’s a lot to be said for the advanced technology-driven US/Western approach, but it seems to too regularly end up as a pork barrel driven one.
There’ll always have to be a mix of manned/unmanned exploration: the robots have given us magnificent amounts of information without costing lives, but are frequently stumped by reasonably simple events that having a perso around may have fixed.
In the Global warming thread I mentioned about the Japanese looking to build “something like this, a space elevator, perhaps parked off WA, and with a string of solar power farms pumping in electricity 24/7/365. Just like Gerard O’Neill was talking about in the 70s in the High Frontier”. While it may slip into the same “20 years away” that nuclear fusion has (for the last 50 years) the elevator is surely the long term solution, at least until a-gravs and probability drives turn up.
As I see it, the big problem has always been that there hasn’t really been any coherent answer to why should we go into space and what should we do when we get there. Maybe now orbital solar power stations (which the US Defense Department is already investigating) will give us a proper reason as a guaranteed long term clean power source?
brettc wrote:
They could just revert to hitting golf balls again, like last time.
Ha
It’s no bigger a question than:
“Why do we keep buying more stuff?”
It is a good one though. Maybe the original space race was fuelled by the fact that the answer was different for different people, and that was okay?
Robert,
I hope Obama can see how much of an opportunity the entrance of commercial enterprises into low-orbit (later high-orbit) gives the USA (in terms of money saved and experience built).
The other countries going back to the moon will have to rely on Apollo-style missions, while the USA seem more determined to build permanent presence.
Two things concern me the most:
1) Funding. Always an issue and very dependent on who gets the most pork in “their” congressional district. Original launch-pad crawler was a bad case of this, the space-shuttle was worse, and the current fiascos of defence expenditure are becoming nightmarish in proportions (ie. shiteloads of cash for not much product).
2) Political will. If it isn’t there then point 1 is meaningless. A mission to mars is NOT trivial. It will require an Apollo-level effort and take many years to plan/test/develop the hardware/protocols/etc. Now that NASA has a promising history of remote exploration there they will have many fewer hurdles but such a trip will have dual problems of “if they went to the moon it should be easy”, and “what’s in it for me”. Science for science sake is a hard sell in the USA (even more so here), long-term comittment even more so.
In an ideal world I hope it happens – but I’m not holding my breath.
In the meantime I’m excited about the fact that it looks like more than one nation is going to put people on the moon…one wonders how they’ll beat “One Giant Step”?
Thanks for that Andrew, and I’ll have a read.
David: Yep, that’s the problem when only one scientist has so far made it to the moon – the knuckleheads got there first. “The Right Stuff” was a documentary, not a comedy
Actually, it was the retest of Galileo’s theory of uniform acceleration of a falling body, involving Apollo 15, Dave Scott, a hammer and a feather that I most remember.
Ambi: in short, yes. The shuttle lasted 30 years despite being a dog’s breakfast. The basic Soyuz architecture is decades old.
Interesting how the Americans and the Russians keep putting people in space. I suppose there are experiments to be conducted but there might be another reason. I’d wager military. Space is becoming crowded and the way of empires is to control the traffic.
.
Of course there’s a reason to set up a base on the Moon. Dig that Wah-Wah 70s title track baby. Groovy.
Technological and other decisions of decades past are still truly in force: Soyuz basically uses a civilianised 1950s Russian ICBM. The US equivalents (Atlas and Delta/Thor) are still used for satellite launches, and also started out as 1950s ICBMs. The technology has been updated (as has the Soyuz launchers) but the US rockets have a direct relationship with the German V2.
The reason for the Challenger shuttle disaster was a faulty o-ring between sections of the solid fuel boosters. The reason the boosters had o-rings was because they were (are) built in Utah and have to be shipped by rail to Florida. And so the booster sections had to fit on a rail wagon. Another pork barrel decision comes home to roost.
And of course, while Australia was the fourth nation to launch its own satellite (in 1967), just as we did after building arguably the fourth computer (CSIRAC) in ’49, we threw it all away in favour of buying from our great protectors.
merkel – I’ve never understood what the benefits of the space program were/are.
