Dr. Stuhlinger's letter

[MajorTom]

Hi all,

I was reading FlyingSinger's blog: http://flyingsinger.blogspot.com/ the other day, and saw his "Why Space?" meta-post from about April 15th. It brought up the long-debated issue of "why spend money on space exploration when there so many social problems to be solved here on earth..."

I'm still mulling over possible answers. (As a dedicated space nut it's hard not to get defensive about this!) But today I came across what must surely be a classic: Dr. Ernst Stuhlinger's letter from 1970 (see 1/4 down this page), where he responds to a nun, working with starving children, who wrote to him asking this question:

http://www.resonancepub.com/space.htm

He crafted one of the lovliest, most positive-sounding replies ever, with some really satisfying but not at all confrontational arguments. Very much worth reading.

Anyone else have good answers to the often-heard question "How can you justify spending money on space when there are so many problems here on Earth?"

Cheers-
MT

 

[Scarecrow]

Wow, that's a very nice letter. I've bookmarked that one!

 

[NukeET]

Anyone else have good answers to the often-heard question "How can you justify spending money on space when there are so many problems here on Earth?"

In answer to the preceding, I offer the following, testimony given by Robert A. Heinlein:


Testimony before joint session, House Committee on Aging and House Committee on Science and Technology, August 19, 1979, published in Expanded Universe, 1980, as "Spinoff."

 

[ijuin]

With no space program, the current bleeding edge of computers would probably be the Commodore 64. Something like half of the research into making computers faster, smaller, and less energy-hungry was driven by the need to put them onboard spacecraft and to have them operate autonomously between uploads of commands from the ground, as well as for rapidly calculating spaceflight trajectories or handling landing radar. Without all of that, it would probably have taken twice as long to get from the massive crude mainframes of the 1950s to the first useful desktop systems. Likewise, we wouldn't be on the Internet right now, because we would currently be using the equivalent of 1980s computers at best, and would probably be running the equivalent of the old Usenet instead of multimedia hypertext (for which we wouldn't have the bandwidth anyway, since we would be on dialup).

 

[bujin]

Anyone else have good answers to the often-heard question "How can you justify spending money on space when there are so many problems here on Earth?"

I don't.

But these people have:
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/11/the-value-of-space-exploration/

 

[Belisarius]

I'm less and less convinced that MANNED space exploration is necessary or justifiable in these times, with the robotic explorers doing such a fantastic job on Mars and Titan, to name but two.

If unmanned space exploration is about science, I think manned exploration is really about heroism. Perhaps this kind of heroism is a luxury we cannot afford, or perhaps it just is unfashionable today, but I can't see people continuing to finance it much longer.

For a truly "heroic" idea of what space exploration could be, check out this bizarre proposal for a one-way mission to Mars.

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/03/04/a-one-way-one-person-mission-to-mars/

Whoever goes on such a mission can be certain to a) die alone on Mars and b) become a legend, with cities and whole regions named after him or her when Mars colonisation eventually becomes possible.

Any takers?

 

[Urwumpe]

With no space program, the current bleeding edge of computers would probably be the Commodore 64. Something like half of the research into making computers faster, smaller, and less energy-hungry was driven by the need to put them onboard spacecraft and to have them operate autonomously between uploads of commands from the ground, as well as for rapidly calculating spaceflight trajectories or handling landing radar. Without all of that, it would probably have taken twice as long to get from the massive crude mainframes of the 1950s to the first useful desktop systems. Likewise, we wouldn't be on the Internet right now, because we would currently be using the equivalent of 1980s computers at best, and would probably be running the equivalent of the old Usenet instead of multimedia hypertext (for which we wouldn't have the bandwidth anyway, since we would be on dialup).

Actually wrong - it was all done by the military. Spaceflight just took what was currently state of the art when the requirements had been set, years before the first flight.

The Shuttle GPC for example got selected for the Shuttle in 1970 - state of the art at that time was the IBM System/360 series and it's military twin, the System/4Pi.

