You know, the essay I wrote at The New Atlantis last summer has been up for many months now, and I have never seen anyone critique it, with the exception of an idiotic attempt by Mark Whittington. I’ve received nothing but praise for the most part (which is why I wish more people would read it). The editor has also told me that he received no letters to the editor objecting to it. Is anyone aware of a serious, informed critical review? If there are none, I suspect that one of the reasons why is that I circulated drafts of it among a lot of smart people in the process of writing it.
The reason I ask is because I’m in the process of working up a book proposal, and I want to hone it, if there are any serious and useful issues with it, because a lot of the book will be based on it. And of course, people will be reviewing drafts of the book as well.
[Saturday morning update]
I’m not looking for suggestions for improvement (I have no plans to rewrite it or republish anywhere else). I’m looking for things that people think I actually got wrong.
…we must begin by stating plainly why we should go into space, for the why gives shape to the how.
This is a very clear statement and somewhat missing in past arguments. I don’t think it’s fair to characterize it as vague. It would be fair to say you would like to see details and examples to go with it. It seems tortuous logic to say it’s circular reasoning. You start with why and it constrains how… seems pretty straight forward to me.
My belief is it will one day seem silly we even asked.
That will be the case whether space colonization is feasible or not.
But briefly the problems I have with the piece center around the premises, mostly unstated, on which it is based. Space advocates will accept them but most others won’t. So in effect you preach to the choir. Bob-1 touches on some of these above.
That’s an interesting criticism, given that it’s one of my own hobby horses about space policy in general — all of the hidden premises that everyone assumes is shared, so they’re never brought to the surface, and much discussion ends up being at cross purposes. I’d be interesting to know what hidden premises I have in my piece. I freely confess that I assumed that the reader is interested in seeing progress in space. I wasn’t trying to convert those who are uninterested in that.
…we must begin by stating plainly why we should go into space, for the why gives shape to the how.
“This is a very clear statement and somewhat missing in past arguments.”
But this is a statement of someone’s (who’s?) perception/desire, it is not a statement of fact, nor is it a stated assumption which can be accepted/challenged by the reader, it is a statement without veracity. As far as I am aware no one exactly *knows * why we should go into space – opinions/desires vary greatly and are generally very vague.
I would tend to instead write something like “to state plainly why we think we should go into space”, “to state plainly why we desire to go into space”, “the government should state plainly why it desires to go into space”, etc. There is a human authority which is being referenced here which I think needs to be explicitly as opposed to implicitly indicated.
Who decides what this defining statement should be? The author? The government who is paying the bills? The people who are paying the taxes that pay the bills? NASA who is spending the money? Mark Whittington?
How about:
“The author wishes the government to state plainly why we wish to go into space and that reason should be to become a space faring nation.”
Pete,
[[[How about:
“The author wishes the government to state plainly why we wish to go into space and that reason should be to become a space faring nation.”]]]
Let me play the devil’s advocate.
So exactly what are the civilian advantages of being a space faring nation? And are they worth the $20 billion or so NASA gets each year?
And note I am referring to Civilian advantages. The military advantages are very clear, but those are already being covered by the space budget in DOD. And I don’t think anyone, other then an extreme pacifist, would argue with those advantages. And one could easy plug planetary defense into the military space mission. In fact that may well be the best place for it.
So…
What are the civilian advantages of being a space faring nation?
Space advocates seem to take it for granted being a space faring nation is important. Yet Germany seems to be doing OK without being one. Same for Australia, Switzerland, and most of the other nations on Earth. Indeed only 3 nations have developed their own ability to place humans into space and only 10 nations or so to launch satellites. So what advantages has it given them over other nations that would make it worth $20 billion a year to the U.S. to continue NASA?
The Shuttle decision could be easily explained by the need to keep NASA intact in case the Russians tried any more spectaculars in space. And the Shuttle was a good system to use since it was flexible and adaptable. Expensive yes, but so was the Strategic Air Command. But both served a similar Cold War purpose of existing to block Soviet moves, one in terms of threatening war directly and the other limiting any attempts to dominate space. And in both cases the national security issues outweigh cost issues.
