Eric Anderson says that it’s a good time to kick off a national discussion.
Two points. Can we please, please, stop using the word “exploration”? Because every time we do, we provide ammunition to the robot lovers, because one does not need to send humans into space to “explore.” Toward the end, he finally talks about settlement, but we need to make the point over and over that exploration is just a means to an end, not the goal.
The other point is that the argument that it’s good to spend money on space because “it’s spent right here on earth” is both economically spurious and weak. As I wrote years ago:
Sadly, it’s a fallacy to which space enthusiasts (and particularly NASA enthusiasts) are prone as well. Often, when touting some proposed space project, they talk about how many “jobs” will be created in Houston or Huntsville or Florida, or in the district of some California contractor. And when someone says that “money is wasted by sending it into space,” they assume that the critic is stupid, or confused, and respond, “Not a single dime is sent into space. We don’t fill up the rockets with bushels of money and send it off to Mars. Every dollar is spent right here, on good old Mother Earth.” And even more amazingly, they say it as though it’s an effective rejoinder.
But of course, they’re attacking a strawman argument, because no serious critic of the space program literally believes that we are shipping currency to the heavens.
Yes, of course paying NASA astronauts, managers, engineers and support people, and their counterparts at the contractors creates jobs for them, just as it would if we took the same amount of money and employed people to dig holes. The issue, of course, is not whether they have “jobs” and receive taxpayer dollars, and recirculate it in the economy–it’s what they create, or don’t, and whether or not their creation is as valuable as some other use of the money that it took to create it.
What were the opportunity costs of building the current International Space Station? Could that money have been spent in some way that would have made us a wealthier nation? Indeed, could it have been spent in a way that would have advanced us much further in space? Well, at least, we have a space station, finally. But could those many billions of taxpayer dollars and almost two decades (yes, time has opportunity costs as well) have provided more than a crippled facility, barely capable of supporting a half dozen people at continuing costs of billions per year?
There’s no way to know. It is, in Bastiat’s words, one of the things that “are not seen.”
If we want the taxpayers’ money, we have to make the case for how spending it in that way, rather than some other, will actually improve their lives. Simply saying that it will be spent here doesn’t cut it, any more than did the arguments for the failed “stimulus.” We simply have to hone our arguments better, and stop indulging in fallacies.
[Update a few minutes later]
Jay Barbree indulges in the same old tired, ineffective arguments and fallacies:
The late, great TV news anchor Walter Cronkite used to say, “There’s not a single McDonald’s on the moon or on Mars. Every space dollar stays in the pockets of those needing to eat on Earth.”
We see the benefits of the space program all around us in lives saved, in early detection of cancers, in NASA’s discovery of the dangers of cholesterol coupled with stress, in early detection of most diseases, in improved surgery techniques needed for repairing failing hearts, in making a child’s small body whole, and in filling our stomachs with safe foods.
We see spaceflight dollars when weather satellites warn of hurricanes, when radar systems tell us that tornadoes are approaching, when satellites log critical environmental changes, when an ATM hands us our cash, when we pay our bills and communicate through satellites. Most importantly, we see space dollars at work when doctors perform surgery robotically through eyes in space, when firefighters walk into flames breathing safely through equipment developed for NASA, when … Well, there’s simply no end to the benefits gained by science.
A repeat of the broken windows fallacy (and citing its use by Cronkite makes it no less fallacious), and very few of those benefits resulted from human spaceflight.
Sigh…
”It is a long term benefit that people with short vision can’t see” or something He said on these lines is the worst argument, don’t tell me to burn loads of money now because there is a potential benefit someday in the distant future.
Lets make tangible benefits right now, lets conquer space right now and show the fruit of it.
@Mr Sindberg : If not exploration, what word should be used ?
Space development.
[Aside: Why is it so hard to spell a name that’s right on the post in which the comment appears?]
The peculiar thing about your concern with “robot lovers” is that you appear to presume to already know at least the rough outlines of what exploration will discover. Exploration (robotic or human) might lead to a discovery which would hasten human space settlement, or at least influence how space settlement unfolds such that you would be glad we explored extensively first.
The peculiar thing about your concern with “robot lovers” is that you appear to presume to already know at least the rough outlines of what exploration will discover.
I can’t imagine why you would think that.
