Maybe relevant ping.
Posted on 12/01/2004 4:42:44 PM PST by KevinDavis
As entertainment, I have always particularly enjoyed any television show or movie about space voyage. There’s something compelling about a group of people, dependent on a space ship to carry them to or from danger. It is, as any Star Trek fan will tell you, “the final frontier.” It is also largely absurd. Particularly when it involves billions of dollars this nation can ill afford to throw at a space program that robots could perform better than people.
Recently, I read an article by William Tucker, “The Sober Realities of Manned Space Flight”, that was published in the December 2004 edition of The American Enterprise magazine. Tucker began by noting that President Bush’s suggestion of a 280 million-mile manned space flight to Mars was a good idea. It is, in fact, an astonishingly bad idea, but even Presidents have a right to have bad ideas. “A quick NASA calculation,” noted Tucker, “revealed that the Mars effort would cost nearly $500 billion over 30 years.” Now take that figure and double it. Any estimate like that which is provided by a government agency—any agency—is usually wrong by a factor of two, three or higher.
I was quickly reminded of the spectacular and tragic failures of two Space Shuttles, one when it was launched and the second when it was returning to Earth. “The Space Shuttle was originally supposed to break even and fly every two weeks,” said Greg Klerkx, the author of “Lost in Space”, a critique of NASA. Instead, “it ended up costing $500 million per launch, and flying four or five times a year.” You should think of the Space Shuttle as a very expensive truck used to ferry cargo to the International Space Station.
Even the space stations, first Skylab, then the Russian’s Salyut and Mir, failed to lead to the development of larger facilities manned by dozens of scientists and others who would learn what it would take to create entire space colonies. Nor, with good reason, did we ever return to the Moon.
Today’s International Space Station, conceived in 1984, cost taxpayers $11 billion by 1992 and was still on the drawing board! At that point, the Clinton administration brought in the Russians to help, scaled down the project, and by a single vote in 1993, the House threw another $13 billion at it. The first stage was lifted into orbit in 1995 and, as Tucker notes, “when completed, the ISS will hold six astronauts. The two in residence now spend 85 percent of their time on construction and maintenance. In essence, the US is spending billions so that two astronauts can build a space shed.” By the time it’s finished, it will cost an estimated $150 billion.
Why didn’t we return to the Moon? Why aren’t there huge space stations? As Tucker points out, the experiments on the long-term effects of life in zero gravity demonstrate that humans do not belong in space. “The news has not been good. Muscles atrophy quickly and—for reasons yet unknown—the human body does not manufacture bone tissue in space.” Moreover, the Moon “is a barren oxygen-less desert.” Want to see a desert? We have them right here on Earth.
Humans returning from any extended time in space have the consistency of Jell-O. They are virtually helpless and take days to recover from the experience. Now think about the suggestion by President Bush that we send astronauts on an 18-month journey to Mars. Not only would their bodies suffer ill effects, they would be exposed to huge doses of cosmic radiation. We’ve already managed to kill two Space Shuttle crews, how many more times do we have to do this before we decide to abandon this bad and very expensive idea?
Much of what is required to launch and maintain those machines we send into Earth orbit can be and is done without using Space Shuttles. They have become the equivalent of trolley cars. Trolleys are useful on the sharp inclines of San Francisco streets and picturesque in New Orleans. I’ve been on both. They’re slow and most people still drive their own cars around these cities.
It is the unmanned probes that have been the most successful ventures of NASA and therein lay several simple truths. (1) Humans are neither designed, nor intended to function in outer space and (2) technology permits us to do all the exploration we need to at this point in time. (3) Space probes are far less costly than Space Shuttles that have to be rebuilt from scratch every time they fly. (4) They are far less expensive. (5) No one gets killed.
