The Emperor's new Space Program

[JollyRoger]

I would rather have seen some social programs cut instead of this.

So the modern equivalent to a Tower of Babel intead of looking out for the widows, orphans, and strangers living amoung you?

 

[Bootstoots]

I don't think your approach could ever work, and even if it did, you'd be recreating the Wild West in space.

No you wouldn't. The companies would still be liable back on Earth for any damage or injury caused by negligence on their part. Of course there are inherent risks that the customers accept, just like, say, going skydiving. It's not a bad idea to acknowledge those risks, and if private companies can cut the odds of death from spaceflight to 1%, they've done better than the government has done so far.

Publicly funded spaceflight is not meant to be an adventure for few crewmembers, it's meant to pave the way for other people, including private companies. You show them how it's done, you develop the 'infrastructure' and then you provide incentives to kick start the process, until it can support itself.

That's already been done, more or less. All the basics of low Earth orbit spaceflight and its effects on humans have been discovered, and the technology exists for private companies to pick up the torch regarding manned space exploration. Government projects are no longer needed.

No. A dollar (or euro, or ruble, or yuan) spend in the space programme gets to the private sector too - all major space agencies are closely tied to private companies which are developing the technologies they request. ESA awards money to Arianespace, Alenia or EADS/Astrium to mention just a few, NASA cooperates with Boeing and Lockheed-Martin and RKA with Energia. It is and always has been a public-private partnership. In this system, the government can provide stable funding for private companies which gives them the long-term financial security they need to be able to focus on highly specialized and very expensive space-related technologies.

In your proposed system of incentives, the companies do not get any funding in advance and during planning/development stages, which means most of them will never get the capital necessary to even start out. And if they do, many of them will go bankrupt before they accomplish anything.

And if you want to provide such money, then you'd be doing the same thing we're doing today, just without any control over how the money is spent.

The government could still subsidize private space exploration for some time until it becomes relatively commonplace, if some push is needed. There's no reason to suspect that it would have to provide anywhere near the amount of money it needs to fund manned space exploration on its own, since private capital still bears a large part of the burden and private companies tend to be better at keeping costs down.

Oh please. Everything of this sort is difficult and costly at first. Building an underwater colony would costs billions too. The difference is that with an underwater colony, you'd still be stuck on Earth, whereas with a working colony on the Moon, you'd gradually open the whole universe for exploration and colonization. Universe > earth oceans

And what would we gain from that? Building bases on solar system bodies is extremely expensive, so much so that it's practically impossible that the amount discovered per dollar spent is anywhere close to robotic space exploration.

No, you're not making sense. Space Shuttle programme has been winding down for years. The contracts which are being made long in advance are running out, new external fuel tanks are not being produced (why would they?), some shuttle-related activities have simply been ended because they are no longer needed, etc. Not to mention that NASA's planning doesn't count with Shuttle being operated beyond 2011 and the funds have been re-allocated.

If you now decided you want several more years of Shuttle operations, you'd need to spend billions to restart the programme.

BTW, how's throwing the 9 billion dollars that has already been spent in Constellation out the window a good idea, that's also beyond me.

Suppose Obama gets it through and the Shuttle is retired - explain what space launch capacities will NASA retain post-2011. I am waiting for an answer for several posts already.

So the shuttle dies and nothing public replaces it. So what? We're not far from seeing private orbital spaceflight, and in the meanwhile there isn't really any reason to send astronauts up there on the government's dime. Even repairing satellites and whatnot tends to be far more expensive than sending up a new one.

Now don't get me wrong - I have expensive projects I'd like to see NASA do as well. Like space telescopes that can directly see planets around other stars and scan their atmospheres for oxygen. That sort of discovery would have vastly more interesting implications than anything NASA can send astronauts to do, and we could do it a lot faster and better if NASA wasn't spending so much money funding manned missions.

 

[Winner]

A wise and good move. Human space travel is very costly and dangerous. America can spend to money in much better ways in these times.

Yes, more banks need to be bailed out, more wars need to be fought and more farmers need to be subsidized so that they can overproduce for even higher prices. Hurray

 

[Lord Baal]

We are just waiting for China and India to catch up.

So you can outsource to them?

My views on this are mixed, and I don't really know much in-depth about it. I tend to go with the "I want space exploration to continue, but this programme was a reall bad way to do it, so I'm glad it's now dead" crowd.

 

[Nares]

NASA is being converted into another institution devoted to nonsensical claims of man-made global warming.

Shame on them for abiding the decision. NASA scientists should be fuming that they're being dragged into a bogus political debate.

Yes, more banks need to be bailed out, more wars need to be fought and more farmers need to be subsidized so that they can overproduce for even higher prices.

