OK, so I read this essay by Lou Friedman, and what’s obvious to me, and completely not so to him, is the reason that he and others have made so little headway in selling human space flight. It’s because they continue to use the wrong reason. He uses the word “exploration” a dozen times, by my count. Not once does he use the words “development,” “exploitation,” “colonization,” “settlement.” Once you agree that the purpose of human spaceflight is mere exploration as an end, and not as a means, you completely cede the rhetorical field to the robots, as he points out himself:
Unlike in the 1980s, the lack of new accomplishments in human exploration will be paralleled by the greater accomplishments in robotic exploration. And the danger is that the public will join those politicians who say, “Save money, let the robots do it.”
Hey, if all we’re doing is “exploring,” then count me in with the robots, at least if we’re going to insist on doing human exploration the way we did it in the sixties, and the way that many insist that we continue to do so, including Lou himself:
…we can’t even seem to develop the rockets to take us beyond what we achieved four decades ago.
Lou, if you want to see humans go beyond earth orbit for any purpose at all, including exploration, go write on the board five hundred times, “We don’t need new rockets.”
[Update a few minutes later]
One other amusing point:
Looking at the political history of US human space flight decisions, the only two positive ones were based on international (or more precisely, geopolitical) considerations. They were Kennedy’s decision to take on the Soviets in a race to the Moon, and Clinton’s decision to engage the Russians in the International Space Station. (The shuttle decision by Nixon resulted in a flight program, to be sure, but was a negative decision to ratchet back space objectives and not let NASA build a space station or go beyond Earth orbit). It is also worthwhile to note that neither of these Presidents was interested in space science or exploration.
While it’s true, he writes this as though there has ever been a president interested in space science or exploration. There never has been, and there likely (barring some weird political accident) never will be. The kinds of people interested in those things are unlikely to become president. The closest politician I can think of with that kind of interest, with the slightest chance of becoming president, is Newt Gingrich. And he’s not actually particularly interested in space science or exploration. What he’s interested in is…wait for it…space development.
Gerard O’Neill and the Ames Summer Study presented space solar power as the only export product that could possibly be of sufficient value to make space colonization (of the O’Neill style) profitable. Since then, SSP has been shown to be a laughable economic joke under all scenarios, but attaching the care and feeding of a 10,000 person spinning space colony only makes its economics worse.
I was a devoted O’Neillian for years until I got to grad school at Georgia Tech and we actually modeled the economics and launch technology for a space solar power scenario, funded by John Mankins. Then I saw for myself what a sham that whole idea was, and within a few years I was questioning my own O’Neillian beliefs and finding that they were a sham too.
Pete, I’ve read everything that’s out there on space colonization and I find it long on dreams and short–very short–on economic underpinnings.
It is my opinion that the knowledge to build an RLV (or to forestall objections, RLVs as space advocates envision them) is not in hand and will take an unknown amount of time, effort, and money to acquire. Will new technology be required? My guess is probably but I wouldn’t be surprised either way.
Is this different from saying the development costs are uncertain but not the technical possibility or economic viability once developed? And could you eloborate on what you mean by “RLVs as space advocates envision them”?
What I object to is when they are presented as inevitable laws of nature and the bitter resentment and personal attacks that follow when they aren’t accepted as such.
You’re confusing COTS snark with personal attacks. Maybe you need to get out more. And if you don’t like the snark, stop responding to the idea that humans will one day live off-earth with arguments based on todays economics. In its own way, that is a silly as Rutherford B. Hayes’ quote about the telephone.
Is this different from saying the development costs are uncertain but not the technical possibility or economic viability once developed?
I’m not sure what you mean. Technical possibility is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition for economic viability. Few people would doubt that RLVs are will be possible ultimately; the question is whether they are within the state of the art today. For example commercial air travel is a current reality but in 1842, when Henson’s Aerial Steam Navigation Company was formed, it was clearly well beyond the state of the art.
And could you eloborate on what you mean by “RLVs as space advocates envision them”?
