Phone home, Oler.

Are you anti expansion Rob? Humanity needs to leave the cradle sometime…

To me “exploration” with people is about the largest waste that The Republic has…

what we need is an agency (a NACA type group ) that aides technology development in terms of use by private industry.

I have heard no convincing reason to send people back to the Moon…including the water thing

Robert G. Oler

My initial aims in terms of national interests were those that relate to the national program, hence energy and health.

As to the economic impacts I think that opening space to commercial operators, a la COTS, really is where money can be made. I’d like to think that this is “private” space, as opposed to NASA. Even though NASA is part of it. So in my dream world there would be a NASA taking care of major issues as they relate to national interests requiring major injection of capital and a “private” space developing a “new” industry that will help the public get on board in may ways including investment and wealth creation (of course there needs to be a market etc).

I would love to separate once and for all military space from civilian space. The military has plenty of cash and very different requirements. Hence my reasoning about national security: Let the military worry about it, essentially. However the State Dept. might be onboard for anything that is diplomacy, what I called soft-power.

Much of HSF’s most lasting impact on these disciplines (energy, environment, education, economy, health, etc) is second-tier, presuming, like the old days, we push the technologies to open up new capabilities or new realms of operations, OR improve current capabilities and modes of operation. [Using OTS technology is the opposite of what I’m talking about).

Yet tackling the challenges inherent in perfecting closed life-support, maintaining health in closed isolated environments, implementing compact efficient energy systems, inventing lighter, stronger materials, creating novel means of mining in low-g environments…even just solving the challenge of launching things into space with railguns or such…will create seeds of innovation that will find their way back into all these disciplines back on the home planet.

As a sales pitch, though, spin-offs (which these essentially would be) have failed miserably, certainly compared to their actual infiltration of our everyday lives. [Given my own convoluted medical history, I can’t help but wonder how many times I’ve stayed alive because of innovations derived from the space program…] I’ve thought of a few commercials that might help here, but I don’t think it will serve the bigger purpose as much as needed to justify the program.

For direct impact, I think ‘economy’ may be our best bet, and not just because it’s so in the news right now and impacting so many. How can we ignite people’s passions about the potential to make big money by setting our sights on the solar system in its entirety, a promise of wealth for each and every one of us? Any thoughts on possible avenues along that tack?

The earlier post by red was a lot more on topic. Justification for HSF is a different topic on his own. Here the question is more how to relate HSF to national interests. Can we get back to this?

Did red identify the “correct” national interests? Are there more than that? Should we prioritize them? It looks that national security is on the mind of several posters here but is it the real important one that shouldd be addressed by HSF? I think not. I think it only is addressed through the soft-power way (diplomacy of a kind). What about Energy? Education? Economy? Environment and health? Can we come up with a priority list?

I think the most important are Energy and Health where HSF may provide more bang for the buck. Education economy and environment will follow. Environment may need to be addressed in a new way though, not just Earth observation but what about the effects fo the Sun. On the other hand is this really an HSF related interest?

FWIW.

Two points.

First off Zubrin is in my view completly wrong about Mars being someplace special. I’ve seen nothing that says survival on Mars is any easier or harder then on the Moon…If there is locatable water on the Moon’s poles then the equation changes in the Moons favor enormously…but then again for all I know there is water somewhere on Mars two moons.

The point is that it really doesnt matter. Zubrin (and the Moon folks) have an overated sense of where technology is today in spaceflight. I am persuaded by Jim Oberg, who I think knows what he is talking about that the technology available in spaceflight is no where near what it takes to survive independently on the Moon or Mars…and there is right now no real reason to invest the dollars to find it.

Second. I CAN see how private access to the Space station and private (read commercial) ability to fly people in space is a game changer…just like the airmail subsidy was. It might not turn out that way…but the way things are going now…well we have tried that method for 40 plus years and we are getting nowhere.

The worst part for the “go to Mars” (or the Moon) People is that they cannot come up with a reason to go that gets the backing of the American people

Robert G. Oler

“Space as a demonstration of a nation’s technological capabilities was a wonderful cover for developing all possible space capabilities. The more you could do, the more you demonstrated your nation’s technological prowess.
.
.
.