I don’t use non -stick frypans.
If anyone might be able to explain the why of space travel it would be you RM.
Have a go.
Francis X – I’ve never understood what the benefits of the space program were/are.
.
Who cares?
FrancisX – begging Roberts pardon I can answer this one.
Compact lab instruments.
That’s it.
For further details, see any major pathology lab, any major forensics lab, Food Science Australia, etc, etc.
Compact, low-cost instruments are VERY useful.
At any rate, this post is being written under the influence of 4 glasses of very nice Mudgee red wine (tannins checked by portable UV-VIS), so you’ll have to excuse me from further discussion
Look man you just have to forget about the bummer trip man and stop obsessing with uptight cash figures and cot/benefit fascist bullshit. Bird lives tell your ol’ lady.
.
Just groove on the Minerva wave man, it’s like, really funky like my feet. My so-called penis told me last time I dropped Purple Buddhas that it’s the oneness and the unity and the, like, oneness. Let’s explore outer space and inner space man.
.
How much does it cost? $387 000 000 000.17? So what? It’s just money.
.
On the other hand I could buy me an Earthship in Peru and a lifetime supply of Acapulco Gold for that. Makes my eyes red just thinking about it.
Crewed space programs are actually pretty hard to justify in purely scientific terms, thus far.
In my view, that’s because we’ve visited precisely the places where humans are least useful – low earth orbit and the Moon.
Once you’re out of real-time radio contact, the utility of having a human to make decisions goes up exponentially. What the Martian rovers have accomplished in a year, humans could do in a day – and when they come across something interesting, the variety of things they’re capable of doing to investigate further is exponentially greater.
What’s to find on Mars? The biggie is probably life – is, or was there ever, life on Mars? And, if so, did it evolve independently from Earthly life? The discovery of life on Mars, particularly independently-evolved life, would be the scientific discovery of the century, in my view.
The second thing is that Mars is the most plausible place for long-term human settlement – and I should add that settlement is something I don’t expect to see in my lifetime.
Finally, you have to walk before you can run. You don’t just go from scratch straight to a crewed Mars exploration program.
The final thing to keep in mind is that compared to the cost of, say, missile defence, it’s a piddle in the ocean.
On a personal note,which I cannot help doing,I see no reference to my suggestion,that was taken up by a Queensland Education Institution re re-entry into Earth’s atmosphere,for Japanese Satellites,as tested and done using a pipe and gases…in the Government Document that Andrew Bartlett mentions here. I dont think we will ever get the priorities right in Australia on the matters of Space Industry,because,I can be used as a thorough example,of why it will never come to pass.If you count the number of contributors to that report,and its members and associated staff,plus the cost of the delivery of the final draft,and I mean to be as insulting as I can be,then there is approximately how many people,named, who actually came up with anything unique,in the sense,that,the originality of it for Australian Science in this field was that? I might go on about other matters controlled by Canberra Science that saw my input as idea sold ,whereas,I didn’t even get a thank you,just a smart arse reference through the ABC Science Unit.So my contempt is based solely on the cost of everyone else’s contribution to the development of Space Science in Australia except myself.A letter to a small newspaper,without even copyright saw someone do some work,that must of been considered worthy and high Tech. Science.The end result of his use of pipes and gases and calculations,I simply wouldn’t know,that rubs in deep and very painful.So much pain ,in fact,I cannot put a proper description to the inability of whole ranges of people in jobs,earning heaps of money,and contributing,nothing,except the prestige of their jobs.Tonight,again,I am weighed down by the rental offerings of the ALP. once again in Office.And I dont qualify there either.So you know where you can go with this space subject!?
Learning to live in space may seem to be a waste of money and effort before any results are realised. I’d imagine that similar misgivings were voiced about initially settling parts of Australia and setting up colonies from scratch during the colonial era. It was only after the discovery of gold that free people wanted to move here. It was very difficult and appeared like an alien landscape for the Europeans who moved here too.