The same with all other spaceflight computers. You can't select the computer too late, as many things depend on it.

 

[Xantcha]

I agree with Urwumpe on that - most of technological improvements are from military projects not from space programs. Earth's 1st artificial satellite was a military project spin-off Correct me if I'm wrong, but aviation as well was largely influenced by military tasks.

And spending more money on social programs instead of space projects - is not the solution. People are dying from criminals, hunger, terror and diseases. So should all *irrellevant* science reaserches (like those pointless arctical camps) be cancelled? May be government should forbid entertainment industry as well (it steals money and worktime from relevant tasks)? :^)

But seriously - increasing funds for "anti-hunger campaigns" say be 10% will not result in 10% less people starving. The situation might as well not change or even become worse.

Of course there are ways to improve "earthly matters" and spending extra will not hurt, But implementing them is in not as simple as cutting space budget. Hell, that's easy money without all the reorganisation, reserach or raising taxes $)

 

[thomasantony]

I'm less and less convinced that MANNED space exploration is necessary or justifiable in these times, with the robotic explorers doing such a fantastic job on Mars and Titan, to name but two.

If unmanned space exploration is about science, I think manned exploration is really about heroism. Perhaps this kind of heroism is a luxury we cannot afford, or perhaps it just is unfashionable today, but I can't see people continuing to finance it much longer.

Yea sure.. Mars rovers have done a really good job so far. But a human explorer will far outstrip a robotic one although he/she may need life support and much more equipment. Spirit rover in its 4 years on Mars so far has covered ONLY 7.528 km or 4.3 miles. Oppurtunity has covered only 11.671 km (7.25 miles).

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/traverse_maps.html

In contrast, here are the distances covered by Apollo 15,16, and 17 which had the LRV over the course of 3 days on each mission.

Apollo 15: 17.25 miles (27.76 km)
Apollo 16: 16.50 miles (26.55 km)
Apollo 17: 22.30 miles (35.89 km)

Not to mention everything done on foot in Apollo 11,12 and 14.
Apart from that, Apollo missions found the Genesis Rock and brought home 382 kg of samples compared to the 326 grams of samples returned by the 3 Luna unmanned probes.

Robots can do a lot when humans are not there. But once humans get there, they outstrip them easily, especially in such severe environments.

In case of a robot everything has to be done so slowly, like extending camera, making it look down, slowly turn around, move around rock .. etc. The reason is that its so damn costly!! And if you lose it, its a complete waste of money. In case of a human ( at least the astronauts ), being considerably more intelligent than a semi-autonomous rover , can look around easily, step over rocks, move around fast, collect samples, analyse them fast or at least, faster than a robot.

As for Titan, sure, landing there was a great achievement, you got great photos, analysed the atmosphere ground chemical composition and all that. But it transmitted for like only 90 MINUTES!! Of course I know about the difficulty of getting humans so far away. But thats only because the technology needs to grow. If we had better propulsion technology, closed loop life support systems, astronauts would do a job way better.

I could go on .. Yes, Manned spaceflight is about heroism, but there is also a heck of a lot of science.

~
Thomas

 

[Belisarius]

I'm thinking mostly of cost/benefit... Whichever way you cut it, the unmanned missions provide more benefits (scientifically) for lower cost.

 

[gimp1992]

The 2008 budget for defence is 637 billion dollars estimate and 17 billion for NASA estimate, so who has more money to feed starving people?

 

[Urwumpe]

The 2008 budget for defence is 637 billion dollars estimate and 17 billion for NASA estimate, so who has more money to feed starving people?

The department of defense can do something directly against starving people. :dry:

 

[Donald]

Let's call it what it is: The Department of Offense. The Department of Defense term is strictly doublespeak in every Orwellian sense of the word. The United States Department of Defense has a new mission as do most governments of the world. It is outlined very well in Michael T. Klare's book, Resource Wars:The New Landscape of Global Conflict. Unfortunately methinks that the lions share of national budgets will be more and more focused on procuring vital resources through military occupation of resource rich areas. In my opinion that is all the more reason to explore and colonize space.

