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.
Perhaps this gentleman would prefer the government spend it's $$ on the flavored and colored condoms mentioned in a previous article this evening. Personally I prefer the vaccum of space for our $$ even if we never find anything or benefit in any manner. Or maybe we could find little green men---I know, it's a bad joke.
That's a crock.
1 - "Very short sighted ...."
Sorry, I must disagree. Going to the moon or mars with rockets does not make sense. The money wasted should be spent on exploring new methods of propulusion which harness energy efficiently.
With a trillion dollar investment, we could invent a workable fusion reactor. We could invent new propulsion systems which would revolutionize economics of transportation, including space transportation.
Men Going to Mars with rockets is a bad investment. How about (to use an old catch phrase) invest in new methods for making buggy whips more efficiently?
This number has been debunked 500 billion times.
Sooner or later, space industry will catch on. Someone this century is going to be the Bill Gates of space and start the Microsoft of space transportation.
They will come up with a successful system for getting humans and cargo into low earth orbit and they will make billions.
Project Orion could have landed a 1,000 ton installation on the moon 40 years ago.
Plus a bonus of energy independence here on earth.
BUMP
I totally agree with this article.
Man requires gravity to survive and not just any old gravity, it has to be exactly the same force as on the Earth.
A manned space voyage to Mars is a planned suicide mission for the crew not to mention a huge money sink.
I love Star Trek but its a modern fairy tale. Face it, man was made for Earth and there is no other planet close by like it.
Look at Burt Rutan...
I know.. Some people just like to bash NASA, however , when it comes to overall spending, we have spent more on social programs than on NASA in the past 30 years.
Naw it is easy to bash NASA and the space program..
Money not spent for scientific endeavors gets flushed down the black hole of social welfare.
Scientific projects at this scale always bring with them scientific advances that help us all.
Sad to say, the only way to reign in spending on the black hole of social welfare is to spend it on projects other than those directed towards the black hole of social welfare.
Redesign with upgrades /jk
Bottom line: NASA expanded the amount of risk that they considered "acceptable" in order to keep the bucks down.
Agreed. Until we can manufacture artifical gravity, long term space travel is best suited for the robots. Besides, robots are cheap to build and can work non-stop. Thats not to say that humans shouldn't explore the other planets, its just admitting that we don't have all the answers yet.
It's called a centrifuge. The movie 2010 showed one very well. It was an area on a spaceship in which people live on the inside of a moving circle. It was also described in the book "Ringworld" in which the ring is so many miles wide that it is hard to see the ring unless you look.
There are many reasons to push toward a manned mission to mars that would benefit us greatly:
Suspended Animation - If we could suspend victims of wrecks and other catastrophes until they get to surgery and treatment, the prognosis may be far better, possibly saving lives.
Fungal and Bacterial management - Long term fungal and bacterial invasions are a real problem in long term enclosed spaces. Research on how these are managed in our present environment may lead to medical breakthroughs as well as make it possible to live in space.
Propulsion - Current technologies are based upon reaction drives. Rockets or Nuclear fission drives which spew out mass for propulsion in space. Research into new forms of propulsion may find means that are not based on reaction, perhaps giving us nonpolluting means of transportation, not only in space, but on earth.
Food- How to feed people for long periods of time. Todays food technology depends on nature and storage, but long term storage of foods as in a Mars mission may not be adequate. Means of producing food without earths supportive environment will be critical to Space Stations as well as new colonies. Designing plants and animals to provide food in new environments for colonization will be essential and tell us much about the current designs.
No- I think a mission to Mars is exactly the way to go for the United States. Breakthroughs in technology are required for us to stay completive in a global economy. Just as JFKs mission to the moon drove technology and our nation as the leader in many ways, President is right to set a goal post into the future. John F. Kennedy was not wrong in setting the goal post high.
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.