Ben Wright McGee has a long essay on old space versus new, which I think misses the point, because he seems to think that space is about exploration, and then gets bogged down in the pointless argument of whether or not suborbital flight constitutes such:
In almost back-to-back recent events, what to me is an example of the true nature of the conflict between the many colliding conceptions of astronauts, space explorers, and space exploration was brought into sharp relief:
On the one hand, a NASA historian who I greatly respect alleged to me that private suborbital spaceflight and even new, commercial orbital space modules and transportation systems (which have recently received NASA funding to enhance the U.S. space infrastructure and give scientists more platforms and opportunities to conduct research), were patently unworthy of NASA dollars.
Existing Russian and U.S. systems should be relied upon, and the already pinched NASA budget, he implied, should be saved and consolidated for the more worthy endeavor of exploring truly uncharted planetary territory.
To me, this is all beside the point. There is an implicit assumption that the purpose of human spaceflight is to explore space, but that has never, ever been the case. In the sixties, its purpose was to beat the Soviets in a peaceful contest in the Cold War, and since then it’s been largely a jobs program — “exploration” was just the excuse, despite the fact that we haven’t left LEO. To me, exploration is a means, not an end. The goal of human spaceflight should be to develop the resources of and settle space, and if we’re not doing that (which we currently are not, at least NASA isn’t), then we should quit wasting money on it. But we remain stuck in this “exploration” mindset because we’ve never had a real national debate on why we’re spending this money, instead talking with hidden assumption that we all assume are shared by others, even though they clearly are not.
After “exploration” must eventually come “exploitation” even though that word has a bad meaning to some.
The military is heavily involved in exploiting the capabilities that space systems enable for communications, intelligence gathering, missile warning, navigation and timing. Commercial companies exploit space, too, mostly via comsats but also imagery.
What is the ISS exploring? What did the Shuttle explore? NASA’s manned space hasn’t explored anything since 1972. Their unmanned systems are doing some exploring but not the manned systems.
Suborbital flights will fall into two categories: thrill rides and some science missions/technology development as is currently done on sounding rockets.
What utter rubbish.
Despite all the bashing, the Shuttle enabled more people to explore space than Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Soyuz combined. Sitting in front of a TV set watching pictures beamed to you by a comm sat is not exploration, even if you want to call it that.
A typical sounding rocket mission starts at $2 million and must be planned years in advance. There is no ability to respond to unexpected events or targets of opportunities and little ability to repeat missions or recover from failures. And, as Alan Stern points out, it costs more money to automate a sounding-rocket experiment than to have an operator onboard.
If you see no value in exploring near-Earth space, that’s fine. Not everyone has your lack of curiosity. A lot of people would like to know how microorganisms in the upper atmosphere affect precipitation patterns, for example. Especially in places like Texas, where we’ve had extreme drought for the last three years causing billions of dollars in damage. Space is not just about getting pretty pictures of Saturn for you to look at.
When you start using epithets like “thrill rides,” it shows you have no rational argument. William Boeing showed up at the Los Angeles Air Meet looking for a “thrill ride.” When no one would provide one, he went back to Seattle and hired an engineer to build an airplane for him. Then, he decided he could sell a few more planes to other people. The Boeing Company still sells airplanes, I believe.
As Steve Jobs, if they don’t laugh at you, you aren’t trying hard enough.
What did they explore? They flew around in low Earth orbit, just like everyone except the Apollo moon missions did. They didn’t go anywhere? Maybe you think the mere act of going into space counts as exploration but I don’t. For the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the Shuttle over a 30 year span, we got remarkably little return on our investment.
What did they explore? They flew around in low Earth orbit, just like everyone except the Apollo moon missions did.
So? Because Apollo flew in orbit first, that makes it worthless?
By the same logic going back to the Moon is worthless, because Apollo did that, too.
And the Lewis and Clark Expedition was worthless because Indians and mountain men had been there before.
You seem to have fallen for the line that says it’s only exploration if you “boldly go where no man has gone before.” By that definition, almost no in the history books qualifies.
They didn’t go anywhere? They didn’t go anywhere? Maybe you think the mere act of going into space counts as exploration but I don’t.
So? The Explorers Club says it counts. Why should anyone care whether you agree or not?
