John Derbyshire says that government human spaceflight was largely pointless, and likely to end soon.
I don’t actually find much in there with which to disagree (I’ve pointed out the Zheng He analogy myself) — we have gotten horrible value for the money spent over the past forty years, and I do think that the hope is for private space. Though if the Augustine Commission could recognize and articulate the value to the nation and planet of becoming truly space faring, for things like planetary defense, and put forth a realistic plan to do it, I suppose that it’s possible it will survive somehow, but it will have to have sufficient pork content, which will defeat the purpose. But it’s hard to see Constellation continuing to exist in its current form.
I’m actually working on (or at least supposed to be working on) a longish piece for the summer issue of The New Atlantis on this subject.
[Tuesday afternoon update]
I will say that I think that “pointless” is too strong a word — as I said, we have gotten quite a bit of value, but not enough to justify the expenditure. And in many ways, Apollo has actually set us back from progress in space, by establishing a failed government-development model that lives on to this day in the form of Constellation. I hope that the Augustine Commission can finally fix this, but I fear that it won’t.
Not entirely pointless, though the ‘point’ of Apollo was only indirectly related to space.
But if space projects to date have “failed” as Zheng He did, it has failed for the same reasons: “There were no colonies established as a result of the treasure fleets, no trade routes opened up, no alliances formed, no enlargements of understanding among China’s educated classes.”
It didn’t fail because government was running the show per se, but because government did not pursue the above-stated useful goals.
Brock, the thing is did China of the time know that they weren’t opening up trade routes, forming alliances, or increasing their understanding of the outside world? As I understand it, a key purpose of the treasure fleets was to contact other countries and potentates for the purpose of doing these things. It wasn’t just there to collect tribute from random places. A supporter of the fleet would probably disagree with your characterization.
Why just the other year, we got 250 elephants including ten rare white elephants from India. Why do you think we’re not opening up trade routes? And the Indian prince had many favorable things to say about the glorious emperor! Yet another alliance is built! Colonization may not be in the cards, since India doesn’t really have that much we’re interested in, but I’m sure we left a delegation behind. Finally, a number of sages from the treasure fleets have written extensive treatises on the many barbarians met in their travels. We can understand, as much as we’d like, their quaint customs and traditions.
Actually, Apollo had a very definite purpose.
After President Truman decided to use the atom bomb in the war with Japan, much has been written and said pro and con, and recently Bill Whittle has gotten into all of this in response to a very dismissive treatment of the subject by some entertainer or another.
One of the arguments against using The Bomb is, “Could we not have conducted a demonstration of the destructive power of the Bomb against a deserted island instead of against people? Surely the leaders would have seen the terrible destruction of this device and surrendered.”
I guess we missed the chance to go with a demonstration blast instead of an attack on a populated industrial center, but we indeed did such a thing in the burgeoning Cold War with Russia. It was called Crossroads, it took place at a place called Bikini in the Marshall Islands, and the Russians were invited.
The Crossroads Able blast at Bikini maybe impressed enough Americans that it was a Doomsday weapon that it inspired the name of a skimpy French bathing suit that heralded the Doomsday of American prudishness or something. The Able blast, however, did not do much to scare the Russian observers or induce Russian women to wear daring bathing clothes.
The thing about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts is that they took place over densely populated cities with flimsy structures, maximizing casualties. Bill Whittle remarked that you could set one of those early A-bombs off in the middle of LAX without the blast radius going outside the fence line. Perhaps as vast and dispersed a country as Russia was unimpressed with the demonstration of such a thing in the South Pacific.
With the H-bomb one had a blast a thousand times more powerful, and with the ICBM, one had a delivery system that would strike out of the blue sky with minimal warning and no possible defense. But how do you demonstrate such a thing to make any kind of impression?
You do so by answering President Kennedy’s challenge “of before this decade is complete, to land a man on the Moon and to bring him back safely.” The technology for this in rocket thrust, guidance, and reliability is derivative of the H-bomb ICBM, but goes well beyond it in what is demanded.