I agree with Robert’s sentiment that you have to walk before you can run. Imagine the effect of a crew fatality on a hasty Mars mission. Imagine what the US space program would have turned out like if the Apollo 13 mission did fail with the deaths of the crew. Who knows, but they might not have built the shuttles, there might not have been the ability to launch ISS modules and perhaps space might have been militarised more than it is now with satellites being regularly shot down on flimsy excuses basically to pelter orbits containing rival satellites with junk. You can’t hypothesize what might have been, but having people in space does have benefits that might not be apparent. I think a moon base would be a significant challenge and I also think you couldn’t realistically plan a mission to Mars without a moon base – if only for the reason that if a mission to Mars is aborted there is always the chance that the crew can be rescued.
We don’t know yet what the ‘gold’ in space might be but as mentioned in another comment above, solar power in space could be a long term and sustainable solution to the energy crisis. You need to build technical and support capacity before you can start any particular mission. You don’t build these kinds of projects in a backyard shed.
I don’t know about a space elevator – it has an Eiffel Tower and Zeppelin era feel to it…
Bzzt. Tourism, mining and some science. Basically Alaska in space. But not viable as a serious place to populate.
Planetary chauvinism strikes again!
RobV: The Eiffel Tower has not done too badly for a temporary structure that everyone hated when it was first built (in 1889). As for the Zeppelin era, apart from the British and American imitations, people survived Zeppelin crashes, something they didn’t usually do when one of those contemporary propellor thingies unexpectedly met the ground.
In the Zeppelin heyday of the 20s and 30s, Helium was a US military strategic asset that was not available for export. So airship operators had to rely on hydrogen. And the Germans operated quite well with hydrogen up until Lakehurst, 1937. Unfortunately the only non-Zeppelin rigid airship that was close to a success, the British R100 designed by Barnes Wallis of Dambuster fame, was totally overshadowed by the disaster of its R101 sibling.
A space elevator is not without risk, noone would say otherwise. Technologically, financially and physically it will be risky to develop and possibly to operate. Even while being an early publicist for the idea, Arthur Clarke documents quite a few risks in “Fountains of Paradise” incuding the actions of fundamentalist religious terrorists. It is certainly not a short term or even medium term option, but it is almost certainly the method of choice that our descendants will be using for their space tourism.
BrettC: My comment about space elevators was mischievous and was meant to invoke Monty Pythonesque associations. Even in first year physics lectures, some time in the 80s, my lecturer was keen to talk about the possibility of a space elevator in a geosynchronous orbit. It could work, no doubt about that. I just think that there might be some easier ways that may become evident for space vehicle launch and reentry. But I’m no expert…
I’m no expert either. I do hope that you checked my Zeppelin link, though.
Thanks, I hadn’t seen that skit before.
Now that I’ve sobered up again…
Robert M and RobV sum it up nicely.
When the communications delay starts to add up then having humans onsite makes a hell of a difference (we can fix things in situ).
Observations made by humans influenced many of the rock-collection decisions on the Apollo program. These decisions had a lasting effect on the geological sciences.
Adding humans however means adding substantial complexity to the overall system design.
We need air, water, and a narrow thermal and radiation environment to survive.
These add tonnes (literally) to any mars mission and while space systems for low-orbit have become pretty well developed, interplanetary travel is another matter entirely. Recycling, systems cooling (water is a major consideration for this), not to mention the possibility of solar flares all contribute to a design that will have to be rugged with long-term stability.
Design and testing would be a long-term project, and damn expensive as well.
Which requires political committment of the “not-just-the-next-election” sort.
I have to disagree with this, Robert: “The International Space Station has showed that low earth orbit is not a particularly useful place to put humans for months on end.”
As we speak, the astronauts at the ISS from Endeavour are doing some serious renovations to increase the crew size to 6. That makes 3 extra crew who can spend nearly all of their time on science experiments. This is the time when the investment really starts to pay off.
A trip to the Moon on a rocket from Earth takes 3 days. Why ignore such an interesting site that is so close by?
I’m not sure why you say that “the moon appears to be a largely geologically dead world with a uniform crust, little in the way of useful resources.” Can you point me to the research you are making this conclusion from? I doubt we know enough about the moon to say that. I’m interested in the outcomes of India’s Chandrayaan orbiter which will map the moon in the highest resolution ever.
