The Shuttle program DID NOT prove that a winged re-usable spacecraft is a bad idea. Our best bet remains continually developing newer and better winged re-usable spacecraft. The first working design of ANY type of vehicle is never the best working design of that type of vehicle.

History lesson: Someone said to President Wilson, “We’re the 19th in the world in aviation – behind Brazil – and we invented it!”. The result was the founding of the National Advisory Council on Aeronautics (NACA), the U.S. Government agency that did the aeronautical research that made us the world’s leading air power, INCLUDING part of the work done on the X-1, the world’s first plane to fly faster than Mach 1. When the USSR launched a satellite before we did, the U.S. government response included changing NACA into the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which has continued aeronautical research in addition to spacecraft research. So, there IS a place for civilian government space research and other activity. OTOH, we need to remember that NASA’s charter does not say anything about building O’Neill colonies, so NASA should not be expected to do everything. Now: the trans-continental railroad, the Panama Canal, Boulder Dam and the Interstate Highway System have ALL been of great benefit to industry, and NONE of them were built without the U.S. Government making them happen. Also: the cost IN ENERGY of putting a person, or a package, into Low Earth Orbit is the exact same cost IN ENERGY of flying that person or package from New York City to Sydney, Australia and back by commercial jet airliner. The first, last, and only reason why it can’t be done for the same price IN CURRENCY is that more aerospace transportation research and development needs to be done.

Now, whose fault is it that we didn’t save Skylab in 1979 and that we hadn’t been adding to it ever since? Whose fault is it that we don’t have SECOND-GENERATION Space Shuttles, SOME of which could have been owned and operated by a consortium of business firms, that we could have had since 1991? Whose fault is it that we don’t have a small-but-growing, permanently-manned all-U.S. Moonbase, that we could have had since 1978? Whose fault is it that we didn’t have an all-U.S. manned expedition to Mars as long ago as 1987? Whose fault is it that we didn’t have a manned expedition to Ceres as long ago as 1996? Whose fault is it that we didn’t have a manned expedition to Ganymede as long ago as 2005? Whose fault is it that we don’t have lunar mining AND a several-miles-wide solar array in geostationary orbit AND the first O’Neill colony, RIGHT NOW? It’s PRIMARILY the fault of those jerks who have been promising, since the Apollo era, to create Heaven-on-Earth by preventing people from doing things in space; those jerks who continue to promise to create Heaven-on-Earth by keeping money away from the space agency. For a good example of this sort of thing, Google “(The Nation) + (Katha Pollitt) + (Lost In Space)”.

Another problem, or potential problem, is John Weldon, John Ankerberg, Hank Haanegraaf and others, who are trying to manipulate Christian parents into keeping their kids from watching space TV shows. They do this by saying that DEMONS have been visibly appearing to people and claiming to be aliens, and that UFOs are NOT airplanes or meteors, but illusions that demons are projecting into the visual part of the brain. (BTW, I’m NOT against (true) Christianity; I attend church regularly.)

And you think colonies in space will help? If Earth is struck by a Dinosaur Killer, then in immediate aftermath of the explosion Earth will STILL be much more hospitable and easier to survive on than Mars, or asteroids, or Europa. If surviving an asteroid impact is your goal, then building underground shelters on Earth is far more cost-effective than building space colonies.

Building a space-based asteroid defense system is a different story, and is very much cost-effective. But there is no fundamental reason for such system to be manned — and the fewer humans it could be done with, the better, as all life-support costs John Fruhwirth listed are smaller.

Getting our metals and other goods from “dead” rock instead of mucking about in a fragile biosphere seems like a good idea too. (Although I can think of some nasty risks there too.)

It most certainly is a good idea. But again, there is no reason to involve more humans in the process than absolutely necessary. And even if “absolutely necessary” number turns out to be non-zero, it will be much cheaper to do on “offshore oil rig” model — highly trained people spend weeks or months in dangerous environment, then go home to spend their money. Nobody makes homes or raises families at the bottom of continental shelf — the enormously more benign environment than space.

John Fruhwirth: While I generally agree with your arguments, you seem to think that science and research are the ONLY things to do in space: “to get the information/knowledge we want so as to learn about our solar system, our place in it and in the cosmos at large”. Do you expect ANY economic benefit to come from spaceflight? If not, then how exactly do you expect that knowledge to contribute “for our good and for that of the “good earth” which is the best spaceship we will ever have!”?

I’m waiting for Elon to go public. He’s going to take us to Mars. I suspect he intends to get into the real estate business.