After demonstrating this answer to President Kennedy’s challenge, there was indeed not more for the US government to do with crews in space.
The era of government space flight continues given NASA as our monument to the 1960s and the value of government space flight to countries trying to prove themselves according to historical metrics such as China and India.
NASA is, still, in many ways a failed model. Before NASA there was the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). NACA got its start in 1915 when it became apparent how far behind American aeronautics had fallen when compared to other technologically advanced countries. NACA worked with the nascent American aeronautics industry to increase the intellectual and technological infrastructure of the industry. There were, of course, other things at work as well. In terms of government, there were contracts for hauling mail by air. There were adventurers like Lindbergh. There were a large number of companies working at least somewhat independently of each other. There were air shows where ordinary people could meet with aeronautical pioneers. How many people today have even met one obscure astronaut?
NASA introduced the top down centralized management concept into American aerospace. It worked to get 12 men to the Moon — and win an important contest in the Cold War. Although, we must note with 20/20 hindsight, that the Soviet Union was already in irreversible decline when it surprised the West by launching Sputnik. Centralized authoritarian states do not do nearly as well as more open, democratic ones. Unfortunately for us, that approach has been harmful to further development in the field.
Where do we go from here? The Columbia accident and subsequent investigation showed dramatic failings regarding NASA. More than one person is arguing for reforming NASA away from the top down model with contractors serving NASA to one where NASA provides research and development support to a reborn independent aerospace industry.
The level of ignorance staggers the mind. You are willing to give NASA away – at less than 1% of the Federal Budget – and then turn around and give your healthcare to the same group of clowns to handle? You really are not this stupid – are you?
NASA is drinking it’s own urine right now over your head. They have a water recycler that changes urine, sweat into drinkable water. Think what this would do to 3rd world countries.
You like Virgin Galactic – don’t you? Dumbass – they are the Haliburton of the sky. They are PROFIT driven – not SCIENCE driven. And – their little “birdie” is no bigger than a Kite when compared to the Shuttle. NOBODY on Earth can lift a 10-story building with 7 astronauts on 7 MILLION pounds of thrust regularly. NOBODY. (NASA can) Don’t be an ignorant fool. You are cutting innovation and technology. Tell me genius – what country, nation, tribe ever succeeded by eliminating technology and exploration?
So – when you ass-clowns finally get what you want – we’ll be left with a proft-driven kite flying private enterprise leading us into low Earth orbit in order to make a buck. All the while China is going to the moon. Why do you think they are going to the moon? The innovation derived from the challenge is worth the investment dollars. If you RESEARCHED – you would find NASA has had a RETURN ON INVESTMENT of roughly 7:1. Like those cordless drills do we – apperantly to drill a hole in the head!
Pull you head out your ass. C’mon….don’t be pathetically ignorant. If anything – NASA is so underfunded it’s pathetically stupid. We’ll make movies about Star Trek earn hundreds of millions of dollars – but our own “Federation” – NASA – we wish to cut. And, we call ourselves “smart”. Get over yourselves Einstein – Wikipedia not make you veddy smart…
Centralized authoritarian states do not do nearly as well as more open, democratic ones.
Did the Soviet Union decline because it was autocratic, or did it decline because it shunned a market economy? China seems to be evidence that the latter was the cause, not the former.
I am concerned that democracy + free markets will fail when competing with authoritarian government + free markets. Democracy itself suffers from obvious pathologies, and voting itself is not economically rational, in the sense that expending the effort to vote (or learn enough to vote intelligently) is not justifiable on a personal cost/benefit basis.
Yes, the problem is that democracies tend to vote against free markets, because they’re perceived to be “unfair.”
The level of ignorance staggers the mind. You are willing to give NASA away – at less than 1% of the Federal Budget – and then turn around and give your healthcare to the same group of clowns to handle? You really are not this stupid – are you?
No. I have no desire whatsoever to give the government a monopoly on either health care, or spaceflight.
What a stupid question.
You can’t have truly free markets without a free society – the temptation to use government power to loot and favor one company over another is too great, and without the transparency of a free market that looting and interference stays hidden and uncorrected far too long. The Chinese banking system, to take on eexample, is an enormous disaster waiting to happen, which will make the subprime mess look like a rounding error.
