Image: Matt Collins
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
This year marked the 40th anniversary of two momentous events related to space exploration. One, the Apollo 11 moon landing on July 20, 1969, was a hallmark technological achievement. The other, the complete first run of Stanley Kubrick’s remarkable movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, vividly depicted author Arthur C. Clarke’s vision of humans traveling the solar system with abandon.
Much of the related flurry of reporting noted the stark differences between reality—people have not been back to the lunar surface since the December 1972 visit—and Clarke’s idea. Articles also asked whether the nation is sufficiently committed to devoting the $200 billion or so to returning to the moon 10 years from now and perhaps, after that, spending even more money to send humans to Mars.
As a 15-year-old, I found the 1969 moon landing enthralling. I also charted the entire Apollo missions, built scale models and dreamed of being the first Canadian astronaut. Humankind’s travels promised to propel science forward. But since then, my perception of the proper role for human space exploration has changed.
I would still jump at the chance to go into space. But I now recognize, as I testified to Congress almost a decade ago (coincidentally along with Buzz Aldrin, from Apollo 11), that doing so would be for the adventure, not for advancing science. The most scientifically exciting knowledge we can gain about the universe and the solar system will involve unmanned space vehicles, robotic devices and a lot less money than lofting Americans beyond Earth’s orbit.
Human spaceflight has proved inordinately costly and far more dangerous than the Apollo program’s successes led us to believe. Moreover, the associated difficulties are far more mundane than TV and movie science fiction suggest. We are not held back for lack of a warp drive, although fuel costs are a reason why unmanned flights are so much cheaper; missions that carry humans must drag along the paraphernalia required to keep them alive. The chief obstacle to visiting Mars is cosmic radiation. During the 18 months or so that a round-trip journey would take, astronauts would very likely receive a lethal dose of radiation.
Our ultimate destiny may be in the stars, but the limitations imposed by physics and our biology suggest that this future probably is to be reserved for our mechanical progeny—robots—or perhaps for computers that can get organic life rebooted on some distant locale.
In the near term we still crave adventure, and the desire to travel to, and perhaps to colonize, the moon and maybe Mars seems irresistible, if financially daunting. I am not against sending humans into space for that reason (and would also encourage consideration of one-way missions, which seem to be ultimately more fiscally practical). But we should separate funding for science from the diversion of a costly manned space program.
We also should not waste huge amounts on boondoggles such as the $100-billion International Space Station, which purported to offer useful science beyond mere experience with how humans can live 200 miles above Earth’s surface for extended periods.
The Apollo program taught us that we may conquer even enormous technological problems if the nation is willing to focus for however long it takes to solve them and to devote tremendous resources. We now face many such challenges, from climate change to energy independence, which we need to tackle even as we juggle our hunger for space travel.
I do not believe that this is a zero-sum game. Maybe there is money to do it all: to send humans into space, to do the best fundamental science we can do and also to address pressing problems here on Earth. But we can only do that if we are honest about the costs, and possible benefits, of science for humanity. And we must not pretend that a base on the moon or Mars is a panacea for any of our significant problems back home.
See what we're tweeting about
53 Comments
Add CommentI agree with the basic premise of Krauss' column this month, but would like to make a couple of related points.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe first point is one that Krauss himself expressed during his interview with Ira Flatow on Public Radio's "Science Friday" program. Historically, exploration has always carried an element of risk. Early explorers and colonists didn't have the option of turning back. They had no illusions of perfect safety.
In modern times, when we create the unreasonable standard of safe and risk free space travel, we invite PR disasters, and place unnecessary burdens on our space agency. We should acknowledge and embrace the inherent risks of human space travel and continue to support and applaud this type of exploration, for it works hand in hand with science.
Krauss is incorrect to dismiss out of hand, such projects as the International Space Station. Despite its wasteful and misguided construction, it stands today as a laudable achievement and wonderful tool for both exploration and science. Whatever step we want to take next, it could play a useful role.