Exploration (robotic or human) might lead to a discovery which would hasten human space settlement, or at least influence how space settlement unfolds such that you would be glad we explored extensively first.
Why do you think that you told me something that I don’t know? I am not opposed to exploration, either robotic or human, and said nothing to indicate that I am.
I’m responding positively to your call for space advocates to hone their arguments. I think you need to hone what you said here:
Can we please, please, stop using the word “exploration”? Because every time we do, we provide ammunition to the robot lovers, because one does not need to send humans into space to “explore.”
1) If you are not opposed to exploration, don’t say “please stop using the word “exploration” because it sure makes it sound like you are. I understand that you meant something else – I’m just suggesting that you say it more clearly.
2) If you are not opposed to robotic exploration (especially robotic precursors to human visits), then don’t talk about providing “ammunition to the robot lovers”. The word “ammunition” suggests that a metaphoric war is going on, and there isn’t (or needn’t) be one between robot builders and human space flight advocates, while the word “lovers” is used pejoratively suggesting that enthusiasm is inappropriate for amazing journeys of discovery such as the Dawn probe’s first journey to Ceres.
If you are not opposed to exploration, don’t say “please stop using the word “exploration” because it sure makes it sound like you are.
I obviously, other than to the obtuse, don’t mean to literally not use the word. I mean stop using it as the singular description of what we’re doing in space.
The word “ammunition” suggests that a metaphoric war is going on, and there isn’t
There is, and has been since the dawn of the program, starting with Van Allen.
I think your position is almost incoherent. So, there is a war going on, but you’re not taking sides, but don’t give any ammunition to the robot side. Is that it?
You can respond by criticizing my intelligence or some such, but I probably agree with your position on space (for the most part), and I’m telling you: you aren’t effectively communicating your argument. For most people, it wouldn’t matter, but you’re a published writer working on a book, and you’re calling on space advocates to hone their argument. I’m saying you should hone your communication.
You’re the only person who seems to be having trouble understanding me, so I don’t think that the problem is with my communication.
Ok. That’s a common stance for would-be authors, but it isn’t typically a profitable one.
Don’t confuse a blog post with a book I’m trying to sell, or yourself with my typical audience.
“You’re the only person who seems to be having trouble understanding me, so I don’t think that the problem is with my communication.”
To be fair to Bob-1, your comment also seemed to me to be quite hostile and pejorative to robotic exploration. It certainly had a different tone than if you had said, “stop using the word exploration because we want settlement as well and exploration can be done with only robots.” That would be the comment of someone who wants both robotic exploration and human settlement.
My comment was not hostile to robotic exploration, it was hostile to people who use it to bash humans in space.
And it’s people who favor robotic exploration that always talk in terms of how human space flight is stealing food off their plate. They will say stuff like, “For one human space flight mission we could fund X number of robotic missions..” I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone who supports human space flight that says we should stop sending robots into space. As far as any ammunition being expended its always the robotic crowd that’s firing it off at the human space flight proponents. It all stems from the flawed logic that the space economy is some pie of fixed size and only so many slices can go around.
On the name : TBH you Name always sounded Sindberg instead of Simnerg, even tough I am a fairly frequent reader.
I think that the whether exploration or development, there is simply no possibilty of space being a matter of government action, only profits and private competition can make it happen.
I saw the video of SpaceX about their powered return rockets, and It struck me that if they had a Lunar fuel facility they would solve the problem.
Lol you did it again. The m and n keys are right next to eachother and fatfingering one or the other is one of the most common typing errors. No excuse needed and no offense should have been taken.
That doesn’t explain where the “d” came from in the first instance. And the second time, it looked like fat fingering an “n” for a “b,” not an “m.”
Maybe he mentally stored the name as a variation of Sandberg.
Fair enough, I missed that.
Sams,
Yes. Clear and substantial near term profits trump all other arguments. And in a $ 60 trillion global economy they are what attract the cash to move forward.
The problem is looking at it from the perspective that only massive profit for some industry is the solution. Individuals don’t show up on the radar when looked at with that myopia.
Our leftist government likes having control of a handful of big corporations. Control freaks hate individual liberty.
Ken,
So you are against both free markets and controlled markets. That doesn’t leave much space in between 🙂
Free and unregulated market economies always end up with a limited number of large corporations dominating them. That is the result of free markets where winners the winners get larger because they take over the losers. Unless government regulates the markets to prevent such mergers. The game Monopoly is very accurate in that aspect.
