Is Space flight worth it?

Zachstar

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
654
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Shreveport, Louisiana
Website
www.ibiblio.org
He3 is a nonstarter. The idea that reactors would have to rely on a constant stream of lunar material is laughable at best. What if a war starts? Will the enemy just sit and let cargo craft go between earth and the moon? And the costs per kilowatt would be more than even the worst solar system installation.

Pb11 will do on that front.


BTW Joe sixpack (Or whatever he is called in your country) may not matter in Germany or wherever. But here he is calling the shots more and more. He has a facebook page. He can see the news in a matter of minutes. He would know quickly about how much a major manned mission will cost. Meanwhile his child needs to bring class supplies because the school has been forced to cut budget again. His mother may need to be admitted to a nursing home. His car is falling apart.. etc... All he has to do is pick up the phone and ask "Why are we going back to the moon when my child needs help" to the congressional office and it will join thousands of other like it influencing decisions. The elections are coming up and the state really inst involved with NASA. Easy decision to start yelling on the hill about how NASA is using money desperately needed for the nations schools.

That is just ONE issue that take more priority than Ares V
 

cgjunk2

New member
Joined
Feb 17, 2008
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hey all,

I'm a long time lurker, first time poster. This is a great discussion, and it kind of inspired me to throw my 2 cents in. My rambling 2 cents...alright, there's at least 12 bucks and change here... All this talk gets me a bit philosophical. :lol:

I've noticed that over the years, there has been an increase by the "mainstream" in the space flight community (professionals included), or at least the related news outlets, in expressing our justification for space exploration in terms of "survival of our species", "new earths", terraforming, etc. The terraforming bit, often attached to mars. Frankly, I have always found those kinds of justifications a bit uncomfortable, considering the amount of sci-fi influence involved. Not that fantasies don't have their place, heck everyone needs a motivation, something that sparks their inner interest. It's just that I think that our motivations and fantasies have a huge influence in how we yield and use the "tool" of science, for better or for worse. I don't know if that made sense...anyway, maybe somebody can express it better than I can.

I would like to throw out a couple of things for consideration.

My first thought is more on the pragmatic side. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that we as a species will one day find enough "unity in will" to commit resources and develop the technology to terraform or find a new home after this one is "used up", hit by a huge object, etc. In this situation, how bad a shape will Earth have to be in for us to consider jumping ship? Wouldn't we be able to simply apply said technology to "fix" earth to a level that would be tolerable? You gotta admit, Earth would have to be really bad for us to consider Mars as a tempting target for terraforming. Earth would have to be as bad as Mars is right now. Given that moving beyond our solar system is beyond all realm of possibility with any remotely conceivable technology, we are pretty much narrowed down to Mars. And if we were to become masters of time and space, my guess is that we would have the dying earth problem licked by then (or at least not really care about it).

My second thought (ok, rant) is more along philosiphical lines and my own personal conclusions (take it for what it is worth). I'll also speak in generalizations to make a point, so forgive me. From the overwhelmingly evolutionary point of view of todays scientific community,(and sci-fi writers) I find it a bit curious as to how uncomfortable many seem to be with the idea of death. We fight against it for some reason. Whether we are talking about personal death, or the death of our species. I would propose that the death of our species is not meaningful in the slightest, if we are in fact expecting evolution keep doing what it is doing. Actually never mind that, it would have meaning in that the evolutionary process rooted out an unprepared or self-destructive species. So then, why would we be afraid of the inevitable? How could we object? We know (empirically speaking) that what lives, will die. We assume that species are capable of dying off, and will in all likelihood end up dead. So why not suck it up?

But on the other hand, it seems that many have this hope that the Nietzschian "Overmen" will spring forth from humanity to supercede/save it. A future where we hold hands for the common good (whatever that is), put our heads together and our personal needs aside, and do great things. Sounds great! Some hold to this as hope in humanity, what makes us special, that this desire for improvement is what gives us the right or capability to outsurvive other species. I would say that this is a tragic and unfounded hope. Hypothetical question: Do cockroaches or bacteria strive for these things? Actually, the idea of "improvement" is a value judgment that evolution is wholly uninterested with anyway. Evolution is about numbers, about survival.