Generally LVs that operate more like aircraft but not necessarily as aircraft. A vehicle that requires minimal maintenance, with small intervals between flights, capable of many flights, available on demand with little preparation, low cost, etc. The von Braun 3 stage ferry rocket, Seadragon, Rombus, NASA Phase A and B shuttle studies, Roton, Skylon, etc would be examples.
And if you don’t like the snark, stop responding to the idea that humans will one day live off-earth with arguments based on todays economics. In its own way, that is a silly as Rutherford B. Hayes’ quote about the telephone.
Unlike most space advocates I lack that crystal clear knowledge of the future.
Technical possibility is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition for economic viability.
Agreed, but what about the difference between economically viable and economically viable apart from development costs (“sunk-costs viable”)? It would seem that investing in RLVs for IOC five to ten years from now is not currently economically profitable and thus not economically viable. Suborbital RLVs are a different matter and we’ve seen private investments in them for a couple of years.
An exploration program based around propellant transfer and competing commercial launchers could shift the balance in favour of orbital RLVs, but only if they are believed to be technically viable. I’ve seldom seen even the most ardent HLV supporters question the technical possibility of RLVs, or even their economic viability given an exploration program. The response has been mostly of the “I don’t care” or “let’s change the subject” variety while they are generally not above telling lies to further their cause.
Generally LVs that operate more like aircraft but not necessarily as aircraft.
Do you include tiny TSTO VTVL RLVs in that category?
Who can predict the future?
A good point, my answer is anybody. It’s just a question of accuracy. 😉
What I object to is when [convictions] are presented as inevitable laws of nature
Fair enough. But sometimes you have convictions because they are laws of nature. Therefore…
…explain … whatever suggests to you that it is possible for humanity to thrive off earth
People differ in their ability to thrive right here on earth. Some don’t, but others do very well. We can assume a range of thriving for any community of people.
Some like to use Antarctica as a analogy to argue against space development. The flaw here is that with modern transportation it is relatively easy to go to another surface destination on the earth so there’s no real commitment to developing thriving settlements there beyond scientific outposts plus they lack the general resources needed. While space is definitely a harsher environment it does have the resources needed and difficulty in transportation is actually a benefit in encouraging ISRU.
I believe we agree that technical challenges can be overcome (though we may disagree on some details) so we need to look to other areas to determine the potential for thriving.
…personal convictions are … not persuasive
They’re only truly ‘personal’ if we don’t share them. I will attempt to keep this on common ground. This of course is only a fruitful activity if you are honest in evaluating an argument and not just interested in ‘winning’ it. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt (usually a mistake with lefties, but until Rand bans you, that’s my position.) Also, I’m going to limit my argument.
An assumption Kirk is making is without a clear economic model (and the ridiculous insistence that whatever we do in space must involve imports to earth) then space settlement doesn’t happen. This is based on the error of zero sum. Wealth is not zero sum (obvious by the fact that it grows overall.)
The other false assumption is that cost to earth orbit has to come down drastically for economic activity to extend beyond earth orbit. Cost to orbit does affect the rate we expand into space but ultimately has nothing to do with the eventual activity. This is because most economic activity is local. It goes beyond local mainly for diversity. However, diversity is mainly a luxury rather than a necessity. In time, local economic activity becomes more diverse but long distance trade never goes completely away.
So far I don’t think I’ve made any highly disputable points.
This is getting too long so I’ll just say… given the above it’s very clear to me that once a local settlement is established with a growing population, over time they will develop (as humans have pretty much anywhere they go) to improve the quality of life and diversity of economic activity. This is not just personal conviction. This is the history of humanity (which includes failed colonies but those are no disproof.)
An assumption Kirk is making is without a clear economic model (and the ridiculous insistence that whatever we do in space must involve imports to earth) then space settlement doesn’t happen. This is based on the error of zero sum.
Oh it’s so ridiculous to ask the people who would be financing your glorious colonization adventures to have the temerity to ask how they might make their money back. They should be content just knowing that you’re there and that you have grand plans to do future space stuff.
You should stay out of the fund-raising business. It’s clearly not your strong suit.
Ken Anthony, under your assumptions (no viable product returned to Earth and no reduction in launch costs necessary) space colonization should be happening right now. Where is it?
