Where No Robot Has Gone Before

National Review Online ^ | February 3, 2003 | Rand Simberg

[NonZeroSum]

Maybe this will be the wake-up call we need for sensible space policy.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

bump fer later

[Frank_Discussion]

One would hope...

[marron]

Whoever leads in the development of space technologies is going to own the next century. If that is someone other than the US, we will take our place on the shelf of has-been countries right next to Britain.

Right now the competition is still fairly open. Any country, or company, willing to invest at the right point can leapfrog its way to a place in the sun, ahead of all of us.

But space technology is never really going to take off, or bear fruit, until it opens up to private actors, companies, investors, entreprenuers. And that isn't going to happen until some mission brings home some interesting core samples from some neighboring body.

I envision a two-track program as being the best we can do. A slow track, as we slowly develop the technologies for maintaining a permament human presence in orbit, and hopefully very soon on the moon, and improving the technologies for the heavy lifting into orbit, and higher speed propulsion.

In parallel, we should be developing the robots that will bring back the core samples from the Moon, from Mars, from the near asteroids. It will just take a couple of interesting samples to blow the lid off this thing.

Until that happens, it will take government money to seed the research. If we don't do it, someone else will, and our grandkids will be working for them. Probably washing their cars, and cleaning their houses.

[KevinDavis]

We don't need robots to do all of the exploration. I agree for more privatization of space exploration. There is a lot of companies that want to do it. If we don't get off our collective butts and stop worrying about the here and now and start worrying about the future, America will become a second rate nation.

[demosthenes the elder]

very good. someone has noticed the elephant.

[Man of the Right]

I agree with the author's key point: time to decide space exploitation/exploration goals. I would add by society, not just the NASA lobby.

Astronomical distances, technology, and lack of public support render the current program fantastical.

[deadmenvote]

but

yes, we have superman

[ARCADIA]

I vote we explore and conquer (and btw lay claim). Without property rights there will be no private exploitation.

[NonZeroSum]

Ping.

[RightWhale]

Whoever leads in the development of space technologies is going to own the next century. If that is someone other than the US, we will take our place on the shelf of has-been countries

And the century after. Has-been? America would quickly move to second-rate country status if it were to drop manned space exploration. That won't happen. NASA will emerge stronger after this disaster, and the space program should gain a fresh and vigorous goal. We have to reach out to the moon again, and to Mars, that's what should be done.

[RightWhale]

Without property rights there will be no private exploitation.

That's right.

There is next to no private exploitation of celestial resources. There is probably a good reason why not, and it isn't the lack of transportation. It is the lack of private property rights. No private investor will invest without guarantee of ownership of whatever is developed, and so we are stuck until it is possible to claim celestial resources.

[Brett66]

The expansion of humans into space to live should be the official goal of NASA. It should be in their mission statement, but their is a blindness to the obvious and it's been that way since it's inception. The conquering or colonization of space is what those astronauts died for, not to study ant colonies in microgravity or float around in LEO in a space station that leads to nowhere.

[discostu]

While I'm not against robotic exploration we must keep in mind that it's not the goal. The goal of space exploration has to be to get enough PEOPLE off the rock for human civilization to continue without earth. There's a mathimatical certainty that eventually earth will cease to be habitable, could be a rock (which happens periodically), could be pole reversal (which happens periodically), could be the sun stops being our friend (which happens eventually); if we're still stuck on the rock when that day comes all of our accomplishments amount to zero. Robotic exploration could accelerate exploration, but we must never forget that eventually we not only have to send people we need to send a lot of them.

[discostu]

They didn't emerge stronger after Challenger. The post Challenger NASA was timid and fearful, and that's continued to this day. Remember it was only a few months ago that NASA released their study on Mars exploration that basically boiled down to "it would be dangerous, so we probably shouldn't". I hope NASA emerges with some cajones but the historical evidence says they get more chicken every time something bad happens.

[RightWhale]

The post Challenger NASA was timid and fearful

Absolutely correct! Space travel is inherently dangerous; there is no way to guarantee perfect safety. Even so, there is no shortage of volunteers to take on these missions. I would fly the Space Shuttle right now; I assume you would, too. We really have to get on with exploration of space, going back to the moon, going to Mars, mining asteroids. Big goals. The ISS is okay for what it is, but it isn't a big goal. We can debate which to do first, Mars, moon, or asteroids, but we ought to pick one or all and get on with it!

[discostu]

The ISS, IMHO, should be a base station for further exploration. We should have one set of craft for getting people from earth to the ISS and set to go from the ISS to the various "targets". I think one of the barriers we've had is that while the shuttle is great for earth to orbit and back (inspite of the weekend's events let's keep in mind that it really does have a good track record, not great but good) that's about all it's good for, can't land on rough terrain, can't take off without the booster. Meanwhile the old style landers are no good for earth to orbit. Instead of seeing this as weakness it should be the source of the plan.

[RightWhale]

The original plan was quite a bit bigger than what we ended up with. There was the Space Shuttle, a cheap way to get to orbit and back. There was the Space Station, something a lot more capable and bigger than the ISS. There were other craft, some capable of going to the moon and back like an express shuttle, a moon base, and perhaps a station orbiting the moon. We built only the first part of the system. The system could be expanded to include regular service to and from Mars the same way.

There were several alternative designs for the system, but it wasn't ever intended to go just between earth surface and LEO.

The complete system was a good idea, lots of redundancy, pretty good safety, and excellent efficiency in the cost area compared to the one-off missions we have conducted ever since Apollo.

[jimkress]

NASA is an anachronism, a dinosaur.

You want safe, cost effective space travel? Commercialize space exploration. Get rid of NASA and the associated onerous government regulations on space flight by private companies/ individuals..

Space is a place, not a program.