Bloggers in Space

Chris Bowers makes the case for the space program. I don't necessarily disagree that space exploration is a reasonable mission for the US government. But what was specifically at issue was manned space flight. There's nothing categorically wrong with manned space flight -- if we find something out there such that there's reason to believe a manned visit would bring enormous benefits, why not send someone? -- but at the moment manned space flight serves mostly as a costly distraction from more useful space missions.

Unmanned missions are, at the moment, the ones really pushing the frontiers of our knowledge and that's going to continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. That's where we ought to be focusing our energies. Meanwhile, we might want to offer encouragement and assistance to rising powers who haven't yet undertaken substantial manned missions and for whom the "yes we can" factor still looms large. There's nothing special about being the nth American in space, but the first Brazilian or Chinese or Indian mission to the Moon might be a big deal if one of those countries was so inclined.

Comments

Even with manned flights, the problem is there are much more efficient means than the space shuttle. The shuttle makes no sense. The Russians have a more efficient manned space program than we do.

Posted by Jake | February 18, 2008 6:27 PM

Without manned space flight, we don't get hilarious astronaut love triangles involving balpeen hammers, mace and adult diapers.

Sure, that's probably not worth billions and billions of dollars, but unless the Mars rover develops a huge crush on a coke machine, what will CNN have to report?

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 18, 2008 6:32 PM

Exactly, Matt. Bowers seemed to miss that point, and you've nailed it. Manned space flight is extremely expensive and has held back other space science initiatives.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 18, 2008 6:32 PM

I agree, and made a similar distinction between manned and unmanned space flight over at Open Left. Another commenter looked around a bit and found evidence that the HRC-BO difference seems to be manned versus unmanned.

I intend to pursue an ambitious agenda in both space exploration and earth sciences," Clinton said. "I want to support the next generation of spacecraft for a robust human spaceflight program."

Obama agreed that NASA, which employs thousands of Houston-area voters who work at or with the Johnson Space Center, should be a tool for inspiring the nation.

But, he said, the next president needs to have "a practical sense of what investments deliver the most scientific and technological spinoffs - and not just assume that human space exploration, actually sending bodies into space, is always the best investment."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5546810.html

Posted by Jeff S. | February 18, 2008 6:38 PM

Manned space flight is the most important area of space exploration long term.

The important point is that it may cost more money than unmanned exploration missions, but there really are not any legitimate reasons why both types of missions cannot be adequately funded.

Posted by Jacob | February 18, 2008 7:01 PM

China already put a man in space onboard their own spacecraft. That was in 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhou_5

Posted by Alex B. | February 18, 2008 7:08 PM

... if we find something out there such that there's reason to believe a manned visit would bring enormous benefits, why not send someone?

What did you have in mind here, Matt?

Posted by Still Undecided | February 18, 2008 7:16 PM

Which is to say, they're getting there, but slowely. Current plants put Chinese manned moon expeditions out past 2015 somewhere.

-Alex

Posted by Alex B, | February 18, 2008 7:18 PM

The US Government's "civilian" program for space exploration is a subterfuge for gaining militarily useful capabilities which will allow it to conquer planet Earth.

From http://www.space.com/news/050617_space_warfare.html

Some excerpts:
--------------
"The White House is now delving into U.S. military space policy and what it sees as the need to reshape current national space policy, a leftover legacy document from the Clinton Administration. "
---------
"The new policy will be more military-oriented, rather than the heavily civil-oriented predecessor," Hitchens suggested. What's ahead is a shift of terminology, she added, a "playing with the words."

As example, the term "freedom of action in space" is now a code phrase for "freedom to attack as well as freedom from attack," Hitchens emphasized, drawing the distinction from recently issued U.S. Air Force Counterspace Operations Doctrine.

Tap on the shoulder to toast

Hitchens points to current U.S. Air Force documents that state the need for anti-satellite capabilities. These "knock 'em dead" ideas range from hit-to-kill devices, electromagnetic pulses to lasers. "Anything from a tap on the shoulder to toast", she said, is not ruled out, including physical destruction of a target satellite. All are part of the counterspace portion of space control.

Just how explicit will the new Bush space policy be on these matters?

None of this detail is likely to be visible within the publicly released document, Hitchens said. "What I am suggesting is that the strategy of fighting 'in, from and through' space is already codified in official military documents. Those documents could not have been published without at least the tacit approval of the Pentagon civilian leadership and the White House."

For Hitchens, what's coming is simply putting "the political chapeau on this strategy." It will support the space warfighting strategy, although probably in a rather subtle and understated way, she said.

"The reason for the coyness is also obvious. The White House knows that the idea of space weaponization is publicly controversial. Therefore, they will seek to defuse this controversy by emphasizing the 'defensive' needs and approach," Hitchens advised.
---------
"The time to weaponize and administer space for the good of global commerce is now, when the United States could do so without fear of an arms race there."

This is the view of Everett Dolman, Associate Professor of Comparative Military Studies in the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.

No peer competitors are capable of challenging the United States, Dolman explained, as was the case in the Cold War, and so no "race" is possible. The longer the United States waits, however, the more opportunities for a peer competitor to show up on the scene.

Dolman argues that, in ten or twenty years, America might be confronting an active space power that could weaponize space. And they might do so in a manner that prevents the United States from competing in the space arena.

"The short answer is, if you want an arms race in space, do nothing now," Dolman said.

Maintain the status quo

For those that think space weaponization is impossible, Dolman said such belief falls into the same camp that "man will never fly". The fact that space weaponization is technically feasible is indisputable, he said, and nowhere challenged by a credible authority.

"Space weaponization can work," Dolman said. "It will be very expensive. But the rewards for the state that weaponizes first--and establishes itself at the top of the Earth's gravity well, garnering all the many advantages that the high ground has always provided in war--will find the benefits worth the costs."