Low Earth orbit and Moon bases are essential areas to explore to learn more about living in space. There are so many technical challenges to ‘manned’ interplanetary missions that need solutions, many of which will be tested and designed in low Earth orbit and the Moon. Not to mention the breakthroughs by researchers on Earth, such as drugs to prevent muscle and bone wasting in weightlessness; with applications in many diseases.
People who travel to Mars may or may not come back, but getting there is a long and worthwhile process with many steps.
Andos: the Space Station is a big object, with lots of moving, vibrating parts, that is in a fairly low orbit and consequently needs to be pushed around every so often to compensate for the atmospheric drag. Consequently, it’s not an ideal place for microgravity experiments. For the cost of the ISS, the USA could have done dozens – hundreds, if done on a small enough satellite – of uncrewed microgravity experiments. The thing is, when you’re in instant radio contact, remote control works pretty well. Even with a 50% failure rate you’d still be well in front.
As far as the moon and LEO being “essential” places to learn about working in space, might I suggest that we’ve just about learned all the lessons we’re going to learn about humans in LEO that we’re ever going to – that, in short, weightlessness is a bad idea, particularly for extended periods? Now that we’ve learned that, let’s start looking at the alternatives – alternative propulsion allowing shorter missions, or spinning spacecraft providing artificial gravity (think “2001″).
As far as moon mining, mineable ores of anything except the commonest elements tend to be the result of a) volcanoes, b) weather, and sometimes c) biological processes. The moon has had none. About the only potentially valuable minerals on the moon are stuff from asteroids that have crashed into it (in which case, why not go mine the asteroids directly and avoid the gravity well), and Helium-3, though it is of virtually no use now and may not be a useful fusion fuel at any time in the future.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the Moon is a very different place from Mars. The conditions are completely different. The available resources are completely different (notably, there is a lot of water ice and carbon on Mars, there is very little of either on the moon). The Martian and lunar regoliths will likely behave very differently. So the lessons that can be learned from the Moon in going to Mars are rather less than are sometimes claimed.
Finally, trying to sell the space program on the basis of medical spin-offs is a real stretch. If you want to spend billions curing osteoporosis, go throw money at the (American) NIH, or in Australia, the NHMRC.
Look, it will almost certainly be that there are many prepatory missions, some possibly to the Moon, before a Mars mission. But I agree with the Planetary Society – we should be aiming for NEOs and Mars, and crewed lunar missions should be performed primarily as part of a program to get us there.
Yeah, I think that is the main reason for lunar missions (primarily as part of a program to get us [elsewhere]). So we agree on that, at least.
As space travel goes we’re only on our 3rd generation of space ships (Mercury, Apollo/Soyuz, Space Shuttle), currently desinging the 4th (Orion), so it’s still such an embryonic industry, with commercial travel yet to get off the ground. In the medium to long term (next 5 decades?) I think/hope that our utilisation of space will grow fast. I’m just waiting for Bigelow Aerospace to open their first LEO hotel. That should be fun.
Maybe I’ve just been watching too much Cowboy Bebop.
Maybe I’m just ignorant, but ‘space tourism’ just seems like such an unlikely prospect in the near term. For one thing it would surely be the preserve of the ultra-rich, and for another, wouldn’t it be analogous to tourist caravans into the Wild West of America, generations before the continent was actually opened up by, you know, settlers?
Space tourism unlikely?
You’d be surprised, Kieran. You’d be surprised.
Kieran: I think of it something more like the cars and motorcycles of the well-to-do young (mostly) men of the turn of the century; noisy, smelly, dangerous and expensive, but they funded the development of more practical machines for the rest of us.
Orbital space tourism will remain the province of the super-rich for another few decades, but suborbital hops will be accessible by the merely rich, of whom there are quite a few globally. Given another decade or two, it might come down to the point where upper-middle-class types might be able to afford it if they so choose.
In terms of human spaceflight, I’d suggest the space station is far more important than any other objective. We should continue to expand the space station with the eventual aim of establishing self-sustaining communities in Earth orbit.
