Congressman Nick Smith (R-MI), chairman of the research subcommittee of the House Science Committee, made some interesting comments on the benefits of manned versus unmanned spaceflight in a commentary for the fairly obscure Truth News web site. Rep. Smith talks about the costs of the shuttle, station, and even Apollo programs, and concludes, “These projects have provided relatively little scientific discovery compared to cost benefit of unmanned missions.” He then suggests that current—and presumably future—human spaceflight programs will continue to be scrutinized by Congress after the August recess:
This fall, as we complete our appropriation bills, we will weigh the costs and benefits of our current manned space programs. With our overall efforts to reduce spending, debating potential changes to NASA will be futile if we first do not closely scrutinize our space science efforts, particularly with regard to manned versus unmanned exploration.
At the San Francisco meeting of the Aldridge Commisison one witness was a John Bernardoni. Part of his testimony included his thoughts on what was necessary for keeping people devoted to the VSE, keeping the VSE sustainable.
He said we need to go a good job of answering three nagging questions about space exploration:
“Why did we do it? – – What did we get (for our money)? – – Why should we keep doing it?”
He continued:
“[F]rankly, I don’t think the public has ever heard the answers to those questions, and if they don’t hear the answers this is not going to go forward. . .”
If the only goal is science, well then. Rep. Nick Smith may be correct.
Manned vs. unmanned is masking a more fundamental question. Namely, What do we intend on doing in space?
If the answer is scientific research, unmanned will win for quite some time as there is a lot of data that can be gotten from probes. This is Van Allen’s point of view since his research deals with events that are unsuited to humans anyway. Eventually there will be a tipping point where the cost of developing ever more sophisticated robots starts to outstrip the cost of sending humans.
If the answer is human colonization, you can’t escape the manned aspect of space exploration. Part of NASA’s mission is to “bring life to there”. If that’s an actual driving force, sending a million robotic probes will not put a single human anywhere. Humans and robots will need to be used in tandem.
I know this isn’t strictly related to the article but it always irks me when I read something that just assumes that space settlement isn’t even an option. Even more irksome is the idea that humans and robots are mutually exclusive. Why that idea is so prevalent, I have no idea.
Manned spaceflight should not be only about colonization either. It should also be about exploitation.
Unmanned probes are great for rooting out the scientific mysteries of far off planets, moons etc. But to exploit the resources that are awaiting use in space requires a manned presence.
I believe that viewing space as only a theater of scientific exploration is outmoded thinking. We must start thinking in terms of resource gathering and utilization.
How to convince Congress and others of this is perhaps the greatest hurdle of all.
Here is a good reason to colonize:
http://www.space.com/astronotes/astronotes.html
(Story called Planet Earth Overrun by Youth)
This sounds like Mr. Smith is saying the appropriation bill in some aspects will be an authorization bill. I’m hoping congress will debate the merits of space exploration and colonization but this needs to be a multi-year initiative.
The Economist once had a pithy summary of this whole tired manned-vs-unmanned debate.
Safety in numbers
Feb 21st 2002
The Economist
I don’t have the exact words, but it went something like this:
—
How many humans do we need in space? Regular readers of the Economist know the answer: ‘None. Robots are better.’ But this answer holds true if scientific information is the only goal. If we wish to colonise space, people are required.
—
It’s time for NASA to state forcefully that human spaceflight has more than one goal: science is one goal, and colonization is another.
Human spaceflight critics try to ignore colonization completely (which works because NASA isn’t talking about colonization either) or they try to dismiss it as unattainable.
If a scientist tries to dismiss colonization as unattainable, tell him/her that science is unattainable too. We’ll never understand everything in the universe.
Guess what, NASA is working on two ‘unattainable’ goals:
1. Understand everything.
2. Colonize the galaxy.
But the critics try to paint colonization as unattainable and science as achievable. Nice try.
“…it always irks me when I read something that just assumes that space settlement isn’t even an option.”