Finally, one of the best ways to really get exploration going without taking away from science funding is to offer challenge grants. Look at the success of the X prize or NASA's Centennial Challenges. They would be even more successful if much greater prize money was offered--something that could easily be done without making a dent in NASA's budget.
Matthew Huddleston, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Physics
Trevecca Nazarene University
All this nonsense at the expense of science. Maybe they should start an "adventure," budget and take it out of there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe idea that robots can do more science than people is ridiculous. If that were the case, all our laboratories would be staffed by robots and we wouldn't have human experimenters anymore.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow much do you want to bet that a recurring theme during the various mars lander missions went something like:
"Crap. If only I was there, we could do this and answer the question."
Finally, physics and biology is not holding us back from space, psychology is. We're terrified of anything nuclear so we don't tap into the vast power offered by nuclear power. A saturn V sized rocket using a nuclear light bulb could do SSTO and take a 2 million pound payload into orbit.
its gonna take us 10 years to get back to the moon? srsly?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnatebelongee,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith enough will and commitment of resources, we could easily get to the moon in less than five years. With our current national will and commitment of resources, we'll be lucky to make it there in less than 15.
Dr. Hudd
Public funds for space should be reserved for real projects with practical results. Reversible planetary temperature control, large scale solar power, or large scale ecologically balanced living environments. These make sense, both socially and economically.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet those who want to go to the moon for adventure do so on their own money.
I think it is still early for a permanent Moon base or similarly, human visit to Mars. Because a few critical tech is still missing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe most important ones:
A (true) oxygen generator. (A device that filters CO2 from air, separates it into oxygen and carbon, gives back oxygen, using only electricity.)
Electromagnetic shield device against (constant) cosmic ray radiation.
Even, a new type of space drive that only uses electricity (no fuel).
I think all of them quite possible if NASA starts big research projects on them and/or X-prizes competitions w/ big awards.
I also think w/o these techs, permanent Moon base or a human Mars trip would be quite impractical, extra expensive and dangerous.
We need to master robotics and increase our research in reverse engineering the human mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen, send robots to the moon and mars, and remotely 'port' our minds to them. Only one flight needed to 'send' thousands of people to another planet for study.
The trip from a person's point of view would take seconds.
We need to master robotics and increase our research in reverse engineering the human mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen, send robots to the moon and mars, and remotely 'port' our minds to them. Only one flight needed to 'send' thousands of people to another planet for study.
The trip from the person's point of view would take seconds.
We need Four(?) things before we can advance to the Stars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Artificial Gravity (to protect human health in space).
2. Shields (To protect humans from High Energy Radation).
3. Unlimited energy. (to keep all systems working for the long time required to make interstellar trips).
4. Something like Warp Drive to shorten the time to get to another Star system.
Same stupid people, with ignorant arguments. When we send people to the moon, the resulting tech more than pays for itself with high tech jobs and spin offs. In this guys opinion we should let the Chinese and Indians put bases on the moon as we slip into socialism. Read the history of China. They were once mighty explorers and relinquished their lead to the Europeans so they could focus on problems they had at home. Wake up people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou missed the biggest argument; no people, no money. As fascinating as it may be for some people to watch Mars rovers creep around the red planet, it's pretty dull stuff.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's the human aspect that excites people about space travel, who cares if another robot does a "flyby?" If you want taxpayers and politicians behind the space program, better get some people on other planets. It's that crucial, interest and money drives the space program, putting a human face on it makes it accessible and understandable. Of course you wanted to be an astronaut. Everyone did as we watched men walk on the moon. How many kids want to be astronauts today? With only maintenance shuttle runs and time aboard a science lab in space, the romance is fast fading and the public support is drying up. It may make more economic sense, but you'll loose the whole game to economics if we go all robotic.
Without humans going to different moons and planets, our growth in space will be severely limited. And that is growth we severely need, you can save and reuse all you want, sooner or later we're going to have to get off this rock in a big way, or risk having all the humans in one place. You're saving us right out of a space program, buster.
