(Speculative) historical circumstances for space exploration

[aelf]

I think we can all agree that the world is not currently making much progress in that regard.

So, aside from an imminent global catastrophe scenario, what do you think are the kind of geopolitical and economic circumstances that would be conducive for a lot of resources being poured into space exploration and colonisation?

Imagine a future Terran 'empire' spread out across the solar system and maybe nearby star systems. What kind of situation could have led to the spread of human beings to other planets and systems to begin with?

Would it be something like a Cold War-style space race between global superpowers or economic blocs? The existence of a bureaucratic or technocratic world government with the ability to channel global resources as it sees fit? A Stalinist world government or hegemonic world power?

Speak your thoughts, Earth humans.

 

[Winner]

1) Educated population.
2) International competition
3) A system of effective long term planning

---

Nr. 1. refers to the fact that if 99% of your taxpayers are totally uninterested in science&technology unless it gives them access to cheap (and stupid) entertainment, a good space programme is impossible to sustain. ("Space, is that like, blowing up Texas-sized asteroids with nukes?" or "Didn't we have a military base on the Moon in, like, 1960s?" or "Don't rockets make holes in the ozone layer or something?")

Nr. 2 relates to motivation, and for better or worse, to beat the next guy at something is still a powerful motivation for human beings. I'd rather if it was channelled into something noble (space exploration) than other things. Competition of course doesn't preclude cooperation where it offers benefits to everybody. Sadly, cooperation in space often makes things slower, more expensive, and less capable. Or it makes them *not* happen, see how the US essentially decided to sink the ESA-led ExoMars programme.

Nr. 3 is basically an ability of a country or a group of countries to make a decision and stick to it. The US space programme is going down the drain because the US political system is utterly incapable (let me repeat that: UTTERLY INCAPABLE) of long-term planning. In Europe, long-term planning is easier to do, but at a terrible cost (nobody is willing to commit to truly bold projects, so our long-term plan is to do nothing).

---

It's a mess. It's hard not to despair, if you actually follow it and know what's happening in the space arena.

 

[Gigaz]

I hope that the first space elevator can be built in 20 years or so. That would make spaceflight reasonably cheap.

 

[Leoreth]

Well, China is progressing in that regard. That progress is mainly catching up so far, but the ambition to achieve more is definitely there.

I've read an article lately that this is the reason why ESA considers throwing their lot together with the Chinese space program. They have the money, we have the tech (and Kourou).

 

[Crezth]

Nr. 1. refers to the fact that if 99% of your taxpayers are totally uninterested in science&technology unless it gives them access to cheap (and stupid) entertainment, a good space programme is impossible to sustain. ("Space, is that like, blowing up Texas-sized asteroids with nukes?" or "Didn't we have a military base on the Moon in, like, 1960s?" or "Don't rockets make holes in the ozone layer or something?")

99% of tax-payers don't know anything about the banking industry, yet are still expected to pay enough to maintain it.

You can sneak things by the tax-payers if the need is there. I'm being specious, though, because the space program is a lot bigger and fundamentally more public than that, and a space program is hard to justify...

Nr. 2 relates to motivation, and for better or worse, to beat the next guy at something is still a powerful motivation for human beings. I'd rather if it was channelled into something noble (space exploration) than other things. Competition of course doesn't preclude cooperation where it offers benefits to everybody. Sadly, cooperation in space often makes things slower, more expensive, and less capable. Or it makes them *not* happen, see how the US essentially decided to sink the ESA-led ExoMars programme.

...if you can't convince your voters that you're defeating communists with it.

I disagree, however, with your conclusion that competition is a must, as success with cooperation is technically possible.

The slowdown, such as it is, stems from the systematic gutting of NASA for a dubious set of gains (more money to give to banks, I guess). "Cooperation in space" as you say does not inherently make things slower, more expensive, and less-capable (these qualities are not integral to the phenomenon of cooperation in space); all of that is happening because of your point Nr. 1, which itself is the case because we have no Soviet Union to compete with.

That is not to say that the competition is necessary, but that competition can generate public support, which in turn generates funds. Funds are necessary. This is, by the way, also why private enterprise is virtually incapable of any meaningful forays into space.

Nr. 3 is basically an ability of a country or a group of countries to make a decision and stick to it. The US space programme is going down the drain because the US political system is utterly incapable (let me repeat that: UTTERLY INCAPABLE) of long-term planning. In Europe, long-term planning is easier to do, but at a terrible cost (nobody is willing to commit to truly bold projects, so our long-term plan is to do nothing).

Well, I - yeah, you're right, actually. Completely right.

It's a mess. It's hard not to despair, if you actually follow it and know what's happening in the space arena.

Yeah.