Mars is a red herring; it will cost a fortune and take millennia to make it as habitable as Antarctic (and sooo many people are rushing to settle Antarctica). Dump some bacteria, lichens and mosses on Mars then leave it alone.
Earth-orbit colonies won’t need to fund the vast cost of travel to Mars and the cost of getting things up and down another gravity well. Earth-orbit colonies can access resources from asteroids and the Moon without battling planetary gravity. A US$23 trillion metal asteroid was found some years ago – I’ll take the asteroid and you can have Mars. Viable Earth-orbit colonies will of necessity solve the problem of sustaining human life in closed system, which will also be useful technology on Earth itself. And it is only a short step from a viable Earth-orbit colony to an interplanetary or interstellar spaceship, no matter how slow it is.
My vote is for the space station.
I can’t see any benefit in returning to the moon, let alone building a base there. The place is a lifeles chunk of rock.
Mars, on the other hand, has possibilities.
Although it may be possible to explore it with unmanned probes, as brettc points-out above, nothing beats a human crew for adaptability.
It will be risky as hell to get a crew there and back, but it’s the only place we’re likley to be able to reach with a manned vessel in the next couple of centuries that may have harboured life at some point in the past.
Just getting an answer to that question, in my view, would be worth the costs and risks of trip.
It’s a big step from the International Space Station to “viabile Earth-orbit” colonies. Literally a big step, the ISS orbits at about 300 km which requires it to be constantly re-boosted (by the Space Shuttle or the ATV) to keep out of the atmosphere (as Robert said). I imagine you’re thinking of something in a much higher orbit, like geosynchronous maybe (35000 km)? And capturing an asteroid is a great idea. Add those things together and you’ve got the makings of a space elevator. Woo!
But I think you’re on the right track in terms of the diversity of possible developments in the space industry.
LNAC @ 19; Channel Timothy Leary while you’re up there on the gold, he’d have a good take on it!
No material yet exists strong enough to build a “classical” space elevator. Nanotube-based composites might, but no macro-scale piece exists that you can hold in your hand that is within cooee of the requisite strength.
Rotorvators are a more feasible medium-term prospect, because they don’t require the existence of unobtanium to construct.
“Rotorvators are a more feasible medium-term prospect, because they don’t require the existence of unobtanium to construct.”
There are working models already…
Rotorvator
If we don’t, we’re extinct. Definitely. Everything on the planet. The planet itself.
So in short, biological imperative.
My views on the space research:
* Manned missions are massively overrated. The bonuses that humans bring are far outweighed by the costs that they add.
* The space shuttle and International Space Station are massively overrated. Both are giant money sinks which don’t produce that much in the way of benefits.
* Space tourism is massively overrated. While it would be cool to go into orbit, at the moment it only survives by piggy-backing on giant government money holes. I strongly suspect that the unsubsidised versions won’t be a long term success.
* Space mining is massively overrated. There isn’t that much out there that can’t be obtained here at orders of magnitude less cost.
* Mars and the moon are massively overrated. At least as far as industry/colonisation/tourism are concerned. The scientific possibilities, OTOH, are mind-boggingly.
* Despite all of the above, I am a strong supporter of a space program. The pursuit of knowledge is one of humanities greatest strengths, and space is one area where our knowledge base is very superficial. I would love to see a massive expansion of our satellite and robotic probes.
Rob: frankly, I think that coming up with the material for the tether will be the easy part of building a classical space elevator. Capturing an appropriate near-Earth object to act as a counterweight in orbit always seemed like the hardest part. There’s only so many opportunities, really.
What a fun discussion thread!
It will certainly be interesting to see how the Obama vision for space turns out.
Rotorvators are a more feasible medium-term prospect, because they don’t require the existence of unobtanium to construct.
.
Well that goes without saying.
Regardless of what might actually happen, what I think probably should happen is a focus on, like someone else said, pushing self-sufficiency in orbital living as far as it will go, and also keeping up with the unmanned probes since they seem to be a ‘doable’ way of getting out into the system, at this stage.