So far I don’t think I’ve made any highly disputable points.
Only in your mind, which doesn’t seem to be able to be changed.
Agreed, but what about the difference between economically viable and economically viable apart from development costs (“sunk-costs viable”)?
That’s an important distinction, of course, but not what I’m talking about. For example, my doubts about Skylon mostly deal with whether it can built at all, not whether it is a sound economic proposition whether or not development costs are written off.
Suborbital RLVs…
…is a contradiction to normal usage. “Launch vehicle” is universally taken to mean capable of placing a payload in orbit or beyond.
An exploration program based around propellant transfer and competing commercial launchers could shift the balance in favour of orbital RLVs, but only if they are believed to be technically viable.
Well, only if they actually are technically viable. I think we are some ways away from such a state.
I’ve seldom seen even the most ardent HLV supporters question the technical possibility of RLVs…
Oh, sure, there is certainly no shortage of people who think RLVs are within the state of the art. I’m just not among them for the reasons stated.
…they are generally not above telling lies to further their cause.
I think the best policy is just to assume that they believe what they say. I’m sure we’ve all said things that we believed at the time we said them but later changed our minds about. Impugning the honor of someone you disagree with is a game any number can play.
Do you include tiny TSTO VTVL RLVs in that category?
If it has the desired features, certainly. Why wouldn’t it?
You should stay out of the fund-raising business. It’s clearly not your strong suit.
You could be right about that!
Where is it?
It’s already happening. You have to move back from examining the bark on the tree and look around at the forest.
Only in your mind, which doesn’t seem to be able to be changed.
Completely untrue. However, you do seem to hold on pretty tight to the idea that earth imports are a requirement. They clearly are not.
They should be content just knowing…
Ok then, let’s look at it from your side of the mirror. Taking out those activities like commercial satellites… what profit has there been from ‘scientific’ activities in space? What profit is there in close inspection of a moon or the rings of saturn? Why do we do all these clearly unprofitable (from a short term view) things?
I also note that your reply doesn’t actually dispute a single point. Care to be specific?
I think the best policy is just to assume that they believe what they say. I’m sure we’ve all said things that we believed at the time we said them but later changed our minds about.
In the case of HLV supporters I disagree. I feel there is a staggering amount of mendacity out there, and I’ve only very reluctantly come to that conclusion. Note that I’m not equating skepticism of RLVs or support fo HLVs with mendacity.
Impugning the honor of someone you disagree with is a game any number can play.
Sure, just not truthfully. Hard to prove either way of course.
If it has the desired features, certainly. Why wouldn’t it?
Maybe because it isn’t very aircraft-like. The reason I mentioned it is that I believe it is the most viable short term RLV concept.
To give your point it’s fair acknowledgement. It is not ridiculous that those that finance a venture get a return. What is ridiculous is to assume there is only one way to get from here to there.
To assume that without a viable import settlements will never happen is just plain false. Not all incentives are financial. I will admit that without the financial incentive, other motivations have to piggyback on financial considerations. This is why SpaceX is such a good example. They intend to colonize mars but are doing so with sound financial moves along the way.
…usually a mistake with lefties
May I ask what makes you think I’m a lefty? Is having doubts about the ability to thrive in space somehow a left wing position? Or did you just want to gratuitously insult me?
While space is definitely a harsher environment it does have the resources needed and difficulty in transportation is actually a benefit in encouraging ISRU.
This is pure supposition, Ken. We do not know if the resources off earth can be exploited in such a manner as to allow humanity to thrive off earth. This is what is you are being asked to demonstrate; if you just assume it can be done then you haven’t made any kind of a case. That doesn’t make you wrong, of course, just unconvincing.
I believe we agree that technical challenges can be overcome (though we may disagree on some details) so we need to look to other areas to determine the potential for thriving.
I think we can agree that men can be kept alive off earth for as long as there are many more men on earth willing to work to keep them off earth. Beyond that I am not persuaded.
given the above it’s very clear to me that once a local settlement is established with a growing population
Well, yes, Ken, once you assume that there are no difficulties it follows naturally that there will be no difficulties. How does one go about establishing that local settlement with a growing population? Up thread Karl said “The first step is to build a totally automated infrastructure on the Moon”. Most settlement enthusiasts don’t go quite that far. They content themselves with settlers that can do the tasks of terrestrial communities dozens of times larges but in a much harsher environment.