 

[Winner]

I hope that the first space elevator can be built in 20 years or so. That would make spaceflight reasonably cheap.

Mark my words - there won't be any space elevator on Earth in 2050.

99% of tax-payers don't know anything about the banking industry, yet are still expected to pay enough to maintain it.

Kicking and screaming, that is.

But actually, it's a good analogy in a way. If there was a 10 km asteroid heading our way with 99% certainty of hitting Earth in a decade, then everybody would suddenly be fine dedicating 200% of our normal yearly budget to the space programme to develop something to save our sorry butts with.

Only now there is seemingly no pressing need, and if the population is dumb (which it sadly is, and not just in the US), then no politician will be eager to fund space exploration. They must see some benefit in it, and if they don't, it ain't going to happen.

...if you can't convince your voters that you're defeating communists with it.

I disagree, however, with your conclusion that competition is a must, as success with cooperation is technically possible.

The slowdown, such as it is, stems from the systematic gutting of NASA for a dubious set of gains (more money to give to banks, I guess). "Cooperation in space" as you say does not inherently make things slower, more expensive, and less-capable (these qualities are not integral to the phenomenon of cooperation in space); all of that is happening because of your point Nr. 1, which itself is the case because we have no Soviet Union to compete with.

Well, how to put it... okay, what has happened to NASA has nothing to do with the amount of money that is available. Its budget is three or four times that of ESA, the second largest space agency in the world. NASA's budget wasn't even cut - which is the real tragedy. It *should* have been cut. It should have been cut 50% or more, because according to what the politicians legislate, its new mission is to boldly go nowhere and spend ridiculous amounts of money doing it. At least if the budget was cut profoundly, all the fat and the dead meat would fall off and the agency would become more effective again.

I am being sarcastic here, of course. What I really mean is that the problem isn't just funding, it's organization or the lack of it within the agency and the political system which governs it. Obama cancelled the existing programme, throwing NASA into complete disarray, but the Congress is trying to resurrect it bit by bit through various bills it keeps passing. It's a ridiculous - no, criminal - waste of money. As a result, you'll waste 10 years developing your new Big Rocket, only to see it cancelled in 2-4 years time, and then you'll be back at square one.

Until you guys can teach your politicians to leave NASA alone and let it set its own goals based on what makes sense scientifically, not politically, your space programme won't go anywhere. In fact, eventually people will get so pi**ed off at how much money NASA is spending without results, that they'll close it down entirely.

Yeah.

I've just succeeded in making myself depressed again

Well, China is progressing in that regard. That progress is mainly catching up so far, but the ambition to achieve more is definitely there.

I've read an article lately that this is the reason why ESA considers throwing their lot together with the Chinese space program. They have the money, we have the tech (and Kourou).

China isn't interested - not in any serious way. They'd mine Europe for useful technologies, and then stab it in the back.

BTW, just you wait when the Americans realize that China is about to land on the Moon while they don't have anything approaching that capability themselves. That'll be fun to watch.

 

[Dreadnought]

Space exploration is, most likely, to be handled almost exclusively by Corporations looking to make a profit. The first step I see is the mining of the asteroid belt: on average, a single asteroid has 30 million tons of nickel, 1.5 million tons of metal cobalt and 7,500 tons of platinum; the platinum alone would earn the Corporation $150 billion.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

We need a good reason to do it, a better reason than exploration and science as ends in themselves.
We had missile development during the Cold War, maybe we'll have an orbital arms race between major powers in the near future, but that will be focused on developing btter satellites or anti-satellite weapons.
I can't envision a political scenario that would encourage us to explore or even leave the solar system.
Maybe the discovery of an earthlike planet in our immediate neighborhood -less than 10 light years away- may be deemed worthy of an expedition, but such a project would require worldwide cooperation.

 

[Winner]

Space exploration is, most likely, to be handled almost exclusively by Corporations looking to make a profit. The first step I see is the mining of the asteroid belt: on average, a single asteroid has 30 million tons of nickel, 1.5 million tons of metal cobalt and 7,500 tons of platinum; the platinum alone would earn the Corporation $150 billion.

Even if we found an asteroid made of pure platinum, it wouldn't be economical to mine it and bring the stuff back to Earth. Asteroid mining will make sense one day, but that day is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar in the future.

We need a good reason to do it, a better reason than exploration and science as ends in themselves.
We had missile development during the Cold War, maybe we'll have an orbital arms race between major powers in the near future, but that will be focused on developing btter satellites or anti-satellite weapons.
I can't envision a political scenario that would encourage us to explore or even leave the solar system.
Maybe the discovery of an earthlike planet in our immediate neighborhood -less than 10 light years away- may be deemed worthy of an expedition, but such a project would require worldwide cooperation.