But Cold War is over, there is no fear from foreign dominance of space, so why keep spending money on it? Why continue to be a space faring nation?
So exactly what are the civilian advantages of being a space faring nation?
This is perhaps going a little beyond the scope of Rand’s article, which I think should simply state as a premise that becoming a space faring nation is a good thing and then evaluate the government human space program against that objective.
But in answer to your question – which presumably does need to be answered in Rand’s book, the civilian advantages are with regard to substantially growing the civilian population and economy beyond Earth, and the benefits that will come from that.
Unlike most people I do not particularly see this within the context of direct trade, but more within the context of economies of scale. Increasing the size of the total population/economy many times over by growing out into space is going to dramatically increase the quantity and quality of life in this solar system, including that on Earth.
So what is in it for the US? It gets to be the first ally of the new space world, creating a deep cultural, technological and economic relationship that will presumably be of great benefit to later generations. For starters, English will likely become the default language of space, etc. The first country to become a space faring nation will leave its indelible genetic and cultural imprint on the space faring people of the future.
You mentioned in the article that RLVs are needed to get the cost down. I believe you might expand on the flight rate effect on costs also.
That was my other piece at The New Atlantis (from 2004), John.
What are the civilian advantages of being a space faring nation? …Germany seems to be doing OK without being one
In Istanbul they have water taxis. I rode in one.
What are the civilian advantages of having water taxis? People seem to be doing OK in many places without water taxis.
When you’re on a water taxi, these civilian independent business people hop aboard and try to sell you the pulpiest orange juice you’ll ever taste. It’s not that bad.
Apparently, once you have water taxis, people find a way to make it an advantage. Is it possible that once we have activities in space, companies will find ways to get advantage from that?
I’d be interesting to know what hidden premises I have in my piece. I freely confess that I assumed that the reader is interested in seeing progress in space. I wasn’t trying to convert those who are uninterested in that.
A couple of examples will have to suffice. You were very critical of the shuttle SRBs and external tank. A number of unstated premises (which you’ve stated in other places quite clearly) are that a fully resuable shuttle could have been built, that if it could have been built it could have been operated more cheaply and frequently than the actual shuttle, and that it would have been a better all around better buy than the shuttle as built.
Now someone can be “interested in seeing progress in space” (like me) and still find those premises highly debatable. The point isn’t that you’re necessarily wrong and certainly not that the shuttle as built was the best possible vehicle that could have been built. The point is that the issues are extremely complex but you tend to reduce it to “reusable-good, expendable-bad”.
Then there are the premise-laden phrases like “spacefaring civilization” and “progress in space”. The premise here is of course that a spacefaring civilization (as envisioned by the space advocacy movement) is possible at all, that a beginning is achievable in the short term, and that activity that isn’t directed somehow toward that end is a waste of time and resources.
Again, one can be interested in progress in space (again like me) and still be very skeptical of the prospects for colonization, space solar power, asteroid mining, space elevators, etc. and all the other things that tend to be lumped under phrases like “spacefaring civilization”.
Of course, that is not say that those things will never come to pass. No one has special insight into what may or may not be possible in the long term. Your piece, unfortunately, give the impression that you think that you do indeed have such insight.
Pete,
To continue to play the Devil’s advocate.
[[[Increasing the size of the total population/economy many times over by growing out into space is going to dramatically increase the quantity and quality of life in this solar system, including that on Earth.]]]
An interesting assumption that space advocates take for granted, but where is your support for it?
How will a thousand or even a million people living on Mars (or other destination of choice) improve life on Earth?
Your piece, unfortunately, give the impression that you think that you do indeed have such insight.
Perhaps that’s because people the dedicate a significant part of their life to a thing often do gain insights?
