I have suggested, for example, sending astronauts on a one-way mission. Even if we consider the cost of keeping the crew alive indefinitely on the planet’s surface, a one-way trip would cost a mere fraction of a two-way trip, and I am sure volunteers would line up. If we are going to break the cycle of disappointment, we are going to need all the creative thinking we can muster.
This article was originally published with the title Rethinking the Dream.
Subscribe
Buy This Issue
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
51 Comments
Add CommentSo, Lawrence Krauss’ idea of reviving creative thinking in the space program is to send astronauts on suicide missions for the sake of economy. He seems certain volunteers will jump at the opportunity, but I somehow doubt that Krauss himself will be elbowing anyone out of line. Perhaps he himself is our first best example of the dearth in creativity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps the one-way mission idea is admitting defeat that the human-species will never get its act together and make long-term survival (survival as long as the life of the universe itself) its number one goal. The space-race of the 1960s and 1970s was the cold-war extended into orbit and the Moon. Now without the cold-war as a motivator we need to search ourselves for better motives to continue that 'race'. Return expeditions to the planets and establishing colonies in space are affordable for the planet, but that requires humans to unite and strive as one for a virtually infinite exitence. Is there a higher, more noble goal for a unified human species?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoth make a solid point on how ridiculous this idea is but are failing to see the actual potential this could serve in furthering our reach and understanding of the universe. We already know that multiple planets and their moons have H2O and other valuable compounds useful for human kind. People are incline to seek adenture. If it is a 50-50 shot i can guarrantee there will be volunteers. This would unite use to strive for further knowledge. Any materials and biomatter found could be sent back using renuable energy like the sun or even hydroenergy from the plants themselve. We have forgotten what the thrill of exploring the unknown trully feels like, and by searching the unknown we have opened a knew fronteer for the furthering of our species. We would not be running away but merely expanding our reach... As much as i hate to say it, human species resembles a virus and therefore, as seen in the microb world, we need to find a away to leave our "mother cell" if we expect to continue our task of predominent species or fail to do so and face our crumbling, overpopulated, and decaying mother earth that has already grown sick of our selfish ways.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLarry Krauss has joined with the conclusion of the Scientific Advisory Committee to the Administrator of NASA that was originally convened to estimate the density of the dust on the moon. The same Committee was tasked later for an assessment of the practical use for man-in-space, prior to the Shuttle program. The committee concluded and reported that the only justification for manned vehicles in space would be military. The thirty committee members were drawn mostly from academic institutions and were senior faculty. The committee was discharged shortly after their report was submitted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne of my earliest memories is me standing in front of the black and white TV in my parent's bedroom, looking at a picture of a man on the moon. I remember thinking that they are way up there, with the a vision of the distant moon in my brain. I probably then started playing with my toy cars or trucks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven since then, I was interested in human space travel. I remember, when I was about 10, searching the sky for a spacecraft moving overhead with my brother. Perhaps it was the Apollo-Soyuz mission. Around that time, someone from NASA (I think an engineer) came and talk to an assembly of students in school. I remember learning technological things, like how the binary system and pixel work when getting info from a spacecraft and how people poop in space (while the latter doesn't seem that technological, in space, not only does it require a lot more technology than you would think, but it also is very expensive). Another childhood memory is reading a book on American rockets and astronauts.
Human space travel is one of the things that kept me interested science and technology.
While maybe not the reason we should pursue space travel, I think this sort of inspiration is the most important benefit of the human space flight. Along with the inspiration, we get new jobs, new technology, and thousands of kids who are interested in learning about engineering, science and technology.
To continue getting the technological benefits of space travel, we need to have a clear vision, with clear milestones and goals.
In this way, we bring one of the characteristics of being human, our curiosity and desire to explore and learn and derive the benefits of knowledge, experience, engineering and inspiration. The space program is worth every penny.
Jeffrey Utz, M.D.
This approach to colonizing Mars has been promoted for several years by former NASA Aerospace Engineer James McLane. An excellent editorial by McLane on this subject appeared in the Feb. 6 2011 Los Angeles Times newspaper.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissee:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mclane-mars-20110206,0,7711500.story
It's a shame that the work of Gerard O'Neill seems to have been completely forgotten. It's not that he had all the details right; he certainly didn't. But personally I don't see manned voyages to the planets as very useful and certainly terraforming is just ridiculous. On the other hand, creating very large, free floating space colonies that are (initially) rather near earth does seem like a worthwhile challenge both economically and technically. The benefits are partially described at sites.google.com/site/lunarimpact/Home (please don't read this material as a plea for returning to the Moon, it isn't).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn Lawrence Kraus' April 2011 Forum article, "Rethinking the Dream", it was implied that "space exploration" is good for little else but inspiration. Be that as it may, it is "space occupation" that has the greatest potential to save us all. Focusing all our spending on super-expensive, inspirational missions like the Moon-landings or Mars missions, will prolong the manned space-effort's doldrums. To move forward, we must concentrate on the infrastructure needed to provide the raw materials for a continuing manned presence in space. Such an infrastructure is certain to require a manned Moon base, since Mars' long tether to Earth adds considerable difficulty and risk. The Moon has both the raw materials and the low gravity needed to build large structures not only in space, but also near Earth. With such a foothold, the vast resources of the entire solar system would eventually be available.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKraus' article also mentioned how unfortunate it is that keeping people alive on manned space-missions consumes so much of the current effort. It should be the driving force behind the entire enterprise! Detailed knowledge of managing closed ecosystems is exactly what is needed to drive technological innovation toward low-use, high-reuse, and high-recycle lifestyles for everyone. In fact, lowering per capita consumption may be absolutely necessary, if our growing population is to gracefully survive the next couple of centuries here on Earth. That alone should provide enough inspiration.