Getting our metals and other goods from “dead” rock instead of mucking about in a fragile biosphere seems like a good idea too. (Although I can think of some nasty risks there too.)

As for “is it worth risking a life for”….we risk our lives everyday, mostly for extremely silly reasons. (That drive to Starbucks is not without risk.) And, lets face it, we ARE going to die, each and every one of us, sooner or later. Mostly of the most mundane things. For me, I would love it to be in the service of the Human Race, helping set up a space colony, or perhaps a planetary colony.

My early industrial training was taken with the above in mind; in the 70′s I was sure that the USA was going to actually build those bases on the moon that you could read about in the NASA book store. I was young, and hadnt yet learned that Congress punishes sucess and rewards failure.

You’re a patient man. I hope you’re wrong.

Lets drop this thread. It looks, increasingly, that we are talking past each other.
I keep asking for justifications an getting only meager responses back.

You, meaning most of the people advocating manned flight, just keep saying that you want it, despite all of the costs,hurdles and problems involved.

So, I for one am dropping out of this discussion.

TTFN, …John

One reason for the delay in space development was that, once it was proven that two bicycle makers could build an airplane (after many “smarter” people stated that the effort was futile and impossible…and besides, what would we do with aircraft? There’s no market.), it took relatively little capital for someone else to experiment and build their own aircraft. That kind of innovation just got started in the space field, with smaller companies trying different approaches to design (though all are still chemical).

With very few exceptions, the first 50 years of space development was led by governments, willing to spend lots of money for a ride to space that was ‘reliable’ all the while re-using weapons designed for another purpose. There’s been no forcing function for innovation or significant cost decrease.

As to new propulsion methods, aircraft didn’t face the physics of the rocket equation (which make ion propulsion very efficient, but impractical for most applications) and the politics of nuclear spacecraft (which stopped the NERVA program…which likely never would have flown in the atmosphere anyway). The need for frequent and speedy travel between planets (again, reliant on the creation of colonies requiring such transport) would be much more of a technology driver in that area than anything that’s happened so far.

Don’t take anything I’m saying as meaning I think any of this is easy.

(on 09 May 2008 at 2:11 am) :
“The best part of this whole post is Phil is a supporter of Obama who is the most likely to slash and burn NASA budget in favor of “Education” programs.”

Wrong. McCain is by far the worst when it comes to space exploration -he’d freeze all their money at once and probably ultimately kill NASA off entirely to fund his 100+ year war in Iraq.

When it comes to funding NASA Barack Obama is actually the best of a rather bad lot – & not just for the space program but for your nation and thus the planet as a whole – as was shown on the other BA thread on the candidates space exploration / science views compared. Apparently he’s something of a Star Trek fan so the chances seem better that he can be coaxed into reviving the space program’s progress – & with it America’s finest moments & aspects.

John Fruhwirth : Thanks! Glad you enjoyed them!

My point is to question the point of the motivation. Now that is fine as far as it goes. However, when I consider the enormous costs involved in satisfying this itch, I take pause.

“once we have the tools …” you say. Well, my point is that we don’t and won’t until some new and radical understanding of the physics involved happens. Until then it is all just wishful thinking. And, as you may know, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
How can you jump over “if” portion of this problem? It is presumptuous to assume that it is only a matter of time until we have said tools. The “if” portion is still an open question.

Yes LEO hotels and clinics demand a human presence. But this is by definition self referential. As for mining the moon, I see no reason why this activity would “demand” a human presence. ANd why the heck would you want to put an observatory on the “dark” side of the moon? Leaving aside the fact that there is no such thing. The correct term to use here is the “far” side of the moon! It is only dark to you because we can’t see it from here. It does in fact get lit by the sun! Once a month, in fact.
And just because some people would be prepared to risk their lives does not make it an ethical course of action when a risk free (wrt life) alternative exists. It is simply not ethical.

You say: “Frankly, once we have a propulsion system that drops travel time to the moon to several hours from LEO, and to Mars to a few weeks, and a safe and standardized way to get from the surface to LEO, then I expect space travel to become as safe as flying the Pacific in a 25-year-old aircraft the FAA says it has inspected.”
This again is putting the cart before the horse.Think about it this way, the best rocket scientists and astro-physicists have been unable to even speculate let alone expound a theory as to how to accomplish the the advances in propulsion that you seem to think is only a matter of time and money away.

A suggest that a large dose of humbleness is warranted in this regard.