What if America weaponizes space? One would think such an action would kick-start a procession of other nations to follow suit. Dolman said he takes issues with that notion.

"This argument comes from the mirror-image analogy that if another state were to weaponize space, well then, the U.S. would have to react. Of course it would! But this is an entirely different situation," Dolman responded.

"The U.S. is the world's most powerful state. The international system looks to it for order. If the U.S. were to weaponize space, it would be perceived as an attempt to maintain or extend its position, in effect, the status quo," Dolman suggested. It is likely that most states--recognizing the vast expense and effort needed to hone their space skills to where America is today--would opt not to bother competing, he said.

Posted by Don Williams | February 18, 2008 7:25 PM

Re my above post, Just what does Air Force Professor Dolman mean by his reference to "garnering all the many advantages that the high ground has always provided in war"?

Well, consider this low key reorganization of two Major military Commands:

"From http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=3396
"DOD ANNOUNCES MERGER OF U.S. SPACE AND STRATEGIC COMMANDS

As part of the ongoing initiative to transform the U.S. military into a 21st century fighting force, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld today announced the intention to merge two unified commands whose missions include control of America's nuclear forces, military space operations, computer network operations, strategic warning and global planning. The intended merger of U.S. Space Command (SpaceCom) and U.S. Strategic Command (StratCom) will improve combat effectiveness and speed up information collection and assessment needed for strategic decision-making.

"The missions of SpaceCom and StratCom have evolved to the point where merging the two into a single entity will eliminate redundancies in the command structure and streamline the decisionmaking process," said Rumsfeld.

U.S. Strategic Command, located at Offutt Air Force Base in Neb., is the command and control center for U.S. nuclear forces. U.S. Space Command in Colorado Springs, Colo., commands military space operations, information operations, computer network operations and space campaign planning. Both commands are charged with countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. "

Posted by Don Williams | February 18, 2008 7:32 PM

What Would Duchovny Do?

Posted by Andruw | February 18, 2008 7:33 PM

No, actually, Matt, your wrong. Manned spaceflight serves a purpose - outer space development, and space colonization. And that purpose is fundamentally different from unmanned space science flights, like Hubble.

You commented about specific things that manned flight can bring us. Well, as I said, manned spaceflight is about economic development. Manned spaceflight is creating a new industry, in the form of the NewSpace industry, from companies like SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, Scaled Composites, XCOR, and Bigelow Aerospace. This is creating jobs. Looking just a little bit further down the road (and, we are talking in the next 2-5 years here - not decades, but very soon) space manufacturing of medicine and stem cells, and a little further, space can provide a solution to the issue clean energy, in the form of Space based solar power.

All of this requires manned spaceflight, and, as I said, it serves a different purpose. We are fully ready to embrace the solar system as part of where we live. But it only happens if we choose to do so.

Posted by Ferris Valyn | February 18, 2008 7:34 PM

The manned lunar expedition is already sapping money from future unmanned expeditions to Mars, which is scientifically far more interesting. If the economic and/or scientific case could be made for going to the moon, it should be done with unmanned vehicles, too.

The unmanned space program may yield great dividends by spurring an academic revolution in autonomous robot design, disruption-tolerant networks, and so on.

Such dividends are the legacy of the space race, more than we managed to land a bunch of primates on another ball of rock.

Posted by Cipher | February 18, 2008 7:35 PM

Cipher - you cannot do large scale economic development on the moon using autonomous vehicles, and space isn't just about learning and science. There are resources we can use, to help save the earth, no less.

Posted by Ferris Valyn | February 18, 2008 7:38 PM

It's a little amusing and a little sad to see how the subject of space travel inspires irrationality in some.

Let's imagine that the president holds a press conference to announce that he's decided to dedicate hundreds of billions of tax dollars over the couple decades to an effort that will eventually create a permanent settlement five miles beneath the South Pole. He doesn't bother to provide a coherent justification for why exactly we'd want to do such a thing, or even explain why his plan would be preferable to seeking out another completely inhospitable location that's somewhat easier to reach. The vice president would probably be taking the oath within 24 hours.

But when you say something similar about a barren, useless rock that's millions of miles away, all of a sudden it becomes really inspiring?

I can understand the romance of manned space flight during the early years, when we didn't know what was out there and could speculate to our hearts' content. Since then, we've established that outer space is basically a total craphole by any reasonable human standards, and we should probably adjust our perceptions accordingly.

Posted by N | February 18, 2008 7:38 PM

Certainly, the Russians and Chinese are starting to get worried about US plans for "space exploration". From a recent NY Times article at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/world/europe/13arms.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"GENEVA — The Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, on Tuesday presented a Russian-Chinese draft treaty banning weapons in space to the United Nations Conference on Disarmament, an idea that was quickly rejected by the United States.

Russia and China have pushed for years for a treaty to prevent an arms race in space, a threat underlined by China last year after it shot down one of its own aging satellites.

Responding to previous American assertions that there is no arms race in space and therefore no need for a treaty, Mr. Lavrov instead submitted a draft on “prevention of the placement of weapons in outer space, the threat or use of force against outer space objects.”

“Weapons deployment in space by one state will inevitably result in a chain reaction,” Mr. Lavrov warned. “And this in turn is fraught with a new spiral in the arms race, both in space and on the earth.”

The draft treaty aims to fill gaps in existing law, create conditions for further exploration and use of space, and strengthen general security and arms control, Mr. Lavrov said. It is time “to start serious practical work in this field,” he said.

The White House responded to the proposal on Tuesday afternoon, saying it opposed any treaty that sought “to prohibit or limit access to or use of space.”

Posted by Don Williams | February 18, 2008 7:38 PM

N,

When you make comments like that, you are ignoring all the evidence that it isn't "a total craphole by any reasonable human standards"
Space offers a vast amount of resources, that can help us solve and deal with the earth's problems. But we have to invest in it.

