The Wrong Stuff: Let robots, not men explore space

New York Review of Books ^ | April 8, 2004 | Steve Weinberg

[RightWhale]

then we're done

Tragic, no doubt.

[r9etb]

See my other posts on this thread. Your posts presuppose that the answer to "why humans?" has already been proposed and accepted. It has not been proposed, much less accepted.

One reality of space flight is that it is expensive, and it is highly unlikely that it will ever be anything but expensive. The other reality is that, aside from cost, the major hurdles in space flight are primarily political -- which demands a realistic answer to the question, "why humans?"

You've offered a couple, but it's hard to see why they'd convince people to spend a few trillion dollars on them.

A vague fear of extinction is all very nice, but it's still just a vague fear. The promise of money is likewise very nice, but you still have to present a valid case for it. (Space-based power generation is not very practical in any case, and the political fallout from environmentalists would dwarf what happened to the nuclear industry.) At any rate: if there were money to be made on manned space, there'd already be people doing it.

As for comet and asteroid defense ... well, I think we've already demonstrated that it can be done robotically.

I don't need to "refute" any of your points, because you've offered no concrete proposals that merit it.

[Cacique]

bttl8r

[orionblamblam]

> Your posts presuppose that the answer to "why humans?" has already been proposed and accepted. It has not been proposed, much less accepted.

It *HAS* been proposed, loudly, and many, many times. It has also been accepted just not in terms of government policy.

> One reality of space flight is that it is expensive, and it is highly unlikely that it will ever be anything but expensive.

Expensive compared to driving around town? Expensive like your average Joe won't be able to decide at a moments notice to go to the Luna Hilton for a round of beers? Sure. btu expensive such that only governments can afford to do it on an extremely limited basis? Flat wrong.

> it's hard to see why they'd convince people to spend a few trillion dollars on them.

I no more need to convince you or anyone else to spend a few trillion on spaceflight than I have to convince you to spend a few dozen trillion on defense.

> The promise of money is likewise very nice, but you still have to present a valid case for it.

Already done. See the Futron study.


> At any rate: if there were money to be made on manned space, there'd already be people doing it.

Interesting. Then... if there were any money to be made from the next-generation-beyond-DVD, then peopel would already be doing it. If there were any money to be made from wearable computers, peopel would already be doign it. if there were any money to be made from genetic fixes for old age, peopel would already be doing it.

I guess we're already doing everythign that will ever be done, huh? No room left for improvement or innovation, I guess.

[/sarcasm]

> As for comet and asteroid defense ... well, I think we've already demonstrated that it can be done robotically.

Have we? I seem to have missed that demo. Pointers to when we tested an asteroid deflection system at several AU's distance that had single-seconds (i.e. autonomous) decision making and creative thinking capabilities.

> I don't need to "refute" any of your points, because you've offered no concrete proposals that merit it.

We're not talkign concrete proposals here, jsut Reasons For Going. So far, your arguements have been based on bad PR, like "Space will always be too expensive." Tell that to the Romanian civilians building an X-Prize vehicle. They just had a successful engine test.

[orionblamblam]

Depends on your point of view. If you are religious, you might just see the end of humanity as a Good Thing.

[r9etb]

It *HAS* been proposed, loudly, and many, many times. It has also been accepted just not in terms of government policy.

Then it hasn't really been accepted, has it? BTW, I think you're vastly overrating the degree to which the general public accepts the idea of humans in space -- they may support it in the abstract, but when it comes down to actually paying for it the answer is generally NO, especially when you start adding zeros to the price tag.

Have we? I seem to have missed that demo. Pointers to when we tested an asteroid deflection system at several AU's distance that had single-seconds (i.e. autonomous) decision making and creative thinking capabilities.

Well, I guess you seem to have missed the parts where things have been sent to, and landed on, asteroids. As for comets -- same deal. You don't need a human to plant the bomb, or what have you, and you aren't limited to "seconds" in which to do it.

Already done. See the Futron study.