All that other really long-term stuff about the biological imperative, spread to the stars or die with the Earth etc… I sort of agree heartily with it, but at the same time suspect that it will not be the work of this current civilisation. Whoever undertakes that expansion, I believe, will be as to us as we are to the Romans.
That’s very true, in fact I might posit that the *species* which spreads to the stars will be unto us as our society is to the Romans. However, it could be useful to think that the Romans were pretty much the most advanced technical civilisation until 19th century Europe, many of their roads are our roads, only recently paved over, Europeans still live in their cities, even the word “city” is theirs, their aqueducts still watering towns, etc. So the work we do now is most certainly valuable to the future even if that future is thousands of years away.
Whoever undertakes that expansion, I believe, will be as to us as we are to the Romans.
.
.
If you want to think in terms of antiquity may I offer this analogy?
.
Perhaps we’re now where we were when we started to explore the oceans. As in we’re at the stage where we don’t go out of the sight of land. Of course space is much bigger than all that, but in a limited way the analogy applies..
.
I don’t think it’s our call here whether it’s this civilization. I think we should be trying to sustain civilization. We keep setting it up and it keeps blowing over like a lean-to in the wind.
.
Still if there’s mineral resources out there and if there’s profit to be had in getting at ‘em you can be assured that this civilization (or its descendants) will be exploring the solar system at the very least. India’s moon shot is a survey thing. They’re looking for resources. China, Russia, America, Japan etc. There’ll be multi-national competition in space before you know it. It will also become a vital strategic zone militarily. Unless of course Gaia decides to take a flea-bath
.
A new life awaits you in the off-world colonies. A chance to get a really shitty mining job and acquire a bad speed habit.
.
A bit like Mt Isa just not as hot.
Mining, absolutely. I guess I was thinking of the more pie in the sky stuff, like seeking out liveable worlds orbiting other stars. Exiting this system altogether, in other words.
Anyway, barring some massive discontinuity, I’d still see ‘future civilisations’ as layers upon layers (so not totally separate to here and now)… indeed, we here and now inherit a lot from the Romans and others even if they, transported here into 2008 through a time machine, would be befuddled by what they saw (though not for any lack of intelligence).
Hey Rob:
Here’s an editorial at New Scientist discussing these very issues.
Nice one.
Here is a “Space Elevator summary for the Complete Idiot”
Reasons for building:
1. Mankind’s umbilical cord to the future and survival of the species.
2. High ground. Ask any militarist.
3. Boasting rights. The country that owns this is on the bleeding edge.
4. The drive to make it a reality will boost research.
5. Much, much cheaper transportation costs to space, making scalable space construction possible.
Cons/Pros:
1. “The technology does not exist yet.” Answer: “Nor did the technology exist to get Mankind on the moon when John F. Kennedy pronounced the intention to do so in less than ten years.”
2. “There will be occillation problems with the cable” Response: “Occillations can be magnetically dampned.”
3. “If it is severed, it will cause catastrophic damage on the planet.” Answer: “The cable can be segmented, boosting the parts into orbit.”
4. “There is no safe place to build one, away from terrorists.” Answer: “Yes there is – The island nation of Nauru. On equator, thousands of miles from any continent, friendly to the West, port facilities, commercial airport runway.”
5. “It’s not in the scripture. It’s an abomination” Answer: “Not so, on the contrary, it MUST be created. Read “Jacob’s Ladder”, The Book of Genesis (28:11-19)”
6. “It costs too much.” Response: “You are an idiot.”(Add your own reasons why.)”
Nauru? Well, the strategic advantages to Australia would be huge if the cable was on Nauru.
It would also make a nice change from their previous #1 industries as world’s largest exporter of bird poo, and latterly as chief gaoler for Australia’s political prisoners.
But, wherever you put the cable, you’d need a VERY solid international treaty of neutrality as to access and use. Probably you need 4 cables – one in the Atlantic, one in the Indian Ocean, and two on either side of the Pacific…
How do you know there aren’t vast deposits of unobtainium on the Moon and Mars, just waiting to be mined, so that we can then finally build the Solaranite bomb, which is our destiny.
