With the landing of the final Shuttle flight, Jeff Foust has more thoughts on a theme I discussed when it launched, a couple week ago. A fifty-year era is over. Now perhaps we can end the meaningless debate about “exploration,” and get on with the real business of developing space.
41 thoughts on “Wheels Stop”
Comments are closed.
Real private industry, the kind with real private customers paying billions of dollars a year, has been developing space, especially GEO, for many decades now.
Now perhaps we can end the meaningless debate about “exploration,” and get on with the real business of developing space.
It seems likely you will get the first part of this wish. The second part…I dunno. I wish I was more optimistic, as happy and impressed as I am about SpaceX and friends.
So exploration is “meaningless”? Who knew.
Apparently you didn’t. It is meaningless because it means so many different things to different people, and it is not why we send humans into space. If that’s the reason, the machines do a more cost-effective job.
Former Beltway Wonk
Yep, the age of space commerce actually started July 10, 1962 and its currently a $200 billion dollar industry. Real commerical systems serving Real commercial markets that have nothing to do with NASA or public opinion on space, which is why you hear so little about it.
But tell that to New Space Advocates and they will mumble something about it being all about human space flight and humans flying commercially. Then point out the first commercial astronaut, one whose paycheck was from a private firm, not NASA, flew into space on August 30, 1984 (Charles Walker from McDonnell-Douglas) and they say that doesn’t count either because its “old space”, or Shuttle, or they were trained by NASA, or some similar excuse.
BTW Gregory Bruce Jarvis who was killed on Challenger was also a commercial astronaut, working for Hughes Aircraft Company.
Its actually amazing the commercial activity that took place in space because of the Shuttle, including the first commercial product made in Microgravity. But that doesn’t fit the NASA/Shuttle bashing New Space mindset, so they ignore all of it and the lessons learned.
Really depressing world you live in Rand. No one explores any more because only machines can or should do that. Luckily you are not the one making the decisions.
A fifty-year era is over. Now perhaps we can end the meaningless debate about “exploration,” and get on with the real business of developing space.
Regrettably, no one in the last fifty years has come close to showing that developing space has much to do with real business. Let’s hope the next fifty years are different.
Martin, I get your point about exploration, and really I do agree that we should continue to explore space. At the same time, I think we’ve explored LEO, and it would be nice to start developing it beyond allowing one space station at a time and absent any refueling stations. After all, its really depressing (even called a depression) to live in a world that doesn’t develop.
Government-directed exploration is meaningless when the purpose is not development and eventual colonization.
Queen Isabella didn’t hock her jewels just because she was curious what Columbus would find.
I think the NASA mission to an asteroid (Fox News link) would qualify as “meaningless”.
Building a craft with radiation protection will be a big advance (if making thick walls out of polyethelene, aluminum, or any other common material can represent an advance), but leaving some shallow footprints on a small rock really isn’t going to advance science or our knowledge of the solar system in any significant way.
We already know the composition of asteroids. Probes have visited them, and we have countless meteor samples. NASA has no plans to mine asteroids, or even for the program to advance commercial asteroid mining, so footprints and travel photos are all we’ll get. It’s about as scienfitically important as extending the map of Mammoth Cave by another mile, but it costs about ten billion times as much (and cavers don’t bill the government).
Given the cost versus gain, the program has “CANCEL ME” written all over it. Given the elusive targets, NASA could justify doing a mission only once or twice a decade, just based on scientific merit and launch windows. So it won’t have a much higher flight rate than a cancelled program, but it will have massive costs that will suck up pretty much all of NASA’s budget.
Even NASA is describing it as an interim mission that might pave the way for a Mars mission. If they have no real interest in the goal, why waste a decade or two and spend a hundred billion in taxpayer money going to someplace they didn’t want to be in the first place?
If modern NASA had existed in the 1920’s, they’d be directing this nation’s entire aviation industry toward making one aircraft capable of letting Robert Byrd fly to the South Pole, while the entire world sat around waiting for viable transatlantic passenger service.
The entire problem is mindset. People are literally blind to the possibilities because we’ve become a socialist culture that actually believes we can’t do this really expensive thing without taxpayers money and the only way we can do it is if we find something really, really valuable to export to earth. Both of these beliefs are entirely wrong but people are incapable of seeing past their blind spots.
Every time a person says we need cheaper access to space they are exhibiting this blindness. IT REALLY IS THE ECONOMICS STUPID. Humans in space is affordable now. Today. This moment. But mindset blinds people to this truth. Once the blinders are off they will realize that lower costs will be a results of moving forward, not a requirement.
There are unknowns that need to be resolved. There is a place for govt. projects that would increase the pace but those are not showstoppers.
It is expensive and costs will only come down slowly, but paying for it already has a solution… Ownership. Human expansion requires ownership and freedom from strangling government. There are no natives to fight, just environments.
The only plan ever put forth that is economical is real estate ownership. Details vary but no other plan works economically. It doesn’t require any lowering of todays costs. Yes, it is expensive, but all new things tend to be expensive before the general public can afford them. But if we do it right, the general public can take part rather quickly. It’s just a matter of how we do it.
