6 thoughts on “Tapping The Riches”

  1. You could argue that the Space Shuttle program also held us back for decades. The Shuttle, locked in LEO, was virtually useless for any proposed resource exploitation schemes. Seriously pursuing such projects would’ve highlighted the weakness of the Space Shuttle in these areas.

    The Shuttle was the diva who sucked all the oxygen out of the room. Problem one was to figure out how the Shuttle could be beneficially used for the exploitation program (vastly increasing the costs and complexity). If problem one couldn’t be solved, problem two was figuring out how to get around the existence of the Shuttle program. Landing a man on the moon was probably easier than solving problem one or problem two, so the idea of serious resource exploitation was a distant dream reserved for the far off day when we once again were sending people beyond LEO. That implied a time when the Shuttle was no longer flying, which was kind of unthinkable, because the Shuttle was the future of man in space.

    1. For most of it’s history, the Shuttle was a vehicle in search of a mission. After Challenger, it wasn’t allowed to launch civilian (non-government) satellites any more, just those military satellites that were still on the manifest. Finally, it was the vehicle to build the ISS, which is a space station in search of a mission to this day.

      NASA’s aeronautics side continues to do some good work, but the human spaceflight side is little more than a jobs program for engineers and managers.

  2. One could also argue that the boots-and-flags stunt that was Apollo set humanity back also; perhaps, however, it was necessary for political reasons. After all, one early casualty of the race to the Moon was Orion – the real one.

    But also, risk aversion is indeed a problem. Many people died exploring the oceans. Many people died colonising (or should it be conquering?) the Americas. No doubt whatsoever, many people died colonising Asia, and Europe, and Australia, and the Americas the first time around. Many people died building bridges, and in the early experiments with air travel. In fact, test pilots died quite often up to maybe the late 60s. And all of a sudden, exploration of a new frontier has to be perfectly safe. Why?

    If someone, very early on, had said in public that the deaths of volunteers were part of the price of exploring the new frontier, pointing out all the above, then the space program would be in a lot better state now.

    1. Many people died building bridges, and in the early experiments with air travel.

      I’ve been interested in the history of aviation since I was a child, and it’s incredible to think of the kinds of risks aviation pioneers took on voluntarily. I certainly wouldn’t have done it myself.

      First there were the pilots who flew the frail wood and canvas contraptions in the early days; then there were those who risked their lives in long-distance flights in the 20s and 30s. And that’s before we even get to Air Force test pilots in the 40s and 50s.

  3. The real problem is that space advocates still seriously believe its NASA’s job to promote space settlement/resource development. Historically resources have always been exploited by private firms or by very focused government development corporations (TVA, BPA, Comsat, etc.) that seek to mimic private firms in their behavior. At most government agencies do what NASA has been doing – basic exploration, mapping and science research where risk of failure is minimal and easily to cover up with the excuse of advancing scientific knowledge (no, we didn’t find the NW passage on this trip but it still was a successful because of all the things we learned about the region…). But its foolish to expect such agencies to do the actual innovation and exploitation simply because government agencies are naturally risk averse for the very simple reason its never been a pleasant task to explain to the King/Queen/Congress why a venture failed even after the practice of execution for failure fell out of favor.

    That is why the real waste has been the decades Space Advocates have spent lobbying for NASA to open space in their mistaken belief that is why it exists. And in trying to find the magic bullet to build public support in the belief that somehow massive public support will somehow force NASA to take risks trying to do the job of private entrepreneurs. The only groups whose opinion matters in terms of opening a frontier are the pioneers and the bankers. The former don’t need to be sold, they will go for the sake of going while the latter are easy to convince once you show them the money (You say a ship FULL of gold just arrived from California? What’s the name of the firm? How do I invest in it!)

Comments are closed.