Manned spaceflight, and space development, is the future. And very soon

Posted by Ferris Valyn | February 18, 2008 7:46 PM

Physics grad here, and I would argue against manned flight for the forseeable future. Unmanned is lower cost, less risky, a simpler engineering problem, and has very few limits to what kind of research can be done (and fewer limits all the time). Additionally, AI advances achieved in an unmanned program have greater promise for military applications.

Posted by taricha | February 18, 2008 7:46 PM

Manned space flight teaches us more about how to do manned space flight than anything else. There isn't really any reason for it except colonizing the moon.

Posted by ben | February 18, 2008 7:48 PM

taricha - Spaceflight is not inherently costly - its costly because of the way we practice it. The push for manned spaceflight is pushing for cheap access, something that will benefit unmanned spaceflight.

And, as I've said, complaining that manned spaceflight doesn't produce a lot of science is like complaining about a school lunch program not providing college tuition - thats not its purpose. Manned Spaceflight is about development, settlement, and colonization.

Posted by Ferris Valyn | February 18, 2008 7:51 PM

Ferris,

You want to provide a shred of evidence that "Space offers a vast amount of resources, that can help us solve and deal with the earth's problems"? Most of these resources are incredibly difficult to access (would take a lot of time and a huge amount of energy to collect) compared to any resources found on Earth.

Manned space flight is truly inspirational, but it won't really do any good in the near future. We can work on colonizing other planets in a couple of billion years, a little before the Sun is due to burn out.

Posted by ben | February 18, 2008 7:55 PM

There are really at least four different relevant categories of space missions: unmanned orbital (meaning missions limited to orbiting around the Earth), manned orbital, unmanned nonorbital (e.g., missions to the moon, other planets, comets, other solar systems, and so on), and manned nonorbital.

You can make a pretty decent case for funding all of the first three categories (the first is a nobrainer because it is already economically self-sufficient, and the second and third are justifiable given the unique scientific payoff). Manned nonorbital missions are pretty tough to make a case for, however, at least given the current conditions of economic scarcity and our ability to capture much of the benefit of manned nonorbital missions with either manned orbital missions or unmanned nonorbital missions.

Posted by DTM | February 18, 2008 7:57 PM

1) In my opinion, it's idiotic to embark upon manned space exploration with technology based upon Chinese rockets from circa 900 AD.

2) What we should be doing INSTEAD is pouring the money into physics -- supporting leading edge physics experiments and encouraging our young geniuses to go into physics instead of hedge funds.

3) That is the only way that we will develop the truly advanced technology needed for REAL space exploration.

4) At least the Unmanned space program provides a lot of data to physics from observations of extreme environments in spaces --black holes, etc.
Manned space exploration will consume enormous resources and will yield little to nothing in advanced technology.

Posted by Don Williams | February 18, 2008 8:01 PM

By the way, "colonizing" space given current economic and technological realities is just a terrible idea, if for not other reason than because it would be much easier to "colonize" currently uninhabited places on Earth (deserts, oceans, etc.). That said, I think part of the justification for continuing manned orbital missions is to keep studying the effects of living in space, in case some day it does become feasible and desirable to put a significant population in space.

Posted by DTM | February 18, 2008 8:05 PM

ben - gladly.

You start by mentioning that spaceflight is incredibly expensive. However, its not inherently expensive. Its expensive because of how we practice it. Consider my discussion at ahttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/3/111434/0599/195/175740 about why spaceflight has been expensive. Or consider Rand Simberg's comments about cheap spaceflight at http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/6/simberg.htm

Yes, spaceflight is expensive, but its not because of the inherentness of the physics, or anything like that - its because its been poorly run.

But look at what companies and groups like XCOR, SpaceX, Scaled Composites are doing - all of these companies are going to cause the price to orbit to fall through the floor, in the next 5 years.

And at that point, the resources of space, like zero-g manufacturing, space based solar power, and other things open up.

We can access them now (or within the next 5-15 years), and we need to.

Posted by Ferris Valyn | February 18, 2008 8:07 PM

Well, if they shoot up enough satellites, this discussion will be over- there will be so much junk in orbit that we won't be able to get through.

And what a shame that would be, for there's lots of valuable stuff out there, like asteroids made of iron, or planets made of ammonia, that would amply repay the effort to retrieve it.

Well, at least we'll still have that wrist television.

Posted by serial catowner | February 18, 2008 8:07 PM

Unmanned is lower cost, less risky, a simpler engineering problem, and has very few limits to what kind of research can be done (and fewer limits all the time). Additionally, AI advances achieved in an unmanned program have greater promise for military applications.

I disagree. What the Spirit and Opportunity rovers have done on Mars for the past two years, a human geologist could do in a couple of days. Moreover, unmanned spacecraft have limited adaptability. They can't construct a new instrument or perform a new kind of test that they weren't designed to do.

The main reason manned spaceflight is hugely expensive is that the Apollo program, which was designed to create the infrastructure for a long-term presence in space, was used for a series of one-shot missions instead. Look at the plans von Braun had for the program -- for the cost of the shuttle, we could have had people going to the Moon every year, and gathering enormous amounts of scientific data. It's a simple equation: the first mission costs X, the tenth mission .75X, the fiftieth mission .5X, the hundredth mission .25X, and so on. If you want cheap spaceflight, you need to build the infrastructure and gain lots of experience doing it. Waiting for some magic technological breakthrough isn't going to do it -- because it's the impetus caused by constant travel that creates the breakthrough.

The payoff is worthwhile but there's no shortcut.