When it comes to human space exploration, the last time that happened was Apollo 17 back in December of 1972. Every single mission since then has been to LEO: Boldly Going Where Everyone Else Has Gone Before. Since 1972, NASA has spent over $200 billion on manned spaceflight and has damned little to show for it.
I’ve seen the future of spaceflight and it isn’t cost-plus. Likely, it isn’t a big government program either.
Bigelow has threatened to put real estate in LEO. That’s the future (part of it anyway.)
New Space Advocates … will mumble something
Ok. It’s not just sight. There’s a hearing problem as well.
“…but leaving some shallow footprints on a small rock really isn’t going to advance science or our knowledge of the solar system in any significant way. ”
That may be the single dumbest thing I’ve read recently. George, how do we know WHAT we’ll find until we go to “X”? Maybe they’ll find Unobtainium, and it will change the world. But we won’t know if we don’t go.
Rand doesn’t want humans to go anywhere interesting. Just robots. Instead, Rand wants to send people to places where everyone has been before i.e. LEO.
You obviously don’t have the slightest clue what I want.
Why do you feel such a need to demonstrate your idiocy with every comment here?
That may be the single dumbest thing I’ve read recently. George, how do we know WHAT we’ll find until we go to “X”? Maybe they’ll find Unobtainium, and it will change the world. But we won’t know if we don’t go.
The problem is that we don’t need to send humans to an asteroid to find out what it is made of. Robotic explorers can do that job quite nicely for a tiny fraction of the cost of sending people there. We’ve already send spacecraft to asteroids.
Humans bring capabilities to exploration that no robot can match but they do it at a high cost. It’s like everything else – given limited funding, we need to find the best mix of technologies to get the most for our money. For example, I read some time ago that human explorers on Mars could’ve done everything in a few days that it took those rovers several years to accomplish. That may well be true but those two rovers were sent to Mars for somewhere around $500-700 million while it would’ve cost tens of billions of dollars to send humans there. Also, we’d still be waiting for them to arrive because of the time needed to develop the technology to make such a mission possible.
I have to agree with John, Rand. You did say that robots are better than people for exploring.
I have to agree with John, Rand. You did say that robots are better than people for exploring.
So?
I also said that we should be developing space. You don’t do that with robots.
I also said that we should be developing space. You don’t do that with robots.
So … you can’t use robots to dig for things on the Moon, can’t use them (as space tugs) to move material around, or can’t let them sit on a planetary surface and generate propellant using in situ resources? You can only do this with people? I don’t think so.
@Larry J:
I’d definitely agree on that. For the moon or especially Mars, humans are far faster and more efficient. But I’ll double down on my asteroid complaint. NASA seems interested in Earth crossers or other convenient targets, and even a huge one is going to have less than 0.003 G’s of surface gravity.
That sounds like a horrible environment for a human to usefully traverse a surface using his limbs. Not only can’t he generate any significant contact forces without flying off for a long while, anytime he touches something rocks and dust will fly up and stay up. Without attitude jets he’ll have trouble controlling his orientation at all, and with attitude jets he’ll be stirring up clouds of debris that will take a long time to settle. (A rock or dust particle kicked up at 6 feet per second will take about 20 minutes to settle back down at 0.003 G’s, an hour at 0.001 G’s)
Yet unlike a robot that can periodically jet itself to a new location and then patiently wait for many hours or days before uncovering its lenses, the astronaut will have a very limited endurance.
It’s the type of environment where a robot with springy legs and attitude jets would be far more at home than a human, using solar cells for power and patiently popping about the surface for years before sending return samples home. And for the cost of one human asteroid mission, we could visit dozen of asteroids with probes, and do so simultaneously.
Save the human asteroid missions for the day we decide to tear some apart for resources.
So … you can’t use robots to dig for things on the Moon, can’t use them (as space tugs) to move material around, or can’t let them sit on a planetary surface and generate propellant using in situ resources? You can only do this with people?
You can’t do it with robots alone. Who will fix them when they break?
I don’t think so.
The only reason to develop space is to settle it. You don’t do that with robots.
Give it up.
I never said that we’d use “robots” alone, Rand. As for fixing robots – why fix them? Send new ones when they break. Look at the two Mars Exploration Robots on Mars – they did just fine with no humans on site – and they operated vastly beyond their design life. You don’t seem to be aware of the current state of robotics, teleoperation, etc. Might want to work on that.
And you propose to settle space with robots? To what end?
So that people can go and live in places they have helped to explore and prepare and utilize. Its not humans or robots – its humans and robots – just like the way we explore/utilize the oceans. Really, you need to read a few books on the topic.
Its not humans or robots – its humans and robots – just like the way we explore/utilize the oceans.
Who said otherwise? Who are you arguing with?
Really, you need to read a few books on the topic.
I am quite adequately educated on the topic. I do it for a living.