I have a friend that identifies as an athiest/pagan/sometimes agnostic who is also a Unitarian. He is really big on the idea of "potential of humanity", much like the Overman idea. We frequently engage in friendly discussions about his upbeat conclusions about humanity. Of course, I like to rib him that he likes to focus on the positive and ignore the downward trend line. My conclusion from the observable evidence (personal observations included, I work with students and families of multiple urban and suburban public schools) is that humanity is definitely not on the way up. With each generation, mistakes in parenting perpetuate and multiply, poverty is nearly as impenetrable as the speed of light, and the entitlement "me me me" attitude grows. Historically we know that natural occurrences can destroy the best of societies, and if that doesn't do it, our own greed will. Pockets of "improvement of humanity" are just that, pockets that are readily overcome by the reduced reproduction rate of those "enlightened" ones.

So my conclusion is that we need not worry about the death of our species. It actually doesn't concern us individually because we will be dead in short order. I don't think that one could reasonable say that it concerns us as a species, because it is very clear that we as a species don't actually speak with one voice, or have the same concerns or fears. This makes the idea of humanity as having a single goal of corporal survival/improvement, an untenable one. So then, how could we possibly agree on "getting off this rock" so that we could make it physical reality? That my friends is the definition of herding cats.

Thankfully, I'm not actually a nihilist. Even if I was, you wouldn't have to worry about me killing myself, because that would be pointless too. :lol: The above is my conclusion if forced to assume the above philosophical line of thought.

On one hand there is the expansion of man throughout the solar system and perhaps beyond. We are limited by what what we may find and how we choose to use it.

The biggest limitation I see is that we are limited beings. Our minds are bigger than anything else on us. Our minds don't limit us, our physical existence does.

On the other is to live only on Earth, expanding until its resources exhaust us, then stagnating until the end of the Earth.
One choice leads to life without a clear bound, the other leads to a certain death.

Another hypothetical...How long do we need to avoid death to call it a success? Will we as humans be "dead", if our limbs fall/float off, we develop space lungs, and our heads are integrated into our chests so as to avoid bumping it on the bulkhead?

:probe:
 

SiberianTiger

News Sifter
News Reporter
Donator
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
5,398
Reaction score
8
Points
0
Location
Khimki
Website
tigerofsiberia.livejournal.com
The idea that reactors would have to rely on a constant stream of lunar material is laughable at best. What if a war starts? Will the enemy just sit and let cargo craft go between earth and the moon?

Here is how huge laser & nukes armed space battlecruisers come into play. :p

cgjunk2 said:
My first thought is more on the pragmatic side. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that we as a species will one day find enough "unity in will" to commit resources and develop the technology to terraform or find a new home after this one is "used up", hit by a huge object, etc. In this situation, how bad a shape will Earth have to be in for us to consider jumping ship? Wouldn't we be able to simply apply said technology to "fix" earth to a level that would be tolerable? You gotta admit, Earth would have to be really bad for us to consider Mars as a tempting target for terraforming. Earth would have to be as bad as Mars is right now.

Thinking that any expansion effort into space should take place when Earth's days are counted, is an error. It would be just too late, and we as Humanity are pushed back into stone age long ago before that happens. Going to space was, is, and will be an ability of the most advanced societies at their summit of development. And in no way we should treat Earth as a throwaway material. For the many millenia to come, we are still bound to Earth's biosphere and its genetic variety. I believe that we should rather remove our most non-pleasant stuff from Earth's face elsewhere than to try converting Mars or Venus to a place better than Earth.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,742
Reaction score
2,485
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
Pb11 will do on that front.

B11 is one of the worst possible fusion fuels in actual operation, high activation energy and little energy output (about half as much as all other reactions), the only advantage is that p-B11 (note the "-") is aneutronic, less than 2% of the energy is carried away by neutrons. That it produces less energy than even D-T fusion (700 to 2100 times less energy density than D-T), is ignored by the Bussard fanboys, who are the loudest supporters for this fusion approach.

BTW Joe sixpack (Or whatever he is called in your country) may not matter in Germany or wherever. But here he is calling the shots more and more. He has a facebook page. He can see the news in a matter of minutes.

Facebook and being informed about the real world is usually rather contradicting each other.

He would know quickly about how much a major manned mission will cost.

Idiots know the costs but not the value.

Meanwhile his child needs to bring class supplies because the school has been forced to cut budget again.