Real science - the kind that generates patents and publications in peer reviewed journals - seems to be of secondary concern to high level NASA management. In terms of budget allocations and project planning, NASA administrators clearly place a much higher emphasis on human centered ventures. I think the roots of this psychology came from the very success of the moon missions during the 1960s and 1970s. A vast infrastructure was developed across the entire country to sustain the Cold War effort to win the space race, but when the actual War was won, there remained little reason to maintain such an expensive program for human exploration of space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcept, that is, for the jobs and government funding that went to Congressional districts spread throughout the country. NASA created its own space-industrial complex, of which it is still entangled and suffering the consequence. This relationship has distorted mission planning into a social welfare driven process to find excuses for placing astronauts into orbit. When the cited rationale of performing science and gathering data doesn't actually deliver much, its NASA's reputation and credibility that suffers. Thus does NASA find itself in its current predicament, perennially on the chopping block and saved only by the extraordinary intervention of powerful congressman.
NASA does itself no favor by performing these "glamor missions". First of all, the public isn't even attention anyways because the scientific returns are so low. What they do support, and even applaud, are the data driven success of Hubble, Pathfinder, Chandra, and other satellite and robotic missions that have fired the publics imagination. NASA can not defend itself from criticism and protect itself from inevitable funding cuts, without an insulation of tangible scientific deliverables. Case in point - the public will ride to the rescue of the Hubble telescope but scratch their heads in puzzlement over the Space Station.
Yes, there are more important problems here on earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPsngray's comment typifies the argument for many - we have to expand our resource base, in order to continue the current human experiment of exponentially growing consumption. There is no option for many people; living standards (as measured by money and possessions) have to keep growing - people are relying on it. Therefore, we must and will colonise the stars.
I've dreamed about space travel too, but I'm beginning to get real. It's not the given that many seem to think it is. It may actually not be technically or practically feasible to colonise or even plunder other worlds. Where else in this solar system is there a really habitable planet that the billions of human overflow could happily live on for human lifetimes? I doubt it. So where would humans go? It would take generations (perhaps tens or hundreds of generations) to get to another habitable planetary system. How do we transport the extra billions of people that the earth can't support to these other worlds, without a magical Star Trek breakthrough?
If these imagined breakthroughs aren't made, and no-one surely thinks they are a given, then we're stuck on this planet. Wouldn't it be better to figure out a way of living sustainably on this planet and only then start to look outwards? I think that would be the more sensible approach.
Some people are genetically predisposed to being brave adventurers, inventors, artists and creators. Others fill in the bricks between the walls made by the real architects, scientists, adventurers and artists. I suspect with no insult intended that the author of this article is one of the brick fillers who cannot conceive that humanity in order to evolve MUST venture irrationally perhaps into the void and onto other worlds. Without such goals we will disappear like the morning mist. Naturally, we must deal with the problems of climate and war but getting the planet moving in the direction together and not in competition to explore the solar system is a task not to be treated as merely entertainment for a few astronauts. I might add that the astronauts and cosmonauts had more courage than 99.99% of humanity in so doing their explorations. A nation that chooses to abandon this role of explorer will abandon its idealism, its science, its leadership. No doubt it would be best if China and Russia and EU and the US would work together along with lesser partners such as Canada and Japan in this project but I suspect that the usual other human "virtues" of distrust, competitive genes and profit will prevent this in the short term but nonetheless, the goal of leaving the earth for other worlds will not be stilled by the small minded. It is a pity that the politicians in the US abandoned a very successful program before the science was done on the moon and also that the USSR felt it no longer a goal when they did not make it there first. These are NOT good reasons to venture forth nor to abandon the goal of space exploration. Using both robotics AND human explorers is the way to go. Imagine, a robotic explorer finding North America and sending a digital message back to the Queen of Spain saying, "No gold." and the Queen saying, "Cancel the project."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is amazing that no one seems to have mentioned that the greatest argument against sending humans to space (as distinct from valuable robot monitoring of the earth) is that the big project must be to halt climate change. Even now it may be too late to stop leading our species to destruction and most of life too. All our wealthy countries (including my UK) need a vast expenditure on renewable enerygy to move away from our carbon-fuel based economies. Forget living in space until we'vwe learnt to live on Earth!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne glaring omission in the arguments of those advocating manned space exploration is in establishing the basic feasibility of it. Proponents take the position -- indeed, make an assumption -- that we can create the technology needed, but where in the world do they find evidence to back that up? It is the moral equivalent of believing that God will provide -- can anyone certify with more than FAITH ALONE that these technological problems will be solved? If not, stop saying that solving the problems of manned deep space exploration is simply a matter of national will and financial commitment and admit that this costly gamble may result in nothing but wasted time, money, and possibly lives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd as for the argument that humans are necessary to perform tasks that robots cannot do....what specific tasks are those? I can list hundreds of things robots can do that humans cannot, and do them quicker, more accurately, and for longer duration. Once again, proponents of manned space travel are indulging in unsupported speculation that seems more faith-based than reality-grounded.