Most banks repaid their bailout money plus interest. The administration is stoking populist sentiment in order to pass a "bank tax" so as to support those banks/institutions which haven't yet repaid their bailout money (namely Chrylser/GM/Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac).

Subsidizing farmers to grow corn for mandated biofuel production is one of the most asinine decisions ever made by the American government. Unfortunately, as per last week's State of the Union address, it appears the subsidies are just beginning. Expect to see more "green energy" subsidies in America, and more starvation in Africa.

 

[Winner]

Sigh. Since I need to economize, I'll respond only to the parts I haven't already refuted.

And what would we gain from that? Building bases on solar system bodies is extremely expensive, so much so that it's practically impossible that the amount discovered per dollar spent is anywhere close to robotic space exploration.

First, you're mixing exploration with long term settlement. Two different, though interrelated, things.

Second, technologies evolve and mature only if you actively develop and try them. Once you get the first experience, you can improve them, which will (surprise surprise) make your further activities cheaper, safer, and more effective in general. First exploration voyages in the 15th century were actually pretty useless too in terms of short-term benefits. First aircraft were pitiful flying coffins.

If you're gonna sit on Earth waiting for technologies to magically overcome the gap and allow you to go to Mars for no cost in no time, you're gonna grow old and die long before it happens. If it ever happens.

So the shuttle dies and nothing public replaces it. So what? We're not far from seeing private orbital spaceflight,

and in the meanwhile there isn't really any reason to send astronauts up there on the government's dime. Even repairing satellites and whatnot tends to be far more expensive than sending up a new one.

I guess the ISS is going to maintain itself too. Oh my gods...

Now don't get me wrong - I have expensive projects I'd like to see NASA do as well. Like space telescopes that can directly see planets around other stars and scan their atmospheres for oxygen. That sort of discovery would have vastly more interesting implications than anything NASA can send astronauts to do, and we could do it a lot faster and better if NASA wasn't spending so much money funding manned missions.

You people are making it look like as if the humans were just useless baggage which is unnecessarily dragged along. In reality they are only going when it's necessary.

For example, the hubble space telescope needed servicing many times - only humans could do that. You don't have a spacecraft to get there and manipulate it, you're screwed.

Next-gen telescopes will be even larger and more importantly, placed farther (Lagrange points, perhaps). No commercial spaceship/rocket currently in development will be capable of getting humans to them. That's just one example.

Heck, no commercial rocket currently in development will allow to send anything meaningful beyond geostationary orbit. 60 years after the beginning of the space age and 40 years after Apollo, we're still stuck in LEO.

I am starting to root for the Chinese. I hope ESA stops being afraid to commence full cooperation with them, it could be an interesting partnership if the US insists on self-destructing it's manned space exploration programme. If we get the Russians onboard as well, perhaps we'll continue doing what needs to be done.

 

[Theige]

Suppose Obama gets it through and the Shuttle is retired - explain what space launch capacities will NASA retain post-2011. I am waiting for an answer for several posts already.

Obama isn't going to get his budget plan exactly as stated through, thats the way politics works.

 

[Quackers]

Surely agricultural subsidies are needed to retain food production in your own country so that in the event of a war or a natural disarster you can feed yourselves without relying on exported grain from other nations. This is bad for Africa but USA + EU is just looking after its own strategic interests.

 

[Theige]

Surely agricultural subsidies are needed to retain food production in your own country so that in the event of a war or a natural disarster you can feed yourselves without relying on exported grain from other nations. This is bad for Africa but USA + EU is just looking after its own strategic interests.

I'm pretty sure the US grows enough food to feed itself twice over.

We're by far the largest exporter of food in the world.

 

[Mark1031]

Great News. Now that the bloated government is out of the way I'm sure the free market will have moon resort hotels in my lifetime.

 

[Quackers]

I guess with the withdrawral of subsidies the American farm family will disappear and will be taken over my evil corporations. You can't have your cake and eat it.

 

[MobBoss]

Great News. Now that the bloated government is out of the way I'm sure the free market will have moon resort hotels in my lifetime.

How was the 'bloated government' standing in the way of this to begin with?

 

[Earthling]

Side note: Farm subsidies in the US by and large don't just cause more food to be grown. Often they cause less food or less food of certain types to be grown and available.

 

[Winner]

I'm pretty sure the US grows enough food to feed itself twice over.

We're by far the largest exporter of food in the world.

Actually, you produce more than enough to feed yourselves 10 times over. So does the EU, to a slightly smaller extent.

EU spends over 40% of its (tiny) budget to subsidize the farmers. If it diverted slightly less than half of that sum to ESA, we'd have nearly 2x bigger space budget than the US. Too bad that public spending insanity isn't limited to the US...

