We need to create a solid infrastructure plan if we ever want to put that flame back into the space industry, what we really need is private mining corporations based in the asteroid belt or on the moon. Of course, there is the cost of running such a thing, it might be best to start off with a moon base, complete with a launch pad, renewable energy and a way of turning carbon dioxide back into oxygen (I’ve thought about gardens, but I wouldn’t put my life in the hands of a fern). Of course, if not for oxygen, it would be great to farm on the moon as well, we really can’t afford to ship supplies up all the time. I think we could really do it if we planned for a self-sustaining base.

Many people view space exploration as merely flying ships into outer space to see what we happen to stumble across, but space exploration has been integrated into many facets of modern life. Space exploration has bred satellite technology, which has become an integral part of modern living. Satellites allow us the ability to monitor environmental indicators such as, ozone holes, pollution, oil spills and other factors that may pose threats to the human race (Pelton). Satellites have also saved lives due to their ability to forecast and transmit warnings of hurricanes, tornadoes, tidal waves and other natural disasters. Another useful application of satellites is the ability to measure vulnerabilities and gain insights about the sun, planets, and objects in outer space, such as asteroids, that could pose a threat to mankind. The short-term benefits (realized in our life time) of space exploration have created thousands of jobs for engineers, scientists, and researchers. Space exploration has indirectly strengthened transportation safety systems for airplanes and enhanced national security/defense systems to protect us against advanced warfare weaponry. If the current benefits of space exploration are any indication of the long-term benefits associated with space exploration, we would be foolish to not pursue further advancements in space technology.

Perhaps the greatest short-term application for space technology is the ability to generate massive amounts of energy from outer space. Energy conservation has been a huge concern in our modern society, which has caused the green movement and other eco friendly measures to reduce the toll on our environment. If we could set up structures in space to harness the vast amounts of highly charged particles floating through the vacuum of space, our energy crises would most likely come to an end in an environmentally friendly fashion.

The long-term complexity of space exploration aims to preserve the human-race as a whole, regardless of what happens to planet Earth. To think that Earth will never experience some type of apocalypse is not only wishful thinking, but possibly ignorant thinking as well. Science has clearly proven the threat of asteroids can wipe out every living creature on this planet, so it might be just a matter of time. By having a strong standing in space, we can divert such a plausible crisis from wiping out our entire species. If the human race is able to inhabit other planets, our chances for long-term survival essentially doubles because we are not putting all of our eggs in one basket. “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that keeping all one’s eggs in a single, vulnerable planet-sized basket is an unsound long-term investment strategy. To do so is to court extinction” (Billings).

There are clearly obvious reasons for space exploration, but also untold reasons as well. What if the majority of human suffering and unjustified acts of violence are seeded from our discontent feelings with the fact that we feel wrongfully trapped in our perceived reality? It is believed that the ancients were free of ego, which allowed them to have a much more sacred connection to life because they worshipped the heavens instead of a manufactured/ induced reality. Being so heavily consumed and wrapped up in day-to-day affairs maybe blinding us from the bigger picture in life. Imagine an entire race of humans dedicated to the heavens as the ancients were, but with the technology to embrace the heavens as a tangible reality. By experiencing and pursuing space, our collective consciousnesses would elevate us to heights in which the hidden gems of space could obliterate violence, power struggles, and ego complexes. Imagine a world in which humans could utilize advanced propulsion systems to bend the fabric of space in order to discover planets we never could have guessed existed. Imagine our human race interacting and collaborating with beings from distant galaxies and learning about things that are beyond our wildest imaginations. Imagine discovering that our species was archaic compared to the vast arrays of complex life forms that exist. The mysteries of space will continue to elude us for quite some time until the majority of us are committed to exploring it.