I bet you didn’t realize when you mentioned space solar power that it’s something used all the time, just not in the way you meant. It’s very common for people to lack insight. Although a bit less common that they accuse others of it in the same breath.
How will … people living [beyond the earth] improve life on Earth?
Thomas, that’s not even tough. Are there any people that don’t live in your home that improve the quality or your life? Ok. Stay with me now…
These people that improve the quality of your life; are they limited to a specific geographic area or even a specific time or age? Not their biological age, the era in which they lived. Further now…
The fact that the earth has lots of people makes it more likely that some of them improve the quality of your life. Now if you’ve stuck with me this far, you know why we space nuts simply take this stuff for granted. But we must continue…
Their are activities unique to space. Perspectives as well. Also the potential for lots more people than live on earth. Some of those people will do something that will improve your life… even if you are never aware of it.
But here’s one… you buy stock in a space company. It does well, because it doesn’t listen to people that say you can’t profit in space. It does profit. The people owning that stock may have their lives improved, never having gone to space.
Are you seriously arguing that their is no potential for some off world person or company doing something that might improve your life. Really?
Perhaps that’s because people the dedicate a significant part of their life to a thing often do gain insights?
Into the distant future? People have abominable track records as prophets.
I bet you didn’t realize when you mentioned space solar power that it’s something used all the time, just not in the way you meant.
A bet that you would lose. “Space solar power” in the context of space advocacy has a rather more restricted meaning than the words themselves would suggest. But ignoring context to score cheap points is, well, cheap.
It’s very common for people to lack insight.
I plead guilty. I don’t know what the future holds. I don’t know what will ultimately prove feasible or not or on what time scale. I have my opinions, of course, but I try not to confuse my personal convictions with facts.
I’m sure it’s much the same with you.
Although a bit less common that they accuse others of it in the same breath.
Not an accusation, just observation.
[[[Increasing the size of the total population/economy many times over by growing out into space is going to dramatically increase the quantity and quality of life in this solar system, including that on Earth.]]]
An interesting assumption that space advocates take for granted, but where is your support for it?
This is from a comment I made further up the thread:
A point that is I think often over looked is that the results of R&D are proportional to the resources invested, but the capacity to invest in R&D and the benefits received are proportional to the total population.
So ten times the population will do ten times the R&D and receive ten times the benefits on a per capita basis (ignoring snow ball effects, etc.). The greater the total population, the greater the technological progress and the higher the average standard of living.
ignoring context to score cheap points is, well, cheap
Thunk! Ya pegged the irony meter with that one.
Ken,
[[[Are you seriously arguing that their is no potential for some off world person or company doing something that might improve your life. Really?]]]
I am arguing that you are assuming the arrow only points one way. The circumstance that have created the last 500 years of European progress are fairly unique as authors have pointed out. (The Birth of Plenty : How the Prosperity of the Modern World was Created by William J. Bernstein, 2004 is a good summary of the factors involved.)
or, to use a historical analogy how did the people of Europe, or at least those in Norway/Denmark, benefit from the Viking settlement of Greenland? How did it improve their life?
Pete,
[[[A point that is I think often over looked is that the results of R&D are proportional to the resources invested, but the capacity to invest in R&D and the benefits received are proportional to the total population.
So ten times the population will do ten times the R&D and receive ten times the benefits on a per capita basis (ignoring snow ball effects, etc.). The greater the total population, the greater the technological progress and the higher the average standard of living.]]]
To continue the Devil’s advocate role.
You are assuming a linear relationship between population and R&D based on the post war U.S. experience. By this same reasoning China in the 1500’s should have eclipsed Europe and ruled the world, but the opposite was the result? Why? Why did a couple of the smallest countries in Europe, The Netherlands and Great Britain, advanced faster in terms of technology then much larger and richer nations?
Also by that line of reasoning you don’t need space settlement, simply increasing the population on Earth by a factor 10 would produce the same results at a much lower cost. And of course the advancing technology would enable the Earth to produce the resources needed as Dr. Harrison Brown, one of Dr. John Holdern’s mentors, pointed out in his 1957 book “The Next Hundred Years”.
