Posted on 02/02/2003 3:42:54 PM PST by Pokey78
The loss of the US space shuttle Columbia has renewed debate about the future of space exploration, with many suggesting that manned space missions pose an “unacceptable risk”. To which a considered response might be: go paint it on the wall of your cave.
All attempts at discovery involve risk. It is in the nature of experiments and breaking new ground that nobody knows exactly what will happen. There is no such thing as a free ride to the future, and the path of progress has often proved steep and bloody. The alternative, however, is to hang around at the bottom.
The great naval explorers took their lives in their hands to sail the unknown world, at a time when doom-mongers declared that they would fall off the edge of the flat Earth. Marie Curie, whose experiments with radioactivity led to treatment for cancer but also killed her, is only the most famous self-sacrificing scientist.
According to one American authority, with two catastrophic failures in 113 missions the space shuttle mission has a success rate of 98 per cent. Yet the risk of rocket travel cannot be eliminated. As the professor puts it: “You’re riding a stick of dynamite into space. We know how to do that, but sticks of dynamite can explode.” The seven astronauts who died when Columbia exploded were aware of the risks. They considered those risks worth taking to further causes in which they believed.
Yet society seems increasingly uncomfortable with risk and uncertainty. Ours is a cautious, risk-averse, blame-and-claim culture. Never mind Marie Curie; many now consider it unacceptable to sacrifice so much as a monkey or a mouse for medical science.
In 1969 the Moon landing was celebrated as a high point of human achievement. Now the astronauts are accused of polluting or raping the Moon — or worse, faking the whole thing. In a debate on the problems of space exploration at the Royal Society in London last October, one British expert noted that, when Columbus left Portugal in search of the New World, his patrons at least knew that if he didn’t come back “nobody was going to sue anybody”.
When the space shuttle Challenger exploded in 1986, President Ronald Reagan declared that the space programme would not falter. “It is all part of taking a chance and expanding man's horizons,” Reagan said. “The future doesn’t belong to the faint-hearted. It belongs to the brave.” Despite these bold words, no space shuttle flew for almost three years, and newer, bigger missions stalled. After the loss of the Columbia, President George W. Bush, too, spoke about how space exploration must go on, led by “the inspiration of discovery and the longing to understand”. It remains to be seen what those words mean in practice. Bush’s attempt to depict the Old Testament prophet Isaiah as a pioneer of space exploration does not fill some of us with confidence.
Wider reactions to the Columbia disaster illustrate a powerful mood of pessimism and anti-exploration. Long before we knew what had caused the explosion, everybody began sky-writing instant interpretations of its “deeper meaning” in the space where Columbia should have been, projecting their own prejudices on to the wreckage.
Among the “I-told-you-so” tendency there are signs of some almost revelling in the tragedy. Soon after Columbia exploded, Canadian television was reportedly discussing whether the mission was another sign of American “arrogance” and “overconfidence” in the run-up to war with Iraq. One liberal British newspaper’s Washington correspondent linked the disaster to the attacks of September 11. “The empire is not invincible,” he wrote. “America builds the tallest buildings in the world but they got knocked down. America conquers the heavens, but the spacecraft fragments into fiery shards, incinerating a crew travelling at six times the speed of sound.” Presumably such people would be happier if Americans limited their horizons to building bungalows and flying a kite.
The sustained campaign to talk down aspirations and talk up risks has affected public perceptions, encouraging many to react defensively to the loss of Columbia. On Sunday The New York Times noted that “for Americans already grappling with a confluence of threatening events, the instinctive reaction was ‘What next?’” American television coverage of Columbia mixed up a confused cocktail of references — to September 11, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Israel, the Holocaust — that seemed to reinforce the notion of an uncertain nation feeling itself under siege, topped off by reports of “toxic” debris raining from the skies “like a scene from The War of the Worlds”.
As our American friends might say, let’s get real. This is about a fatal accident during a space flight. There is no need to burden the tragedy with all our petty prejudices. From what little we know, the Columbia disaster looks less like a symptom of arrogance than of a lack of ambition, of trying to run a space exploration programme on the (relatively) cheap using outdated technology.
The priority now should be to work out how best to push further and faster into space. Even some pro-exploration scientists are suggesting limits on manned space flights, claiming that the science could be done with less risk by robots. But even if there really were no scientific reason for sending people into space, it would still be important that they boldly go to, say, Mars, to revive the flagging spirit of exploration.
Our attitude to space matters most as a reflection of how we see ourselves on Earth. If that makes a positive response to Columbia important in America, it is more urgent in Britain, where we apparently don’t have enough true grit to keep a motorway free of snow. We are in danger of creating a world where, while only a few of us are in the gutter, none of us is looking at the stars.