We as human beings are inherently curious and always wanting to understand what we don’t know. To not explore space would be denying the very element that has allowed us to evolve into the intelligent creatures we are. Ever since the beginning of ancient times, mankind has been fascinated with the prospects of outer space; the only difference is that now we have the potential to unlock our fascinations with the indefinable entity called outer space. Exploring space has clearly provided short-term benefits that we are currently enjoying now, but pursuing deep space could essentially bridge the gap between the natural and supernatural worlds.

Works Cited:

Billings, Lee. “The Rocket Experience.” Seed Magazine. 15 Apr. 2010. Web. 2
May 2010. .

Pelton, Joseph N. “Why Space? The Top 10 Reasons.” Space.com. 12 Sept. 2003. Web. 02 May 2010. .

Thanks for explaining so eloquently what I could not at the time attempt.

Negligible comparable to, say, automotive or aeronautical pollutant output by inspection.

> and second the news today that only just today have we tested the techology to safely return the booster stages of rockets, all previous launches having left the main thrusters to rust in the ocean.

Where they were picked up by this wonderful thing called a ‘boat’ and ferried back to be reused.

"…somos curiosos y queremos aprender, explorar, desafiar los límites de lo posible y ver qué hay más allá… Y el Universo es enorme, bello, misterioso y, sobre todo, entendible. Incluso si las demás razones no existieran, esta debería ser…

when anyone offers me a gift horse, the first thing I want to do is pry open the mouth and take a good long look at those teeth. Guess that disqualifies me as a cool technocrat, eh?

This is true (and is the sexy high-profile version that NASA public affairs has been dishing up forever) — but it’s just the tip of the iceberg. Think for a minute about the aggregate “value added” of 45 years of improved forecasts to all the farmers, shippers, construction projects… every human activity that is influenced by weather.

I spent several months in research trying to quantify this. It’s nearly impossible, because

(1) weather data was already a “public good” when TIROS I went up, and is not monetized, nor its benefits formally assessed (you want to process a half-billion questionnaires?)

(2) it’s hard to tease out improvements due to satellite data from other forecasting improvements, or to estimate what it might have cost to get the same kind of synoptic data without satellites

None of the “weather economics” experts I talked to was willing to go on the record, but their back-of-the-envelope numbers were well up in the tens of trillions — more than everything ever spent on civil and military space combined.

This does nothing to sell manned spaceflight, of course, or for that matter any “push the envelope” agenda; it’s quiet, taken-for-granted, background value from space. But it’s there, and it’s huge… and we might learn something from its very invisibility.

After watching Challenger explode in 1986 and listening to commentators/others raise similar questions “Why?”, I was reminded of this exchange between Raymond Massey (Cabal) and Edward Chapman (Passworthy) at the end of “Things to Come (1936)”

————————————–

Raymond Passworthy : Oh, God, is there ever to be any age of happiness? Is there never to be any rest?

Oswald Cabal : Rest enough for the individual man — too much, and too soon — and we call it death. But for Man, no rest and no ending. He must go on, conquest beyond conquest. First this little planet with its winds and ways, and then all the laws of mind and matter that restrain him. Then the planets about him and at last out across immensity to the stars. And when he has conquered all the deeps of space and all the mysteries of time, still he will be beginning.

Raymond Passworthy : But… we’re such little creatures. Poor humanity’s so fragile, so weak. Little… little animals.

Oswald Cabal : Little animals. If we’re no more than animals, we must snatch each little scrap of happiness and live and suffer and pass, mattering no more than all the other animals do or have done. Is it this? Or that? All the universe? Or nothingness? Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?
———————————-
From a different time and different sensibilities….yet very much the same as Babylon 5′s “Jeffery Sinclair” explanation

So, is the complaint really based on Stem Cells and Evolution? Personally, I think this is the entire argument by the “Bush is anti-science” groupies. I find it naive to say that this 8-year period is so harmful; there must be better evidence that is simply so obvious that no one here see fit to provide it. Clinton’s 8-years was similarly bashed and his detractors were exagerating the problem. I feel that this is just the same rhetoric…

Certainly, everyone of us must know that politics trumps and the the scientific community is actually quite political and has its “camps” as well. I only see groups facing off and each one (both BA and the conservatives/right-wingers/ID-supporters) stating that they are absolutely right and the other side should not be heard at all.