Mark Rueden
Tampa, Florida
“Rethinking the Dream” illustrates the disappointment in our unfulfilled and declining space program. America has chosen to drop out of orbit, while our competitors are on task reaping the benefits of combining hardware plus biology research in space to generate sellable technology. In September 2008, the European Space Agency published “Scientific American Presents, Looking up, Europe’s Quiet Revolution in Microgravity Research”. They emphasized how the unique environment of microgravity is being used to perturb cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, and other systems to understand function and to utilize this knowledge to prevent disease and aging deterioration on Earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the process of maintaining living biology in space, novel sellable technologies will continue to be generated for America to export. Our space program brings together engineers, plant and animal scientists and clinicians who work synergistically and generate unpredicted multiple advances. Currently, a clinical trial is using a near-infrared diode light source, originally developed for plant growth in space, to prevent the debilitating “burn of healthy tissue” when radiation is beamed to kill cancer cells. Bacterial infectivity and resistance to drugs occurs in the spaceflight environment, and the research to understand the mechanism is translating into new ways of defeating the drug-resistant bacteria, becoming epidemic in hospitals. Cancer patients who beat their disease are succumbing to respiratory failure because of the severe musculoskeletal deterioration in the intensive care unit. The lessons learned and to be learned from combating musculoskeletal deterioration in microgravity has direct applicability to saving these patients.
America needs to reinvent itself by creating the jobs that make us globally competitive. The ground-based research laboratories conducting space research are the essential venues for training the next generation of scientists and engineers for these advanced degree positions. Investing, not cutting, the science, technology, engineering and math education within the life and physical sciences space program is how to make the dream a reality.
Danny Riley, PhD
Professor of Cell Biology, Neurobiology & Anatomy
Thinking that robots and remote viewing are better than a person on the spot is the reason the dream has failed. We spend billions sending robots that fail to other planets instead of sending people who can do the same job. It's reasoning like that of Lawrence Krauss that have caused the failure, not the "reality" behind the dream. Why haven't we returned to the moon? It's because people like Mr. Krauss have said "Robots are good enough!". Reality? The reality is that robots are NOT "good enough".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr Krauss, apart from the inspirational value, there is actually solid scientific knowledge to be gained from manned spaceflight.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisa)We still don't know how microgravity affects various alloys and whether it can be used for manufacturing of novel composites, either metallic or ceramic. Similarly, we don't understand the exact molecular mechanisms of the degenerative effects of microgravity in living beings. People are much better at studying these than robots.
b)The far side of the Moon is ideally located for an advanced space telescope, in both visible and invisible wavelengths. The lower gravity means that a bigger structure, with bigger optics, is more viable. This telescope could have many times the scientific -and inspirational- value of Hubble. Of course, it can be automated, but a semi-permanent crew will be needed to construct it.
c)The Mars rovers, for their ingenuity, have done less scientific work than a trained geologist could have done in a week. If the missions to look for fossilised organisms in Martian sediments moves forward, it will be much easier to get conclusive results with trained scientists than with rovers, no matter how sophisticated.
d)The Moon can be used as staging place for new launch techniques that are impractical in Earth. A "rail gun" system will be far more economical if operated from there than from Earth, as will be practically any launch method. Once the facilities are in place, it will make perfect economic sense to launch our future probes from the Moon rather than Earth.
e)An off-planet outpost will be a great place to create a closed ecosystem and monitor it, learning from the experience. This could have unforeseeable benefits for life back home.
f)The strain of communicating at such long distances, with light-minutes between each signal, could provide great boosts to information technology and perhaps even in quantum entanglement.
g)In the future, when we build LHC's big brother, it might be a good idea to build it off planet, either on a large asteroid or in orbit. This will require permanent human presence and will certainly create vast amounts of scientific knowledge.
These are just a few areas where manned missions in space make perfect scientific sense. I am sure many more can be found.