I think we can agree that men can be kept alive off earth for as long as there are many more men on earth willing to work to keep them off earth. Beyond that I am not persuaded.
Well said. What Jim Davis and I seem to be asking is why will the “many men on Earth” be persuaded to keep other men off earth. What’s in it for them?
Ken Anthony, it’s difficult to engage in a serious conversation with you when I ask you where the space colonization is, and you tell me something about bark on trees and a forest.
Please be more clear and more direct and less vague and dreamlike.
In the case of HLV supporters I disagree. I feel there is a staggering amount of mendacity out there, and I’ve only very reluctantly come to that conclusion.
Any specific examples?
Space advocacy is certainly a subculture noted for infighting and lack of civility (as this thread will attest) but I haven’t noticed that it’s all confined to a particular viewpoint. There is a very human tendency to give people one agrees with the benefit of a doubt that one doesn’t to people one disagrees with. What seems like childish name calling to some is just telling it like it is to others.
Maybe because it isn’t very aircraft-like.
I mentioned Seadragon which is a two stage VTVL, albeit a very, very large one, but nothing like an airplane.
Ken Anthony, under your assumptions (no viable product returned to Earth and no reduction in launch costs necessary) space colonization should be happening right now. Where is it?
Being as direct as I possibly can… Space colonization is happening right now! It has been going on for quite some time. How is that?
Colonies are a process. Physical structures being delivered to sites is not the start of the process. So to demand that as evidence would be stupid.
What is the start of the process and is there evidence it has occurred? Why, I’m glad I asked. Like everything else it starts in the mind (a place often known for it’s vague and dreamlike states.) But there’s more…
When people start spending money that’s evidence they’ve moved beyond that initial state. Have any done so? Why yes. Bigelow will sell you a habitat today. He claims they are more than just for orbit and useful on the lunar surface as well. That other dreamer with no credibility until he became credible, Elon says he’s going to mars and btw, the dragon heat shield is mars return capable. Others have gone beyond dreaming as well. Ultimately will we have physical colonies from these initial conditions?
Well, that wasn’t your question. You asked if it was happening now and I’m saying yes and have provided evidence. However, I do not claim prescience. Your criteria of a physical import, something that would certainly hasten the process, doesn’t appear to exist… but it is certainly not a show stopper for reasons already given.
Any specific examples?
Catch me over a beer some time. The tendency you describe does exist and dishonesty does probably occur on the other side as well. But you can regularly see people bring up disproven arguments in a different forum.
I mentioned Seadragon which is a two stage VTVL, albeit a very, very large one, but nothing like an airplane.
OK, so you do include tiny TSTO VTVL RLVs in your assessment. Even if you disregard development costs? I’m trying to get an idea how far you think we’re away from the simplest, least ambitious RLV possible.
We do not know if the resources off earth can be exploited in such a manner as to allow humanity to thrive off earth. This is what is you are being asked to demonstrate
Exploitation of resources is a given. The only unknown is what initial provisions are required and that question can not be precisely answered because it’s dependent on what the people involved bring to the table.
If you’re asking me to demonstrate every detail and step of the way that’s not reasonable. Even the people involved after the fact would not be able to do that.
What’s required to thrive is a long list. Can you think of a single thing that can not be overcome? Not some unknown. Something specific and known that can’t be overcome?
Ken Anthony, talking to you is futile. If something exists in your mind, it is essentially reality as far as you’re concerned. Keep dreamin’, man. Just don’t be surprised when the dreams stay dreams.
Ken Anthony, talking to you is futile.
If you keep demanding things that just aren’t so. Yes, it is futile to talk to an INTJ under those circumstances.
If something exists in your mind, it is essentially reality as far as you’re concerned.
BTW, that is an interesting turn of phrase because nothing created exists until first it is reality in the mind.
Kirk, do you have any idea how miserable your life would be if not for dreamers?