Posted by Scott de B. | February 18, 2008 8:11 PM

NASA has traditionally pushed manned space flight projects because they don't think that Congress will provide ever growing budgets for unmanned flights. That's why we ended up with a space station that has cost billions but provided close to nothing in terms of science. America would be better off if NASA made advancing space science its highest priority, rather than trying to increase its budget.

Posted by Spike3905 | February 18, 2008 8:15 PM

A word about the "technological spinoffs" argument that some people fall back on. While that justification usually involves the promise of vague, undefined future benefits, it's worth noting that there's one very clear and inevitable spinoff (perhaps the only inevitable one) from this kind of scientific progess: weapons. Since the stone age, research into how to move objects through the air at faster speeds has been closely linked with improved methods of killing, and our era is no different in that regard.

Consider the sci-fi scenario of a world in which space travel is routine and commonplace, and in which any sufficiently affluent person can leave the atmosphere. That world would, by definition, be one in which sending a WMD to any point on the globe at a moment's notice was equally routine. Your average deranged loner, rather than shooting up a classroom or shopping mall, would probably be able to obtain the equivalent of a few ballistic missiles and take out a town or two. Any organized and well-funded group could do a whole lot better than that. I don't see much chance we'll ever reach that point, since doing so would automatically provide incredible destructive power to innumerable destructive actors.

So, if we're going to devote massive social resources to pursuing some technological pipe dream, I'd rather go for one that doesn't also involve promoting the total destruction of human civilization. Maybe I'm just cynical and unromantic.

Posted by N | February 18, 2008 8:15 PM

Matthew,

You are a complete fucking prick

Posted by the world | February 18, 2008 8:19 PM

So, if thats case, then should we just get rid of technology, N?

Thats not a good idea, trust me.

Posted by Ferris Valyn | February 18, 2008 8:23 PM

Ferris,
Zero-g manufacturing? Space based solar power? Really? These are the "valuable resources" in space worth the cost of hundred of billions of dollars of public funding? It's not really clear that either of these would be so much better than the ground-based alternatives, but if they are, the private sector can fund the research.

Every manned mission to Mars deprives many unmanned missions of funding. Robots can do it very well now, are only getting better, and can be sent out for a tiny fraction of the cost of a manned mission. The only reason we have manned missions now is to excite the public and maintain funding for NASA's more important work.

Posted by ben | February 18, 2008 8:36 PM

As Carl Sagan pointed out, the most important reason for a human spaceflight program is to establish a permanent, self-sustaining human presence beyond the earth, in order to reduce the risk of extinction. As long as we remain trapped on a single planet we'll be at serious risk of extinction from some global catastrophe.

Posted by Mixner | February 18, 2008 8:39 PM

Scott de B.,

But putting that human geologist on Mars for two days would probably have cost somewhere around 1000 times as much as it cost to put Spirit and Opportunity on Mars.

It's the same deal with the moon: unmanned missions are going to be far cheaper. And yes, the cost of manned missions would go down the longer you did them, but so would the cost of unmanned missions, and unmanned missions would stay several orders of magnitude cheaper all along.

Posted by DTM | February 18, 2008 8:41 PM

Well, to answer your question - they are valuable resorces, and we are seeing private finanicng happening. However, I would argue that the development of new medicenes, and clean energy, falls in the spector of public welfare, since we all want to move away from power sources that pollute.

I really suggest you check out this discussion about zero-g manufacturing and look at what is happening with the newspace industry, through companies like SpaceX, XCOR, Bigelow Aerospace, Scaled Composites, and many others.

Further, you keep saying implying that any space mission is inherently expensive - and it doesn't have to be.

Posted by Feris Valyn | February 18, 2008 8:42 PM

By the way, note that things like zero g manufacturing and space based solar power are both orbital ideas, and don't require superexpensive nonorbital missions.

Posted by DTM | February 18, 2008 8:45 PM

Uh, no I'm not in favor of getting rid of technology.

This debate rests on an assumption that our collective decisions can shape the future of technological development. If that's true, I believe that devoting effort to an expensive research program which offers distant and uncertain long-term benefits - and, inconveniently, would virtually guarantee the annihilation of human society en route to those supposed benefits - is not a great idea. I don't see anything terribly controversial about that statement.

Posted by N | February 18, 2008 8:48 PM

Well, to answer your question - they are valuable resorces, and we are seeing private finanicng happening. However, I would argue that the development of new medicenes, and clean energy, falls in the spector of public welfare, since we all want to move away from power sources that pollute.

I really suggest you check out this discussion about zero-g manufacturing and look at what is happening with the newspace industry, through companies like SpaceX, XCOR, Bigelow Aerospace, Scaled Composites, and many others.

Further, you keep saying implying that any space mission is inherently expensive - and it doesn't have to be.

Posted by Feris Valyn | February 18, 2008 8:49 PM

Here is a link which contains links to a pair of current Daily Kos human spaceflight discussion threads. If anyone is inclined to visit and join in.

Posted by Bill White | February 18, 2008 8:51 PM

Ferris,

What do "new medicenes" and clean power have to do with NASA? If you want more new drugs, give the NIH more funding. If you want more clean power, fund the NSF and DOE. Manned space flight is exciting, but it doesn't really tell us how to better do manned space flight.

Posted by ben | February 18, 2008 8:55 PM

Cyborgs.

Posted by Linus | February 18, 2008 9:00 PM

Well, to answer your question - they are valuable resorces, and we are seeing private finanicng happening. However, I would argue that the development of new medicenes, and clean energy, falls in the spector of public welfare, since we all want to move away from power sources that pollute.

I really suggest you check out this discussion about zero-g manufacturing and look at what is happening with the newspace industry, through companies like SpaceX, XCOR, Bigelow Aerospace, Scaled Composites, and many others.

Further, you keep saying implying that any space mission is inherently expensive - and it doesn't have to be.