 

[Lillefix]

A bit of trivia: If you search "Food mountain" on Wikipedia you go to the "Common Agricultural Policy"(CAP) page.

 

[illram]

I thought the general consensus amongst the scientist/NASA types was that putting people on other planets for exploration and scientific study was incredibly expensive, inefficient, and was more for show than actual scientific study. Concentrating on more unmanned probes and so on was the more efficient approach.

 

[JollyRoger]

How was the 'bloated government' standing in the way of this to begin with?

So true. A public option wouldn't stand in the way of private insurers making a buck.

 

[Bootstoots]

Sigh. Since I need to economize, I'll respond only to the parts I haven't already refuted.



First, you're mixing exploration with long term settlement. Two different, though interrelated, things.

Second, technologies evolve and mature only if you actively develop and try them. Once you get the first experience, you can improve them, which will (surprise surprise) make your further activities cheaper, safer, and more effective in general. First exploration voyages in the 15th century were actually pretty useless too in terms of short-term benefits. First aircraft were pitiful flying coffins.

If you're gonna sit on Earth waiting for technologies to magically overcome the gap and allow you to go to Mars for no cost in no time, you're gonna grow old and die long before it happens. If it ever happens.

Regarding sending people there for scientific missions, we would certainly make very interesting discoveries, but it's far from clear that they would justify the enormous price tag (on the order of hundreds of billions, IIRC) and the cuts to all NASA's other programs that would entail.

For long term exploration and colonization, I don't know that we would want to do that within the next thousand years. There isn't any resource that either Mars or the Moon could possibly have that would be economical to extract. New technology isn't going to be especially helpful here either: it will always take a tremendous amount of energy to reach escape velocity, and without a way to get energy practically for free, it won't be done. And if such a technology were ever developed, it would probably come from an unrelated Earth-based application first.

Anyway, I was planning on growing old and dying before humans set foot on Mars. I won't deny it would be interesting if that is done in my lifetime, but not at the expense of other programs.

I guess the ISS is going to maintain itself too. Oh my gods...

You people are making it look like as if the humans were just useless baggage which is unnecessarily dragged along. In reality they are only going when it's necessary.

For example, the hubble space telescope needed servicing many times - only humans could do that. You don't have a spacecraft to get there and manipulate it, you're screwed.

Next-gen telescopes will be even larger and more importantly, placed farther (Lagrange points, perhaps). No commercial spaceship/rocket currently in development will be capable of getting humans to them. That's just one example.

Heck, no commercial rocket currently in development will allow to send anything meaningful beyond geostationary orbit. 60 years after the beginning of the space age and 40 years after Apollo, we're still stuck in LEO.

I am starting to root for the Chinese. I hope ESA stops being afraid to commence full cooperation with them, it could be an interesting partnership if the US insists on self-destructing it's manned space exploration programme. If we get the Russians onboard as well, perhaps we'll continue doing what needs to be done.

I don't really care about the ISS. It seems to be sinking money without contributing a whole lot to human knowledge. Does it have any real utility?

As for the points about space telescope maintenance, I think you're right that we'll need some spacecraft capable of doing that - so I do see the utility of this program. I'll concede that some scaled-down version of this program could be needed, although I'm not entirely convinced that the cost of a manned launch would usually be worth it versus just building another telescope. Shuttle launches cost about $450 million each, and I imagine the price tag of a Constellation launch is around the same. The Hubble itself needed servicing 5 times over 20 years, and we may be able to bring the expected lifespan without servicing of a new-generation telescope up a bit.

I suppose my main beef with the Constellation program is that its ultimate goal is to send manned missions to the Moon and Mars, and help establish a Moon base. All of those, except perhaps simple manned missions to the Moon, are way outside any budget NASA could conceivably have and would result in severe cuts to other programs.

Like the Moon and Mars, sending people to Lagrange points is unquestionably much more expensive than just building a new telescope and launching it. A space telescope placed there would yield amazing results, but I think you have to concede that it would be just like any other probe on an interplanetary mission - as soon as something stops working, it's broken for good.

 

[Benefactor]

I'm sorry, but unless Humans are going to go into space I (and many others) simply don't care about it. I was under the impression that all the robots where supposed to be paving the way, why bother finding out if their is water on mars, or if those exoplanets have oxygen if we have no intention of follow up?

Catch-22. If people aren't going, people don't care, if people don't care they don't get any money, if they don't get any money, people can't go.

 

[Karalysia]

Good, need to cut more wasteful stuff like the military now, I would rather have more jobs and social programs in the US than another man on the moon.