A few commentators mention committees, thats one of the problems I don't think Kennedy had much of a committee he set a goal and they didn't change the goal. Now we change the goal with each new president. We need to set a twenty or year goal and go for it using everything by giving them environmental reprieve and letting them use nuclear power and other materials. Other people have said terraforming is not possible if thats true then man made global warming is also a falacy and so is the notion that we can fix it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRespectfully sir, you call for creative solutions yet reject them before proper consideration. When members of the scientific community can accept that two travellers to the same destination, the slower traveller departing after the swifter one yet returning before him, as long as your modern physics demands the material existance of the past, and by corallary the future, we will be limited to very little advancement above our current level of technology. Mr. Krauss, you held the answer in your hand before you either threw it in the trash or placed it in one of those files that some pundits such as yourself jokingly refer to as a crackpot file. What use is it to solicit creative input when you reject anything but "normal" solutions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNasa could have been on Mars already ages ago if they had people with brains in charge instead of politicians.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI offered Nasa the technology of the Flying Saucer in 1980 after I got the patent. I explained that a Shuttle, equipped with the technolgy, would be able to fly without rockets to the ISS in one hour and to the Moon in a couple of hours. The Propulsion Engineers in Cleveland Ohio, were:"Not interested, thank you for the copy of your Patent!"
Here I got a Patent, on Gravity Control, that was evaluated by Dr. Kahn of the Hudson Institute at $600 Billion, if the USA would have it before Russia and some people, that were supposed to make sure that the USA would stay on top, just rejected it.
I was stuck, I could not contact another country that was in the Space Business. Finally, after the second Space Disaster, they decided to try the circuitry, described in the patent. I had urged them in the letter to contact me before experimenting. They did not.
They got too much of the High Voltage generated and caused another disaster: The Big Black-out of 2003 in the USA and Canada.
They blamed a poor, innocent little tree for it all.
The Public swallowed it hook line and sinker.
Nasa Headquarters was informed that the technology of the Flying Saucer was unsuitable for Space Travel.
The "experts" got a Golden Handshake for their unselflishness in serving the USA.
I tried to contact the New Management that the President installed. No such luck.
Someone has to convince the Congress to vote a few Billion Dollars for a Heavy Lifter. In the mean time Russia is building a big Spaceport on the Chinese Border. Russian Expertise and Chinese money will have them on the Moon and Mars before Nasa gets the chance to waste a few Billon Dollars and becomes all over the world the cartoonist's delight.
Well, I can now offer the invention for the application of generating power. These big spheres under a Flying Saucer are the Propulsion Units. With only a small amount of power they lift a one ton vehicle off the ground and propel it all over creation.
Now (e.g.) a One Thousand ton weight can be lifted 1000 feet with a small amount of energy, using the technology.
When that comes down, it could be used to generate thousands of Kilowatts of power. No fuel needed after the initual start up, no radiation, pollution. Power at 1 cent per Kilowatt or less. Who would not want that?
A Power Plant would cost a fraction of a nuclear plant.
It would also create many jobs, as all the oil ad gas furnaces could be converted to electrical ones.
We've been here before.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn 1962, John M. Cord, a Project Engineer in the Advanced Design Division at Bell Aerosystems Company, and Leonard M. Seale, a psychologist in charge of Bell's Human Factors Division, developed a plan for a desperate mission to put a man on the moon ahead of the Soviets. They unveiled their "One-Way Manned Space Mission" proposal in Los Angeles at the Institute of Aerospace Sciences (IAS) meeting in July 1962.
There is a useful article outlining the mission and providing some background at http://beyondapollo.blogspot.com/2010/09/one-way-space-man-1962.html.
According to the article, the plan was eventually rejected and "the closest NASA came to a desperation mission in the moon race was Apollo 8, which orbited the moon 10 times on Christmas Eve 1968. The mission, intended originally to test the LM in high Earth orbit, was dispatched to the moon without an LM to head off the threat to hard-won U.S. prestige of a possible Soviet manned circumlunar flight."
Cord and Seale also believed the one-way space man concept could be applied throughout the solar system, wherever there were perceived technical difficulties precluding a two way trip or some compelling reason why people needed to go "now."
The one way concept essentially seems to be the last desperate default position just before someone figures out how to make the trip properly, including a return leg.
The recent discussions regarding astronaut Franklin Chang Diaz and his plasma rockets (see http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-10/123000-mph-plasma-engine-could-finally-take-astronauts-mars) and the possible Russian competitors (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-5DQZOB6JSY) suggests to me that these one way desperation discussions will soon drop out of sight in favor of more robust and useful discussions covering return trips with enough extra capacity to be able to do something useful while in transit.
If we could go to the Moon 40 years ago with an economy a fraction as large as today's, we can go there now with negligible impact on any other program. The reason Apollo was curtailed was simple jealousy from social activists, who wasted more money in a month than Apollo spent in a year. Plus Apollo succeeded and they did not. Space exploration is a handy target for any program that can't get funding on its merits. Going back into space in a serious way will require technology cheap enough for private individuals and groups to do it on their own.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI second the idea that robots are just not good enough. The Mars Rovers are fabulous achievements, but they have done as much in five years as human geologists could do in a few days.
Well, I'm impressed at least. So build a demo.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello Steve,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI always thought that President Nixon (hardly a social activist) canceled the last Apollo missions for far more complex reasons than you suggest in your post. Check out "The Melancholy Moon" by Walter A. McDougall at http://www.fpri.org/fpriwire/02.199407.mcdougall.melancholymoon.html to get a little more context on things.
We're in the midst of going back (although it doesn't look like NASA, or any of the one way advocates will be leading the charge) and we're doing it the way envisioned by President Eisenhower using a slow systematic process that builds a reusable infrastructure for further exploration.
