Three commentaries over at the New York Times, from John Derbyshire, John Logsdon, and Seth Shostak. Common theme: it’s about exploration and science, not development. So, as usual, it’s orthogonal to the issues actually facing us.
[Update late morning]
Derb writes:
From the beginnings of modern science in the late 17th century, all the major European nations offered state support to societies and academies of pure research. Such support must submit to public audit, however. In a time of cratering public finances, the stupendous costs of manned spaceflight — half a billion dollars per shuttle launch — cannot be justified.
Ah. So he doesn’t believe that it’s intrinsically a function in which the government shouldn’t be involved. He just thinks it costs too much. He’s like the woman in the bar, who has established what she is, and is merely haggling over the price.
So, if we could put people into space for half a million per flight, would that be acceptable? If not, what cost would be?
The nice thing about the new policy is that, for the first time in almost forty years, or at least the first time since we decided to do Apollo on Geritol and gave up on the goal, we are not only setting a goal of reducing launch costs, but actually proposing sensible policies with which to meet it. As I noted at Pop Mechanics, Ares was going to vastly increase launch costs over Shuttle. That always was, and remains, the biggest reason to oppose it.
If you accept the premise that large scale human settlement of space is impossible, then I would agree with Derbyshire that human spaceflight is unnecessary. Of course I do not accept this premise. So, the questions then becomes how can a government-funded and operated space program help lead to large scale human settlement of space. Of course the other two guys do not discuss space on the basis of this issue. Since this is the only issue that matters, the other two men have nothing of value to say at all.
Seth Shostak gets it exactly right with this statement:
[[[Second, we are living on a world with limited real estate and finite resources. Both are expected to become critically stretched within a century. Frankly, homo sapiens will be a flash in the pan if we don’t get some members of our species off the planet. So whether we construct colonies in orbit around Earth or build underground condos on the moon or Mars, our future demands learning how to send people to space.]]]
Given the libertarian tenor of comments on this site I would think that most would agree with Derbyshire:
“Private entrepreneurs who want to venture into space should, of course, be left alone to do as they please, so long as they don’t endanger the rest of us. But manned space exploration as a national goal … is another question altogether.”
I certainly agree completely, but it seems that for many, it’s the same old story, government intrusion and money is bad… unless it’s my pet project.
I think Derb’s comments have consistently been that government manned space flight, as currently conducted, is not worth it. He leaves open the possibility that this could change in the future. But leaving open this possibility does not mean we can simply ignore costs.
Derb could turn the rhetorical question around and ask: how much would spaceflight have to cost before you’d say we shouldn’t be doing it? If you admit there is some limit beyond which you’d not support it, why is the current cost acceptably low?
I agree with Derb, btw. And I support private space efforts, if only because the private sector is capable of delivering the unwelcome message that a field of endeavor isn’t worth pursuing, and then pulling the plug.
If you admit there is some limit beyond which you’d not support it, why is the current cost acceptably low?
It’s not. I’m pretty sure I said that in this very post, in fact.
One of my favorite expressions is, ‘If it works, it’s obsolete.’ I’m a big fan of obsolete and think it’s highly under rated.
Weinberg (in WSJ last week) has become the new Van Allen when it comes to dissing human spaceflight in favor of robotics. Pretty amazing that there’s a budget that both SFF and Weinberg can praise. I interviewed Weinberg a couple budgets ago when he dissed NASA’s “infantile fixation on putting people into space…”. It’s a good thing the Russians don’t have a Senator or the budget might not pass.
Rereading my obsolete comment I realize it’s not quite clear what I was getting at, so let me add…
We have a current launch capability with existing systems. Saying we need larger rockets is another way of saying the current batch are in some way obsolete. We can build hardware payloads that use this current capability to achieve some really significant goals. For example:
We could colonize the second most Earthlike planet today. Right now. We’ve put rovers on Mars. Instead of rovers, it could just as easily have been colony supplies in anticipation of colonists. To get those colonists there you need one main thing… a ship with sufficient internal volume.
Two Bigelow modules are orbiting the Earth at this very moment. We can send more and connect them together giving us a ship with a huge internal volume. All the other parts to complete our spaceship are smaller pieces. Ok, we need orbital fueling. That get’s us to Mars orbit. We would also have to build a lander, which is about the only thing not currently on the shelf.
You can get a lot done with obsolete stuff. Nothing really new required.
Also, the spaceship is obsolete as soon as it’s built. It’ll work for continued operations anywhere in the solar system for centuries. The Hagia Sophia has been standing for thousands of years. The blue mosque next store is a thousand years younger. We can build things to last.
Amortized over it’s useful life (and getting Bigelow to give a bulk rate price) should make it really affordable. Many people would be able to afford the migration and buy a one way ticket. Especially if they got title to land when they arrived. A thousand families paying $20m to $50m each could easily pay for it.
We could start now. All without any heavy lift vehicle.
I am a great believer in obsolete.