I usually admire Lawrence Krauss, and in principle he may be right here too. But why did certain lunatics compete who would be first to reach the North and South Poles? No, it didn't cost that much, I agree. Yet, Mr. Krauss should recall that the computer he used to write his piece on is a biproduct of the Moon program. (Pondering&) Probably the best reason to go to the Moon is, quite simply, that we are stark raving mad, for the Moon is surely a harsh mistress. On the other hand our inherent madness made us colonize this world and survive as a species under difficult circumstances. Remember also all of those who, using scientific arguing, proved that a steam-ship could not go from Europe to other continents. So, why try, against reason? Not because biproducts may come out, though they will. Why not Schopenhauer's insistent Will, which seems to pervade the universe (somehow) and surely lives well inside us. It is also a sobering thought that giving up the Kennedy space program would not have fed any native Africans better. Such problems are political, not economical. OK, but I do enjoy your books, Mr. Krauss. And judging by what we know today, you may be right. Let us hope that one day we will know more and better. Meanwhile I write science fiction. It is some mind of madness, too, but less expensive of course. Yours&
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTher is much to be said about the comments, positive and negative, but in any case I feel we need to keep working on both. That being a moon base, sans our trash, and travel to mars and beyond. As yet there are things machines can't do, in some cases thankfully, but it would help. As humans go, we are fragile but we can make instant changes based on new data. A machine can only do so much and can need human help, but distances for commands to travel limit just how much machines can do. Still without all the pros and cons without those early attempts much of what we take for granted we would not have , at least not yet. I look at my 5 yr. old cell phone and think what all it CAN do and then think of the computers I programmed in the mid 60's and how large they were and in a sense how little they could do and I say we need to keep working on all areas. Maybe stop proping up other countries and use the money for both space and needed home projects, such as feeding our own hungry or better medical care. Just a thought!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow much is the dream of someday visiting and living on other worlds worth? Because in the controversy over manned vs. robotic exploration of space, that's ultimately the question. I have no doubt robots are a safer and cheaper for "scientific" exploration. But children don't lay in their beds at night dreaming of someday being scientists. They dream of being Captain Kirk. And I have bad news for some of you. The majority of Americans don't care about the origins of the universe. They don't care how we got here or where we're going in a billion years. They care about the adventure of space travel. Scoff all you like, but if you take that away under the auspice of more money for science, you are cutting your own throats.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBooks about the Birth of the Universe sell like butter and milk. Just ask Amazon and their colleagues. Otherwise you make a very Good point! But the Old Kirk was a better one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNASA is a NOT a civil organization; it is part of the Department of Defense...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisso what if they stop wasting money in invisible planes, and invest more in Space Exploration.