Mr. Krauss is both right and wrong: He is right in perceiving the cost of "visiting a $100-billion tin can orbiting closer to Earth than Washington is to Boston" as ultimately unjustified (compared to traveling to one of the cited cities along the X-axis), but he is wrong in grossly underestimating the corollaries (by-products) of the work done to put and maintain the "can" on the orbit, as well as the unique research carried out in the "can" under unique conditions found nowhere on the Earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurthermore, he is right that since the Gagarin's flight 50 years ago people did not go much further in space, and that creative rethinking of manned space exploration is needed, however, as a previous comment reads, his own creativity does not go beyond suggesting the cheaper "one-way ticket" approach.
As perhaps found in science fiction, the space exploration research should focus not only on adapting space to people, i.e. building more and more complex devices to protect the fragile earthy man from the killing forces of a hostile universe, but rather adapting him to these forces. Is this only fiction? Perhaps, for now. But look at ocean exploration - to resist the killing pressure of the environment, people do not only build submarines and hard costumes to protect the man, but also fill his lungs and cavities with gases at the same pressure as the one of the surrounding environment so that he is "like fish in the water". What else is this if not adapting man to the environment, as opposed to the much more expensive and inefficient (restricted movement, for instance) adapting of environment to man.
S. Alex Marinov, PhD
Edmonton, AB, Canada
Not a suicide mission. He says: 'I have suggested, for example, sending astronauts on a one-way mission. Even if we consider the cost of keeping the crew alive indefinitely on the planet’s surface, a one-way trip would cost a mere fraction of a two-way trip, and I am sure volunteers would line up.' If you volunteer to go stay on Mars, you can get to stay there for ever (or till you die). That's scarcely the same as suicide, though internet speeds will be pathetic and may well make you suicidal after a time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne-way missions are not "suicide missions". The idea is that they would set up permanent habitats. And yes, there are many who would jump at the chance. They would be forever remembered as the first human settlers off of Earth! If I was in my 20s I would jump at the chance myself! As settlers instead of astronauts, they would have a completely different set of rules. They could even have kids. Is it risky? Sure. But so is getting into my car to drive to work every morning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for out of the box thinking, I've suggested many times that we convert our manned programs to using midget astronauts. People get offended and angry when I say that, but they use half the food and oxygen. The cost of sending midgets would be a fraction of average sized humans and they are just as smart and capable as any average sized human. This would do a lot to uplift the social status of midgets and provide lots of high paying jobs for them.
Sigh. If only I was shorter!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiskfreels, I fully agree with you.
Only, once they get there, and have kids, the kids won't be midgets. So they won't be eligible to come back.
Do you think we could have a two-way mission for midgets for the cost of a one-way mission for 'regular' sized people?
Come on guys! Ignorance to underestimation of current problems we face is simply unacceptable. Inspiration comes when there is an attractive way of solving problems and fulfilling dreams.Space can be going in the negative direction of volume and I think that whatever we constantly search outside of us can be found within us.Relativity can be found within living micro systems and perhaps oscillating absolute interference of quantum forces can be seen through ever bending discontinues space. The magic is within our Nature and all we have to do is discover it. Enough star wars and air crafts, weapons, and misery. You can't run away from earth. Not until we control the entire quantum world. And it seems to me that living systems is a good way to learn from. What you prefer? 20 years meaningful life, 20 years on pills, or 200 years happiness by known yourself. I choose the last.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reasons getting people into space are simple and as basic to our society as a traffic jam. We will put people further and further out into the cosmos for money. There is great profit in the wealth of the materials and knowledge just waiting to be taken. Why humans? A robot can't stake a claim. They have no legal standing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs much as that may seem laughable, think of the legal battle the first time two companies claim the same resource because they landed a robot there first.
People may go on a one way trip or be quick frozen, but the company who puts a human and a disputable resource together first. will the case.