But the nature of space is that it requires deep pockets to settle and so in a market based economy only large corporations will attract the resources needed. And this why space is NOT a frontier like the Old West. In the Old West someone that wanted freedom could just pick up their pack, get on their horse and ride away. In space by contrast you need the cooperation and coordination of a number of individuals to survival. That is why space settlement is not going to be the utopia that libertarians believe it will be.
Bob-1 you are such a tool. If you don’t want personally to go into space, then why are you trolling this website? Are you just a voyeur?
He just likes to irritate Rand Sindberg.
Not a voyeur. A digital-age Diane Fossey.
Eric,
Above, I made an argument that has nothing to do with my personal motivations. But here’s a comment on my motivations:
I’m for people who want to travel to space to be able to travel to space. I’m not sure that Rand actually wants to personally travel to space (perhaps he doesn’t due to a dislike of the feeling of falling) and I don’t think that matters at all – he is still an effective advocate of space settlement. I do want to travel to space, but I don’t think my personal desire is important – what’s important is that people who want to go can go (cheaply and frequently).
I’m very excited about commercial human spaceflight. I’m also a robot lover. I want humans to permanently expand outward into the solar system, and eventually the nearer stars. I’m very curious about what the solar system and nearer star systems hold in store for humanity. Assuming lifespans aren’t massively prolonged before I die, robots and telescopes are the way for me to find out more about the solar system and neighboring star systems in my lifetime — I want to know what future generations are going to visit. Commercial spaceflight is the way for me to visit the nearest targets in my lifetime – I want to know what future generations are going to experience. I don’t see why that makes me a tool.
I’m not sure that Rand actually wants to personally travel to space (perhaps he doesn’t due to a dislike of the feeling of falling)
I have no such dislike. I have voluntarily experienced weightlessness several times.
Sorry – I thought I recalled you saying something about disliking the sensation, or something along those lines. Oh, wait, here it is: http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=37457
Well, anyway, my point is that your particular preferences don’t matter at all to your space advocacy.
Acrophobia is not a “dislike of the feeling of falling.”
If I was offered an orbital ride, I would take it. If I was offered a sub-orbital ride, I’m a bit torn, due to my dislike of rollercoasters versus my love for all things related to space travel. For an orbital ride, I think I would have time to acclimate
How about you? What are your personal space travel preferences?
Bob-1, the fact that you don’t see what makes you annoying probably has to do with why you are annoying. Trust me, (I think others might agree) you really are annoying. Thus my somewhat coarse terminology.
Just from this topic today …
Item – obtuseness – you consistently misinterpret others.
Item – smugness – you overly value your own interpretation.
Item – presumption – you imply things you don’t know.
I could go on but why bother? Please note that from my perspective, these criticisms also apply to your kindred souls Gerrib and Jim.
I’m going to ignore your insults and try to make my point with an analogy:
Say we’re in 1830 and we’re generally interested in making money from islands in the Pacific ocean. You have this idea: set a tourist operation on Catalina Island, and ship in tourists from the mainland. That’s might be a good idea, albeit a bit premature. I have this idea: lets go looking in the South Pacific to see what we can find. You act like you already know what’s out there, call me a tool for being curious, and so we won’t be the ones making money from guano islands in the 1850s.
The problem with that analogy is that our robotic probes aren’t going to find new habitable planets between Venus and Mars.
When we use the term “space exploration” only a part of what we’re doing really qualifies as “exploration.” A lot of it is just using automated systems to make better maps. We use the same technology to make better maps of Earth from orbit, but we really don’t think of that as exploration in the sense Magellan, Cook, or Lewis and Clark.
For example, to say that NASA is “exploring” New Jersey stretches the term beyond all meaning. So if I believe in giant space colonies at L5, get my congressman to vote more funds for space exploration, and the only result is an improved rainfall map of New Jersey, I’ve been hoodwinked.
The other misuse of the term would apply to space telescopes like Kepler. We already have a word for what they do, “astronomy.” We’ve been doing it methodically since the days of Gallileo, Kepler, Newton, and Herschel, but we didn’t call them explorers. The only time an astronomer does traditional exploration is when he’s hacking his way up a mountain to see if its a good place to build an observatory.