Looking at many of the comments, it seems that a lot of readers think that we have already figured out how to live sustainably on Earth and that we are bound to figure out how to overcome all of the problems of venturing into not just the solar system but the galaxy. Neither is close to the truth. If we don't solve the technical and practical problems of space travel without having figured out how to live sustainably on this planet, then those who dream of the evolution of humans will be sadly disappointed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease people, get real. Let's go into space once we know we have somewhere to live, for at least the next couple of centuries. Eh?
Why don't we just generate an elecro-magnetic field around the spaceship to keep solar radiation out. The same way the earth's magnetic field protects us on the ground?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBrick filler? do you know who Lawrence Krauss is, he is one of the heads in his field. Never read his books? Never heard of dark matter? By the way, Lawrence i miss your weekly column, new scientists loss. Those biologists are just sooo boring.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe whole point of human experience is for humans to have the experiences. If we are going to say that robots are more efficient then why not just replace all human life on the planet with robots. We could then get the robots to make as little adverse impact as possible by turning them all off and burying them in a hole. That would be far more efficient than sitting here using the planets resources. Obviously this is not a do-able option, and there is no difference between this argument and the one of allowing only robot exploration of space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I can understand his stance on traveling further out than Earth orbit, I disagree on the ISA. I'm from the field of material science, and the ability to do extended scientific experiments in zero gravity is really, really useful for the field to understand the fundamentals of solidification processes. From my understanding, the medical field has similar opportunities for zero gravity experiments, and possibly for other fields as well. And to conduct such experiments, we really need a long-term presence in orbit - robots just aren't going to cut it as lab assistants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe race to the moon and Apollo missions of the 60s and 70s cost much less money and produced more new engineering and pure science than many people realize. At the height of Apollo spending, NASA's total annual budget was equivalent to about 10 days of the budget for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. And the result...a lot of engineering technology from microcomputers, material science, communication, etc; pure science from formation of earth and moon, astronomy, physics, biology, etc; employment for 300,000 people ranging from seamstresses to PhD scientists and everyone in-between; and financial and psychological inspiration for an entire generation of young engineers and scientists. That seems a pretty good investment to me. And an investment that could be just as beneficial today as in the 60s. I wonder what the Department of HEW did with their 10 days worth of funding?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe race to the moon and Apollo missions of the 60s and 70s cost much less money and produced more new engineering and pure science than many people realize. At the height of Apollo spending, NASA's total annual budget was equivalent to about 10 days of the budget for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. And the result...a lot of engineering technology from microcomputers, material science, communication, etc; pure science from formation of earth and moon, astronomy, physics, biology, etc; employment for 300,000 people ranging from seamstresses to PhD scientists and everyone in-between; and financial and psychological inspiration for an entire generation of young engineers and scientists. That seems a pretty good investment to me. And an investment that could be just as beneficial today as in the 60s. I wonder what the Department of HEW did with their 10 days worth of funding?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLunar base issue aside, the International Space Station is the largest international cooperative civil science & technology project in history -- hardly a "boondoggle". If Professor Krauss wishes to challenge the R&D productivity potential of the ISS, then he should join the ranks of those who argued in the late 19th century that nothing of benefit could ever become of vacuum science. It was vacuum research that enabled the 20th century industrial revolution in microelectronics. Such a 21st century revolution in microbiologics may well also be enabled through microgravity science pursued on the ISS. He needs only look within his own institution and across the disciplinary boundaries between physics and biology to understand that eliminating the constant "G" from all equations of motion has profound effects on organic systems, as well as on inorganic systems undergoing changes of state. It's all about motion at the molecular level, and the potential to affect mass transfer for useful purposes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHis opinion of the ISS evokes the sentiment of Albert Einstein when he observed, "Most people cannot express with equanimity an opinion that differs from their social environment. In fact, most people are incapable of even forming such opinions."
Let's broaden our scientific awareness and reconsider the implications of eliminating a weak, though pervasive, force that dominates every aspect of our world within the Earth's gravity well.