Remember, my friends: Future events such as these will affect *you* in the future.
Nor did the technology exist to get Mankind on the moon when John F. Kennedy pronounced the intention to do so in less than ten years.
.
Doesn’t mean it will. Just sayin’.
.
For Democrat partisans interested in arguing foreign policy with members of the Cult of Reagan, fun fact: the moon race started the Sovs on their long slow decline. They were desperate to beat the Sepphos and spent large doing it. Ultimately it was Brezhnev’s ‘subsidize every third-world shithole’ policy that really did it.
.
But the Russians had Brezhnev for the same reason they have Putin. They like fun guys.
Apart from space tourism, given a space elevator being available (and so a fairly non-traumatic entry to Earth orbit) I think medical tourism will be a major reason for early adopters to move into orbit.
If you’ve seen “Contact”(a true science-fiction film, with only one explosion) do you recall John Hurt floating around Mir? The reason being that, with a heart problem, virtually zero-g meant that he could live longer.
I can envisage that, in 20 years, the Bill Gates, George Soros, Rupert Murdoch, Robert Merkels of today will be up there, extending their lifespans in low/medium/high Earth orbit.
Actually, we all know that it will really be this as the major reason.
“I can envisage that, in 20 years, the Bill Gates, George Soros, Rupert Murdoch, Robert Merkels of today will be up there, extending their lifespans in low/medium/high Earth orbit.”
Well we’re already seeing a bunch of whacko multibillionaires starting up their own space programs. Paul Allen, Jeff Bezo et al.
Heinlein’s most prophetic work is now turning out to be “The Man Who Sold The Moon”.
I’m all for it. Remember how air travel started? A complete shemozzole between public and private sector ventures. And look at it now. The world’s safest form of travel. Where the most pleasant experiences are delivered by Government-owned airlines run at a loss while cheap and nasty is delivered by the private sector. And all overseen by global non-profit NGOs.
You think space travel a hundred years down the track will be any different?
“Actually, we all know that it will really be this as the major reason.”
The Nasa Sutra?
“If you’ve seen “Contact”(a true science-fiction film, with only one explosion) do you recall John Hurt floating around Mir?”
Yep I’d agree ‘Contact’ was a true SF film. I’d file it along with ‘Solaris’, ’2001′, and ‘Primer’.
But I’m not certain the John Hurt character got higher just because of his health. I read it as that ‘outward urge’ thang that every smart red-blooded lad feels but rarely has the opportunity to act upon.
Incidentally BrettC, and others, have you seen ‘In The Shadow Of The Moon”.
It suggests there’s some subtle but powerful departure and arrival taxes for going offplanet.
Ahh, Nabakov, I love your literary allusions. The Outward Urge is, after The Chrysalids, my favourite John Wyndham novel, and its title and your comment capture that essential sense of wonder all us internal 14 year olds still lust for.
In the Shadow of the Moon is on my Madman wishlist – I was unable to manage being in a city in which it was being shown last year, so along with the Blu-Ray version of 2001, when I finally con my wife into the necessity of a 1080p, 100HZ, 106cm LCD screen to replace the soon-to-fall-off-its-stand 51cm TV it’ll be one of the first used to test the new device.
Speaking of Madman wishlists, I shifted 3 movies into my collection today (don’t tell Janine) and added 3 to balance it all out. That’s how it works, isn’t it?
And you’re the third or fourth person to mention Primer to me in the last month or so, so I’ve obviously got to add that one to the collection.
And finally, it may have been glossed over in the movie, but in the novel it was to reduce the pressure on his heart that the John Hurt character hired Mir. If we ever have a low-g orbital entry system (such as a space elevator) I do think that sex-tourism and bad-hearted boomers will be the primary users.
“…and bad-hearted boomers…”
So in other words, ALL of them you mean then, eh?
Lawd help us.
On the other hand, I can hardly think of a better place to store unwanted boomers (but I repeat myself) than deep, deep, deep, I’m-talkin’-Chakra-Deep space.
May Obama-god shower us with His blessings.
And lead us into life everlasting, Amen.
Diocese of downtown Washington.