And how does that relate to spaceflight? If you save by science because "We have more pressing needs" you will be in a worse situation tomorrow. His child would get free school, but get no free university to go on. And in the USA, you have no system of apprenticeship like you have in Germany, which allows access to skilled worker jobs. Where do you want to take the money then? From the industry? So the child then has no job when it has finished its education? Or maybe it is better if the child remains a untrained worker for the rest of its life, ending in poverty and the hands of the little welfare that is left?

His mother may need to be admitted to a nursing home. His car is falling apart.. etc... All he has to do is pick up the phone and ask "Why are we going back to the moon when my child needs help" to the congressional office and it will join thousands of other like it influencing decisions.

If you have many Joe Sixpacks in Congress as well, yes. If you are lucky, you will have people who can think further than today.

The elections are coming up and the state really inst involved with NASA. Easy decision to start yelling on the hill about how NASA is using money desperately needed for the nations schools.

Short lesson in nationwide economics: The same Joe sixpack also fights against higher taxes for financing free healthcare (so he could at least get welfare support for the nursing home costs), more money for schools, etc. Why should you listen to him on the topic? He wants all and he wants it for free. Like a child. If you present him the bill, he wants to listen to another expert opinion, and goes to the next political group. In the end, such people will vote for a party that agrees to their view, but somebody will have to pay the bill.

TANSTAAFL.

What you don't pay with taxes, will have to be paid by you. Or somebody else, whose costs will eventually again end in your pocket.

Also if you would remove all spaceflight from NASA and give the money into the federal education budget, the education budget would only grow by 5%. NASA is one of the tiniest items in the budget, and still the one which produces the most visible gains for the society.

Spaceflight currently secures about 750,000 jobs in the USA and you could easily have more. The German spaceflight industry keeps on growing, and that stronger than just by the ESA contracts, despite a bad economic situation. The contract books for all spaceflight companies worldwide are full and room for more companies exists.

And you can't draw a line between "useful" commercial spaceflight (Joe Sixpack sure likes satellites which have 50% of their transponder channels wasted on porn) and "useless" space exploration. The demand by space exploration makes it possible to keep the R&D costs for commercial satellites lower, since commercial satellites make use of the technology developed for space exploration (and the other way around as well).
 
Last edited:

sunshine135

All Around Good Guy
Addon Developer
Tutorial Publisher
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
207
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Indian Trail, NC
I never think space exploration is a waste of time. Look at all of the practical things that have come out of the space program: Velcro, Tang, Teflon....

On the more serious side, in the 1840s in the good 'ole US of A, very few people lived west of the Mississippi River. The pioneers needed a reason to go West. That reason came with the discovery of gold in them thar hills in 1848.

What does this have to do with Space Exploration? Simple. Promise of great wealth has a tendency to drive exploration. Imagine for a few minutes that the Mars Rovers dug down and found a layer of gold 10 miles wide. I believe that some company or country would be very enterprising and technology growth would proceed at a very rapid pace to acquire that wealth. Like it or not, the world runs on Capitalism, and the promise of wealth is very alluring to investors. That is how exploration has always progressed.


Peace to all,
 

insanity

Blastronaut
Donator
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
1,194
Reaction score
106
Points
63
Location
Oakland, CA
I never think space exploration is a waste of time. Look at all of the practical things that have come out of the space program: Velcro, Tang, Teflon....

On the more serious side, in the 1840s in the good 'ole US of A, very few people lived west of the Mississippi River. The pioneers needed a reason to go West. That reason came with the discovery of gold in them thar hills in 1848.

What does this have to do with Space Exploration? Simple. Promise of great wealth has a tendency to drive exploration. Imagine for a few minutes that the Mars Rovers dug down and found a layer of gold 10 miles wide. I believe that some company or country would be very enterprising and technology growth would proceed at a very rapid pace to acquire that wealth. Like it or not, the world runs on Capitalism, and the promise of wealth is very alluring to investors. That is how exploration has always progressed.


Peace to all,
Sure, to some degree the history of exploration is tied to the promise of new wealth, but in that example we had a place to go and an objective to accomplish upon arrival. We also rode in oxen-driven covered wagons. We've made some progress since then (heck, we're arguing about space flight a mere 200 years later). If we found gold on mars, we'd still have to have the technology to actually return it to Earth in a time-frame that works for manned missions. Or we could exploit the technological advances the post-industrial society has granted us and get resources with a minimum investment of human life.