Mark Uhran
I admire Prof. Krauss and his work, but he seems to have lost the child-like (not childish) sense of awe and discovery that motivated him in 1969.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am in the midst of a manuscript for young readers about humanity's future in space. The obstacles for a trip to Mars can be overcome, and my message for my readers, born in the late 1990s and the early years of this decade, is that they or their classmates may be among the first humans to go there.
My purpose is not to advocate for a human mission to Mars but rather to inspire my readers to love science and to let their questions lead them to innovative work.
As a practical matter, the time lag for a round-trip signal will be will be a serious obstacle to controlling a robot on Mars. Decisions that a person examining a rock or a potential ice deposit on the scene can make and act on in a minute will require hours or days for humans controlling a robot from a distance of several light-minutes. (Rovers can set course and travel without constant monitoring, but picking up a rock and turning it around or getting out a tool requires steady attention.)
Fred Bortz, physicist and author of science books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com)
As a geologist I found Sojourner, the first Martian rover, impressive, but it did in a month what I could do in about an hour in the field. It might take me a couple of days to do what the present rovers have done in several years, mostly because of the walking time. On the other hand, shallow sand and steep slopes don't stop me. Robots are at best a poor substitute for humans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe biggest problem with existing space gear is flexibility. The Apollo Astronauts reported their hands and arms got very tired. And thick gloves offer no tactile ability.
Unless we can come up with better radiation shielding, we will probably never have a 2001-style space station. It would experience too much drag at safe altitudes, and would be in the radiation belts if we put it at several thousand kilometers, as we once envisioned. Pity, the scene in 2001 where the twin wheels sweep across the screen is one of the most awesome scenes ever.
Rather than de-orbit the ISS, we should strap a booster to it and put it in a higher parking orbit, with the future capability to bring it back down if desired. It cost too much money to throw away.
All you naysayers will be looking pretty foolish when the chinese get to the moon and hog it for themselves. They won't share anything, and they will happily sacrifice a few dozen astronauts to make progress.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHuman space travel will become feasible as soon as there are economic benefits to be derived. When some enterprising company finds a treasure trove of minerals or resources off planet, or determines that there are ways to manufacture goods more cheaply then there will be colonies in space, on the moon or mars or wherever there is money to be made.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisManned flight for any signifianct distance through space by unmodified humans is likely to be an exercise in wishful thinking. We are too tightly designed for where we are. Engineered humans however are a whole different matter should industrial, cultural and financial technology and moral optimism ever enable it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally! Believe me! the answer lies in the youtube video "ufo on the moon". Ha,Ha!. The attempt to replicate the US Space Shuttle was one of the major causes of bankruptcy of the soviet union economical system, while the injection of money by space contracts in a free-trade, free-enterprise nation such as the USA, generates economical activity, jobs and engineering progress. The only thing more beneficial than the space race was the money coming from the Beatles music, that financed the EMI scanner (CAT) project, only equalled by Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells that built up the fortune of Virgin group of enterprises. There's no business like show business!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGoing into space is mandatory,,,is it not... to avoid the next extinction event such as Yellowstone, Lake Toba, pole reversal in the next 1500 years(cosmic rad exposure), asteroids, etc. Of course, these extinction events have all been shown on National Geographic, Science, and History Channels with the reference to expanding out from Steve Hawkings to Neil de Grasse Tyson.. So why are we arguing about survival...and yes, our future AI robots will be going with us or leading the way!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLiving on the moon is not much of a problem, now that water has been found. A few meters of lunar regolith solves the radiation problem. As stated by a previous post, unless we are blithely accepting of extinction, we need to expand human presence in the solar system. The space program has suffered because even our leaders, such as Krausse, are losing their vision to the bean counters and disillusionists. We are not in a Clarke-style expansion into the solar system because of a lack of political will and moral fiber. Too much TV, too many twinkies, too little education, too little true grit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's interesting that the author sees himself as being honest about the true interest in space when he says it's really about the adventure. The truth is that the U.S. interest in manned space exploration is, and has always been, political and military. All the big advances and impetus have come in response to (potential) competition for space as a military theatre. How strange that he should be pretending to be honest that it is somehow about either (non-military) science or about "adventure". The U.S. will become much more interested in opening space to human access, once again, when it appears that space, Mars, Luna, or other places are about to become, say, Chinese, or Indian territories. Watch this "space"...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe thing is you've ACTUALLY UNDERSTATED the extinction event problem!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe last near impact of a Tunguska sized meteor was deflected by our atmosphere like a stone skipping off the surface of the water as recently as MARCH THIS YEAR. These are the visitors from space that the authorities don't tell us about until after the event. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16697-tunguskasized-space-rock-buzzes-earth.html)
The 1909 Near Earth Orbit (NEO) meteor that exploded above earth in the Russian Tunguska wilderness, is estimated to have an average recurrence of about 2000 years. This doesn't mean that we can expect the next visitor in about 2000 years. It means that the odds of one impacting Earth NEXT YEAR are about 1 in 2000. Now that's scary because if that meteor had impacted the surface, or landed in an ocean we would probably be talking about millions of lives lost, or climatic changes that could set us back, or halt our progress for the next century or so.
