A rationale for human spaceflight
This entry at Thespacereview.com argues for continued human spaceflight-
The retirement of the space shuttle has sparked a debate about the value of human spaceflight. Some see it as a waste of resources. Robots are better, cheaper alternatives, they say—and robotic missions don’t risk human lives. Others see the ability to fly humans into space as being tied up with national prestige, influence, and soft power. Some argue a reliance on private companies to get Americans into space is ultimately a healthy development. Still others say the only reason to put people in space is to ensure the survival of the species should something happen to Earth—and, in the fullness of time, something will. In short, viewpoints are all over the place.
NASA’s Mars rovers have been a remarkable success story. Designed to cover less than half a mile in 90 days, for example, Opportunity is still going strong after more than seven years and 30 kilometers. The fact is, though, that a human expedition could cover 30 kilometers on Mars—and do so more efficiently—in a day. Robots will become more capable, of course, but if we want to see wide-ranging, thorough explorations of Mars anytime soon, dedicated scientists who accept the dangers will have to go there…
Share
Several space advocates hail this as inspirational — I think most of it (“..if humanity stays on Earth exclusively, the species will go extinct..” “…The next logical step for NASA in an economic/technology development context is to establish a human lunar base, — [to] conduct scientific research across a range of disciplines, begin to bring lunar resources into the human economy, and serve as a locus for future commercial development.” ) is laughably bad unless you already drank the kool-Aid. It might well show the problem with space advocacy or the space program. A disconnect from what folks want to see. Not symbolism, or nutty wide eyed nonsence of the human species can only survive if we ramp up the space program and make a show peace international moonbase like the international space station that bores folks.
People want to see results. Wheres the space based industry, mining platforms, tourist platforms. No bucks? No Buck Rodgers.
What people can do on Mars that machines can’t: eat, sleep, drink, breathe, fuck,admire sunsets, anticipate a future, go to school, run for political office, compose symphonies, write novels, design spaceships, fall in love, exchange gossip, cook meals, die and be buried. Does this look strangely akin to the sort of things people do on earth? Well, what a surprise!
What do we have on earth that we don’t yet have on Mars? 6000 years of history recording violence, war, rape, exploitation, theft, and slavery, unending conflict between nations, unending struggle between classes, ceaseless attempts to secure resources necessary for life to continue, superstitition, stupidity, stereotyping.
Look at the contemporary United States with its struggles between Republicans and Democrats, between the wealthy and the poor, deliberately impoverishing itself in foreign wars, gleefully embracing schemes of internal repression. That’s your future without space flight. That’s the next ten million years of “sensible development.”
Huh? Somehow we get away from all Earthly troubles by moving to Mars?
What people can do on Mars that they can’t do on Earth is precisely one thing. Not be on the Earth. All of the failings of humanity are easily transplanted to Mars along with the explorers and settlers that we send there. Even though the Martian settlers might want to press “Reset” on their history and start over. That dismal history isn’t a property of the planet, though. It’s property of humanity. It is wholly irrelevant to a future with or without spaceflight.
This is sort of like that crazy idea that the arms race on Earth means that we need to have people on Mars for humanity to be safe. There is absolutely nothing that allows humans to go to Mars, but prevents nukes and stupidity from being exported there.
It’s amazing how far apart people are sometimes isn’t it? Some of this forward-looking “leave the Earth behind” stuff only sounds cool, but the reality is….sheesh!
Just think of the logistics… Even with all the best technology you could wish for, moving people in big Arks like in the movies is still just for the movies.
I watched another discussion like this one on a general forum that was picking apart The Economist cover story about the end of the space age, or whatever. Half the people were stuck on the “we are going to need to leave Earth someday” scenario. It makes me think that much of the public is looking at space exploration that way too, and it’s really not headed in that direction and never was going to be.
Why not? I’d argue it should’ve been
Heinrich Monroe – Difficult to eradicate all memory of history, of course. Still, I’d argue that the USA became a different place from typical European states because it started off differently, without all the paraphenalia of Europe. There weren’t a lot
of noblemen actually resident in the Americas, for example, and the places where a European-style nobility were imposed on the local pupulace (Peru, Mexico, etc) have been historical also-rans.