BTW, in terms of playing the Devil’s advocate I am simply pointing the major weakness of space advocates, which is the belief they take for granted in the benefits of free markets and that the expansion of population will always produce technological progress. Generally this is belief is based on the unique set of conditions in northern Europe that resulted in the 1820 Malthusian discontinuity which broke through the Malthusian limits on populations which most advocates take as the normal course of economic history instead of being the great exception as research in economic history has shown.
That is why your opponents haven’t accepted either of the key foundational assumptions that under lay the belief that space advocates have in the benefits of a space faring civilization being self evident. So if you are going to make any argument on the value of a space faring society you need to address these key issues and provide a solid foundation on why its advantageous of a society to invest its resources into being a space faring society.
The reason Europe took off and China did not was perhaps due to the competing states theory, trade (in information/research at least), increases the effective population bypassing something of this Malthusian limit. Yes as China demonstrated, population in and of itself is not sufficient to benefit from the economies of scale of R&D – but it is still a necessary condition. China did benefit from these economies of scale during its initial rise – before internal and external trade and competition was actively thwarted – the one kingdom/China policy which brought an end to internal competition.
The Earth is very finite, increasing population on Earth is a very limited prospect, it is theoretically possible, but a large proportion of the population is already against it – it is an incremental solution. Space does not have those particular constraints – it has other constraints.
One of the main reasons for the population implosion in developed countries is that these Malthusian population limits increase internal competition between individuals, driving more of a k verse r breeding strategy. Indeed the shift in demographics that we are seeing is direct evidence of this increase in internal competition between individuals – especially in the absence of traditional culling devices like disease, famine and war. Where, how and who one breeds with matters far more nowadays, because it happens so much less, children now require a much much greater per individual investment.
The answer to all these questions are simple and obvious enough, but this comments window is no where near long enough to do so properly.
I am arguing that you are assuming the arrow only points one way.
Well, then you’d be wrong. Are you assuming it only points the other way (of course not.)
…provide a solid foundation on why its advantageous of a society to invest its resources into being a space faring society.
Now that is a fair statement. We have to start with not being able to predict the future.
how did the people of Europe … benefit from the Viking settlement of Greenland?
May I point out a huge problem with using this as your analogy. Did the vikings maintain communication with Europe? If so, it wasn’t enough obviously. A channel must exist for benefits.
That channel will exist in space. Do you thing not? Are they going to take the Jupiter ][ out for a spin?
If a company in space can increase it’s space assets, those assets are going to provide benefits… yes, to people back on earth. Yes, even if the company goes teats up. Somebody is going to benefit from them. The more companies and people involved, the more people will benefit. Not in every case. Nobody on earth benefits in every case. But enough to expand and go forward because it’s positive feedback system.
I know you know how a positive feedback system works (don’t tell me about blowing the speakers.)
People keep talking about the huge cost of living in space but haven’t a clue about the marginal cost and it’s effect. A human body needs only so much to grow and thrive. Stuff that doesn’t have to travel millions of miles to get to you. Although the way stuff travels just in this own country is pretty impressive. Those huge costs are going to be covered. Individuals will be able to live and thrive for significantly less once they’re already in an established settlement (however they got there and I’m including by birth.)
Ken,
[[[A channel must exist for benefits.]]]
There was a channel to Europe from Greenland and ships set out for trade at various times.
[[[If a company in space can increase it’s space assets, those assets are going to provide benefits… yes, to people back on earth.]]]
Only if there is a market for those assets on Earth.
Pete,
[[[The answer to all these questions are simple and obvious enough, but this comments window is no where near long enough to do so properly.]]]
Actually there are not that simple and obvious. Its been discussed much in the economic literature in the last several decades. And the more research that has been the more complex the relationships are seen to be. Also how unique has been the experience of Northern Europe in the last few centuries.