Posted by Feris Valyn | February 18, 2008 9:05 PM

Well, to answer your question - they are valuable resorces, and we are seeing private finanicng happening. However, I would argue that the development of new medicenes, and clean energy, falls in the spector of public welfare, since we all want to move away from power sources that pollute.

I really suggest you check out this discussion about zero-g manufacturing and look at what is happening with the newspace industry, through companies like SpaceX, XCOR, Bigelow Aerospace, Scaled Composites, and many others.

Further, you keep saying implying that any space mission is inherently expensive - and it doesn't have to be.

Posted by Feris Valyn | February 18, 2008 9:05 PM

EDIT: only really tells us how to do better manned space flight.

Posted by ben | February 18, 2008 9:06 PM

What dumbass colonist is going to volunteer to have his muscular and skeletal systems destroyed by microgravity?

Posted by Craigo | February 18, 2008 9:08 PM

I already linked to Charlie Stross, author of Accelerando and Glasshouse, but let me try again:

High Frontier, Redux

A cost/benefit analysis:

Optimistic projects suggest that it should be possible, with the low cost rockets currently under development, to maintain a Lunar presence for a transportation cost of roughly $15,000 per kilogram. Some extreme projections suggest that if the cost can be cut to roughly triple the cost of fuel and oxidizer (meaning, the spacecraft concerned will be both largely reusable and very cheap) then we might even get as low as $165/kilogram to the lunar surface. At that price, sending a 100Kg astronaut to Moon Base One looks as if it ought to cost not much more than a first-class return air fare from the UK to New Zealand ... except that such a price estimate is hogwash. We primates have certain failure modes, and one of them that must not be underestimated is our tendency to irreversibly malfunction when exposed to climactic extremes of temperature, pressure, and partial pressure of oxygen. While the amount of oxygen, water, and food a human consumes per day doesn't sound all that serious — it probably totals roughly ten kilograms, if you economize and recycle the washing-up water — the amount of parasitic weight you need to keep the monkey from blowing out is measured in tons. A Russian Orlan-M space suit (which, some would say, is better than anything NASA has come up with over the years — take heed of the pre-breathe time requirements!) weighs 112 kilograms, which pretty much puts a floor on our infrastructure requirements. An actual habitat would need to mass a whole lot more. Even at $165/kilogram, that's going to add up to a very hefty excess baggage charge on that notional first class air fare to New Zealand — and I think the $165/kg figure is in any case highly unrealistic; even the authors of the article I cited thought $2000/kg was a bit more reasonable. Whichever way you cut it, sending a single tourist to the moon is going to cost not less than $50,000 — and a more realistic figure, for a mature reusable, cheap, rocket-based lunar transport cycle is more like $1M. And that's before you factor in the price of bringing them back ...

He's goes on to write: "Colonize the Gobi desert, colonise the North Atlantic in winter — then get back to me about the rest of the solar system!"

Posted by Abe | February 18, 2008 9:10 PM

Matt, ALL manned spaceflight by ANY nation right now -- and for decades to come -- is an outrageous waste of its resources. Offering "encouragement and assistance" to developing nations to start it up is like offering encouragment and assistance to your neighbor's teenage son in the matter of becoming a junky.

For that matter -- speaking as someone who has been personally fascinated by space exploration since 1964 -- it's very hard to rationally justify most UNMANNED space exploration projects in terms of cost versus scientific benefit, as opposed to alternate uses (both in other areas of science, and in other areas altogether) for the same amount of money. (Climate-observation satellites are, of course, an exception.) If the US had a federal Dept. of Science that ladled out research funds impartially to all types of scientific research including space science, a very, very small share of the loot would ever go to the latter. We would -- at the most -- have a space agency rather like the European Space Sgency, spending at most about 1/4 as much of our GDP per year as NASA does.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | February 18, 2008 9:18 PM

Damn it - sorry about the triple post.

Okay, lets try this again

N - N, Your post read like it was an idictiment against all technology, not just spaceflight.

since you say its just about space technology - the reason its controversial is because its not true. Space technology is no more likely to create military spin-offs than any other technology. And claiming otherwise is false.

Posted by Ferris Valyn | February 18, 2008 9:24 PM

Ben,

Space doesn't begin and end with Nasa. Thats the first mistake. Second, Nasa can help facility space development. Things like Zero-g manufacturing and space based solar power require spaceflight, and Nasa does have a lot of experince with this.

If you want to put money into NIH, with the express purpose of developing drugs off-planet, I won't argue. But nasa can help with this. And it requires a manned pressence.

Posted by Ferris Valyn | February 18, 2008 9:31 PM

The 2008 budget for NASA is 20 Billion. The exploration part is 8 billion.

That is less than 30 days-of-Iraq-war.

I would rather have human spaceflight serve as a focus for nationalism and national identity than listen to conservatives talk about "throwing shitty little countries up against the wall to show we mean business".

Human spaceflight is a cheap and peaceful alternative to demonstrations of military hard power. The shuttle is soft power: an extreme symbol of American technology & strength.

Posted by Adam | February 18, 2008 9:33 PM

Craigo - zero-g doesn't destroy your muscular and skeletal system, if you exercise properly. For that matter, if it REALLY is an issue, we can easily create artifical gravity using spinning tethers.

Posted by Ferris Valyn | February 18, 2008 9:36 PM

Ferris, you know that's not true. Research to date indicates that exercise can mitigate tisue loss, not prevent it. And that's over short period - exposures of more than a few months are unknown. And on top of this, it's unknown whether the dmage is reversible.

And any centrifuge that's large enough to provide anything close to 1g and still spin slowly enough to prevent violent nausea would have to be several hundred feet across.

Posted by Craigo | February 18, 2008 9:41 PM

Abe - Yes, I've heard that, and, I am sorry, but I don't buy it. The implication is that 1) you have to take EVERYTHING WITH YOU for every person and 2) there aren't resources out there that we can utilize.