Go ahead, show me to be narrow minded and ignorant in this regard if you can. After all you have all kinds of information at your fingertips. Check out the physics blogs, wikipedia, etc., etc., In short, show me. If, as and when you do, I will eat humble pie, my hat, my words, etc. I’m not proud, just a realist (well, to my mind anyway).

BTW, I’m still waiting for a response to my contrast between air travel and space flight. Waiting…, waiting… tick… tock… tick… tock…

…John
…John

That said, I can think of no research, in space or on this planet, that merits compelling someone to put his or her life at risk. But, I can imagine any number of activites in space that demand a human presence. E.g., an LEO hotel, an LEO clinic, lunar mining, a dark side observatory, etc. I wouldn’t risk my life for any of them, but I’m sure a lot of other people would, especially for the right money.

Frankly, once we have a propulsion system that drops travel time to the moon to several hours from LEO, and to Mars to a few weeks, and a safe and standardized way to get from the surface to LEO, then I expect space travel to become as safe as flying the Pacific in a 25-year-old aircraft the FAA says it has inspected.

Once we have the tools to support reliable human space travel, and the tools to suport long-term habitation in space and on other planets, someone will eventually come up with the financing to make that happen. Space is not a laboratory limited only to research by machines.

Arguing that space travel should be limited to machines strikes me like arguing that Europeans should have stayed home for a few centuries until they could send robot ships westward across the Atlantic to land tiny little machines to assess the soil composition of some Caribbean beach.

It’s just not the point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_history

However, I do notice that neither you nor anyone else has addressed my main point, that being that in contrast to the 1st 50 years of space flight, the first 50 years of air travel has developed significantly. We have gone from balloons to airships to gliders to piston driven bi-planes to supersonic jet transports, fighters, etc., etc., etc. Not to mention rotary winged craft. Hell, we even have rocket propelled aircraft.

The many comments above about the inadequacy and lack of development of space propulsion systems speaks volumes. We are largely still limited to chemical rocketry. How sad is that? Where is my hyper drive? nowhere, my ion drive? (only one so far and this one soooo slow), my solar sail? (stuck on the drawing board). Even the much vaunted Orion vehicle with its expendable boosters is a giant step backward to the Apollo era. This is progress?

I also note that while thousands of people had flown in commercial aircraft in flight’s 1st 50 years the space program has managed to lift a mere 450 (or so) people into space in the same time frame. How sad is that? And of course, in flight’s 2nd 50 years, that number exploded into the millions. Can you, or anyone else reading this thread see a similar development in manned space flight in the next 50 years? I think not.

…John

The move from the tropics into the teeth of an ice age by early humans in the great migration probably drove a technological leap (even if the technology of clothing, shelter and fire were stolen from the neanderthals, it’s even more amazing that the neanderthals came up with it!) similar to that of our move into space.

You are unlikely to change my mind, as I am unlikely to change yours. I’m finding the discussion interesting, though.

In your response to Celtic Evolution about the development of air transport, you need to adjust the analogy to where, in the early 1900s, only the government contracted to build airplanes. They only built in groups of 5, and used them for very specific purposes. There was no incentive program like the air mail system (air services were paid to fly routes whether there was mail aboard or not) to drive commercial development of planes and technology. Here’s a little background if you’re interested:

http://www.airmailpioneers.org/history/Sagahistory.htm

Heck, even the military is already taking the spam out of the can, witness the many pilot less drones doing yeoman’s duty in the skies of Afghanistan and Iraq and not just for recon anymore. The direction is clear. Minimize the risk to life and limb by extending and expanding the use of smart technologies. Nowhere is that more obvious than on the “Final Frontier”, to quote the good captain of the starship Enterprise. I repeat, let our machines boldly go where no man has gone before. It’s so much more efficient in so many, many ways.

Here is a other challenge for you… Please provide a reason/benefit attainable only be a manned mission that would justify the sacrifice of a human life. Are you prepared to lay down your life for such a benefit?

…John

>>’@justcorbly: “The motivation for space flight is to put people in space, not to do research.” So, what is the point of putting people into space in your view? And how is it the eminent scientist such as Carl Sagan and Stephen Weinberg are against it?

‘Why do contradict yourself in the very next sentence?
“Research is one thing that needs to be done in space, by machines and humans,…’

I’m separating motivation from justification or reason. The motivation for space travel is, essentially, to travel in space. Debates about cost, etc., are secondary in terms of motivation. We dream of travelling in space. Few of us, outside JPL perhaps, dream of sending machines into space, and then stopping.