Sorry, I meant ", will win the case"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiskfreels- I hope you were being somewhat tongue in cheek on the midgets, but the one way trip has been suggested recently in an article on spacedotcom. Of the Many comments to the article, almost without exception, every one said they would go, and several inquired about where they could sign up. I would be interested myself, if it was ready to launch in the next few years. As far as supplying the colonists goes, within a couple of years they could be self sufficient. Mining ice for water, oxygen, and fuel, growing food in greenhouse habitats, exploring and mining materials to build more habitats. There are large ancient lava tubes which could be converted to underground habitats with a minimum of expense, making room for further waves of settlers. Like I said, I would go, but I would have to fight for a place in line.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with the call to remember Gerard O'Neill. The single most important reason to explore space is to prepare it for human settlement, and orbiting space stations/colonies seems to me the best way to go. Why? Because (as Al Globus has pointed out) humans are already close to having all the technology they need to design cities in space that are comfortable, healthy, aesthetically pleasing and have access to all the raw materials needed for life. Artificial gravity may be necessary but it can be produced through rotation. Building cities in space may not be feasible now, but it certainly seems to me that it's a worthy long term goal for any space program. There are still a billion people on Earth who live in poverty because they have no access to arable land, clean water, good roads or decent governance. Some scientists think that the Earth may be near carrying capacity. Cities in space give us a shot at creating good governance and healthy living from scratch, without the burden of ancient power structures. Yes, I know that outer space by itself isn't suitable for human habitation, but an enclosed area, with enough fresh water, air, minerals for plant growth and artificial gravity, can be manufactured over time and can be made so that all materials are recycled. It will take huge amounts of capital, research and hard work, but it's possible. As for a space economy -- there's solar power, for starters -- which can be beamed down to Earth. Then there's cutting edge medicine based on the clean vacuum of space; products from asteroid mining; tourism; satellite building and maintenance; indeed, the first space city can become the springboard for the true "monetization" of space. This seems to me like a suitably ambitious and compelling vision, which should appeal to people all over the world who would like to be able to "start over" SOMEWHERE. 200 million migrants or more have left their home countries and moved to places like the US, Canada, Britain, Germany, Australia, the Persian Gulf, etc etc. just to make a good living and give their children a future. Why not space?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy did NASA go to the trouble to build robots?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause RELATIONSHIPS FAILED. NASA has lied through their teeth. All planets except Jupiter are peopled with Races just like ours: human beings. NASA has bombed the south pole of our Moon; sent a nuclear engine crashing into Jupiter and occupied both Mars and Venus with Rovers WITHOUT BEING INVITED IN by Sovereign Leaders. So NASA is rude and barbaric, and sending humans from here is not a good idea. Why? We're not amicable so they're not going to be amicable.
The key to affordable manned space flight is the the use of In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), which has been actively worked on for several years. The probable discovery of water on the Moon and Mars allows the production of hydrogen and oxygen for rocket fuel on the Moon for use in refueling in low Earth orbit from fuel stocks launched from the Moon. This greatly reduces the liftoff mass from Earth for travel to the Moon or Mars and similar production facilities on Mars would enable return flights from Mars by refueling from Mars. Water also directly supports astronauts as well. Mission managers are justifiably concerned about the reliability of equipment and product purity for use on manned missions until the concept is proven in hard-nosed demonstration projects on Earth and the Moon. This will be quite expensive to finish, but well worth the effort in future savings. We can get back to the Moon and on to Mars if funding is restored (congressional debates on the deficit are not encouraging) and maintained for the development projects required.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for robots,if we take a fraction of what we are spending on manned space flight.We could send a number of robot mining missions to the Moon and asteroids.Procuring rare earth elements and compounds and sending them back to Earth orbit to be manufactured in to products we need both in space,and on Earth.Eventually we will be able to reduce the price of going into space by 90% and more.We can do this by reducing manned space travel for a few years,and forgetting about Mars for a couple decades.By then we can launch a campaign of exploration 100 times larger and 10 times cheaper than today,and probably a whole lot safer than today.Where 1% loss of launches is the norm.The sooner we do this the better.The nations that do this will enjoy a economic boom hence forth never seen before.The materials brought back would be almost limitless,and this would make a space base solar power system more than just a dream.It would provide clean cheap energy for every nation on Earth.This would reduce the possibility of war,which would be a benefit to all of mankind,and eliminate the need for nuclear power on Earth as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHad world governments not bee so short-sighted in the 1970's, we would have realized a "2001:A Space Odyssey" human presence in space by now. But, from where we stand today, it all seems like a long way off today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnbridled, the benefits of space exploration are as clear today as the benefits were to Christopher Columbus 500+ years ago - when he sailed to the New World.
Sooner or later, the human spirit must once again be unleashed to explore the universe. We grow or we die!
People point to the woes we face today - in the Third World and in Twenty-First Century America - and say we cannot afford it but we forget how much the human race has benefited by what we learned by going to the moon.
What we would learn in the effort to terraform and colonize Mars would make it possible for us to restore the earth itself to it's once pristine state for future generations.
A one-way mission to colonize Mars need not be a suicide mission. With proper planning, those who arrived on the surface of Mars would have the technology to recover oxygen and hydrogen from the Martian rocks to provide light, heat, and water to grow food. It takes only a matter of months for supply ships from earth to arrive. It would be a very risky mission - but no more risky than those of many explorers before them who first trekked across North America.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually I was being totally serious about the midgets. Why would I not be? We think it's perfectly fine for tall people to play basketball. They are well suited for it. Midgets are well suited for spaceflight. Why is that wrong? What do you have against midgets that you don't want them in space? At half the size they reduct the size of spacecraft by half and the fuel and cost by 75%. We could send a round trip of midgets for less than half the cost of a one-way mission of average sized people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have no idea why this would offend anyone. I mean, sticking some name like "midgets to mars" may not be wise, but that's more to do with feelings than facts.
Sigh. There have been similar arguments against any type of exploration ever since man ventured out of his cave. I would bet the same arguments were raised when Christopher Columbus when he tried to obtain funding from Portugal, Genoa, Venice and England (fortunately, Spain was more open-minded).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd can you imagine what his wife said when the first cave man decided to build a raft to cross a river?