I admit lunar colonization is probably a little further down the road, but there is a lot we can do for colonizing earth orbit, and frankly, it won't be that big of a leap to go from earth orbit to lunar orbit.

Posted by Ferris Valyn | February 18, 2008 9:45 PM

And that several hundred feet can easily be handled with tethers, and tethered technology isn't that difficult.

And with the coming revolution in cheap access, we could even make it a solid structure.

Posted by Ferris Valyn | February 18, 2008 9:48 PM

Bruce Moomaw
Its not an outagous waste of money for years to come. Look at the creation of new industries, like zero-g manufacturing, or clean power, in the form of space based solar power. These will be best served by humans in space.

Posted by Ferris Valyn | February 18, 2008 9:52 PM

To summarize the salient points: (1) manned space is more romantic, but also way more expensive; (2) unmanned space does more for near term science per dollar; and (3) manned space also has a colonization aspect to it. So the fight is between pragmatists & dreamers. I will say that the new direction (ARES/CEV --> moon) is a better argument for manned space than the super expensive shuttle. At least the ambition, a permanent settlement on the moon, is as grand as the price tag. Another potentially desirable milestone would be permanent settlement of the moon. In this case, by permanent I mean that the same people stay, not just the infrastructure. Necessity is the mother of invention, as they say. Imagine a class of people born on the moon who cannot ever come to Earth (say they average 8 ft tall and have thin bones).

I disagree with Ferris Valyn about resources in space saving Earth. Earth has plenty. Those space resources will be valuable to the space people who live above the gravity well, but too expensive to matter much to Earth. This is not to say that a space culture can not or will not create trade with Earth.

It turns out that I work in the industry that Ferris Valyn is promoting. My take is that he is hyping the potential revolution a bit, but that there is real potential for significant change in launch costs. SpaceX is the frontrunner, who may lower small payload costs by 20-50% in the next 5 years or so (recent claims from them show > 2/3 savings). The real payoff for space resources, however, will be when launch costs are not a big issue, because the inertia/infrastructure is sufficient to use them above Earth's gravity well. Could be 100 yrs from now, or perhaps 1000. If N's cynical future arrives, it may well be 10,000 years off. Launch cost will probably be a big determining factor in creating sufficient space infrastructure to get us there.

Posted by Keith | February 18, 2008 10:05 PM

FIFTY percent of the US households have an annual income less than $40,000.

Among those 150 MILLION people, there are probably tens of THOUSANDS of geniuses equal to Einstein -- but they will never contribute to the advancement of our civilization because they will die from poor infant care, from violence , or from lack of hope.

Our inner city schools don't have adequate teachers or textbooks --much less science labs and computers -- yet you guys want to want hundreds of $Billions on boondoggles in space!

In spite of our great wealth, the US places badly in international Olympics in Math and Science --because our young geniuses know that only a moron would make physics a career.

This stupidity is what made the great civilization of China into the bitch of the Western Powers. Because all progress halted -- just as it is slowing down and halting down here.

Posted by Don Williams | February 18, 2008 10:05 PM

Correction: Above should have said "yet you guys want to WASTE hundreds of $Billions on boondoggles in space!"

Posted by Don Williams | February 18, 2008 10:07 PM

Thank you, Adam. The most expensive and foolish manned spaceflight plan -- and the Administration's current plan is a strong contender for this dubious honor -- isn't remotely as expensive, dangerous, or foolish as occupying an large Middle Eastern country for even one year, let alone for the indefinite future. We could have built a damned space elevator by now.

Posted by mark | February 18, 2008 10:11 PM

Keith,

While I agree that VSE had some potential, the current plan which includes CEV and Ares needs to be totally revisited. ESAS has really hurt us.

Posted by Ferris Valyn | February 18, 2008 10:13 PM

Ferris Valyn writes:

"Space technology is no more likely to create military spin-offs than any other technology"

I disagree. I mean, why were the Soviets so good at space flight, anyway? Perhaps it might have had something to do with their concurrent efforts to develop ways of rapidly killing hundreds of millions of people?

Or, let's take this quote from the Simberg manifesto that you linked to earlier:

QUOTE: "Imagine, instead of launching a few government employees once every few months, daily trips into space by hundreds or thousands of private citizens by multiple vehicle types, just as our airline industry today uses Boeings and Airbuses."

Now... on the one hand, the most powerful country in the world is currently (and justifiably) very concerned that North Korea might put together just one missile that can reliably reach the US West Coast.

On the other hand, we're all supposed to be enthused about an imaginary scenario where THOUSANDS of ordinary people, every day, can take jaunts into space on a whim. Bit of a contradiction, I think.

Establishing the connection between space flight capacity and mass destruction capacity seems pretty simple to me - it's not exactly rocket science (har har). If we make it easy for anyone to move an object from nearby point A to distant point B extremely quickly, there's no reason to assume that the object is always going to be friendly (and plenty of reason to fear the contrary).

Posted by N | February 18, 2008 10:14 PM

Okay, let's suppose that in 2000 you got to choose between a President Bush who was going to throw $600 billion at a wild-eyed mission to Mars, versus the president Bush we got instead.

How many of you would choose the former today?

How many would have chosen it at the time?

What continues to baffle me is the unflinching contempt people like Matt have for the manned space program (complete waste of money), despite the fact that they thought the Iraq war just might be a good idea (Could be a great investment!) - and then thought that throwing good money after bad was a sensible plan "now that we're already in Iraq".

We have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars. But it hasn't been on the space program.

Posted by Jinchi | February 18, 2008 10:18 PM

Don,

Your sentiment for the poor, and outline of the opportunity cost is well said. However some of the systemic problems resist simple solutions like more schools, or better teachers. There is real educational value in creating dreams that are based upon technology.