Yurik, an adult could make their points without the need to insult the host. Try to up your game. Otherwise you just appear juvenile. I’m sure you have more intelligence than that.
Robots are tools which makes the whole Robot vs. Human debate stupid.
If we aren’t going to settle the solar system there’s little point in going.
I’ve probably mentioned this before (perhaps once or twice in passing) but real estate is the only known method of financing the whole thing.
I do believe we could make better use of a lot more robotic probes. This should not be used as an excuse to delay making faster progress on human exploration and settlement.
Fox says SpaceX just got NASA approval for docking with the ISS this year.
The only plan ever put forth that is economical is real estate ownership.
Ken, in detail, how to you see the moon, Mars, etc becoming real estate?
What I mean is how do see us getting from where we are now to the space real estate market you desire?
The following (unlikely) scenario is an example of what I’m looking for.
1. Nation A withdraws from the OST and declares its sovereignty over the moon.
2. Nations B, C, and D don’t recognize the claim and challenge it by landing probes and/or people on the moon.
3. Nation A responds to this “invasion” by declaring war on Nations B, C, and D.
4. Nation A gains the upper hand in this war and forces Nations B, C, and D to recognize its claim to the moon as a condition of peace.
5. Nation A extends its laws to the moon including laws governing land ownership and real estate.
Again, not a particularly realistic scenario.
Can you share yours?
Ken I love it when people on these sites criticise others for certain behaviors and then exhibit the exact same behavior in response to those supposed transgressions.
Rand: Who said otherwise? Who are you arguing with?
Rand: I also said that we should be developing space. You don’t do that with robots.
It would seem that you are arguing with yourself, Rand.
Is it your claim that we will settle space using robots, and not people?
Really?
The illogic and reading miscomprehension grows by the comment.
Rand: Is it your claim that we will settle space using robots, and not people?
Carl: No. Read what I wrote above i.e. “Its not humans or robots – its humans and robots – just like the way we explore/utilize the oceans.“
I have never claimed that we will only use robots, or only use people.
But please, continue arguing with yourself.
You accused me of saying “only robots when In fact I never did. Had you not done so there’d be no argument. Chose your words more carefully next time.
The argument started when you supported the insane claim that I didn’t want humans to go beyond earth orbit.
Read what you wrote.
Ken, in detail, how to you see the moon, Mars, etc becoming real estate?
Thank you for the question Jim. I’m thrilled to be able to answer.
1) We (any nations and companies involved) make progress with probes, then people to establish bases that require constant resupply from earth.
2) Governments take their sweet time researching ISRU because they don’t have any commitment to it, never-the-less they learn enough that settlement becomes a viable option for those with enough resources.
3) Some rich old billionaire lawyer hears Obama say once too often, “I wasn’t elected for FatCats!” and decides his children and adult grandchildren need a place to start fresh and they agree. This lawyer knows that all the talk about inheritance of mankind is pure bull. The fact being nobody, not even natives, own any of the bodies BEO and that historically a reasonable claim by possession will hold up in any court.
4) A syndicate of like minded old rich codgers is formed for the purpose of settlement that has about $30b to $50b which is enough to send a number of families and specialists to mars (the moon is too close allowing politics too much interference for their goals of independence.)
5) They write up a charter that says every individual they send is entitled to claim a reasonable size plot and gets complete and total ownership rights.
6) They have been following the research on mars ISRU(Zubrin hobby farms, water, power, oxygen, etc.) and supply their missions based on this understanding.
7) They land in a remote spot far from any other bases, set themselves up with power and water and people make their claims in a registry. Up to this point, it’s all internal. Nobody else needs to know anything about what they’re doing other than that they’ve landed.
8) No wars are fought. Others are doing their own things elsewhere.
9) Finally about a hundred square kilometer of mars have been claimed and those owners start advertising one hectare plots completely ready for habitation for sale. Nobody pays much attention, but a few hundred colonists follow buying their homes for a few percent above their travel costs. When they arrive they make claims of their own agreeing to the terms of the charter.
10) Finally earth lawyers take notice and start causing trouble. After years of litigation they determine that all ownership titles are invalid (ruling against all historical precedent.)
11) This ruling has no effect on the mars colonists since they continue to live their independent lives. No country is interested in an expensive dispute on mars itself since these settlers are good neighbors and have been a help to others on mars.
12) Life continues.
13) Laws to support the mars charter appear.
14) Travel between earth and mars becomes regular for a more and more affordable price.
15) After a few generations, everybody’s doing it. Disputes arise when some make unreasonable claims… This doesn’t directly affect those that have been reasonable which greater outnumber those that haven’t.
16) Litigation and wars follow the unreasonable. The reasonable, mostly unaffected, just shake their heads. Meanwhile people are making similar reasonable claim on all the rocks in the solar system and some governments are fully supportive.
17) Who knows the end of the story?
18) Before the story ends people can and will join this new frontier which costs an entire middle class net worth.
I did read what I wrote. John Martin made some insane inferences from what I wrote. And you agreed with them.