Considering that the odds of the next metor impact of the magnitude are about the same as the odds of the average American dying in a car accident I would say it makes good sense to spend a considerable amount of taxpayer money to gain versatiliy in space. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_deflection_strategies)
When we consider that there are larger and smaller impacts which have taken place we need to improve our odds of survival by improving our detection and deflection technologies. That's the best argument we have for setting up a detection base on the moon and eventually researching and developing our deflection technology.
Yeah but... This argument relies on the notion that space travel is expensive, so better to send more-efficient robots. But, what if getting into space is cheap? You know, like a space elevator? Then, everything changes. Going to Mars is entirely possible if we can haul enough stuff up and whip it around until it's going fast enough to make the trip. Shielding? Haul up some lead if you really have to.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFuel? No problem, not when you can orbit metric tonnes per day by hauling it up a cable. If not a cable, then something else; sooner or later, we'll be able to get off this rock on the cheap.
Risk is not the problem, money is. There's a space tourist up there right now - people will obviously accept the risk. It's just too expensive right now, but that WILL change. When it does, then the solar system is ours, not robot-our, but OURS. Yes, because we want to go.
Actually, the water that's been found is everywhere, but it would take about a baseball diamond sized area to yield a pint of water. Same average as the Kalahari desert. Not as bad as it sounds because that's the thing about averages. There's no reason to assume the dispersal is even everywhere. That would be anomalous. The average dispersal suggests that there should be uneven distribution of what water there is, which suggests in turn that exploration will reveal pockets or even collection areas where water is abundant. The next probe will possibly find this at the poles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust a few questions regarding some of the statements made here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe idea of a space cable/elevator -What happen to it when a lost /off course aircraft or terrorist pilot bangs into it?
What was the original reason for the ISS, what is it now?
Has it or will it justify the cost of about 100 Billion Dollars?
It will be left for the Russians to do the trips shortly as the Space Shuttle is being retired soon.
Given the state of the American nation and its enormous debt caused by the bailout of the Banks and places like AIG,
it will probably be Russians or Chinese who will be next on the moon.
Peace be with you all.
Well, they couldn't even consider Clarke's idea for a space station, and now they have the troubles of figuring out how to keep astronauts healthy without gravity. Clarke's idea for a space station would have solved that one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what makes anyone think that NASA is going to change their "We've got a better idea" attitude anytime soon?
Agreed, America has effective priced themselves out of the space race, in addition to the reasons elderlybloke mentioned, is the mega waste in wars that have nothing to do with the GWOT. Aka, Iraq, Iraq, and Iraq.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor a cheaper way to get to space, see my dreadfully under-ballyhooed U.S. patent #7,523,892, which incrementally could put up a lot of mass rather inexpensively, but not a lot at once.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to what could be a good industrial project to get the USA back into the world trade ball game, my answer is the SE4BWB, which I hope to display on CookAerospace.com website as soon as I find a website builder who will do it on spec.
