This whole debate assumes that the only purpose of space exploration is science.
Or to be fairer, this whole debate observes that science is by a wide margin the primary purpose of planetary missions thus far and that there is no prospect of that changing anytime soon.
But if we want to settle space…
If you want the prospect of space settlement to influence policy you’re going to have to convince a lot of people who don’t share your emotional attachment to the idea that it is a near term practical reality, not a long term theoretical possibility, or even worse, pure fantasy.
The dismissive ‘fantasy’ argument will only end with actual footprints. Even during an eight month journey, some will only begin to self evaluate.
Look what it’s taken for AmericaSpace to warm up to SpaceX and they still have holdouts (DON’T DARE DIS’ SLS!)
We’ll see what happens if/when Rohrabacher introduces his settlement bill. But a point I’ll make in my upcoming paper (which the Augustine Committee agreed with) is that if the purpose is not settlement, we should stop wasting government money on human spaceflight.
We’ll see what happens if/when Rohrabacher introduces his settlement bill.
Yes, we will.
But a point I’ll make in my upcoming paper (which the Augustine Committee agreed with) is that if the purpose is not settlement, we should stop wasting government money on human spaceflight.
I would agree with you (and the Augustine Committee) if we could be reasonably sure that humanity can live and thrive off Earth. Assuming that it can and insisting that policy be made on that basis is a recipe for marginalization, and worse, ridicule.
What I’d insist is that, if there is no other justification for government human spaceflight, that we be spending a lot more on answering that question and a lot less on giant rockets that we don’t need.
People that think that rock with our name on it is so far in the future we don’t have to worry about it are making two huge mistakes.(I didn’t miscount.)
1) there is no average time.
2) even if it hits in the far future it might require that we be a viable multiplanet species and need to start now.
3) the threat requires us to be interstellar and the point of (2) requires even more lead time.
Or to be fairer, this whole debate observes that science is by a wide margin the primary purpose of planetary missions thus far and that there is no prospect of that changing anytime soon.
Why pay attention only to planetary missions and not the satellite or orbital launch markets, both which are mostly commercial? And really the science seems secondary to one-off technology development in planetary missions too.
Why pay attention only to planetary missions and not the satellite or orbital launch markets, both which are mostly commercial?
Because there are no planetary protection issues with the orbital launches. Yes, I posted on the wrong thread by mistake. Sorry.
I still think my comment applies, even if we transfer this discussion to the right place. Earth orbit also was a place which was exclusively non-commercial (though you did have national defense mixed in with the science missions). It changed. Why assume that Mars won’t change and that it’ll be just science missions by national players for the indefinite future? I think this indicates people who aren’t really thinking about the problem.
Earth orbit also was a place which was exclusively non-commercial (though you did have national defense mixed in with the science missions). It changed.
And very quickly too. Within a decade. Over a half century later there is still no prospect of commerce on other planets.
Why assume that Mars won’t change and that it’ll be just science missions by national players for the indefinite future?
Not assumption, observation. Yes, there may be tourists to Mars and even settlements in the distant future but it would be foolish to let the Mars One debacle or Musk’s rhetoric influence policy in the here and now.
I think this indicates people who aren’t really thinking about the problem.
Or to be more generous, it indicates people who aren’t unduly influenced by the works of Heinlein and Robinson they may have read as adolescents. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that people who don’t share your views aren’t really thinking. If people aren’t taking Mars settlement or commerce seriously it’s because they’ve been given no reason to.
This whole debate assumes that the only purpose of space exploration is science.
Or to be fairer, this whole debate observes that science is by a wide margin the primary purpose of planetary missions thus far and that there is no prospect of that changing anytime soon.
But if we want to settle space…
If you want the prospect of space settlement to influence policy you’re going to have to convince a lot of people who don’t share your emotional attachment to the idea that it is a near term practical reality, not a long term theoretical possibility, or even worse, pure fantasy.
The dismissive ‘fantasy’ argument will only end with actual footprints. Even during an eight month journey, some will only begin to self evaluate.
Look what it’s taken for AmericaSpace to warm up to SpaceX and they still have holdouts (DON’T DARE DIS’ SLS!)
We’ll see what happens if/when Rohrabacher introduces his settlement bill. But a point I’ll make in my upcoming paper (which the Augustine Committee agreed with) is that if the purpose is not settlement, we should stop wasting government money on human spaceflight.
We’ll see what happens if/when Rohrabacher introduces his settlement bill.
Yes, we will.
But a point I’ll make in my upcoming paper (which the Augustine Committee agreed with) is that if the purpose is not settlement, we should stop wasting government money on human spaceflight.
I would agree with you (and the Augustine Committee) if we could be reasonably sure that humanity can live and thrive off Earth. Assuming that it can and insisting that policy be made on that basis is a recipe for marginalization, and worse, ridicule.
What I’d insist is that, if there is no other justification for government human spaceflight, that we be spending a lot more on answering that question and a lot less on giant rockets that we don’t need.
People that think that rock with our name on it is so far in the future we don’t have to worry about it are making two huge mistakes.(I didn’t miscount.)
1) there is no average time.
2) even if it hits in the far future it might require that we be a viable multiplanet species and need to start now.
3) the threat requires us to be interstellar and the point of (2) requires even more lead time.
Or to be fairer, this whole debate observes that science is by a wide margin the primary purpose of planetary missions thus far and that there is no prospect of that changing anytime soon.
Why pay attention only to planetary missions and not the satellite or orbital launch markets, both which are mostly commercial? And really the science seems secondary to one-off technology development in planetary missions too.
Why pay attention only to planetary missions and not the satellite or orbital launch markets, both which are mostly commercial?
Because there are no planetary protection issues with the orbital launches. Yes, I posted on the wrong thread by mistake. Sorry.
I still think my comment applies, even if we transfer this discussion to the right place. Earth orbit also was a place which was exclusively non-commercial (though you did have national defense mixed in with the science missions). It changed. Why assume that Mars won’t change and that it’ll be just science missions by national players for the indefinite future? I think this indicates people who aren’t really thinking about the problem.
Earth orbit also was a place which was exclusively non-commercial (though you did have national defense mixed in with the science missions). It changed.
And very quickly too. Within a decade. Over a half century later there is still no prospect of commerce on other planets.
Why assume that Mars won’t change and that it’ll be just science missions by national players for the indefinite future?
Not assumption, observation. Yes, there may be tourists to Mars and even settlements in the distant future but it would be foolish to let the Mars One debacle or Musk’s rhetoric influence policy in the here and now.
I think this indicates people who aren’t really thinking about the problem.
Or to be more generous, it indicates people who aren’t unduly influenced by the works of Heinlein and Robinson they may have read as adolescents. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that people who don’t share your views aren’t really thinking. If people aren’t taking Mars settlement or commerce seriously it’s because they’ve been given no reason to.
Bechtel is backing someone as well.