Or just unmake the governments as the final arbiter of what our goals in space should be.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Space exploration is, most likely, to be handled almost exclusively by Corporations looking to make a profit.

Every time I read something like this I ask myself how. How on earth can space exploration be profitable to private industry (without massive government subsidies).
The infrastructure, the overhead cost, the training required...
Oh, and the fuel !

The first step I see is the mining of the asteroid belt: on average, a single asteroid has 30 million tons of nickel, 1.5 million tons of metal cobalt and 7,500 tons of platinum; the platinum alone would earn the Corporation $150 billion.

You'd have to fly to the Kuiper belt, extract the platinum and fly back with a lot more mass. Then you'd have to bring it back to Earth's surface, preferably in a controlled fashion.
We'd have to really deplete the resources on this planet to economically justify something like that.

 

[Ajidica]

Space exploration is, most likely, to be handled almost exclusively by Corporations looking to make a profit. The first step I see is the mining of the asteroid belt: on average, a single asteroid has 30 million tons of nickel, 1.5 million tons of metal cobalt and 7,500 tons of platinum; the platinum alone would earn the Corporation $150 billion.

Not likely. Do you have any idea how expensive it would be to get the rocket to the asteroid belt, mine it, and then come back? If you want to get there and back in under a decade carrying around an asteroid, you will need some massive rockets which raises the price astronomicaly. Ignoring the costs of research and development, I cannot see this happening. If the cost of those minerals on Earth has become so great in order make mining the asteroid belt an effective proposition, then our economy has already collapsed.

 

[Dachs]

Remilitarize space.

 

[Winner]

Remilitarize space.

Remilitarize? Space is now far more militarized that it was by the end of the Cold War. And it's a bloody bad thing, everybody is basically planning to make LEO unusable to everybody else.

You'd have to fly to the Kuiper belt,

Not that far The Main Belt is much close, though the costs would still be prohibitively high.

 

[warpus]

So, aside from an imminent global catastrophe scenario, what do you think are the kind of geopolitical and economic circumstances that would be conducive for a lot of resources being poured into space exploration and colonisation?

Competition.

As soon as China starts to send manned missions into space, building a space station, and/or launching a viable manned mission to the moon, the U.S. has no choice but to step up. When the U.S. steps up, their European, Canadian, etc. partners will follow.

 

[Dreadnought]

Even if we found an asteroid made of pure platinum, it wouldn't be economical to mine it and bring the stuff back to Earth. Asteroid mining will make sense one day, but that day is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar in the future.



Or just unmake the governments as the final arbiter of what our goals in space should be.

Every time I read something like this I ask myself how. How on earth can space exploration be profitable to private industry (without massive government subsidies).
The infrastructure, the overhead cost, the training required...
Oh, and the fuel !



You'd have to fly to the Kuiper belt, extract the platinum and fly back with a lot more mass. Then you'd have to bring it back to Earth's surface, preferably in a controlled fashion.
We'd have to really deplete the resources on this planet to economically justify something like that.

Heh, if we had to go to the Kuiper Belt, we might as well go all the way to Alpha Centauri while we're at it. I'm talking about the Asteroid Belt between Mars and Jupiter.

Not likely. Do you have any idea how expensive it would be to get the rocket to the asteroid belt, mine it, and then come back? If you want to get there and back in under a decade carrying around an asteroid, you will need some massive rockets which raises the price astronomicaly. Ignoring the costs of research and development, I cannot see this happening. If the cost of those minerals on Earth has become so great in order make mining the asteroid belt an effective proposition, then our economy has already collapsed.

I see it as a continuation of the corporate colonization of the New World -- you know, joint stock companies. "The Alpha Centauri Company" in some far distant future. But I think the Asteroid Belt is a foreseeable goal within several decades that retains economic profit but also opens up future colonial efforts on Mars and the Moon.

 

[Dachs]

Remilitarize? Space is now far more militarized that it was by the end of the Cold War. And it's a bloody bad thing, everybody is basically planning to make LEO unusable to everybody else.

Nah. Abrogate the Outer Space Treaty.

 

[Winner]

Nah. Abrogate the Outer Space Treaty.

Which would help us... how, exactly?

 

[Leoreth]

Reinitiate Reagan's plan to destroy our enemies with frickin' laser beams.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Shooting weapons into orbit is not 'exploration'.

 

[Winner]

Reinitiate Reagan's plan to destroy our enemies with frickin' laser beams.

Shooting weapons into orbit is not 'exploration'.

Well, actually if I remember correctly, the treaty only bans nukes (WMDs) in space, and prohibits militarization in the sense of establishing permanent military bases and such on the Moon and the other planets.

It's actually pretty sensible, which is probably what makes the Americans dislike it