Posted by Keith | February 18, 2008 10:19 PM

We KNOW what the road to the future is: major advances in physics which allow us to create major , hugely powerful sources of energy. If we want space flight, we need NUCLEAR based rockets at a minimum --not primitive chemical rockets.

To reach the future, we can travel very slowly or fast. Fast travel consists of INTENSE research -- relentless probing of reality to expand our knowledge deeper and deeper. That's a function of budget and personnel. The atomic bomb was not developed as an aimless spinoff from unfocused drifting.

Pure research costs very little and yields huge benefits. By contrast, stupid space programs are hideously expensive DEVELOPMENT based on primitive knowledge which yield very little --as the APOLLO Program showed. We went to the moon -- so WHAT? What did it yield to the citizens of the USA?

The vague talk of "spinoffs" from a DEVELOPMENT project shows a lack of thought. The Pharoahs of Egypt built the Pyramids -- at the end of the day did they have anything other than a big fucking pile of rocks and a bankrupt Treasury??

Posted by Don Williams | February 18, 2008 10:20 PM

Don Willaims - they are only boondoggles if we let people like GWB manage them.

Properly managed, manned spaceflight can help with those problems you cite.

How is that a boondoogle?

Posted by Ferris Valyn | February 18, 2008 10:24 PM

The US Government's "civilian" program for space exploration is a subterfuge for gaining militarily useful capabilities which will allow it to conquer planet Earth.

Nonsense.

Our military budget is at least 35 times NASA's budget. That's not including our current wars. And the military has it's own space weapons budget.

If you cancel the manned space program, even if you canceled the entire NASA program, it would have no effect on our military program.

In fact, they'd probably just shift all the savings from the civilian program straight into weapons research.

Posted by Jinchi | February 18, 2008 10:27 PM

N,
It was airline technology that caused the destruction of 2 buildings in NYC. Genetics and bio-tech has the potential to be world ending.

Yet I suspect you aren't calling for an end to airline flights, or to stopping genetics and bio-tech research.

This is no contradiction. Yes, space technology can be used as a weapon, but its not inherently a weapon based system. That the mistake your making. Much as explosives have good uses for mining, they also have bad uses for blowing people up.

Posted by Ferris Valyn | February 18, 2008 10:34 PM

Obviously, human beings are all too easy to tempt into starting wars, despite the fact that starting wars has usually ended up being a very bad idea.

I don't see how that helps make the case for manned nonorbital space missions or colonization efforts, however, even if it would cost us a bit less. Just because we were foolish with our resources on a grand scale doesn't mean we should also be foolish with our resources on a slightly smaller scale.

Posted by DTM | February 18, 2008 10:38 PM

RE Ferris Valyn's comment "How is that a boondoogle?"
-------------
It's a boondoogle if you're plan on going into space with chemical rockets.

I would have no problem with an enormous push to develop new space transport methods as a DRIVER /Motivator for intense physics research. We currently spend practically nothing on physics -- the Hadron Supercollider is being built in Europe.

Something like a followon to Project Orion would be a great idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29

Posted by Don Williams | February 18, 2008 10:40 PM

It's the same deal with the moon: unmanned missions are going to be far cheaper.

Unmanned missions are only cheaper at doing what unmanned missions are designed to do.

Humans are far more versatile and capable of adapting research to results as they find them. It's why modern geology isn't done by robots and modern physics isn't being done by computer AIs.

Posted by Jinchi | February 18, 2008 10:40 PM

my heart is in favor of manned space explorations, but my head says that it ain't practical in the near future. however, in 50 years, things will change. In that time, we will probably figure out space elevators, fusion power, and better launch vehicles.Then, it will look feasible

Posted by stonetools | February 18, 2008 10:42 PM

Jinchi,

Well, actually, that isn't entirely true. We don't, for example, send our physicists into the middle of high energy particle accelerators to directly observe what is going on. Rather, they observe what is going on inside high energy particle accelerators at a remove, with the help of machines.

Partially that is because the machines are helpful. But it is also because the inside of a high energy particle accelerator is a very inhospitable place for a human being to be.

And that happens to be true of space as well: it is extremely inhospitable to human beings. So, actually, it makes perfect sense for human beings to explore space at a remove, through machines, just as we do in other places inhospitable to human life.

Which, by the way, doesn't mean we are actually incapable of adapting research to our results as we explore space. It just takes a bit more time for us to do that if humans stay on or near Earth as we explore space. The good news is that space isn't going anywhere, so we have a lot of time.

Posted by DTM | February 18, 2008 10:52 PM

As Carl Sagan pointed out, the most important reason for a human spaceflight program is to establish a permanent, self-sustaining human presence beyond the earth, in order to reduce the risk of extinction. As long as we remain trapped on a single planet we'll be at serious risk of extinction from some global catastrophe.
Posted by Mixner

Unfortunately, Sagan as schlockmeister and populizer of "easy' energy solutions encourages the belief that we can wreck Earth's local and regional ecosystems with too many people - then simply pack off for new virgin lands in outer space. As if "space colonies" are a solution.

They appear not to be.

If we go out as traditional biological humans, sans the mechanization of human mind (no longer needing food, water, missing elements like nitrogen) of Kurzweil's Singularity moment - we will need things we do not have any reasonable expectation of now - Mars is almost absent of water except in Polar regions, under a 35 Rem radiation flux a month, devoid of nitrogen. Other planets are worse. Many far worse...even with NASA's inanely deceitful meme that "water = life" and we can live anywhere water exists.

Even the Moon is out of the question as a self-sustaining colony because of the enormous expense of escaping the tyranny of the gravity well has any "essential" - water, a pound of human tissue, air costing 18K to boost into low Earth orbit and no space raw material usable on Earth worth the cost of retrieving it. And we have yet to make an ecosystem that recyles wastes for men in space. Even the hype about mining helium 3 ignores that it's use in a fusion reaction is more difficult to achieve than the H2-H3 reaction.