In the USA and elsewhere in the world we are witnessing a fascinating difference among the generations as to what is impressive. To the older generations who witnessed Apollo, human spaceflight is impressive. The astronauts were true heroes. However, to the younger generation,who are steeped in technology, who vicariously participate in all sorts of adventures through their computers, rovers on Mars are more impressive. Indeed, the younger generation would say: ‘what is so impressive about sending people into space?’ The technology, much of which is not new, is primarily to keep the astronaut alive. The rovers, however, are based on the latest technology.They are doing something we have never done before. And would not it be better still if the younger generation could drive them themselves? Indeed, if one of the purposes of the space program is to demonstrate a nation’s technological prowess, which is more impressive? Human spaceflight, which uses the technology of the 1960s, and may in time make it back to the Moon? Or invoking the full power of the revolution in technology that has occurred over the past few decades—in materials, in electronics—and robotically colonizing our Solar System?”

I bring this up because it bears on soft power, and also because Lori Garver is somewhat focused on the “inspiration” angle.

Those cheap shots are a whole lot more persuasive and get a lot more work done, than any failed $100 billion dollar human space flight architectures.

And after a couple of cheap shots, we feel a whole lot better about ourselves.

“As to expenditures on space science, we’re talking about very different amounts of money than for human space flight. NSF and globular clusters? Geez. The amount NSF spends on globular cluster research with ground based telescopes is worth a sneeze at KSC. Spirit and Opportunity put our eyes on Mars for hugely less money than it would have cost to put flesh there. Is it worth it to put that flesh there? Does the science really demand it? Does our quality of life really demand it? We haven’t learned how to make that argument in a compelling way.”

Value for cost, sure. Less money spent by the NSF on astronomy then NASA on human space flight, probably even considering the Hubble. These don’t conflict with the main point of my argument. I was responding to the arguments against the more intangible reasons and benefits of exploration and research, such as this:

“As I told Whittington, most of the “we have to explore” stuff is mindless nonesense.”

Debatable, of course. The big picture “Carl Sagan” type argument would be that the benefits of human space exploration come in the long term, not so much the short term. Just as expeditions across the oceans brought new trade routes between civilizations, our voyages across the stars may eventually lead to trade routes to other intelligent civilizations in the galaxy, assuming they exist. Venturing out into space then gives our species and others a better chance of survival. This is for the far future, but once we image an earth-like planet around another star (which may be sooner than you think), I imagine the demand for human exploration will increase tremendously. I’ll even go as far as to say that a few billion years from now, if we’re still around, the only way to survive will be to leave the solar system–on that timescale space travel is indeed, essential. As for the near future:

I think a pretty high bar is making a buck or two in space… Creating new jobs that pay taxes instead of consuming them, …silly things like that beats flags and footprints anyday.

I agree on the “flags and footprints” argument. I don’t see the point of going to a NEO, a Lagrange point, a free-return trajectory around Mars or whatever just to say we’ve been there. If you’re going to bring the spacecraft out that far anyway, just go the rest of the way—seems like a lot of cost for not much risk reduction. I think if we stayed on the Martian surface for a year (as in Zubrin’s Mars Direct) humans could not only carry out a great deal of research with better flexibility and real-time decision making than autonomous rovers, but it would be the beginning of research on colonizing another world while actually on that world. To me Mars is the highest bar. Human space flight at NASA should be about exploration that actually takes us somewhere. The public has lost interest in the past 20+ years because we haven’t essentially been going anywhere.

Another aspect of the “Zubrin” argument I agree with is the analogy that the moon is to Mars for our epoch as Greenland was to North America for the explorers of the seas. The moon is closer, and might be great for a research station, but I find it hard to believe we have a chance at living off the land there. If any colonization is to happen in space, it will be on Mars.

I don’t see private industry able to take first steps in major space exploration—up front costs are way too high and the benefits don’t come soon enough. Virgin galactic might have a chance at making space tourism profitable–four decades after Alan Shepard’s first flight. Humans to LEO is a whole other animal, and outside of ferrying people to the space station I don’t see how it would be profitable in the near future. The only reason commercial crews have a potential place to go is because governments picked up the tab to build the ISS over decades. Again, benefits from human space flight come in the long term, too long in my opinion for private companies to bear the initial burden.

I wouldn’t risk my life to go to space just to make a buck for myself, or for a few suits. It would have to be for bigger and better reasons than that. As Norm Augustine pointed out, you can’t justify human space flight on just soft power, inspiring youth, science benefits, satisfying the curiosity of the human race or other benefits alone. In my view it’s the combination.

Perhaps I’m bringing up old arguments. I’ve only been following this blog for a couple months in the attempt to gain deeper insight into the influences on our space policy outside of 20 second news clips, short articles in the newspapers, etc. Would be nice to see more thoughtful counterarguments as opposed to the usual cheap shots that seem to be thrown around.