At this point, I am sure there are those who want to speak poetically of the need to explore outer space by sending manned expeditions “because it is there” or on the chance that there is intelligent life “out there” with which we might come in contact. If it is intelligent, it already knows that the Earth runs red with the blood of its habitants every day as humans kill one another for political or religious reasons and we animals eat one another. Moreover, despite some lovely beaches and spectacular mountain ranges, large areas of the Earth are not the most hospitable places for the humans and other creatures that inhabit it.
So let me suggest that we not waste more billions on NASA’s Space Shuttles and International Space Station. Let’s not go to the Moon again or even think about going to Mars. It’s a really dumb idea. Those privately funded space vehicles will cost you $200,000 a seat to float around for a few minutes or look out the window and see the Earth floating and spinning.
Like we say in New Jersey, forget about it. What I really want is an automobile that will run on salt water. We have plenty of that.
Da Moon? Mahs? Fuggedaboudit!
I'll get there first with my HDTV and IMAX cameras. Then your trip, if it ever happens, will be yesterdays's news. Free enterprise wins.
I think it's safe to say we won't heed this advice. Reminds me of the NYT saying spaceflight was imposible about 4 years before Sputnik launched.
This guy is not only short-sighted, he's way behind the times. Or does he think that we'll still be using 1970's era tech in the future? The X-Prize was a spectacular demonstration that government beuracracies and saying "It's too hard" can't stand in the way of human imagination and initiative.
I agree with you.. I posted this article cause there are some people who has that attitude..
That is the problem I have with the anti-human in space crowd. They think all we are going to use is current technology. That is wrong. We are looking for ways to develop new technology to get there faster and safer. Yes it was horrible that 14 people died, but we most go on.. I hate to sound cruel, but accidents do happen.
This piece? Forget about it.
Good evening.
"You can go first!"
Two space threads on the same night.
Send me before I get too old.
Michael Frazier
oops, same thread.
Maybe I'm already too old.
Michael Frazier
The closest you or I will ever get to the planets my friend, is an HDTV or IMAX film. :)
I just posted this piece for comedy relief...
I have decided to join the protest against sending a beam of light around the world to honor Einstein Year next year. This project would involve 100,000 people and take quite a bit of time, but would also encourage the young to ignore the effects of light pollution of the night sky. We should be more environmentally conscious. Don't smoke, chew.
Maybe relevant ping.
Somebody ought to sit down and figure out all the benefits in medicine,technology etc that came out of the space program.
That list would be one of those lists that keeps getting longer the more you look.
Think about how often a new product is touted as having come from NASA or the space program. That "evergreen" lubricant for cars is the latest I've heard of.
In the great tradition of explorers past, wouldn't it make sense to send a scout first, to bare the brunt of the risks. A scout who could send back HDTV and IMAX videos of the new world to wow and rally the masses, for what will certainly be a much more expensive, risky and difficult mission of sending humans there. All we have managed to put on Mars so far is a Tonka toy.
I mean, don't we have to sell this kind of enterprise, one that costs so much, will take so long, and has few tangible benefits to the tax payers who will be bank rolling it? Don't they have to buy in to this? I've seen the Mars exploration simulations, but they are cartoonish and make believe. Nothing beats the real thing.
I'm all for manned space exploration. In fact, I think we should be looking for habitable planets in other solar systems to travel too. But unless you have a blank check from the government, you're going to have to sell it. And robotic HDTV and IMAX cameras are the best way to do that, by taking the financiers, the tax payers, on a virtual trip into space with your robotic scouts to kindle their imaginations. Then they'll open their checkbooks.
Certainly this makes sense as an interim step to a manned mission. And there are residual benefits. The propulsion system for the robotics could be the same for the manned flight. And the robotics developed could be used to prepare Mars for the arrival of the manned flight.
Can I be a consultant. I'm not cheap, but I can be had.
{you both should be proud!}
If one wants to talk about waste, look no further than Boston's "Big dig" it cost $14.6 billion for 7.8 miles of underground roadway. That's over $50 for each man, woman and child in the United States.
All so Bostonians don't have to wait in traffic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.