Also following a k-breeding strategy means the gene pool will be dominated by those with an r-breeding strategy, which may will decreases the possible gains in education for a large population which would result from a k-breeding strategy, which would likely reduces the advancement in technology that you associate with an increase in population.
But again, returning to the core, what are the unique benefits resulting from space faring that would provide benefit a nation enough to invest in it? What value would the U.S get as a space faring nation it would not get if it lets Russia or China do the investment. Wouldn’t it still get the benefits of the technology as it diffuses through the global economy?
It might be better to not think of this so much from the perspective of the US, but from the perspective of the selfish genes broadly collected within the US, so to speak. From the selfish perspective of your genes, it probably matters greatly whether the US or some other country seeds the heavens.
In the world today, high technology tends to correlate strongly with k breeding strategies. Space will select intensively on the basis of technological competence – survival will be highly technology dependent. Hence space will likely start out with a k breeding strategy, however, k breeding strategies are primarily about high investment in offspring, not number of offspring, if those in space become resource rich – likely considering the quantity of extra terrestrial resources available, then this k breeding strategy might also get combined with high reproduction rates.
One might argue the benefits of early verse late adopters, but that is a separate argument. On that front I might argue that if something like the singularity does happen, the people who get there first will likely leave the rest behind. Just as those in the first world might not extend their first world health care system to cover those in the third world – what is in it for them?
Wouldn’t it still get the benefits of the technology as it diffuses through the global economy?
Yes. Explain why you want to be the third world?
Technology is the least benefit. Opportunity is the benefit.
Only if there is a market for those assets on Earth.
Duh. Uh wait, actually no. Those assets are perfectly marketable where they lay. As a matter of fact, where they lay (for example an abandoned habitat or fuel tank) may be (very likely) a large part of their value.
Or maybe yes… would people trade shares of partial ownership of those assets. They very well may. I mean, you can buy a square inch of the moon now, can’t you?
[list of progresively crazier examples deleted]
Wasn’t skylab based on something normally discarded? Put it in an orbit that didn’t decay and it would have retained value for very long time.
Yes, the assets that Space will sell to Earthlings will mostly be in space, not transported to Earth as goods. For the first few decades, the primary source of export earnings for space will be immigrant dollars, investment capital, and perhaps some tourist dollars. Space can be economically viable without ever actually selling any goods directly to Earth – so long as it can sell people a future in space.
As long as it can sell people a future in space . . . .
A good story, told well, will always sell. Sell the story of humanity becoming spacefaring.
In Jeffrey Manber’s new book he writes that they tried to persuade Walt Anderson to attempt this approach with MirCorp but Anderson rejected the idea.
Manber writes: “. . . I had mistakenly viewed Anderson as a capitalist . . .”
Selling Peace page 268
A good story, told well, will always sell. Sell the story of humanity becoming spacefaring.
I would far prefer sell the reality, besides, people will pay far more for it.
I suggest we be open to selling both.
After all, the folks who best sell the story could be the ones who get to live the reality.
Pete,
[[[In the world today, high technology tends to correlate strongly with k breeding strategies.]]]
Ah, a follower of Dawkins 🙂
Unfortunately the data doesn’t support the theories that biologists have proposed for the development of societies and technology.
The adoption of a k-breeding strategy is a follower, not a leader of technological advances. That is why the world has gone through a population boom in the last 200 years. The lag between increase wealth and adoption of a k-breeding strategy.
The linkage is simple. Increased technology increases the wealth, so it reduces childhood mortality, so parents don’t need as many kids to ensure as least a couple will survive them, while the time spent taking care of the surviving kids reduces the time available for having more. Also there is evidence that increased wealth provides additional distractions, like TV and Social Media, which reduces further the time left for breeding with the result the population’s reproduction rate drops below replacement level as is the case in many western nations. Japan is the classic poster boy for this effect.