 

[thomasantony]

I'm thinking mostly of cost/benefit... Whichever way you cut it, the unmanned missions provide more benefits (scientifically) for lower cost.

Hmm lets see then.

Assembly, test, launch, and a year of operations of each rover cost about $425 million and running cost of several million per year. In contrast, each Apollo missions cost some $1.5 billion each in 1994 dollars. Which of these has done more science is obvious. But since Mars is so far away and costs more, lets compare this to the Lunar probe programs. The Luna programme cost $4.5 billion.

Manned missions does cost more. But they do a correspondingly larger amount of science. No I am not talking about going around in endless circles. As much as I myself would like to do it ( the circles part ), its the actual exploration that I am talking about. Robots are useful when we do not have the means to get there. But once we are there, we can easily outstrip them. Of course, it does cost more to do more science.

Ref:
http://www.asi.org/adb/m/02/07/apollo-cost.html
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_701703555/mars_rover.html


~
Thomas

 

[MajorTom]

Bujin and Bellisarius,

Thank you for the links...I am bookmarking universetoday.com now!

NukeET: was there a link to the Heinlein testimony that I missed?

Cheers-
MT

 

[Belisarius]

NukeET: was there a link to the Heinlein testimony that I missed?

I also missed it, please advise

BTW, those who have seen the story about the one-way mission to Mars, the question still stands... any takers?

 

[Andy44]

Anyone else have good answers to the often-heard question "How can you justify spending money on space when there are so many problems here on Earth?"

Cheers-
MT

A more pertinent question would be, "How can you justify spending someone else's money on space without their consent?"

Now comes all the nonsense about how I don't know what's good for me and how that justifies some expert in DC (who I, having no knowledge of what's good for me, was nevertheless allowed to vote for or against in the last election) seizing and wasting my money on the Turkey I....er....Ares I, desperately trying to save shuttle jobs instead of building a cheap, effective road to space, which already exists in the form of EEVL vehicles, which serve a valid military purpose and which are already proven machines.

 

[NukeET]

Bujin and Bellisarius,

Thank you for the links...I am bookmarking universetoday.com now!

NukeET: was there a link to the Heinlein testimony that I missed?

Cheers-
MT

No you didn't miss a link...I didn't provide one because I couldn't find one.

I'm guessing because it was public testimony, it may be in the National Archives.

Failing that, Spinoff was first published in Omni magazine (March 1980), and also in an anthology called Expanded Universe.

 

[ijuin]

Let's call it what it is: The Department of Offense. The Department of Defense term is strictly doublespeak in every Orwellian sense of the word.

You know, before WWII, it was called the Department of War. I think we should go back to the old name.

 

[Belisarius]

Manned missions do cost more. But they do a correspondingly larger amount of science.
Thomas

Well reasoned argument there, Thomas, complete with sources and everything. But really it comes down to the cost/benefit analysis again. Sure, if we spent infinite gazillions on conducting a manned mission to Mars, or Titan, or wherever, they would conduct some great science and human knowledge would be advanced immeasurably.

But face facts: nobody's going to finance that, because the publics of our respective countires don't really give a damn for the science. The only way they would happily see their taxes going towards this goal would be old fashioned HEROISM - the desire to see their heroes step on other worlds. This is well captured in the novel Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson - the crew of the Mars expeditions are heroes to those who follow their progress through podcasts etc.

Now, I look around me and I don't see much hero worship in this world. Maybe that's a good thing, but it sure won't help anyone step on Mars. Cheap is the word for space exploration today - in relative terms of course.

Of course, none of the above is applicable to China, because the government there doesn't have to justify its spending to the public. And they still like having heroes - their Gagarin, Yang Liwei, is officially a "hero". So perhaps they'll do all this first.