It seems plausible that human colonies in space will be spared a lot of our baggage. I don’t think it’s likely, let’s say, that 40% of the first Martian colonists will have to live without medical care because they’re too poor or too shortsighted to buy insurance. I don’t think it likely that a handful of magnates will seize all the land and property in a lunar colony and divvy up all the inhabitants and booty between themselves, with the US Army on hand to preserve order. I don’t think we’ll be disposessing uncivilized Venusians of their land. And so on.
Furthermore, it’s likely that for the first century or so, the people who migrate to planetary colonies will be fairly young, able, well educated, determined folks. They are not going to be illiterates, layabouts, drug addicts, retarded, or chronically ill. They probably won’t be barroom brawlers, pedophiles, embezzlers, religious or racial bigots, kleptomaniacs, or cowards.
My guess is they’d create societies which differ somewhat from ours.
——————
Space. Too true, we’re not going to be shipping millions of folks into space on great arks, so the idea of depopulating earth to seed the planets is not reasonable. On the other hand, you couldn’t fit more than a few hundred people into a sailing ship for several centuries after Columbus, so obviously filling up the Americas with Europeans was a nonsensical idea. And yet …. if you look around, you’ll see more people with European or African characteristics than AmerIndians.
Moving on. I sincerely doubt that half the people who chose to argue the case for spacceflight with The Economist actually did so with no arguing point other than “its for human survival” in their mind. It’s just that it’s an argument that’s difficult to logically refute, while almost every other argument for space colonization can be slapped down for poor economics and impracticability.
What ever happened to exploring space to gain knowledge of the universe we live in, or to develop technology we wouldn’t necessarily need on earth, but has direct application to earth?…
Do we really need all this stuff? Weren’t we happy living in caves, and foraging for food in the forrest? Hasn’t humanity been on a quest for knowledge? Perhaps we will discover something new by challenging ourselves to get along on the moon or mars… Perhaps in the face of adversity, humankind will finally evolve out of our violent past and ways.
Ferris-
There is nothing wrong with looking ahead, but should space exploration be driven by “leave Earth” scenarios right now?
I can see the first NASA meeting on that going this way:
Project Colonize ™ Disney et al
You want to do WHAT?
What are the numbers of people?
What are the requirements?
That is as far as it would get.
Be real.
Should space exploration be driven by “leave Earth” scenarios? you ask.
And I’d say, “Yes.”
We’ve spent near 50 years now proclaiming “It’s all about the Science! and the Down-To-Earth Benefits!” And how has that worked out so far? And how do you suppose that’s going to continue working out once all the taxpayers understand that the future isn’t going to look like Star Trek? Not because it’s impossible to build that kind of future, but because the people who make the decisions for the rest of us just don’t want a future that looks like Star Trek? Or that even the people who make their living working on space programs don’t want a future that looks like Star Trek?
Seriously, people have supported space programs for decades now because they thought of space flight as a good and valuable part of humanity’s future. A frontier! Endless opportunity! Ever expanding possibilities! Wonders!
If you really succeed in persuading people that No, that kind of future isn’t in the cards, that what we’ve got now is pretty much it for the rest of time, and the only big issue left is who gets to be the Eloi and who the Morlocks …. there’ll be hell to pay. We’re never more than one generation from barbarism, y’know?
>…out once all the taxpayers understand that the future isn’t
> going to look like Star Trek? Not because it’s impossible to
> build that kind of future, but because the people who make
> the decisions for the rest of us just don’t want a future that
> looks like Star Trek? ….
Actually its because “we” the taxpaying voters, don’t want that, or at least see a good version of that as being practical, profitable, etc. Doing it for international coolness is getting old.
Kelly –
And your practical, profitable reason for wanting a space shuttle
to display in Houston is ?
Space
I submit that if there was a formal agreement/law that stated that the goal was large scale space colonization (because I submit either way that is what we are talking about), and that along the way there will be measurable steps, and the growth of new, self-sustaining industries, you’d see enough support for the plan to go forward. That, IMHO, was the point of Greason’s talk at ISDC this year.
>.. your practical, profitable reason for wanting a space shuttle
> to display in Houston is ?
Its theplace most associated with Manned space flight in the US, adn the shuttles have done virtually all the maned space flight our species ever did. So its appropriate.