So, using the k-breeding argument, space settlement may actually result in a lower population for humanity then a larger one, especially if it makes the wealth of the U.S. universal. Also it appears that factors which increase wealth actually work against the idea of the selfish gene in that fewer copies of the gene will be made. Based on this then there should be strong genetic pressure against the creation of wealth in the long term since the genetic factors that would create it would be passed on less often through fewer copies of the gene.
Ken,
True, the Russian did find someone to buy Mir and pay huge amounts just to deorbit it showing P.T. Barnum law still holds. 🙂
Pete
[[[Yes, the assets that Space will sell to Earthlings will mostly be in space, not transported to Earth as goods. For the first few decades, the primary source of export earnings for space will be immigrant dollars, investment capital, and perhaps some tourist dollars. Space can be economically viable without ever actually selling any goods directly to Earth – so long as it can sell people a future in space.]]]
Just a note, but its important to key your terms correct to avoid confusion. Exports refer to commodities. What your are referring to are non-export transactions, know as “invisibles” by economists, that enable nations to maintain a “balance of payments”.
Its an important distinction as the current “balance of payments” for space, if space were a country, consists entirely of invisibles including the services of comsats and data from exploration missions. So it is logical that the future economic benefits of space will be invisibles.
Pete,
That should be
Just a note, but its important to keep your terms correct to avoid confusion. Exports refer to commodities. What you are referring to are non-export transactions, know as “invisibles” by economists, that enable nations to maintain a “balance of payments”.
Space can be economically viable without ever actually selling any goods directly to Earth – so long as it can sell people a future in space.
That is so well said Pete. It amazes me that people insist you identify a complete economic justification first. If you could do that a dozen companies would instantly spring into existence to grab that profit in a dozen different ways. Life is a lot more subtle than that.
Did SpaceX develop the Dragon to service the I.S.S. No. It was a back burner project because Elon wanted to ‘backup humanity’ and getting people to orbit is the first step. The original wasn’t anything like the design they have today. COTS was a target of opportunity and Elon is not dumb.
This is just one example of something that will happen over and over again by old, new and not yet existing companies.
A vibrant, diverse economy does not yet exist in space. As it develops people will find and develop niches to service. The same way it’s always been done, everywhere, from the beginning of time. It will not require a miracle drop in costs either, even though costs will drop and accelerate the process. All it requires is people pursuing their interests.
Those suggesting otherwise, after example after example becomes apparent, should be required to tell us all they’re not smarter than a fifth grader.
Ken,
But being a NASA contractor like SpaceX has become will not take you in that direction. SpaceX may have started that way, but so did Orbital Sciences and Spacehab. Which brings us back to the mistake New Space is making today, believing commercial crew will open the frontier…
Thomas,
being a NASA contractor
You keep saying that. They are only a NASA contractor if they think they are. Their point of view is extremely important. Yes, I understand the seduction of government money and the many corpses on the side of the road over the years.
So what happens to SpaceX if the government stops being a customer? First they may have layoffs if their production was too great for their orders. They would not go out of business. They have plenty of non government customers. They just don’t move forward as fast as they’d like. They keep their satellite customers which continues to finance their other interests. They will find new customers that want to take people to orbit which would include transfer both to stations and others ships. What ships and stations? Ok. Ya got me. That’s a article of faith. It’s going to happen.
commercial crew will open the frontier
Yes, in some form or other. Their are scenarios where it wouldn’t, but that’s betting against history.
Ken,
What history?
If Commercial Crew does goes forward and SpaceX is successful they will likely do an IPO, just as Orbital did when Pegasus was successful.
Once you do an IPO you are a public firm with stockholders to care for. Perhaps Elon Musk will keep enough stock to keep control of SpaceX, but it will still change the culture of the firm to be more conservative, just as it did with Orbital Sciences. Really its just part of the natural evolution from start-up to successful business. Boeing followed that paths many decades ago, as did Lockheed, etc.
Which raises an interesting question for New Space Advocates. At what point does a New Space firm cease to be a New Space firm?