Dennis Wingo says that we need a compelling reason for a space program, and we don’t currently have it. I agree. This is the space policy debate that we need to have, and never really have, at least not since the early post-Sputnik period. There is no way to come up with the right transportation architecture/infrastructure if we don’t understand the requirements, and we don’t really understand why we’re doing it. People persist in thinking that the VSE was a destination (the moon, then Mars), and then proceed to argue about whether or not it was the right destination. But it was, or should have been, much more than that — it was a statement that we are no longer going to be confined to low earth orbit, as we had been since 1972. But the failure was in articulating why we should move beyond LEO. Dennis has done as good a job of that here as anyone to date.
I would also note that it’s hard to generate enthusiasm for spending money, or astronauts’ lives, when we don’t know why they’re doing it. As I wrote a couple years ago:
Our national reaction to the loss of a shuttle crew, viewed by the proverbial anthropologist’s Martian (or perhaps better yet, a Vulcan), would seem irrational. After all, we risk, and lose, people in all kinds of endeavors, every day. We send soldiers out to brave IEDs and RPGs in Iraq. We watch firefighters go into burning buildings. Even in more mundane, relatively safe activities, people die — in mines, in construction, in commercial fishing. Why is it that we get so upset when we lose astronauts, who are ostensibly exploring the final frontier, arguably as dangerous a job as they come? One Internet wag has noted that, “…to judge by the fuss that gets made when a few of them die, astronauts clearly are priceless national assets — exactly the sort of people you should not be risking in an experimental-class vehicle.”
What upset people so much about the deaths in Columbia, I think, was not that they died, but that they died in such a seemingly trivial yet expensive pursuit. They weren’t exploring the universe — they were boring a multi-hundred-thousand-mile-long hole in the vacuum a couple hundred miles above the planet, with children’s science-fair experiments. We were upset because space isn’t important, and we considered the astronauts’ lives more important than the mission. If they had been exploring another hostile, alien planet, and died, we would have been saddened, but not shocked — it happens in the movies all the time. If they had been on a mission to divert an asteroid, preventing it from hitting the planet (a la the movie Armageddon, albeit with more correspondence to the reality of physics), we would have mourned, but also been inured to their loss as true national heroes in the service of their country (and planet). It would be recognized that what they were doing was of national importance, just as is the job of every soldier and Marine in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But space remains unimportant, and it will continue to be as long as we haven’t gotten the public and polity to buy in on a compelling “why.”
To every one who claims (whether gleefully or alarmingly that “Chinese will settle space”, my question is: Why do you think Chinese and not Russians? Russia has essentially same political and economic systems as China (labels are a bit different), and a great deal of head start. Yet nobody seems to expect Russian tricolor on any NEO’s any time soon.
I think the answer is, to put it bluntly, wishful thinking. By now it is plonkingly obvious that Russian manned program has gone into space as far as it is going to go, and no further, because they have no compelling “why” any more than US. China did not reach that stage yet, so space enthusiasts can pin their hopes on it — so far. Until the question “why?” is asked in Mandarin, and no compelling answer is given.
If anything, both Russia and China have a pretty compelling reason NOT to settle space. The last thing a repressive government that tolerates no dissent (and Russia is already back in that state) needs is a place for dissenters to escape.
E D Maner:
1. Space-Based solar power is a solved problem. It is environmentally benign, financially productive, and politically useful: Play Nice, or we turn off your power.
And that requires people in space… why?
Objectively, there is no way SPS could be built without astronaut labor, but the less of it, the less it will cost. And if SPS could be run entirely unmanned — which is not at all inconceivable, — it gets rid of the most complex, most costly, and most unreliable part of the design.
2. A moon base is the ultimate military High Ground; Who else would you trust _not_ to use it to throw rocks at US ?
With enormous expense, China builds a manned Moon base with electromagnetic cannon a la Heinlein. The effort involevd is huge and impossible to conceal from few small spy satellites NRO puts around the Moon at a tiny fraction of the cost. At considerably greater cost, yet still a fraction of what China spends, USAF develops and places in Earth-Moon L1 point several black, cold, radar-invisible satellites armed with high-velocity missiles. At the first sign of Chinese cannon powering up, missiles activate. Being entirely robotic, they accelerate at 100 g’s or more, and precision-guide directly into cannon’s mouth. If Chinese manage to send off a few rocks before their cannon is destroyed, US knows exactly where they are going, and has three days to evacuate target sites and to retaliate. Sorry, but warfare even on Earth is moving away from big bangs, and toward small robots. In space warfare value of robots is squared.
Eventually going to space will be cheap enough that we will need no consensus, and people will go for their own reasons. Robots will be the key, with small semi-autonomous machines mining near-Earth comet cores and bringing water (rocket fuel) and other materials back to Earth orbit to be shaped (by other machines) into large habitats. That will give humans somewhere safe and interesting to visit, and provide an open-ended space infrastructure.
if SPS could be run entirely unmanned — which is not at all inconceivable, — it gets rid of the most complex, most costly, and most unreliable part of the design.