Also, we need to recognize that we are more or less stuck on Earth in any event. The galaxy is pretty darn big, and we occupy a relatively small spec of it- our closest stellar neighbor is over 4 and 1/3 light years away. So yes, our only options are mars and maybe a couple candidate moons; neither of which can support human life without continuous supplies from a place that can (currently that place is here). Again I have to ask, aside from the romance where is the upside for humanity? Pouring a lot of money to eventually put people places they can't live just seems illogical when you think about the destruction being done to the one planet in the entire universe that we know supports life.

Quite like the computer-game Oregon Trail, many may die because of the journey.
 

T.Neo

SA 2010 Soccermaniac
Addon Developer
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
6,368
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The galaxy is pretty darn big, and we occupy a relatively small spec of it- our closest stellar neighbor is over 4 and 1/3 light years away.

O'neill cylinders atop Orion drives. Or some sort of sci-fi breakthrough...

So yes, our only options are mars and maybe a couple candidate moons;

Venus? The upper cloud layers are quite livable.

neither of which can support human life without continuous supplies from a place that can (currently that place is here).

Wholly incorrect. That is what In-Situ Resource Utilisation is for. At least a small population of humans could be sustained on the Martian surface.
 

insanity

Blastronaut
Donator
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
1,194
Reaction score
106
Points
63
Location
Oakland, CA
O'neill cylinders atop Orion drives. Or some sort of sci-fi breakthrough...



Venus? The upper cloud layers are quite livable.



Wholly incorrect. That is what In-Situ Resource Utilisation is for. At least a small population of humans could be sustained on the Martian surface.
1. If it's possible, we can still develop the technology with probes first. The lack of people in space does not mean a lack of research about space.

2. Living in a cloud city would accomplish what? In my mind it seems like a giant pot of money to fulfill the Star Wars dreams of youth. As an aside, see what happens to a large group of people living in an isolated cloud city where resources are not self-sustaining.

3. In-Situ Resource Utilization may be the best argument against a resource dependency, but I would counter that any long-term useage of ISRU is still going to require resources from Earth. Stuff breaks, conditions change, and if there is a problem the people on Mars are more or less dead because it takes time to get them the resources.
 

Zachstar

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
654
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Shreveport, Louisiana
Website
www.ibiblio.org
I listen to Joe because joe's decisions affect this nation's path. And yes many idiots want something for nothing. Thankfully we have atleast got Joe thinking about Polar Bears (I guess because they are supposedly cute) so that eventually leads to Military Contracts for renewable biofuels.. so on and unrelated etc...

The cost of Ares is alienating Joe. The delays are giving Joe more time to convince congress to put money into their stuff rather than Ares V. Joe is ticked about the debt.

And when you think about it. So far NASA has been getting little negative attention regarding VSE. Very little was in the news about the vibration issues. Very little in the news about a competing design that was viciously attacked by ATK stooges. Very little in the news about how "Safe, Simple, Soon" was a complete and utter farce.

Bussard fanboys? Wow that was rather rude... Sorry if supporting clean fusion offends you.. (And note we know about the disadvantages.. As does the biggest "Bussard Fanboy" around.. The US NAVY)

---------- Post added at 12:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:34 PM ----------

I never think space exploration is a waste of time. Look at all of the practical things that have come out of the space program: Velcro, Tang, Teflon....

On the more serious side, in the 1840s in the good 'ole US of A, very few people lived west of the Mississippi River. The pioneers needed a reason to go West. That reason came with the discovery of gold in them thar hills in 1848.

What does this have to do with Space Exploration? Simple. Promise of great wealth has a tendency to drive exploration. Imagine for a few minutes that the Mars Rovers dug down and found a layer of gold 10 miles wide. I believe that some company or country would be very enterprising and technology growth would proceed at a very rapid pace to acquire that wealth. Like it or not, the world runs on Capitalism, and the promise of wealth is very alluring to investors. That is how exploration has always progressed.


Peace to all,


Actually if it found even platnium it would matter for zip. You must think companies can suddenly make appear the MASSIVE amount of infrastructure needed to extract stuff from the face of mars AND return it to earth. They cant atleast not for the next half century.

