With yet another national commission on the subject being formed, Dennis Wingo has some thoughts.
13 thoughts on “Why Space?”
Comments are closed.
With yet another national commission on the subject being formed, Dennis Wingo has some thoughts.
Comments are closed.
We only ask “Why” because it’s expensive and taxpayers are expected to foot the bill. If the NewSpace companies get the cost low enough so that private enterprise takes over, I’m sure a number of people will switch to “Why the hell not?”.
I read Wingo’s book “Moonrush” a few years back.
His argument amounts to “Lunar resource development must be practical and profitable otherwise things will really suck.”
He may be right but the argument is not persuasive.
He may be right but the argument is not persuasive.
I would posit that for the larger country the argument is very persuasive, more so than the current arguments about scientific discovery. I have spent the last couple of years testing this theory on MSNBC Newsvine.
“I would posit that for the larger country the argument is very persuasive,”
So I characterized your argument accurately? I was afraid I might have been unfair.
“more so than the current arguments about scientific discovery.”
A low bar to be sure.
“I have spent the last couple of years testing this theory on MSNBC Newsvine.”
I would be willing to bet that Zubrin’s “The Case for Mars” outsold “Moonrush” by at least 20 to 1 and even outsells it today even though it’s been in print 10 years longer. Indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised if O’Neill’s “The High Frontier” was outselling “Moonrush” currently. And the impact of space advocates of all stripes was lost in the noise of last year’s campaign and this year’s political priorities.
I’m not trying to denigrate you or your book here, Dennis. After all, no one has even asked me to write a book. I’m just saying you’re not standing out from the pack and the pack is making very little impression.
I would be willing to bet that Zubrin’s “The Case for Mars” outsold “Moonrush” by at least 20 to 1 and even outsells it today even though it’s been in print 10 years longer. Indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised if O’Neill’s “The High Frontier” was outselling “Moonrush” currently. And the impact of space advocates of all stripes was lost in the noise of last year’s campaign and this year’s political priorities.
Oh I am quite sure that Zubies book is more popular among the Mars supporters. Mars is romantic and adventurous. However, the people that buy Bob’s book still do not represent the majority of people in this country.
It all depends on what pack you are talking about. Considering some of the venues that I have been speaking in these days and will be in the next few weeks, the packs that I am speaking to have far more clout than the Mars society. The fact that the pack that you are referring to is so limited in scope is at the core of why it is making so little impression.
This is why I am spending time in silicon valley rather than at space conferences these days.
Addendum
Ultimately, any vision of the future should have as its end point a better world. It is quite obvious that the malthusians and their latter day acolytes do not believe in this better world for all mankind. Since they have about 10,000 times more clout these days, presenting a positive alternative, a comparison/contrast, is apt to reach more people than endlessly debating Mars or the Moon or Asteroids at space conferences.
Dennis,
I agree 100% and have also stopped wasting time at space conferences or joining space societies which are just the same old folks recycling the same old ideas on the same old power points to the same old crowd who just discusses it among themselves. That is how the last 30 years have been wasted. The future of space is not preaching to the choir that is already rooted in its pet paradigm of Mars or bust, or “new space’ so tightly its blind to opportunities elsewhere while spinning their wheels in the mud.
The future is identifying the industries and challenges that space is able to address and then showing how space is the solution. That is how the comsat, GPS and remote sensing industries that compromise 75% of the $200 billion dollar plus space industry got started. And its how space resource development, space energy and space manufacturing industries will as well.
Tom
“Oh I am quite sure that Zubies book is more popular among the Mars supporters.”
That begs the question of *why* there are more Mars supporters than there are Wingo supporters. People aren’t born to be Mars or Wingo supporters.
“Mars is romantic and adventurous. However, the people that buy Bob’s book still do not represent the majority of people in this country.”
They just represent a greater number than those that buy your book.
“It all depends on what pack you are talking about. Considering some of the venues that I have been speaking in these days and will be in the next few weeks, the packs that I am speaking to have far more clout than the Mars society. The fact that the pack that you are referring to is so limited in scope is at the core of why it is making so little impression.”
I can only guess at Zubrin’s speaking schedule but I suspect that the venues he speaks at are just as impressive as the venues you speak at.
“This is why I am spending time in silicon valley rather than at space conferences these days.”
I’ll go out on a limb here and guess that Zubrin spends just as much time in silicon valley as do you.
“Ultimately, any vision of the future should have as its end point a better world.”
A necessary but not sufficient requirement. The bar is much higher than that.
“It is quite obvious that the malthusians and their latter day acolytes do not believe in this better world for all mankind. Since they have about 10,000 times more clout these days, presenting a positive alternative, a comparison/contrast, is apt to reach more people than endlessly debating Mars or the Moon or Asteroids at space conferences.”
But ultimately what you, I, or the Malthusians think is irrelevant. It is what we can demonstrate that matters. In “Moonrush” and elsewhere you assert that resources can be profitably extracted from the moon. Now this may be true or it may not be. (Or it may be true in some indefinite future but not at present.) But you give no rational basis for that assertion. You merely claim that it *must* be true or the world is heading for a Malthusian collapse or runaway greenhouse effect or another ice age. I submit that whether the world is heading for a Malthusian collapse or runaway greenhouse effect or another ice age is irrelevant to the issue of whether lunar resources can be profitably extracted.