Nobody can trust the current reporting in China, nobody has the power to investigate or issue a reliable report, and there’s no way to assess whether a fix will work when it is announced. Bad as the US and Japanese banking problems have been, they are pretty much transparent compared to China.
I was discussing the Apollo program with my son last night over a game of Civilization and I found myself concluding that the only real benefit of it was increased national prestige. And that Hubble is likely the same deal.
You’re doing your son no favors. Why have any thought? The Apollo had no real benefit? Really? Do you know how far advanced it put our math modelling? Do you know how many light years it propelled our understanding of physics? Our understanding of the moon increased 10-fold. Guess what Einstein? In about a billion years – when your great, great, great, great, great grandchildren’ grandchildren grandchildren are walking on Titan – and our sun is in a Red Giant stage with the Earth long consumed by it’s fire which it will evenutally do – they might thank people like me – and look at those of you who question the benefits of NASA as the same fools who once thought the Earth was flat.
NASA has a Return on Investment of roughly 7:1 – maybe 8:1. Quit narrowing your scope. I’ve got one for you. Relate this one to your son – maybe over a game.
No longer inspire him in Math or Science. It’s that simple. No more brain teasers. Find a game about Rome – and show him the future he holds thanks to dimwits like youself.
We have seen the rains on Titan – discovered Geysers on Encledeaous – driven on the once sea-covered surface of Mars – contructed an international space station outpost – all in the last year on less than 1% of the Federal Budget and you want to know what’s been the big accomplishment?Absoltuely pathetic….
“And that Hubble is likely the same deal.”
No. Say what you like about the cost-effectiveness of HST but it’s science return has been immense.
sacrilege [sak-ruh-lij]
–noun
1. the violation or profanation of anything sacred or held sacred.
2. an instance of this.
3. the stealing of anything consecrated to the service of God.
Do you know how far advanced it put our math modelling?
It had modest effect.
Do you know how many light years it propelled our understanding of physics?
It had essentially no effect. The only return I can even think of is constraints on evolution of the gravitational constant from the lunar retroreflector experiment. Nice, but hardly earthshattering.
Our understanding of the moon increased 10-fold.
I should hope so (although this begs the question of why understanding the moon was worth such a huge multiple of the annual NSF budget). Of course, much of the science could have been done unmanned. The essential geochemical facts could have been established by unmanned sample return. Heck, the basic fact that the moon is an evolved body was established by Surveyor.
NASA has a Return on Investment of roughly 7:1 – maybe 8:1.
This is a self-serving lie from NASA. Those numbers basically assume NASA R&D is as productive at private sector R&D that is directed at producing products that will actually sell in the marketplace.
In about a billion years – when your great, great, great, great, great grandchildren’ grandchildren grandchildren are walking on Titan – and our sun is in a Red Giant stage with the Earth long consumed by it’s fire which it will evenutally do – they might thank people like me –
This sort of reasoning, if one can dignify it with that name, is the height of hilarious idiocy. Gosh, a billion years. Better get started RIGHT NOW, eh?
May I suggest continuing to advance technology on Earth, to satisfy terrestrial markets that actually could justify the investment, will in the long term do much more to allow profitable, sustainable, real movement into space, not the Potemkin technosocial engineering of the kind you are apparently so enamored of?
When you begin thinking beyond your nose – we might have a discussion. Otherwise – it’s silly arguing.
The ROI are real – NASA never produced the results – they were verified independently. You think Black and Decker “invented” the cordless drill? C’mon pal….get serious.
I’ve got a “bright” idea folks – let’s close down all the Best Buys. Who needs this technology anyway. Close the internet. Close the schools. Don’t worry. Genius’s like Paul will figure it all out…..c’mon – it’s comical….
You want NASA – an agency to go away – that has less than 1% of the Federal Budget – and I’ve listed all the accomplishments from this year alone – and at the same time – during the same year – we have a Federal Agency getting $700 BILLION dollars for war funding and “specialized” tanks we’ll never use.