It's a long-term dream dependent on acquiring new technology, and some of that technology may never arrive. Energy to cheap to meter, then take into space. Overcoming the lethal ionizing radiation flux of the Sun and around large planets that bathes their moons. Travelling the vast distances. Getting essential elements life is based on, common on Earth, but absent elsewhere. Our experience, in 50 years of space flight - being outside the Earth's shield against lethal solar flares, is limited to 7 week-long expeditions. The last of which was 35 years ago.

For now, we should keep our space ambitions modest and go where the scientific payoff is. Unmanned space missions. Maybe a return to the Moon if economics/military need warrants it. Meanwhile hope for unlimited free energy to be developed, a way to cure cancer from the ionizing radiation of space. A turnaround in America's
debtor status before we think of blowing a trillion more just to go to Mars, plant a flag on that lifeless dead husk and return home.

Our big concern is Earth, Not even the global warming stuff is as urgent as human population wiping out ecosystems and then travelling from collapsed overpopulated collapsed ecologies to show up on n America, Europes, and Russia's borders in the next 40-50 years.

We have gone from 160 million in WWII, to 225 in 1973, to 300 million today, to US Census now saying we will have 438 million by 2050. With the world going from 1 billion in 1900 to 6.7 billion in 2000, to 12.8 billion in 2050 barring the mass dieoff of overpopulated lands starting before then from wars of exterminating competing human surplus populations or Superflu or mass drought with no nations left with adequate food resources after their own numbers are fed to provide aid..

Many may disagree with my Malthusian take on things, but I think few would disagree that space is not how we escape grave problems too much mankind is causing to the ability of Earth to sustain rich, diverse life and keep what men do live in a good standard of living....

Posted by chris ford | February 18, 2008 10:54 PM

however, in 50 years, things will change.

Strangely put, considering Sputnik was launched just over 50 years ago.

Waiting 50 years for everything to change means waiting forever. The initial work always takes effort. It's always cheaper to do something less significant.

Nobody's going to be studying space-elevators and better launch vehicles as long as we're simply sending out the occasional lightweight probe.

Posted by Jinchi | February 18, 2008 10:54 PM

Hell, we ought to be teaching physics to our huge population of convicts -- and pay them a stipend if they pass exams ,develop new theories or publish papers.

There are some damm clever people in the pen -- just look at lockpicking and how security systems are bypassed. 1000 cons might turn out to generate nothing useful --but if just one turned out to have a gift for developing new theories in physics, the program would be worth it.

After all, you're already paying roughly $100,000 /year to imprison them (It costs more to imprison a young man than to send that young man to Harvard -- but guess what program the Republicans prefer to fund?

Why not give the convicts something to do and get a possible return. They don't have much to distract them. Put it to them this way: We want to bust out of planet Earth and if they develop the plan they can come with us.

Posted by Don Williams | February 18, 2008 10:59 PM

Re Chris Ford's comment "Many may disagree with my Malthusian take on things "
----------
I'm going to do something so --so incredibly bizarre that I get a pulsing migraine just from contemplating it.

I'm going to say that I totally agree with a Chris Ford post.

Posted by Don Williams | February 18, 2008 11:06 PM

We don't, for example, send our physicists into the middle of high energy particle accelerators to directly observe what is going on.

True, but then space isn't nearly as hostile an environment as the inside of a particle accelerator.

And the instruments physicists do use are typically readily accessible upgraded and modified as discoveries are made. You can't do that with an unmanned space probe millions of miles from Earth.

Most of the objections to the manned space program seem to be that it's too expensive and the money would be better spent on unmanned space science.

But there isn't a big pot of money marked "SPACE ONLY". Canceling the manned space program wouldn't add money to the unmanned program. It would be shunted off to whatever priorities politicians had at the time (These days, that's the war).

In fact when the manned program was effectively suspended post-Apollo, the unmanned program suffered as well. Space science rebounded with the shuttle era. One is tied to the other, whether people want to see it or not.

Posted by Jinchi | February 18, 2008 11:11 PM

Our experience, in 50 years of space flight - being outside the Earth's shield against lethal solar flares, is limited to 7 week-long expeditions. The last of which was 35 years ago.

As you sort-of admit, we don't have 50 years of experience in interplanetary manned spaceflight. We have 4 years (1968-1972). Yet the assertion, by you and others, is that we can't solve the problems of human space travel because we haven't solved it in 50 years.

Wait another 50 years without doing the ground work and we'll still have only 4 years of deep space experience.

Posted by Jinchi | February 18, 2008 11:20 PM

Er.. there is ONE space project that I would strongly like to support : Project MOOSE (Man Out of Space Easiest). Kinda a secret obsession.

Developed here in Philadelphia back in the 1960s by some good ole boys at GE's Reentry Systems -- which ..uh ..built other things. (Hint: They were long, cone-shaped, and with 300 kilotons)

MOOSE basically was a system whereby an astronaut in difficulty abandoned his space station, strapped an ablation shield to his ass, fired a small retro-rocket and SKY-DIVED to Earth from about 400 miles up -- which meant he hit the atmosphere like a bat out of hell!!!

I'VE ALWAYS wanted to try that.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOOSE

Posted by Don Williams | February 18, 2008 11:23 PM

Naturally, those pussies at the Air Force wouldn't fund MOOSE.

Too bad space isn't run by the Marines -- they would have had a fistfight over who got to go first.

Posted by Don Williams | February 18, 2008 11:27 PM

SKY-DIVED to Earth from about 400 miles up

Yeah, I was always impressed with this image.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Kittinger-jump.jpg/472px-Kittinger-jump.jpg