"What do you mean a raft? What's a raft? You'll never cross that river - the thing will sink and you'll drown. And even if you do get over there, how will you ever get back? You'll starve there - there's no food and to eat. And besides, you'll get eaten by a wild animal." (Maybe a one-way trip didn't sound so bad after all).
The truth is, we don't know what we'll find when we explore - that's why they are called "discoveries". Sure, we can make all kinds of predictions, but like Columbus, what we actually find often exceeds even the wildest predictions.
But, unfortunately, as long as politicians are holding the purse strings, our space policy is subject to the whims of whomever is in office at the time. Maybe privatizing space travel isn't such a bad idea after all.
President Bush and NASA seriously errer when deciding to bypass the Moon in favor of concentration on a manned Mars mission. Everything we need to get to Mars we must first learn from colonizing and mining the Moon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Moon would be an excellent base for starting a Mars, or any other manned mission.
At present, we have no technolgogy to protect humans from radiation in space. We must solve that problem, and the problems of penetration and loss of an airtight environment from micrometeorites. Perhaps something along the lines of today's sci-fi's "force field, using
an eledcto-magnetic field, or the like.
Substantial minerals, as well as water, for fuel, can be taken from the moon, for manned missions, and the avvailability of same certainly cannot be counted out as the cost in weight of same in fighting earth's gravity wouldn't be cost effective at all.
Besides, as any Californian knows, its for the cheese, man, its for the cheese.
But seriously, bypassing the Moon in learning the necessary technology to survive in that hostile environment would be like Ford tryi ng to start out building nthe Corvette, instead od the Model T.
You just can't leave out the necessary steps.
Almost every scientific periodical and sci-fi novel that deals with mankinds steps into space starts with colonizing the moon, and to me, it is incievable that current thinking would leave it out.
And thsat is only NASA's backward thinking. Certainly the Moon will not be abandoned and will then be "claimed" by the European Space Agency, the Chinese, Tthe Japanese, and any other spacefaring country fledging its wings.
The US and NASA should not be left out. Certainly the technological (as yet unknown) advancements would be the side benefits alone from joining the effort.
But it may not come to be. The current Ass Backward HUA thinking currently generated by the Republican Right and associated Tea Party would certainly not allow the Moon or Mars, for that matter, in any current budget.
But it it mankind's yearing to explore that will get us there someday.
Perhaps not in my lifetime, but sometime, somewhen.
Luna, thou art not forsaken.
Ennui can't build a demo. If you look up the patent you will see that it is a monopole capacitor. It only puts out the power put in. It has nothing to do with gravity. It is a simple power storage device. I doubt the existence of a working model of anything more than a simple capacitor. Ennui either suffers from schizophrenia or enjoys making up odd stories to see if anyone will fall for it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you were trying to be humorous you failed. If you weren't then you need help.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNature evolved us into the Earth inhabiting creatures we are. If we do not evolve or recreate ourselves into creatures that can endure a journey that will last for light years, or we do not discover how to span such distances within the life span of our present situation, we are doomed to live and die as our species on this planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have not learned to live with each other on this planet. Why would we think our sorry species would act any better, elsewhere? Let's make earth a better place to live for all people. Either evolve us into non-breathing, non-eating androids that we can send on an endless jouryney, or convert us into energy that can be beamed into space and reconstituted at a destination, or spend our intellectual energy for making earth the paradise it should be.
When I began my career in marketing and sales, I always wanted to go to a far off town or state because I thought opportunity was better there. I am reminded by the words of a sales manager I once knew who told me that if I couldn't sell my product in my home town, why should I believe I could do better selling 1000 miles away. The grass always looks greener far away. The fact is that we are 1000 miles from "far away," and our grass looks greener to them.
If we last as a species until our sun goes nova, we may perish as a species. The comic, the late George Carin, said that the only reason the planet created man was that it needed plastic and man could make plastic. Perhaps we have fulfilled our destiny and now we should pass from the scene. We certainly haven't figured out how to live together and be happy.
I say combine the individual space programs into one large program funded by multiple countries. Allow the program to be semi-independent so that political concerns may not become as much of an issue. We already have a start of this with the ISS so why not continue it? Space exploration and technology and information from it should benefit everyone involved, not just the Russians or Europeans or the USA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe moon is the key. I am very disappointed that we lost focus on the moon. A base is needed there. Instead of going to Mars I believe a better choice would be to go to the moons of Mars. In specialized mechanical weighted suits work and mobility would become more efficient.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter is our salvation. We are not going to travel around in space in Star Trek like spaceships. They will look more like giant potatoes. Burrowing into an asteroid and using it as a spacecraft solves a lot of problems that a conventional spacecraft has.
On the way out of our solar system an asteroid made of ice would be picked up from the rings of Saturn.
Because space is so vast robots will have to accompany us and have to have the capabilities to recreate us from test tubs. They will need to be able to nurture us and pass on needed traits.