It’s a cultural thing. ‘SPACE = SCIENCE’ is embedded everywhere. It’s a pervasive meme.
For an example, take a look at “Space and subject classification” on The Space Review.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/200/1
It’s about how space is always classified under science, as if science owns space.
Sylvia Engdahl said something similar, too:
“For many years it has troubled me that even ardent advocates of space exploration generally state that its prime purpose is to seek scientific knowledge—that in fact, not only is its funding sought on this basis, but in virtually all categorizations of subject matter, “Space” is listed under “Science” as if that were its sole significance. This strikes me as comparable to listing Lewis and Clark under “Science” because of the data they collected about flora and fauna, or to listing everything related to computers under “Science” (which once seemed reasonable) because they are indispensable to scientists.”
Space and Human Survival: My Views on the Importance of Colonizing Space, by Sylvia Engdahl
http://www.sylviaengdahl.com/space/survival.htm
The question space programs should ask themselves is not “Is the space program good for science?”, but “Is the space program good for science and colonization?”
It’s almost the 30th anniversary of the publication of Gerard K. O’Neill’s “The colonization of space”.
The colony design is flawed (no modules) but the vision is right.
George Whitesides, of the National Space Society, deserves recognition (IMHO) as one of the few people who discussed settlement in testimony before the Aldridge Commission.
“Is the space program good for science and colonization?”
Posted by at August 17, 2004 09:15 PM
Think that space colonization is a political starter? Well before you say that you might want to see how many people want to “live” permenantly on an oil rig or a nuclear sub.
Yup. Thats pretty much about right. So the question becomes, who might want to do that, and why.
Because if its just about science, robots give more bang for the buck.
Actually we never gave human spaceflight a chance for science. There is a larger initial cost but in the long run humans are better than robots. If robots are better than we should sent them to Hubble since they give more bang for the buck.
Think that space colonization is a political starter? Well before you say that you might want to see how many people want to “live” permenantly on an oil rig or a nuclear sub.
—
People are not the limiting factor. Money is.
Yup. Thats pretty much about right. So the question becomes, who might want to do that, and why.
Because if its just about science, robots give more bang for the buck.
Posted by Bill White at August 18, 2004 12:11 AM
Mayor of Houston?
Sorry, no.
What kind of person is going to be needed? Well someone with unique skills to perform task that make money for someone. AND do it on a cost benefit level that beat robots.
I agree. And it is a hard question. I would be a lousy candidate. But it is all about the money.
I am working on developing an answer, but its still half baked. In the meantime, here is a link to a website with a gadzillion quotes on why somebody else’s kids should go colonize Mars.
Other people’s money and other people’s kids!
http://www.spacequotes.com
Kool-Aid, Kool-Aid, tastes great. Gotta have some, can’t wait!
> “I use to think that space was the new west but have gone away from that view. It might be eventually but our technology/cost numbers have to change dramatically before that happens.”
“Occasionally I hear someone say we should wait until the technology is ready… Better technologies are developed because they’re needed to do a job; rarely, if ever, does an expensive and elaborate technology get fully developed purely for its own sake, with the hope that someday somebody will decide it’s ready to use for something. New technologies typically develop by steps, perceived needs leading to new developments, and those in turn suggesting new steps–but we’re talking about steps, not leaps across chasms. There’s no reason to expect human exploration and colonization of space and other worlds to be any different. First we’ll send a few individuals, at considerable cost and with occasional deadly accidents along the way. But we’ll learn from the experience…”
Stanley Schmidt, Editorial, Analog Science Fiction and Fact, September 2004
This is from the Atlantic Monthly and was written January 1, 2004:
In the aftermath of the breakup of the space shuttle Columbia an important debate on the purpose and future of the U.S. human-space-flight program is under way, though perhaps not as forthrightly as it should be. The issue at stake is not space exploration in itself but the necessity of launching manned (versus robotic) vehicles. Because articles of faith are involved, the arguments tend to be manipulative and hyperbolic. If the debate is to be productive, that needs to change.
