NationStates Jolt Archive

This was prompted by the recent thread about Space funding, and also reflects my concern about the general direction space research is taking. This is one issue which never gets brought up during election time, since its not a hot button topic and many people dismiss the relevance of something that provides mainly long-term as opposed to short-term results. My personal stance is that manned exploration is nesissary to achieve the really big benefits, in terms of establishing new societies on other worlds, large-scale resource extraction, and the search for extra-terrestrial life. In the first case, sending humans is the whole point, and for the other two, I don't think we've gotten to the point yet where robots can do it better than people.

BTW, Senator Obama's plan seems to favor more of the same puttering around in orbit that we've been doing for the last 30 years, possibly with reductions in the manned space program(This is one of the few things I would criticize him strongly on). Does anyone know where I can get information about McCain's stance on space, since I'd be interested in comparing the two? My impression is that Conservatives tend to want to use Space for millitary purposes, while Liberals think its all a waste of money which could be used to solve Earth's problems (both simplistic and short-sighted views in my opinion:p ).

Sorry if that last bit should go in the election thread, but its an obscure topic to the point that it might be considered a thread-highjack. If this is the wrong place, please let me know and I'll delete the second part of the post.

I think they need to look at more sophisticated methods of transport primarily. At the moment it will takes months or years to get anything to Mars (did not look up the actual time - estimate) so manned missions further past than the moon are not really good options and are just a waste of money.


So:
1. New spaceships that can travel quicker: for that I imagine fusion energy may be required, or a very efficient solar power source
2. Exploration with unmanned ships to closer solar systems
3. Upon finding anything worth investigating, manned expedition
(hey, how much would it suck to be in the ship for a few years, only to get there and all you have is a barren planet like mars)

VASIMR fission rockets could get us to Mars in as little as two months. We can build those now.

I answered "Both are equally important" on your poll but, on reflection, I lean more towards a belief that unmanned exploration should take precedence.

My personal stance is that manned exploration is nesissary to achieve the really big benefits, in terms of establishing new societies on other worlds, large-scale resource extraction, and the search for extra-terrestrial life. In the first case, sending humans is the whole point, and for the other two, I don't think we've gotten to the point yet where robots can do it better than people.
I'd counter that your stated reasons for requiring manned exploration -- establishment of colony operations on other bodies, resource mining, et cetera -- are all tasks where a great amount of the foundation work required could be carried out by unmanned systems. Terraforming, resource analysis and extraction and the collection of data from outside the solar system can all be carried out by automatic systems - hell, they're going to be done by machines anyway, it's not like we're looking to send colonists out there with shovels and pitchforks to stake their claims on new farms.

The vast majority of space exploration is simply impossible for manned craft at this stage because the distances involved are simply too great and thus it takes too long to get anywhere (e.g. Voyager 2's 12-year trip to get to Neptune). This reason alone is enough (for me) to warrant a continued focus on unmanned missions.

I agree that our automated technology is not yet at a level where it can replace a well-trained human scientist but that seems to me to be a good reason to continue working on it, so that it improves. Remote control over unmanned craft, allowing their behaviour to be altered depending on what is found, will be key (although the ping times are truly horrific).

It is indeed most likely that, if we are going to make a colony on Mars or the moon, we'll send robots first to do the dirty and dangerous work. I think that will probably stay the same for a very very long time: robots first, then humans.

"Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics - and you'll get ten different answers. But there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on: whether it happens in a hundred years, or a thousand years, or a million years, eventually our sun will grow cold, and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us, it'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-tsu, Einstein, Maruputo, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes - all of this. All of this was for nothing, unless we go to the stars."

-Commander Jeff Sinclair, Babylon 5

Realistically, those names will be long forgotten long before the Sun dies out. We're talking about a time frame great than that of life on Earth. Any decendents we might have would surely be no longer recognizable, physically or mentally, as humans.

In the shorter term though, off world assets is a good way to make sure one of the other forms of mass extinction doesn't take us with it.

Space elevator, please. Then we can use nuclear power with a proper solution - fire it out of a cannon a long way away. Would also make space travel far, far more attractive.

Wait, who voted other? I included it just to be thorough, but the choices are pretty well covered. Would you care to elaborate as to what exactly constitutes "other"? I'm curious to know what that option might be(no, I'm not sarcastic).

Space elevators don't really work well, too expensive and too small payload.


Unmanned exploration has proven to be quite efficient. Men onboard are more often a liability rather than an asset - most of the manned programs have among key goals exploration of the very behavior of men in space.

There's no real reason to send men to Moon, Mars, or other planets. Not until very late stages of exploration.
Yes, men might make decisions on spot, but the scientists back on the planet can make them much better. And it's just cheaper to send a dozen unmanned craft for follow-up on some feature than to send one manned expedition. Besides, the men will be there for a few days, the unmanned craft can last months.

However, manned exploration shouldn't be totally neglected, but it's to be done more just for the sake of it rather than actual results.

Of course it doesn't apply to labs in space, which explore not space, but effects of zero-g environment.

I think that Space Programs aren't going to be really usefull before a few centuries...but they are important.

Because they give hope, because they are dream catchers.

About the money spent...there's already plenty of money throw at useless stuff wich cost far more than this.

Unmanned, everything else is a waste of time and ressources.

Both, but with emphasis on manned. In my opinion the best things would be to focus on resurrecting Project Orion. Larger, faster vessels are important for the space program to bring real advances. As long as humankind plays around with small vessels with very limited capabilities we are getting nowhere and wasting what little resources we are willing to commit. Spend more, and spend more wisely with a longer term focus, and in the future will will reap the rewards.