Hmmmm. I guess I don't see how a pretty website matches up with an actual manned program. Who's funding the hardware? .... (crickets)

I no more need to convince you or anyone else to spend a few trillion on spaceflight than I have to convince you to spend a few dozen trillion on defense.

Well, you've got to convince somebody. Can you?

We're not talkign concrete proposals here, just Reasons For Going.

OK -- give me a good, practical reason and I may listen.

Don't get me wrong, I actually support manned space flight. But it's not enough merely to support it -- you've got to be able to come up with a good, concrete reason to go, that will convince somebody other than an engineer who's already sold on the idea. We're just not there yet.

[orionblamblam]

> but when it comes down to actually paying for it the answer is generally NO, especially when you start adding zeros to the price tag.

Especially when people incorrectly inflate those numbers of zeroes.

> Well, I guess you seem to have missed the parts where things have been sent to, and landed on, asteroids. As for comets -- same deal. You don't need a human to plant the bomb, or what have you, and you aren't limited to "seconds" in which to do it.

Wow. WHOLLY inadequate for the task of asteroid or comet deflection. HAve you actually studied this? I have. Using nukes is about all we've got... but you'd have to be a grade-A moron to plant a bomb on the surface to deflect a comet or asteroid. You'd need multiple bombs, spaced correctly... and intelligently controlled to deal with the changing circumstance from one bomb to the next. not something that can be controlled in real time from light-minutes away.

> Well, you've got to convince somebody. Can you?

No, I don;t need to convicne anybody, because there's no such thing as a near-term program that'll cost trillions. You might as well sugges tthat I propose the US Army spend a gajillion bazillion dollars on Comanche.

> give me a good, practical reason and I may listen.

If we don' go, we die. If we do go, we get rich, and our culture and speciesis immortal.

Why is this a difficult decision?

[r9etb]

You seem to be claiming that it's cheap to get to space, and to establish a meaningful human presence there. That's ridiculous. Sorry -- your position does not merit further debate.

[orionblamblam]

> You seem to be claiming that it's cheap to get to space, and to establish a meaningful human presence there. That's ridiculous.

Ah, the magic of the false strawman arguement. First you claim, incorrectly, that it'll cost trillions, then you claim that I said it'll be cheap... *right* *after* I said it wouldn't.

DU will love you as one of their own.

[Dark Knight]

I ran through this thread and spotted one thing missing. By international agreement, no one can own stuff in space.

I you find a way to Ceres, mine it, and bring it back to wherever it is useful, it can never be yours. Even if your risk was tremendous, in life and capital, it is still owned by the UN and no one in particular.

We know what three factors promote prosperity in nations, and I believe they happen everywhere a trading may happen.

1) Strong private property rights
2) Low taxes
3) Economic freedom (you can trade with who you please)

Until those things are established for space, economic arguments don't apply.

That does not prevent countries that don't play nice from taking space from us. China and India may have plans. Once they are there, who's going to enforce the UN agreement?

DK

[orionblamblam]

> Even if your risk was tremendous, in life and capital, it is still owned by the UN ...

Simple. Drop the mining slag on the UN. Problem solved.

[Dark Knight]

Cool!

DK

PS I've always thought the WTC should be built bigger and better, with the UN as the top 50 floors...

Just to see if they really are serious.

[r9etb]

Ah, the magic of the false strawman arguement.

This from the fellow who said I was "falsely inflating the number of zeros."

Tell you what, pal -- you tell me how much you think it will cost to get your little project going.

[orionblamblam]

> This from the fellow who said I was "falsely inflating the number of zeros."

You said "trillions" of dollars. That's utter BS.

> you tell me how much you think it will cost to get your little project going.

A decent return to the Moon program can be had for ten to twenty billion, and a manned Mars program for certainly less than twenty billion more, building upon the lunar program infrastructure. Both such programs would result in infrastructure capable of continual, permanent manned presense. Once that's in place, it's a matter of maintenance and reasoned evolution... well within the capabilities of NASA's *current* budget. Force them to do competative bidding, and prices will plummet.