Humans will not find their way beyond the solar system and into the galaxy, but our digitized versions might. The cost and complexity of spaceships large enough to ferry hundreds of men and women out there is quite likely beyond our collective global resources. And why would we send very perishable humans when we can send robots, robotic laboratories, and computers on which are stored the DNA of several hundred million individuals? When, after journeys that could easily last hundreds of thousands to millions of years, suitable planets are located, shuttles, complete with robots, robotic labs capable of assembling eggs and sperm from the digitized DNA recipe, would land and immediately begin the process of recreating humans. After assembling and fertilizing eggs with sperm, the embryos would come to term in artificial wombs, be born through artificial birth canals, and be reared by robotic surrogate parents. Once the first generation is up and running, they could carry on procreation in the usual manner. It might be possible, perhaps necessary, to include frozen embryos in the package - as a template. It might be necessary to start a mining operation to refine the metals and nutrients to feed the growing embryos and to build the infrastructure to house the first generation of children.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDigitized DNA would yield far better survival odds than trying to keep real people alive for vast stretches of time. We would start by digitizing bacteria DNA and work our way up to more complex organisms - plants, nematodes and then mammals.
The space ships for this kind of venture would be far more compact because they won't have large spaces for a living, breathing human cargo; they would be flying computers with stashed robots - and robots wouldn't get stir-crazy. Without the systems required to keep humans alive and sane over tens of thousands of years, the cost per robotic ship would be substantially less, which means we could launch substantially more ships.
The other element that would help matters along is current technology that is melding human intellectual capacity - intuition, imagination, and insight - with computers, i.e. Watson. Watson Vn.n, a latter day HAL, would oversee the robotic laboratories responsible for recreating ourselves on other worlds. And, of course, teaching our children the history of their origins and how they came to be where they are.
Let's get pragmatic about space travel; humans can't go, but our humanity can.
Gerry Porter
Ottawa, Canada
focusing on 2nd to last paragraph: "Figuring out how to inspire..." For an idea for that google "microlaunchers"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy creating a new community of hands-on involved space exploration can start in a new way not yet tried. This worked for microcomputers, which led to what I type this on.
The idea has been in development for 15 years, and is now at the point of searching for those who might be interested enough to become involved.
Opinion of F Casesnoves MSc (Physics) MD. Reno.Nevada.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this==============================================
Dr Krauss, from the Galactic Arizona University, wrote a good, realistic, and sensible paper.However, my view about Space Strategy related to Human Being Survival is something different,
1.-Priority. The planet Earth is degrading slowly (but not at the panic way described by extremists). That is a real/objective fact. Therefore, to guarantee the Human Survival is is absolutely necessary to start asap to find other planets/adaptation on them. This implies, in order of importance,
2.-Seek for inmense sources of Energy along the Space. Without Energy alocated with diversity, the survival and emigration would be impossible (examples, Amudsen, or Rommel strategy that permitted him to beat Montgomery at initial stages, etc...)
3.-Given the Energy source, to get under-gravity adaptation is easier, and build gravity places to permit long-distance trips is also ok.
4.-The better we take care of our planet in view of very low extinction, the more time we will get for space emigration to other surviving planets/structures. Therefore, as summary,
In the same way that a family keeps savings at the bank to guarantee the pensions and long-term survival, the International Community (USA and Russia leadership in technology for this, it is a fact), must start the Survival Plan asap. The better we will ready for a Earth degradation, the higher possibilities that Human Beings will obtain for survival along next milleniums.
Francisco Casesnoves MSc (Physics) MD
Opinion of F Casesnoves MSc (Physics) MD. Reno.Nevada.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this==============================================
Dr Krauss, from the Galactic Arizona University, wrote a good, realistic, and sensible paper.However, my view about Space Strategy related to Human Being Survival is something different,
1.-Priority. The planet Earth is degrading slowly (but not at the panic way described by extremists). That is a real/objective fact. Therefore, to guarantee the Human Survival is is absolutely necessary to start asap to find other planets/adaptation on them. This implies, in order of importance,
2.-Seek for inmense sources of Energy along the Space. Without Energy alocated with diversity, the survival and emigration would be impossible (examples, Amudsen, or Rommel strategy that permitted him to beat Montgomery at initial stages, etc...)
3.-Given the Energy source, to get under-gravity adaptation is easier, and build gravity places to permit long-distance trips is also ok.
4.-The better we take care of our planet in view of very low extinction, the more time we will get for space emigration to other surviving planets/structures. Therefore, as summary,
In the same way that a family keeps savings at the bank to guarantee the pensions and long-term survival, the International Community (USA and Russia leadership in technology for this, it is a fact), must start the Survival Plan asap. The better we will ready for a Earth degradation, the higher possibilities that Human Beings will obtain for survival along next milleniums.