And here is the crux of William Langewiesche’s piece:
One thing for sure is that the American public is more sophisticated than the space community has given it credit for. In the event of a grounding the public might well be presented with a question now asked only of insiders—not whether there are immediate benefits to be gleaned from a human presence in space but, more fundamentally, whether we are to be a two-planet species?
The author is an esteemed mainstream journalist who has interests far beyond the space community.
So, is it worth it? Is it worth the money and risk for a tiny group of humans to live their entire lives (and bear children) confined to an oil rig or nuclear submarine?
Frankly, if we answer “No” – – then why bother with manned spaceflight at all?
And, how has George Bush or the Aldridge Commission helped us address this question?
I’m not sure if I agree with the current metaphor of “oil rig” and “nuclear sub” for living on Mars or the Moon. The Moon is pretty hostile but living on Mars wouldn’t be much different from living in Antarctica. Last time I checked, there are thousands of people living down there doing research and whatnot. Sure, you have to wear a space suit but you can travel around. Not true so much on a sub or oil rig. Also, on Mars, you have the possibility of building a large habitat in the native environment. How big? How many tools and workers do you have?
The point is, thousands of people already live in environments comparable to a space colony. I doubt we’ll ever have a shortage of people who would be willing to live like that on Mars or the Moon if given the chance. Just because a Mars hab isn’t a suburban ranch house, doesn’t mean no one will want to live there.
Again, I believe that the talk of “colonization” is premature.
What we are capable of doing in the relatively near term is exploit resources on the Moon and on near Earth Asteroids. This would not require colonization, but merely “tours of duty” in space. That is the comparison to the oilrig / SSN that applies, not leaving the planet to live the remainder of ones life in space or on the Moon / Mars.
Stanley Schmidt, Editorial, Analog Science Fiction and Fact, September 2004
Posted by at August 18, 2004 06:02 AM
A comment on resource utilization:
What we are capable of doing in the relatively near term is exploit resources on the Moon and on near Earth Asteroids. This would not require colonization, but merely “tours of duty” in space.
The percentage contribution of raw materials towards total economic production has been rapidly falling for decades if not centuries.
Can we really expect to mine aluminum or even platinum for a lower cost than the cost of more aggresive re-cycling?
As Sam Dinkin has said, we cannot beat the export cost of video-tape.
Here are some questions for the Congress:
Does the United States see a benefit in expanding our human boarders into space for scientific, commercial or strategic applications?
What are the priorities and the annual budget?
Do we wait for private sector to develop a spacecraft to access ISS post shuttle? (How many years would that take? And who pays for it?)
How long do we keep the Shuttle going before congress finances an alternative?
Do we phase out all human travel to space after commitments to ISS have been satisfied?
If robots are better than why send a shuttle to fix Hubble?
Does the U.S. lead in space expansion or follow?
I don’t know of any raw resource which would be cheaper to import from space but exporting to space is very expensive.
It’s also cheaper to send people for long terms rather than short terms, which would mean colonization. Congress and the president seem to fear the word colonization. I would pay to be a space pilgrim in a yellow space submarine.
I don’t know of any raw resource which would be cheaper to import from space but exporting to space is very expensive.
Just being argumentative, but He3 is cheaper to get from space just for the fact that it doesn’t exist on Earth.
I’m not sure the uses of he3 but just plain helium has lots of uses today. The cost of helium fell from $2500/ft3 in 1915 to 1.5 cents /ft3 in 1940. The U.S. Bureau of Mines has set the price of Grade A helium at $37.50/1000 ft3 in 1986. Today it runs about $150/1000 ft3 depending on grade and discount. There is he3 and he4 on earth but it doesn’t occur naturally, he4 has interesting properties. I don’t expect any of the big gas companies getting there supply for earth from space. However, if we needed to power or build spacecraft for interplanetary flight than getting it from space would be economical for the long term with frequent travel.