There are nearly limitless resources in space: precious metals, volitile chemicals, radioactives, water, energy, and so on. There are many useful things that can be made in a zero-g environment, but to mass produce them will require that heavy industry be present in earth orbit. Without infrastructure like asteroid/lunar mines and fuel produciton centers in place, exporation and industrialization will likely be prohibitively expensive for business indefinitely. The time when government will be eclipsed in the realm of space will be when the first orbital dockyards come online, and freight can be easily moved between the moon, near earth asteroids, and orbital factories, refineries, and foundries. Until that time, the only group with the money, power, and clout to drive a space program is the US manned space program.
Certainly NASA isn't perfect; it's research and regulatory sections should be seperated so that they can be made more efficient and accountable. It is overrun by bureaucrats. However, at the present time, NASA is as necessary as the Department of Defense with regards to the future prosperity and safety of our nation. The United States of America is currently the dominant power in space, but that will not be so forever if we waste the advantages we have today.
To play ostrich is to proudly follow in the footsteps of such "great thinkers" as Walter Mondale and Barbra Boxer, who I am sure all FReepers regard with the appropriate amount of warmth. ;oP
What technological advances have been specifically brought about by the manned space program that otherwise would not have been made? Inquiring minds want to know.
There are nearly limitless resources in space: precious metals, volitile chemicals, radioactives, water, energy, and so on.
Then why aren't they exploited now? I'll answer that one. They cost too much. The cost to obtain them is several orders of magnitude greater than their value. If you had an asteroid of pure gold orbiting near Jupiter it wouldn't be worth a thing because the cost to get it here would far outweigh any value it might have. In addition, all the data I've seen just points to rocks making up most of what is in space. We have rocks here.
There are many useful things that can be made in a zero-g environment, but to mass produce them will require that heavy industry be present in earth orbit.
Just exactly what useful things would these be? Again please be specific.
Without infrastructure like asteroid/lunar mines and fuel produciton centers in place, exporation and industrialization will likely be prohibitively expensive for business indefinitely.</>
Almost right. the last part "will likely be prohibitively expensive for business indefinitely" is assuredly true.
... the only group with the money, power, and clout to drive a space program is the US manned space program.
And where does this money come from. It is involuntarilyl extracted from earnings of every American who pays taxes. They aren't given the choice as to whether or not they want to fund a cynocal transfer of wealth from their pockets into the glutted coffers of the aerospace industry and the bank accounts of NASA's bureaucrats. Far better if it were left to be spent by the people who earned it.
http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html
Also, your data on asteroid composition is a bit off. A very large percentage of asteroids are of metallic composition. Some are in orbit of earth itself, though only for a few decades or centuries. Here is a site that desciribes the basics of asteroid classification/composition.
http://www.astronomytoday.com/astronomy/asteroids.html
Also, it would be profitiable to do a search on NASA's homepage on new propulsion techniqes, or even here. Especially nuclear powered engines. You may be suprised!
This page has many links to articles about useful zero-g industries. In addition, one should consider the ease with which one can build vehicles when they don't have to deal with the rigors of atmosphere. Especially freighters and other large cargo-carrying craft.
http://www.panix.com/~kingdon/space/manuf.html
If you've checked the things that have been put up by me and other freepers, you'll begin to see that space isn't necessarily a money losing proposition at all. NEVER assume technology will be static--that is a common tactic of the envirals who worry about us running out of crude oil in 2150. It's like 18th century people worrying about what they'll do in 2000 when the whale oil runs out! he he
As for taxpayer dollars, yeah, paying taxes suck. Taxes should be as low as physically possible. Yet the government does have jobs it is constitionally required by law to do. National defense and infrastructure development are often cited by libertarians as some the few things they approve of, and the manned space program, with all of its potential benefit, definitely fits the bill. Compare NASA (15 billion/yr) with DOD (~350 billion/yr). It is a pittance, less than Gray Out's budget deficit.
I hope and pray that these things might change your mind just a little. :O)
FReepin cheers,
C13
It doesn't matter what asteroids are made of (and nothing on the astronomy site led me to believe that rock isn't the predominant component) the energy required to get them and bring them back is orders of magnitude too high for any practical use of the materials. Mars in particular is a big ball of dust and rock with no breathable air. It currently costs about $400,000,000 to send a one way robot probe. Just a robotic sample return would cost nearly 5 times as much. A hell of a lot of money to pay for a few kg of rock. Particularly when you consider that those dollars were extracted from people wwho worked hard for them, and would have much rather determined how to spend them themselves.
The Cassini mission to Saturn is another example of the energy requirements. The probe literally could not have carried enough fuel to climb up out of the sun's gravitational well if it weren't for the gravitational slingshot manuvers that NASA has done so well with.
People have been talking about exotic propulsion techniques since I was a kid - nuclear, etc. They remain just as far away now as they were then and that was a LONG time ago.