Research is obviously one of the things that can be done in space. It will be done by machines and people, just as research here on the planet is done by machines and people. I don’t think that contradicts my assertion in any way. (Although I’d argue that a squad of human researchers wandering around Mars for the last few years would have conducted far more research than Spirit and Opportunity. Geez, just one guy with a shovel…)

From my reading of Sagan, I’d say he was strongly motivated about human space travel. As a scientist competing for funds, though, his practicality would lead him to its own conclusions.

>>”Are you suggesting that we exploit the moon and Mars and bring the spoils back to earth? Is so, how would you accomplish that and turn a profit”

Not necessarily, but who knows? If I knew today how to turn a profit by bringing the spoils back to Earth, I’d be out there raising funds. My point is only that members of a market economy will not fund space activities, or any other, unless they are convinced that it will return a profit.

If the private sector thought for a moment that they could make a buck up there, they would already be there. Contrast the pastr 50 years of space flight with the 1st 50 years of air travel. Look at the enormous gulf between the two. That should tell you something.

*sigh*… I’m clearly doing a poor job of making my point. I’m not arguing that the private sector wouldn’t already have done so if there were KNOWN profit to be made in space endeavours. Obviously that’s the case.

My argument is that at some point the private sector may find a means of profitting (whether monetarily or in terms of personal glory, which tends to come with monetary benefits anymore), and if they do, I contend that such a privately funded endeavour has a far greater chance of setting and meeting long term, aggressive space travel goals as compared to a government agency such as NASA.

That’s pretty much the crux of my point.

@Jack Hagerty: Oops my mistake (re. things always getting political). But it does seem that politics ALWAYS trumps science and technology.

@StevoR: Well said. Both of your posts were excellent!!!

@justcorbly: “The motivation for space flight is to put people in space, not to do research.” So, what is the point of putting people into space in your view? And how is it the eminent scientist such as Carl Sagan and Stephen Weinberg are against it?

Why do contradict yourself in the very next sentence?
“Research is one thing that needs to be done in space, by machines and humans,…”
You say: “The Moon and Mars, et al, are no more the province of researchers than the Americas were the province of Renaissance geeks.”
So, just how is it that you can compare the exploration/exploitation of a new continent with planetary exploration? The two are worlds apart. Are you suggesting that we exploit the moon and Mars and bring the spoils back to earth? Is so, how would you accomplish that and turn a profit?

@Tom: You say…”People move life with them. ” I would agree for earthly destinations but not for planetary ones. Remember that all of your examples deal with very simple movements (i.e. where the burden of bringing your environment with you is minimal). Even on earth, consider the difficulty of colonizing the south pole. It has been over 100 years since Amundson made it to the pole and yet to this day there is no permanent base at the pole. At best we have research stations down there and no exploitation of any of its resources (not that there should be either).

@MaDeR: Thanks for you thoughts. Sorry that you feel that I am hand waving about the one tenth the cost of robotics versus manned missions. I did not hand wave this ratio into existence. I based it on general reading on the topic over the past several years. However, as I cannot, at this moment, provide you with a reference, and so I am prepared to step back from it. Can you suggest a better ratio? BUT, I do invite you to consider the economic viability of unmanned missions. Look at all of the commercial satellites in orbit producing returns for their owners.

Yes, the reality, today, is that humans can do some tasks way better than robots. What I question is the cost/benefit of putting spam in the can. Is it really worth the effort to you to have “boots” on the ground?
What can they accomplish that is worth the expense to you?
Ask yourself this whenever you propose spending billions and billions of public dollars on a manned mission… And then what? Once you’ve answered that to your satisfaction, do it again. Ask … and then what? If you come up with a deeply satisfying answer then please let us all know about it. So far, when I have engaged in this exercise, I have concluded that the risk/reward ratio is just not worth it.

@Seneca. Thanks for your support.

@Dagger: Well said, sir!

@justcorbly Your response to Dagger was excellent. Well done!

@Celtic_Evolution: If the private sector thought for a moment that they could make a buck up there, they would already be there. Contrast the pastr 50 years of space flight with the 1st 50 years of air travel. Look at the enormous gulf between the two. That should tell you something.

@Gary. Do you mean that Exxon knew that the price of gas was going to hit $4/gallon 50 years ago? Bastards!!!:)

I understand your point now, but you could have been a little clearer in your original post.

Every project needs a champion, and I suppose getting the president to front for you is the highest possible profile!

- Jack