Francisco Casesnoves MSc (Physics) MD
Do they make Digitized DNA? I know they have made a working organ from a special 3d printer. I was thinking of keeping two generations alive at a time to mix up and create new strands of human DNA. Robots would freeze the new DNA (old and new) and wait for food supplies to build before creating new humans to live for two generations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is called the thin blue line.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo all the editorial staff and the author: I take great offense, and cannot comprehend the sheer lack of knowledge of the benefits reaped from the Manned Space Flight Program demonstrated by the writer of this article. I hope to God neither he nor a family member or close friend ever needs a paramedic to be able to transmit vital signs and receive medical instructions from a doctor in route to a hospital; or a Pacemaker, an implantable defibrillator, an insulin or morphine pump, or cochlear implants from among hundreds if not thousands of other biomedical devices, too numerous to name. Then there are the GPS (global positioning system) navigation aids for airplanes, ships and boats, hikers, automobiles, and in cell phones used to locate missing people, track dangerous criminals, and keep us safe in unknown territory. We could also mention the miniaturization of microchips that have also enabled production of continually smaller and smarter desktop and laptop computers and associated hardware that grow more powerful with each generation of microprocessor; iPods, iPads, and similar devices; earbuds (also know as “earwigs”), miniature microphones and cameras used by virtually every branch of law enforcement from the armed forces, secret service, Space Shuttle, NSA (and other 3-letter government agencies) to your local sheriff; fiber optics arealso essential to cable TV, internet, and VOIP (voice over internet protocol) as well as standard telephone communications. Let's not overlook fiber optic communication cables for voice, television, data, and numerous other applications; the sky is full of satellites getting smaller with each launch for relaying voice, video, and data, as well as monitoring weather events such as daily forecasts, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis as well as guiding movements of military hardware in battle. These same satellites are used to locate areas growing illegal narcotics. We also must mention the volcano monitors and tsunami warning devices, generally designed around GPS systems that communicate by satellite at the speed of light to monitoring centers all over the globe, thus saving thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives with each event.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurthermore: Inventions from the space program include memory foam, dust-busters, micro-chips, Velcro, cell phones, Teflon, several pharmaceuticals and new innovative medical treatments, vacuum tubes, hydroponics plant techniques, invisible braces, scratch resistant lenses, most of the stuff in your computer, and more than that. Satellites alone have changed our everyday lives, bringing daily to your living room images from around the globe, and even some commercials to sell you all the other inventions. It is of interest to note that Sir Arthur C. Clarke, who brought us 2001 a Space Odyssey, is the original inventor of the geostationary satellite (1945) in what was once science fiction. He did not patent this “Science Fiction fantasy” but it became Science fact shortly thereafter.
Lesser known space-flight innovations include things like shoe insoles which were derived from Astronaut boot technology, ear thermometers, which are in wide use now, smoke detectors, and water filters. Can you even imagine all the ways in which these devices and advancements reach all of our lives? Improving water quality by filtration saves innumerable lives daily.1
In conclusion, totaling all the human suffering ended, quality of life improved, and hundreds of lives saved, how can anyone thinking person say, as Mr. Krauss stated in his ridiculous, poorly researched article that “aside from communication satellites, space is devoid of industry”? It has brought us benefits far outweighing the cost, not not to mention the exponential growth in our knowledge base.
Finally, another immeasurable benefit of manned space-flight is the inspiration to children all over our country to aspire to work in the space program, as I did since 3rd. Grade; to study math, science, physics, astronomy, cosmology, and electrical engineering.
I am incomprehensibly disappointed that my favorite magazine published such a poorly researched comment. Even comments should strive to get the facts correct.
We should have a lot more international debate about global space programmes - thanks to SA to bringing it up. But the idea of a one-way mission to Mars is wrong on so many levels. It may be billions of dollars to develop a properly funded Mars spacecraft & return mission - but those billions are a tiny fraction of what is spent on defence budgets and a litany of other things that are a lot less useful. So: Get with it world! Humanity needs to expand beyond the reach of this planet. Let's do it now. And it should be an international project - maybe something like the ISS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe haven't actually done space exploration since Apollo; LEO isn't exploration.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe utopian visions of visions of space exploration and colonization, fueled by a century of science fiction, are a sacred cow of the scientific community. No amount of reasoning, evidence or argumentation will change this view and anybody who dares point this out will in be scorned for their apostasy.
Having people in space is a waste of money and resources and will be more so as robotics improve. If we want to actually do science then it will be with robotics.
"Thinking that robots and remote viewing are better than a person on the spot is the reason the dream has failed."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo humans have puny girly men bodies compared to what is needed to survive space. Just the spacesuit dry cleaning bill is enough to say to most rational people that human exploration of the cosmos will never be.
"To continue getting the technological benefits of space travel, we need to have a clear vision"
Unfortunately, once you go to space for an extended period of time, clear vision is difficult to maintain.
"We spend billions sending robots that fail to other planets instead of sending people who can do the same job."
Once the singularity hits, this won't be an issue. Star Trek will look a whole lot different than our attempts at anthro-oriented storytelling.
I think every single point made by Laurence Krauss in this article is exactly right, especially the main point about how robots are in a far better position than astronauts for accomplishing our goals in space. I think that on a horizon that goes beyond what Krauss addressed in this article, our "big" goal should be some sort of economic exploitation of the resources in space - as in, robotic mining. This will push our robotic technology to its limits. But ultimately, it's setting up shop in a serious way that will allow for what we're ultimately after, which is to give people the opportunity to really live in space. The right way to get to that goal isn't to send people around in a capsule now, and think we're working towards that goal. Instead, we have to seriously get busy with robotics and AI.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this