Jeff Foust reviews an overpriced and inaccurate space book, based on a flawed premise.
[Update a few minutes later]
A long essay on the purpose of deep “space exploration.” Lord I hate that phrase.
[Afternoon update]
Second link was wrong, but fixed now. Sorry!
What always grinds my gears about “space exploration” is people say that is what they want .. but actually want to fly trough and get out of space as fast as possible. Landing on Luna and exploring is not space exploration. is is lunar geological exploration. The same for landing on Mars, it is martian geological exploration. In order to explore space you should first actually be in space. For that the Nation needs, space based, reusable, space ships.
I am more comfortable with bringing the inner solar system into our daily sphere of economic activity and exploiting space resources.
For that the Nation needs, space based, reusable, space ships.
This ^^
It shouldn’t be that hard if NASA could resist the urge to design something that exceeds current capabilities. Even better if they took a COTS approach to it that allowed the company(ies) who owns the spaceship(s) to control and market it.
Imagine a ship amortized over 50 years that just took tourists between earth orbit and lunar orbit. That creates a market to add to ISS deliveries. We’d have 3 or more competitors for that almost immediately.
It’s like using the phrase “ocean exploration” to refer to sailing over the ocean to get to new islands and continents (such as discovering the New World, Australia, Hawaii, etc) as opposed to exploring the ocean with an oceanographic research vessel that goes around measuring currents, temperature, and salinity.
Rand those two links are the same.. wasn’t the second link supposed to be different?
Advocates lament the fact that astronauts are less popular today than at the height of the Space Race a half-century ago
This is a good development. They are not priests or saints. There shouldn’t be a cult of personality surrounding them. What makes being an astronaut special is that access to space is restricted not that astronauts are more special than other humans. In an ideal future, many more people will be able to participate and doing so wont be such a big deal.
when she recalls asking her students “how their cell phone transmits and receives data.”
A better example to use is how GPS works, why precise time keeping is important, and the reasons why its difficult.
the real problem is the belief there’s a magic media bullet that will turn disinterested and ignorant members of the public into informed, enthusiastic advocates. It’s space activities themselves that need to be engaging and relevant to the public.
Good conclusion from Foust. People will pursue their own interests. There wont be a time when everyone is enthusiastic about space, just like some people don’t like to watch fishing or golf on TV.
Advocates lament the fact that astronauts are less popular today than at the height of the Space Race a half-century ago
Yeah such things often fade away with time. It’s not like you can expect Amundsen, or Edmund Hillary, to be particularly famous today either.
Edmund Hillary is famous because Hillary Clinton is named after him. Just sayin’.
Oh, our first astronauts should be famous and have had a strong measure of fame. But I am not sure why any current astronauts are deserving of celebrity. In the future, if an astronaut does something out of the ordinary, then they too will have fame. That astronaut doesn’t need to be a NASA employee though.
The time will come, hopefully before I die, that space will be inhabited by more than just government workers.
Watch the ISS feed on the station’s interior. How many people can sit at a computer and use computer programs? How many people can run and monitor experiments? How many people can use a wrench while wearing a glove? Astronauts are highly, but over, qualified. Its like having a Navy SEAL as an office assistant.
Think of it this way, the last astronaut to get some attention was because he stayed in space a long time and was a twin. Before that it was a guy who sang a song. That’s a far cry from the firsts of the original astronauts and in a much less risky environment.
I wonder whether Shalina Chatlani would accept an alternative formulation to Musk’s. While I guess I share the idea that, long term, we enhance the prospects for species survival by getting offworld, that’s hardly the only reason.
I would suggest that the purpose of human expansion into space and perhaps onto other celestial bodies than earth is to “enhance the scope, scale and prospects of human civilization”. This encompasses survival, prosperity, technology, exploration and observation, and certainly encompasses opening up new environments for study and the creation of a larger platform for ourselves from which to observe the wider universe.
I am alarmed that the clash of worldviews one could read about in Pournelle in the 80s is back again in a new form. Once, and still, we had “we can’t go into space until we solve all the problems here”, a counsel of despair and nihilism if ever there was. Now on top of that we have “we can’t go into space because it will interfere with our studies”. No sense in either case of the possibility of mutually reinforcing accomplishments.
Unless she just really worries we’ll trash all the ghastly deserts and voids, as she suggests by the end of that article. I don’t know what everyone’s view is around here, but I have a hard time with the ecological argument for not going into space.
None of which to be taken as an argument for any particular budgetary approach or program decisions, of course.