Asteroids are easier to land on and contain great amounts of rare material. If we ever want to "Strike it rich" in space it will be on them not the moon or mars.
 

T.Neo

SA 2010 Soccermaniac
Addon Developer
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
6,368
Reaction score
0
Points
0
1. If it's possible, we can still develop the technology with probes first. The lack of people in space does not mean a lack of research about space.

I never said it would require manned testing. Indeed, our first interstellar explorations will almost certainly be unmanned.

2. Living in a cloud city would accomplish what? In my mind it seems like a giant pot of money to fulfill the Star Wars dreams of youth. As an aside, see what happens to a large group of people living in an isolated cloud city where resources are not self-sustaining.

Uh, yeah. By that logic, there isn't any reason to live in any city, or even to live at all. Let's all commit suicide, then...

And yes, the resources are self-sustaining. Although the cloud-tops are devoid of metal (obviously :p), composites and plastic materials could be manufactured from the clouds and atmosphere itself.

3. In-Situ Resource Utilization may be the best argument against a resource dependency, but I would counter that any long-term useage of ISRU is still going to require resources from Earth. Stuff breaks, conditions change, and if there is a problem the people on Mars are more or less dead because it takes time to get them the resources.

If stuff breaks, you repair or replace it (with in-situ materials, as any self-sufficient community should be able to build their technology by themselves).

If conditions change, you change your tactics. And you have enough reserves to last through tough times.

A good example would be the Voortrekkers to colonised the interior of Southern Africa some centuries ago: they did not travel back to Europe and demand new oxwagons. ;)
 
Last edited:

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,742
Reaction score
2,485
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
I listen to Joe because joe's decisions affect this nation's path.

So Joe wanted to beat the bloody Royalists? Joe wanted to help against the Germans in WW1? Joe wanted to land on the moon? Joe wanted to finance Bin Ladens terror group? Joe wants to see billions spend on nuclear weapon research in the USA every year?

Sorry, but your hypothesis does not fit to the reality.

Joe wants to buy US SUVs, despite them ruining his economy and his own income. Joe gets fat by consuming fast food for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Joe thinks Tehran is right between Rome and Paris.
 

sunshine135

All Around Good Guy
Addon Developer
Tutorial Publisher
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
207
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Indian Trail, NC
:suicide:

You guys have sufficiently depressed the cr*p out of me. I was trying to stay positive about space exploration. I was trying to illustrate what would drive the technology necessary to pick our dead rear-ends up off the planet and start going elsewhere. I was not necessarily indicating that we had the means to do so from the giddyup.

Pull the :probe: out of your a$$. It starts with some thinking and dreaming and ends with action and possibilities. No wonder all of us need Prozac!

Four types of people in this world:
Those that make things happen
Those who watch things happen
Those who wonder, "What happened?"
and those who say, "It won't happen."

Peace,
 

eveningsky339

Resident Orbiter Slave
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
1,062
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Western Maine
In its current form, spaceflight is the biggest waste of time and money we've seen in a long time.

Apollo, on the other hand... despite the expenses, obviously well worth it.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,742
Reaction score
2,485
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
Strange that Apollo, which was the most uneconomic program is celebrated, while more economic projects are considered wasteful... NASA had 5% of the federal budget in 1967, today it is 0.58%... and look what NASA does now and what NASA did with ten times more money.
 

insanity

Blastronaut
Donator
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
1,194
Reaction score
106
Points
63
Location
Oakland, CA
Strange that Apollo, which was the most uneconomic program is celebrated, while more economic projects are considered wasteful... NASA had 5% of the federal budget in 1967, today it is 0.58%... and look what NASA does now and what NASA did with ten times more money.

Apollo was successful in the fact that it was giant gothca to the Soviets. It was a different time then. It also provided an iconic turning point for the hope and progress of the future, but we didn't really do much. Most of what we've come to understand about Luna comes from those robots and sats taking samples.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,742
Reaction score
2,485
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
Yes, but Apollo had a high price. The Saturn V was the most uneconomic launch vehicle in history, all optimized for power, reliability and quick development. The Shuttle stack launches about the same mass into a 600 km LEO, than the Saturn V does in 200km - and that at 2/3rd of the lift-off mass.
 
Top