Frankly, PP is a demagogue on these issues, and especially on global warming, his “there is no more room for dispute” stance surprises me….

First off, I’m not going to try to argue that the Demopublicans are any different than the Republocrats. Both just different wings of the same bird today. I don’t have much hope for an education and science driven government during the next round of elections.

Also, I don’t blame ‘Christians’ for anything. I blame the science denying fundamentalist wackjobs who went out of their way back in the ’80s to make the Republican party their whipping boys. Now that this whiny minority of the US has flexed its muscle enough, the Other half of the sick bird is pandering to them. Rational people aren’t one issue voters. You cant stand up a candidate and say ‘This one is for Supercollider funding! Everyone vote for him!’ and expect every Agnostic and Atheist to check the right box at the polls. On the other hand, the group organized by Pat Robertson and Oral Roberts are like Pavlovs dog, all you need to do is put up the simplistic talking points, and they line up behind the candidate the preachers tell them to.

Dennis cleared up the argument about “..only real resource for technology progress is private capital.” argument. I’m all for private space research. I think its vital, and it will be the catalyst truly launches us into space. But to think that private enterprise alone will get us there in time (to not go extinct) is naive. We need a firm partnership between government science and private science to keep succeeding. The problem with your statement that were currently the leaders misses the point. It takes 10-20 years to develop critical thinking minds. How bankrupt of good people will we be for the 8 years of the current administrations denial of real science, and its strong efforts at suppressing it?

B.A. on a side note, below my first comment in this thread, someone quoted from my personal blog, and used the name of my blog as their name. I’m not a big fan of self promotion of that type, (cough, Denyse O’Leary, cough) and just wanted to let you know it wasn’t me.

Dennis,
Some us in teh aerospace industry really are guiding our companies to invest IR&D and profit $ in space-enabling technologies — sometimes focused on winning specific (Government and commercial) contracts, sometimes as potential breakthroughs (what we call “disruptive” tech). We spend time regularly arguing about “value” propositions to our (usually) business and financial exective leadership. Unfortunately, scientists and engineers rarely become CEOs anymore.

The return on investment from NASA R&D through the end of the Apollo program was 4.5:1 for just four areas: cryogenics, medical telemetry, systems engineering (in particular systems analysis software) and microminiturization of electronics.

One communications satellite (of that era) prevented digging up of several square miles of earth for copper ore, to make hundreds of miles of wire, which had to be hung on thousands of poles, which meant that many trees had to be cut down.

Weather satellites up through that time had saved thousands of lives (mostly by hurricane tracking) and saved the shipping industry millions of dollars in lost cargo from ships that would have otherwise sunk.

Since that time NASA’s Office of Technology Transfer has sold thousands of patents to individuals and companies. Since government is public domain, they are not allowed to make profit on anything. The patents are sold for what they figure is the cost of running the Technology Transfer program to process a given patent. They have sold many patents for $40,000 to $50,000 which have made the purchasers millionaires. If NASA were allowed to license the patents rather than sell them off cheap, they’d not only not need funding, they’d make more money than is given to DoD for funding. They’d be richer than Bill Gates.

The article also listed how many times more than the NASA budget Americans spent for things like pizza, bubble gum, cosmetics and pornography; typically 10 to 20 times more. It also said that all the above developments, some of them life saving, cost Americans 3.5 cents per person per day (the NASA budget, in per capita division).

These were figures up through about 1980. I’d be interested to see them updated. For instance, one communications satellite now carries thousands of time more communications power than those of the 70′s.

When “private” commercial space efforts start doing significant R&D rather than working with off-the-shelf stuff, they will start making big money from their patents. THAT will be a major milestone, as they will start to make more than just a little profit from launch services.