So you vote for space exploration with images of intrepid astronauts picking a path through a Martian canyon, evenutally leading to mankind moving out into space, and what you get is another telescope and a better map of New Jersey. Double hoodwink.
If you accept the idea that the purpose of looking for guano islands is to eventually return for the phosphorus then you’re probably not a robot lover.
And… you might want to lay off the heavy-duty use of “curiosity”. I don’t think I’m the only one here that found that little gem from last week to have been highly odorous.
George, please check back later – I want to give you a reply as soon as I have a little more time. Curt, I don’t know what you are referring to.
Also: Curt, I’m a robot lover. I loved the DOD (SDI/BMD) Clementine mission. Why was the Clementine probe named what it was?
Because its mission could have been accomplished with a manned craft, but the men woud have been lost. So they decided not to do it at all.
/headspin
The comments are much livlier with Bob-1 around. Generally he is pretty good natured, which is nice when you argue.
Space development, industrialization, prospecting, and yes settlement, even if the latter one does have a giggle factor to it. I’d go and use exploitation but that just has this eeevil capitalist ring to it..
Space Developement, industrilization, prospecting, and yes settlement…I don’t see the giggle factor any more than the Right brothers did in their time. Those that laughed then, laugh no more. Frankly I would be thrilled to know I could get a Quarter Pounder on the moon. That would be a sure sign that we have succcessfully left the earth permanently.
A quarter pounder on the moon would cause too much confusion. Does it weigh 2/3 of an ounce in lunar gravity or a full quarter pound, massing either 0.02 or 0.68 kilograms? For a lunar burger, perhaps volumetric measurements would become the standard, giving us a 100cc burger of 100% pure beef.
…so just call it a Royale with Cheese. Big Mac can stay Big Mac.
The Big Luna w/Cheese please!
Seems like it would be pretty hard to fit a cow into a space suit though.
I trust a Big Luna would be as good as the Big Kahuna, which was a very tasty burger. 🙂
Rand,
[[[If we want the taxpayers’ money, we have to make the case for how spending it in that way, rather than some other, will actually improve their lives.]]]
And the is the fatal flaw in the last four decades of space advocacy, focusing on tax payer dollars. Robert Heinlein had it right when his explorers opened space based on private investment and money from private foundations. As long as you want taxpayer dollars you will need to constantly debate everyone else about where to best spend taxpayer dollars.
Ron Paul is right, NASA should have been disbanded after it served its Cold War mission with Project Apollo.
Not a “robot lover”, Thomas?
Depends on if it’s Cameron, the terminator that protected John Conner. Other than her, my list of potential robot dates is pretty short.
Bob-1,
I am a profit lover, regardless of the source, robots or humans. But robots do complain less 🙂
With that said I think their dislike of robot space is one reason space advocates ignore the $220 billion plus space commerce industry, but all the profits come from the “robotic” comsats and remote imaging satellites operated from Earth. They would probably be a lot happier if there were large crewed station instead in the Clarke Orbit as Arthur C. Clarke wrote about in his book “Islands in the Sky”.
And sad to say, what is true for space commerce in Earth orbit will also be true for the Moon. The business models I have seen that come closest to closing are those build around robotic systems with few if any humans on the surface. Nothing surprising really when you think about it.
This is great. Let me start off our national conversation:
Hey Mitt, what precisely is your plan for space exploration if you’re elected to office?
I mean, other than getting advice from Top Men like Anderson, Mike Griffin and Gene Cernan.
I’m not really understanding this plea. We’re supposed to go out a foster a national conversation, but the GOP front runner refuses to provide anything other than his process for figuring out what his policy will be at some point in the future.
Gingrich started a national conversation by actually proposing something. Romney merely mocked while putting forth no proposals of his own.
Does Robot lovers use condoms ?
This information might be key to convert me to your cause 😉
It’s not that kind of virus…
IIRC, there was a Space Show interview a month or so ago with NASA’s new head of tech development. He said he would like to closer align the use of robotic exploration to support human missions.
He also said one issue is the different time lines for European and American decadal surveys. Meaning that it was much harder to set joint priorities.
Hey, so why is Anderson urging us to start a national conversation about America’s future in space while sitting in front of a Soyuz rocket? It’s either clever (don’t let this be our future in space) or clueless (why not an American rocket?)
Its most likely neither, just a picture of one of the space tourists launching on the Soyuz.