I'm very annoyed that the UK gave up on it's space program. We had good engineers and good designs that could have given us both a meaningful military and civilian presence in space and allowed us to be completely self sufficient in this area. The ESA is a good idea, but it has never been properly funded and has been very modest in it's goals.

Revive the Black Arrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Arrow) and refine and gradually improve on the design as a basis for a family of launchers. Britain should also look at Project Orion and Project Longshot (an eventually a manned Project Longshot) as it's own long term aim. We have good nuclear facilities and good aerospace experience, we just need to put it to work. Personally I'd like to a see a joint venture between Britain, the ESA and Indian (and possibly American) space programmes to pool resources, knowledge and skilled workers. There are security issues though, as I think the UK should have both a military and civilian focus in it's spce programme.

We need so much help here at home right now that focusing on space is an awful costly distraction. I love Star Trek too, but WE CAN heal and repair our planet before we are forced to leave.

It's not too late to save Earth, being the only event we need space travel is to get us off this rock.

We need to money more then NASA.

The sooner we can ship Dubya off to Gliese 581, the better. >_>

We need so much help here at home right now that focusing on space is an awful costly distraction. I love Star Trek too, but WE CAN heal and repair our planet before we are forced to leave.

It's not too late to save Earth, being the only event we need space travel is to get us off this rock.

We need to money more then NASA.

Please tell me you're joking.

For one thing, not only is it completely unnecessary to divert funding from space research to help "heal and repair our planet", but doing so will not help anything at all. If you want to help save the planet, plant a few trees or become an aid worker in Africa or something.

Also, space travel isn't merely some last-ditch escape plan in case everything goes to hell; it's useful for a wide variety of things. Go to your favorite search engine and search for "benefits of space program" or something similar. You'll see just how useful space research can be.

The argument that we should use the money spent on space to improve Earth fails to hold up in a number of ways. First, it presupposes that there is nothing in the entire Universe beyond our Earth which is worthy of our serious attention. Second, it implies that we cannot succede in both fields at once. Third, it dismisses the possibillity that things we achieve in Space can directly affect conditions on Earth in a possitive manner.

The first asumption, that Earth is the only thing worth focussing our attention on, is a fundimentally arrogant and short-sighted view. Our species has made great strides in viewing the world with a global perspective, and recognizing that the entire world is interconnected. But this broader perspective fails when we look beyond Earth. Many of the same environmentallists who talk about how our actions effect the whole plannet will just as soon argue that looking beyond our Earth is a waste. In short, our more global modern perspective has changed nothing: we still look at things based on how they effect us locally, and fail to consider the influence of events beyond our borders. We are still in large part primative tribalists and isolationists, incapable of seeing beyond our own neighborhood. Its just that our neighbourhood has gotten a little bigger. The fundimental pattern is unchanged.

Let me tell you a story, which I first read in one of Robert Zubrin's books(the best I've ever read on the subject of our future in Space). Hundreds of years ago, China had great fleets of ships, probably the best in the world at the time. They explored the Indian Ocean, and might soon have rounded Africa and discovered Europe. Then the Emporer decided that there was nothing of importance out side of China, and recalled the fleets. China was eventually discovered, and for a time dominated, by Europe. It pays to learn from our history. We know only part of what's out there, yet we know that there are environmental cataclysms which strike our world against which we would be helpless, but which we might prevent is we had significant infrastructure in Space. Only fools believe that there is nothing important beyond their own borders.

The second assumption, that we cannot both save our Earth and explore Space at once, is equally false. Everything that has been done in Space has been done with an utterly insignifficant budget. Even more could be done if governments gave greater encouragement to private enterprises in Space, perhaps by providing incentives like the X-prize(the advantage being that no tax payer's money is spent until a result is already achieved). The ship that won the X-prize was built for a small fraction of the cost of a single Shuttle launch, and was not only more efficiant and reusable, but possible safer as well. There is no reason that a competantly run space program could not achieve much more than what's been done so far, and on half the budget. Unfortunately, Nasa's been hindered by political apathy and interference, as well as a general lack of direction since Apollo ended.

The third assumption, that what we do in Space cannot effect Earth in a possitive way, ties back into the first one, and fails for much the same reasons. Just as things beyond our world have the potential to effect it, our actions in Space can have a real, lasting, and possitive impact on conditions here on Earth. Space reserch(largely from sattalites) is crucial to environmentalism, the study of Earth's climate and geography, and weather prediction, among other things. We understand Earth far better because of our pressence in Space. What other things might we come to know if we went further? Of course we could just follow your logic, and never know. But if we keep looking, keep exploring, we could again revolutionize our understanding of the natural Universe. If we could, for example, find alien bacteria, we would finally have a second example of life, and a basis for comparison with our own. What might we learn by this? Could we see by comparrison what qualities are fundimental to all life, and what qualities are unique to our own? The fields of Biology, Medicine, and Genetics might be revolutionized. Yet short-sightedness and apathy would deny us this possibillity. Or look at our energy crises, the diminishing resources of our world. There is more than empty space beyond our one plannet: there is an almost limitless amount of valuable metals, solar energy, and fuel for nuclear reactors. There are so many examples, so many ways that we can improve life on Earth through reserch in Space. What would you have us do: keep throwing money at treating our world's problems, or undertake a long term investment which, at its end, might give us the knowledge and resources to cure the source, rather than continuing to treat the symptoms?

Our future lies in Space. I say this not as a Star Trek nerd who wants to live out his daydreams, nor as a cynic who has given up on Earth. I say it because I want to save the Earth, Humanity, and all of Earth's life, and that is about the most serious issue there is.