The fun just never stops….
Good luck……
JasonF: you’ve clearly swallowed the propaganda. I used to be as gullible as you still are and spouted the same line, but I realized I was being had and moved on. Eventually you’ll mature and realize you’re just being taken.
No, the payoff numbers from NASA have not been “verified”. How could they be? Heck, how could one even measure them? You bring up Black and Decker. It’s a poster child for the kind of dishonesty that is par for the course in the spinoff hype game. “NASA used technology X, therefore NASA is responsible for technology X.” The consumer cordless appliances B&D sold were never NASA equipment. NASA needed battery operated tools for the moon — using non-rechargable silver-containing batteries that would be absurd for consumer use — but that doesn’t mean NASA can be credited for all subsequent cordless products. How can you possibly tell what NASA truly accelerated forward in the marketplace (and by how much), and what they just used (along with everyone else) when it was “steam engine time”?
The 1% of the federal budget comment is more manifest idiocy. Are you asserting that it’s ok to waste money if it’s only 1% of the federal budget? Or that NASA funding would be unacceptable if it were worthwhile, but more than 1% of the budget? Waste is waste regardless of scale.
My original comment may have sounded more disdainful than was intended. I happen to think that the boost to national prestige was substantial and important. Whether it was enough to truly justify the cost is another question, but the psychological, if not spiritual, impact on people around the world of seeing a man, an American, actually stepping on the Moon must have been immense. I still have a vague remembrance of watching the first moon landing on TV, and it was certainly an inspiration for me throughout my childhood.
You like Virgin Galactic – don’t you? Dumbass – they are the Haliburton of the sky. They are PROFIT driven – not SCIENCE driven.
Jason, this single statement drives home the extent of your ignorance. Let me put it in terms you can understand, maybe. You don’t have to like Virgin Galactic. But PROFIT means SELF-FUNDED. We don’t have to send Virgin public funds in order for them to stay in business. All Virgin has to do to contribute to human space development and exploration is make a PROFIT.
Also I tire of the mythology surrounding SCIENCE. It’s not worth astronomical sums of money merely to have someone doing science in low Earth orbit. Science, especially when paid for with Other Peoples’ Money, should have a justification, a near future promise of benefit. We should see return on investment. A poor investment in science means that better investment, be them in science or some other human activity, aren’t done. These opportunity costs are usually invisible to us. We see what we did, we don’t see what we could have done.
My view is that the biggest obstacles to any sort of space development or exploration is purely economic. We have adequate technology and even adequate political will. But things are too expensive in space and there’s not enough profit being made in space activities.
So – when you ass-clowns finally get what you want – we’ll be left with a proft-driven kite flying private enterprise leading us into low Earth orbit in order to make a buck. All the while China is going to the moon. Why do you think they are going to the moon? The innovation derived from the challenge is worth the investment dollars. If you RESEARCHED – you would find NASA has had a RETURN ON INVESTMENT of roughly 7:1. Like those cordless drills do we – apperantly to drill a hole in the head!
Profit-driven kites are exactly what we need, not money sinks like NASA. The special thing about the US and its space activities that is different from everyone else is the degree of involvement of private firms. We have launch companies that are wholly private owned. If someone figures out how to get an economic ball rolling, the US is well prepared right now to take advantage of that. As I see it, there is some benefit to things like space science. But the real changes will come from people and companies who make money in space.
The 1% of the federal budget comment is more manifest idiocy. Are you asserting that it’s ok to waste money if it’s only 1% of the federal budget? Or that NASA funding would be unacceptable if it were worthwhile, but more than 1% of the budget? Waste is waste regardless of scale.
Let me add, that 1% of the budget is not pocket change even in budgetary terms. That’s bigger than all but a few government programs anywhere in the world.
I want to add about Black and Decker:
B&D unveiled their first cordless tools in 1961. They got involved with a defense contractor to supply tools for Gemini and Apollo because they already had expertise in the area. Cordless tools, as a class, are a spin-on technology, not a spin-off.
Where did I find this information? On a NASA web page.