You say space is "not a losing proposition." Here we somewhat disagree. For the aerospace industries and NASA it is a clear winner. For the taxpayers who are forced to support this stuff it is a losing proposition that transfers vast quantities or wealth from those who earned it to those who lobbied for it.
There are few sustaneable reasons for going into space. Comsats and weather sats are two good reasons, but they don't require manned space flight. The entire industry is distorted by billions of plundered dollars being spent for things that are only wanted by a few how have used the police power of the state to confiscate the wealth of others to support their dreams.
Saying that it's only 15 billion dollars is somewhat disingenuous. I don't even have one billion dollars. Hell, I'd be happy with half a billion. This represents a very large sum in terms of what has been looted from the people who worked for it. I could buy a damn fine telescope and all the trimmings (at least in the 36" range) with what I've forceably contributed to NASA over the years. Speaking of telescopes, even the hubble is becoming obsolete. Ground based adaptive optics are outstripping Hubble resolution at 1/500 of the cost. The Keck telescopes were privately funded!
You haven't changed my mind, but I appreciate your enthusiasm even if it appears misplaced to me.
I like this writer's style.
Those valuable and brilliant people were engaged in a dream that you do not share.
So stay the hell out of their way!
Although I do not agree with you on this, I can respect the opinion because it has weight and is honest.
However, I have been happy that my tax money was used for this. If anything, I am very frustrated that we have not done more........Much more!
I would employ NASA to build orbiting satellites. Our military will arm them with laser weapons.
NATIONAL SECURITY! Real space exploration won't happen for another 200 years... if we humans are still around.
But I'm not a bit happy with it.
If anything, I am very frustrated that we have not done more........Much more!
You are free to spend every cent you make on space exploration. Just how much do you voluntarily contribute to NASA on an annual basis? What I object to is your buddies robbing me at gun point and sending my hard earned dollars to support NASA bureaucrats and their phoney "science"
We have rocks and deserts right here on earth, and ours have air! Yet for some strange reason the same people who are clamoring for a manned mission to Mars don't go and live in the Sonoran. I wonder why.
Watch as they add even more management after the latest tragedy.
I've read articles where terraforming Mars has been proposed. One article stated it would take 100 years, but the process seemed to make sense.
At a minimum, I'd like to see a lunar base operated by the United States.
Unmanned is the way to go. ARen't you sick of everything coming to a screeching halt for years when tragedy strikes? Build us some robots, and turn them loose by the dozens on Mars.
Not true. Ever hear of the NERVA? That was a working nuclear rocket engine in the 1960's.
From this site: http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2002-000144.html
An explanatory drawing of the NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application)thermodynamic nuclear rocket engine. The main objective of project Rover/NERVA was to develop a flight rated engine with 75,000 pounds of thrust. The Rover portion of the program began in 1955 when the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission's Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and the Air Force initially wanted the engine for missile applications. However, in 1958, the newly created NASA inherited the Air Force responsibilities, with an engine slated for use in advanced, long-term space missions. The NERVA portion did not originate until 1960 and the industrial team of Aerojet General Corporation and Westinghouse Electric had the responsibility to develop it. In 1960, NASA and the AEC created the Space Nuclear Propulsion Office to manage project Rover/NERVA. In the following decade, it oversaw a series of reactor tests: KIWI-A, KIWI-B, Phoebus, Pewee, and the Nuclear Furnace, all conducted by Los Alamos to prove concepts and test advanced ideas. Aerojet and Westinghouse tested their own series: NRX-A2 (NERVA Reactor Experiment), A3, EST (Engine System Test), A5, A6, and XE-Prime (Experimental Engine). All were tested at the Nuclear Rocket Development Station at the AEC's Nevada Test Site, in Jackass Flats, Nevada, about 100 miles west of Las Vegas. In the late 1960's and early 1970's, the Nixon Administration cut NASA and NERVA funding dramatically. The cutbacks were made in response to a lack of public interest in human spaceflight, the end of the space race after the Apollo Moon landing, and the growing use of low-cost unmanned, robotic space probes. Eventually NERVA lost its funding, and the project ended in 1973.
This makes my point. In fact it appears that exotic propulsion is farther away now than before. But all this is secondary to my main point that compusory funding of "sapce exploration" is just a cynical exercise in wealth transfer from the tapayers who worked for it to the aerospace industries and NASA bureaucrats who lobby for it. These people couldn't make a product or service that has a value on the open market (or choose not to) and resort to using the police power of government to confiscate wealth from the working populace.
Really? Do you think that those of us in the space program could not make a "product" elsewhere? I have been working with the space program for more than 22 years, and I have had the extreme privilege of working along side many a brilliant scientist/engineer.
I see you ignored this part of my statement. And you, of course, as part of the beneficiary group are totally objective.
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.