The SE4BWB is a seaplane and a million-lb lifter built around four of the GE jet engines that already power the Boeing 777. These engines are now rated at 120,000 hp each, for a total of 480,000 hp for the four of them.
The SE4BWB is approximately the size and weight of the Howard Hughes Spruce Goose (which had only 32,000 hp total available) but my airplane actually has more wing area available in what is almost a tri-wing lay out, and should take off and land in a much shorter distance than the Spruce Goose due to the very low wing loading and huge amount of power available to attain and maintain low-speed flight.
The one thing that the SE4BWB will not do is get very good fuel mileage, although when that mileage is calculated on the basis of total payload it really does not do that badly when cleaned up for cruising at about 400 knots after takeoff.
Water
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSending people to Luna and Mars won't advance science? What kind of a moron makes a gigantic, blanketing assumption like that? This guy is a scientist? Well, just because you're a "scientist" doesn't mean that everything you think and say is "scientific." Anyone with half a bull sheet detector knows that blanketing generalizations about unknown, unquantifiable values like scientific advancement aren't worth dung and are usually made with maleficent intentions, like siphoning funds from away legitimate space research that might actually broaden human capabilities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow can anyone say that the US has effectively priced itself out of the space race when the US spends as much on defense annually as all the other major powers of the world combined, including China, Russia, the U.K., France, Germany, Iran, Australia, and more?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the US simply cut its military budget in half, it would easily have the funds to take the space race to Mars and then the rest of the solar system. And the military industrial complex would still be getting just as rich and stay just as oppressively powerful. It's time to let Japan and Europe defend themselves. They're big boys now; they can handle it.
The problems with comparing military budgets is that the USA spends so prodigiously on the social needs of our military personnel that it distorts what is really getting spend on effective weapons. You can argue that this is a good thing, and probably it is, but when China spends a $100 billion on a weapons research program that is what they get, incredibly improved weapons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps the best analogy I could use for this concerns Hoover dam, which was completed on time and under-budget in the 1930's for about $49 million and the loss of about 90 lives.
Today there is an excellent plan to double both the hydroelectric production of the the dam and its water storage potential for agriculture and flood protection, but the cost of of a new dam is so high as to be incalculable. That is because first an environmental impact statement would have to be done, which would take at least ten years to complete, then every detail of that plan would have to be challenged in court, likely to take two or more decades at least.
Although modern technology could build a new, better Hoover dam in much less time than it took to build the first one, our governmental institutions are no longer legally able to move simply becuase of social or human necessity, but must delay everything down to the pace of anyone who raises the most crackpot of objections.
Delay costs money. Lots and lots of money. Crackpots have been given a death grip on the future of the USA, and they certainly do not deserve the stranglehold advantage which has fallen into their laps. Please, take it away from them. Demote them, for they are obnoxious fools. Give the USA at least a fighting change at last to deal with its problems through our stupendous capacity for innovation and game-chainging material progress. Let our successful system work and quit sabotaging it with short-sighted bureaucratic left-wing obstructionism at every turn!
Crap is crap and should be spelled crap.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, "if I was there" should be "lets send nest lander with this toll added"
The cost will still be a micrscopic part of what a manned flight would consume. You can build a robotic society on Mars for one manned 5 day mission to the moon.
So why don't send a bunch of sixwheelers to mars for the kids to play with? There is a 20 minute delay at worst. They can handle it when the images arrives. I will play too!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author's objection to conducting human space flight activities is the present day excessive cost and danger. There are no laws of nature that would prevent human space flight from becoming reliable, safe, and economical. There is much room for improvement. Developing the necessary technologies for this as the work that engineers are usually given to do. Would anyone in the days when computers were made from relays and vacuum tubes have conceived of notebook computers? Or of stratospheric passenger aircraft when the Wright Brothers were making their first flights?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this