Some thoughts from Trent Waddington.
Most reasons for space are rationalizations. Until it becomes affordable for people who are intrinsically interested, it will continue to be a political football and make little progress.
14 thoughts on “Why Space?”
Comments are closed.
Most reasons for space are rationalizations.
I’m intrigued you say ‘most’, not ‘all’. Is that because you didn’t want to make a categorical statement, or can you think of reasons you don’t consider rationalisations? Other than private individuals spending their own money because they feel like it of course.
I say most because I wouldn’t exclude the possibility that there are some that are not.
“Why space?” is certainly the right question to be asking. There are many good answers to that question, but “why manned space?” is probably the real question most space enthusiasts want or mean to ask.
“Why government-funded manned space?” is probably the best question of all to ask.
I would say that any space related activity which competes for economic resources against a earth bound alternative and still wins out, is not a ‘rationalization’. Thus, weather satallites, communications satallites, GPS satellites, resource survey and military reconnaissance are all non-rationalized uses of space. Someday, solar power satellites may be another. If we could lift ourselves from our current denial, protecting the earth from meteor empact would be another.
Yes, the question really is, why humans in space?
If there’s one aspect of “newspace” that I remain skeptical about, it’s the business case. Sure, there’ll always be satellites in LEO and GEO, but I sincerely doubt the business case will ever exist that will take commercial efforts BEO. I think all this talk of mining asteroids and such is so much sci fi dreaming.
As for “why humans”, specifically? I’d point out that HST could’ve been repaired by a robot if it had been designed to be. I don’t buy the need for humans in space outside of the “rationalizations” provided in the article, e.g., inspiration, exploration, soft power, etc. That’s why I’m still a supporter of NASA HSF.
“Why government-funded manned space?” is probably the best question of all to ask.
Yeah, I miss googaw. But I bet I know his favourite flavour of icecream and his favourite flavour of nuclear fuel. 😉
As for “why humans”, specifically? I’d point out that HST could’ve been repaired by a robot if it had been designed to be.
Whether it would be worthwhile to do so depends on the cost of access. If the cost is very low, it makes more sense to send people (or even return the telescope to Earth for refurbishment and relaunch). If the cost is too high, it makes more sense to launch a replacement (or simply not launch anything).
Be a bit careful of the inspiration argument. NASA’s demise itself would be a great source of inspiration. 🙂
“If we can shut down the space program, why can’t we shut down (fill in blank)?”
@ Paul — If you’re assuming HST as-designed, then obviously it would be easier to send humans to do it. I was merely making the point that going forward, systems could be designed for repair/maintenance (module replacement, etc) by robots, thus eliminating the need for human maintenance missions like HST needs. That’s why I don’t think Trent’s argument in that regard holds up.
So if you don’t need humans in LEO to fix anything, they aren’t doing any uber-valuable science, and if nobody has a business reason to send people up there, that leaves just one purpose for HSF, as far as I can tell: National esteem.
The reason for sending humans into space is to keep the other humans company. We just haven’t got there yet.
There is no great need for unmanned deep space or astrophysics missions either. It’s not as if such missions have generated lots of practical applications and benefits. Claiming that fundamental science is good for us, no matter how esoteric, is no more provable/disprovable, than the assertion that working to spread humanity out into the solar system is good for us. Both involve arguments about intangibles that some will find convincing and others will not.
What’s clear, though, is that without a big HSF program to shield it, the US space science budget would be much smaller. (I’m not counting earth observation science which does have more direct and sale-able benefits). The EU, for example, has a GDP somewhat bigger than the US but its spending on space science is much less. There is no inherent reason that spending on space science should be more than, say, on high energy physics. US space science spending is about half that of the entire National Science Foundation budget, which funds lots of science areas like condensed matter physics that do in fact lead frequently to practical applications and benefits.
A UK panel a few years ago that included noted theoretical physicist Frank Close, who had no personal interest in HSF, came to the conclusion that the UK had made a mistake in not having a HSF program. The lack of one had reduced interest in space science as well as science in general. Low funding for space science was a result. See tinyurl.com/bka6z
For those of you who only read half the article, I don’t blame you, it *is* incredibly long. 🙂 Sorry about that.
Thanks Rand for posting.
@ Paul — If you’re assuming HST as-designed, then obviously it would be easier to send humans to do it. I was merely making the point that going forward, systems could be designed for repair/maintenance (module replacement, etc) by robots, thus eliminating the need for human maintenance missions like HST needs. That’s why I don’t think Trent’s argument in that regard holds up.
I was also talking about going forward. Designing equipment for automated maintenance, and designing the robots to do the maintenance, and testing all that to make sure it actually works — that all has costs. If the cost of access to space is low, it’s not worthwhile spending that money.