That’s ideology speaking. Unmanned air vehicles are not more reliable than piloted aircraft. Quite the contrary. The most reliable systems are those which use humans and machines together, taking advantage of the strengths of both.
Even today, unmanned missions are not always less costly. For example, you can buy a manned circumlunar flight essentially off the shelf for around $100 million. (Yes, it uses Russian Soyuz hardware, but that’s beside the point.) NASA’s unmanned lunar orbiters cost around $500 million. Add a lunar lander to that Soyuz flight and the total is still likely to be less than $1 billion, which was NASA’s estimate for an unmanned lander.
With enormous expense, China builds a manned Moon base with electromagnetic cannon a la Heinlein.
The real danger is that China might find a way to conduct space activities without enormous expense. China is never going to build a militarily significant base using the Soyuz clone that some people wet their pants over. Divine Dragon is another matter, however. A fully reusable spaceplane would completely change the economics of space operations. If China is the first nation to build and deploy a military spaceplane, it could give them complete operational control of outer space.
If China is the first nation with cheap access to space, it will be impossible for the USAF to do anything at “a tiny fraction of the cost.” Forget the Moon. Suppose China deploys an orbital system that can take out a US aircraft carrier on the high seas? What would that mean for the balance of power?
USAF develops and places in Earth-Moon L1 point several black, cold, radar-invisible satellites armed with high-velocity missiles.
That sounds fine, except the US hasn’t developed such missiles nor do we have any firm plans to. George W. Bush wasn’t officially against space weapons; he just didn’t want to bother funding them. Barak Obama is officially against them (although who knows how that could change in the next few years based on world events).
Sorry, but warfare even on Earth is moving away from big bangs, and toward small robots.
Don’t believe all the marketing hype. The news media simply regurgitates the stuff defense contractors give them. UAVs still account for a small fraction of all combat missions (and UAV losses are orders of magnitude higher than piloted aircraft). They play a vital role in certain missions but they aren’t about to replace piloted aircraft anytime soon.
If the entire moon were made of platinum, that still might not justify developing an infrastructure for delivering any.
Well said, which is why I make the point about living in space and self interest.
…people will go for their own reasons.
Exactly. I also think greed is a perfectly good reason. Consider two planets:
One has the wealth of a planet.
The other has the wealth of a solar system.
I’d rather be in the second one.
The wealth of a galaxy is beyond the horizon until we exploit our solar system more fully.
I can see it now, “We’ve filled the whole galaxy. What economic incentive could there possibly be for going to another?”
This quote hits the nail right on the head. Consider what it took for us to seriously consider the cost-benefit of air travel – the largest loss of life on American soil in 150 years. That’s not because air travel is cooler than space, or that it “inspires congress” as W might say, or that it provides educational opportunities for school children.
It’s because air travel is useful.
Why is air travel useful? I would say it’s because there are economic activities at each end of the flight. With space all the economic activity happens at only one end of the line.
To define a line you need two points.
Ed Wright, and Dave Gore,
thanks for the support; Wish I were as polite as you two 🙂
Let me try…
The US has had no serious competition for >50 years;
The Europeans never really recovered from WWII.
The Japanese, well, they gave it a good try :\
The USSR was merely “Mexico with Missiles”.
Russia is not even that.
As a result, here we are, at the beginning of a Depression
which may continue for Obama’s entire first term in office,
or even into the term of his successor, if O. does not get
the US back in the business of selling things other nations
want to buy, and paying down our _huge_ foreign debt.
China was waging economic warfare on its rivals before
there was such a place as Europe, let alone the US of A.
They are developing a Blue Water Navy, to enforce their
long planned economic takeover of S.E. Asia.
They also are looking at the East Coast of Africa as an
area for development – after the native issue is settled.
They do not want the US to interfere, and are well aware that without space-based assets, we cannot; That is why
they are developing a capacity for operations in space.
Believe otherwise if it makes you feel safer.
China wants you to feel safe.
Development of a _manned_ military capability to defend,
repair and rapidly replace space based assets is a national security issue.
This justifies the Commander in Chief ordering an end-run around the political/bureaucratic opposition/delay that has blocked civilian efforts to reduce cost-to-orbit (CTO).
Start with the reduced-cost Shuttle replacement proposed
by Rebels within the Evil Empire of NASA.
Offer prizes to private companies for _demonstrations_ of
further reductions, reinforce success, and reinvest the political capital gained in further advances.
Keep in mind Holy Heinlein’s observation, that earth orbit, is half-way to anywhere in the solar system.
There is money to be made out there.
OR make sure your children learn to speak Chinese, with
special emphasis on the grammatical forms used by
servants when addressing their masters.