An extreme example might better illustrate the point. Suppose an inventor claims that “unless we can find away around the first law of thermodynamics the world is heading for a Malthusian collapse or runaway greenhouse effect or another ice age. Therefore my perpetual motion machine has to work.” I think we would all agree that such an argument is irrational. I submit that to this point your arguments have been equally irrational. Of course it is far more likely that lunar resource extraction will be profitable than the first law of thermodynamics will have a loophole. My point is that you haven’t made that case. You’ve decided to forego an appeal to the head and gone to the heart instead. Much like Zubrin.
I can only guess at Zubrin’s speaking schedule but I suspect that the venues he speaks at are just as impressive as the venues you speak at.
You might be surprised that this is probably not the case. I have a much longer history in silicon valley that zubie does.
An extreme example might better illustrate the point. Suppose an inventor claims that “unless we can find away around the first law of thermodynamics the world is heading for a Malthusian collapse or runaway greenhouse effect or another ice age. Therefore my perpetual motion machine has to work.” I think we would all agree that such an argument is irrational. I submit that to this point your arguments have been equally irrational. Of course it is far more likely that lunar resource extraction will be profitable than the first law of thermodynamics will have a loophole. My point is that you haven’t made that case. You’ve decided to forego an appeal to the head and gone to the heart instead. Much like Zubrin.
Hmmm…..
How about telling me what you really think rather than just beating around the bush. I would counter that this sentence:
Of course it is far more likely that lunar resource extraction will be profitable than the first law of thermodynamics will have a loophole.
Lunar resource extraction is more related to economics and engineering while the first law of thermodynamics is related to fundamental physical principals. Therefore I would submit that upon inspection that your statement is the one that is irrational. One could further posit that your bias is toward forgetting the Moon and going straight to Mars. This has been the position at NASA that has resulted in the touch and go mentality in going to the Moon. In designing an architecture to do this touch and go, which requires a very large heavy lifter (Zubies Magnum for example), and the end result is massive overruns and a cancelled program.
Yes these are far more rational positions than mine. (not)
“Lunar resource extraction is more related to economics and engineering while the first law of thermodynamics is related to fundamental physical principals.”
Indeed, this is the case. Unfortunately, you have not made a case for lunar resource extraction in terms of economics and engineering. You would rather talk about Malthusian collapses, runaway greenhouse effects, and possible ice ages.
“Therefore I would submit that upon inspection that your statement is the one that is irrational. One could further posit that your bias is toward forgetting the Moon and going straight to Mars.”
You would be mistaken on this point. I don’t think either can be currently justified.
Indeed, this is the case. Unfortunately, you have not made a case for lunar resource extraction in terms of economics and engineering. You would rather talk about Malthusian collapses, runaway greenhouse effects, and possible ice ages.
Before a solution can be derived, the problem must be stated. Of course I did not talk about runaway greenhouse as that is horseshit. Guess what, an ice age is inevitable, that is unless you have figured out a way to change the last 2.8 million years of Earth’s history.
You would be mistaken on this point. I don’t think either can be currently justified.
It is your right to be wrong. We are just at the beginning of the discussion.
If you have read Moonrush it is the problem statement as well as the hypothesis related to asteroidal resources derived from the Moon. If you read the link that I provided to the LPSC paper from last year (google LPSC 2008, 2045.pdf) you will find that the leading asteroid impact modelers in the world agree with my hypothesis and have even provided boundaries for how much metal remains in the immediate vicinity of the crater.
The rest is just haggling over price. I am more than willing to do so there as well. Just in leveraging off of the crappy ESAS architecture I have laid out the first gleamings of independent capability for power generation and infrastructure on the lunar surface. Google the term (NNL06AE27P.pdf) to look at the history of lunar surface architectures and infrastructure.
Do you seriously think for one second that what you are demanding is possible to do in a short web article? At this point I am up to 400 pages between Moonrush and the NASA contract that I did in this area. How about you read my book, then read the NASA article, then read my chapter in Rick Tumlinson’s Return to the Moon, then read my chapter in the National Defense University’s book on space power theory, then come back to me with your questions. Other wise you are no more than a random internet troll throwing out objections just because you can.
I would dearly love to have the money to sit down for a year and write the next book but right now I just don’t have the time to do so.
“Other wise you are no more than a random internet troll throwing out objections just because you can.”
I apologize if I offended you, Dennis. I assure you that was not my intent.
I apologize if I offended you, Dennis. I assure you that was not my intent.
No problem but when you want me to solve the entire issue in a 500 word missive, it is a bit of a stretch. If you are interested in delving into the issue I have provided several of my own papers, books, chapters to allow you to see the picture from the historical as well as the forward looking perspective. Yes there are holes in the plan, but there are no miracles involved here, just straightforward engineering and of course the requirement that it be profitable not just something that it is done to solve some political problem.
The way that I see it we are here, today, with a set of problems. The way that engineering works is to look at what the problem or opportunity is, then look at the inventory of tools, processes, and existing infrastructure, develop a plan, and start working. One of my new pet peeves (not related to you specifically) is that the words “unproven technology” is thrown out as if it means something as a general response. Yes mining on the Moon or asteroids is unproven technology today as we are not doing it, yet the prerequisites are there in the terrestrial mining and processing industry.
The big thing now in my mind that we need to do first is to prove the resource base. This is one reason I really like my job of looking at lunar images right now. There is at least a small chance that I have found a visible and unmistakable Ni-Fe fragment on the surface and I am going to work to get the LRO LROC camera to take a follow up image in the area where this is. One thing that I had not thought of until recently is that by visual inspection you can differentate some Ni-Fe fragments from surrounding rocks. This is done simply by the fact that a large fragement will tend to be far more ragged in appearance than a stone.
Ok, gotta go. Have a good day.