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena… — Theodore Roosevelt
Sitting in front of a TV set watching pictures beamed to you by a comm sat is not exploration, even if you want to call it that.
You also don’t read very well. I called it exploitation, not exploration. Communications satellites, weather satellites, GPS, etc. exploit the space environment to provide valuable services to both the civilian and military markets. There are scientific satellites that might be considered exploration or maybe exploitation depending on your perspective. Their tangible result of value is increased knowledge. True exploration since Apollo has been solely accomplished by unmanned vehicles like Voyager, Galileo, Cassini, the Mars rovers and similar systems.
You also don’t read very well. I called it exploitation, not exploration.
No, you did not. You said: Their unmanned systems are doing some exploring but not the manned systems.
The word after “doing some” is “exploring,” not “exploiting.”
It is you who have the reading problem, Mr. J — and retrograde amnesia, too, it seems.
True exploration since Apollo has been solely accomplished by unmanned vehicles like Voyager, Galileo, Cassini, the Mars rovers and similar systems.
Once again, sitting at home watching pictures of Saturn and Mars on your television is not exploration. It’s merely observing.
If you would rather be an observer than an explorer, that’s fine — but you can’t redefine exploration as passive observation simply because you want to.
Try reading for comprehension for a change. The “their” in the sentence referred to NASA. Some of their (NASA’s) unmanned systems are doing exploration. Some stay in Earth orbit doing useful things. The Shuttle was a vehicle in search of a mission most of the time, little more than the world’s most expensive self-licking ice cream cone.
No, they are not doing exploration. Words have meaning. You can’t change them just to fit your agenda.
Sitting in front of your TV watching pictures of robots drive around on is not exploration, anymore than watching robogames is athletics.
Exploration is “travel for purposes of discovery.” Not staying home because you believe travel is a waste of time.
The Space Shuttle, for all its flaws, accomplished more than all other NASA vehicles combined — including a significant role but largely unknown role in ending the Cold War. Apparently, your dislike for human spaceflight is so strong that you’re unable to evaluate it objectively.
As for your constant insults, well, that’s just childish, Mr. J. Try arguing with logic for a change.
…goal of human spaceflight should be to develop the resources of and settle space…
Precisely. In my opinion the monetary inflation and resource price increases of the last decade are helping drive the point home. The fact that companies like Planetary Resources even exist is proof some people get it.
Rand,
I wanted to deliver a short note that I sincerely appreciate your taking the time to read my perspective, and further, to engage a dialogue based on it!
After reading your own assessment, I’d like to point out is that I never argued that the utilization of space *should* be for exploration. Rather, I was calling out the fact that there simply *is* current debate about what the definition of “space exploration” actually is or should be.
Having said that, it does seem that your setting up extraterrestrial resource utilization in strict opposition to exploration is a bit of a straw man; By this I mean that exploration is necessary in either case. (What one calls “exploring” could also fairly be called “prospecting,” after all.)
So, it seems what you’re really contrasting is extraterrestrial resource ventures versus pure science/research. When it comes to the use of public funds, I think you bring up an excellent point worthy of earnest public discussion.
In this light, if the aim of my essay had instead been to address what I believed the primary objective of space exploration should be, the massage would have been quite a different one. Perhaps to your surprise, I would have sincerely agreed with you that the development of economic space resources and associated technologies is not only smart, but it also follows from a moral-compulsion (in the case of using public funds), and is in my view ultimately essential for our civilization’s survival.
Two cents.
Thanks again for the nod. =)
Cheers,
Ben
Thanks for your thoughts, Ben. I guess this essay just hit a sore point with me, because I’ve been arguing for years that “space=exploration” (not to mention “space=science”) is one of the several reasons that we never have a fruitful discussion about space policy. Until we get past those notions, it’s not going to happen, at least in terms of government spending. And I didn’t set it up as opposition to exploration — what I wrote, simply, is that exploration is a means, not an end, or a purpose.
Space=Science is true for deep space missions and much of NASA’s unmanned missions.
For NewSpace, Space != Science. Space=Engineering. Let the government have Mars and beyond for science (for now) and leave Earth/Luna to the engineers.
But doesn’t exploration naturally come before exploitation? Or am I leaning too heavily on the paradigm of exploring the New World?