That’s certainly true currently. But given how much more rapidly information technology is advancing versus human space flight, I’d guess it’s a good bet that our descendents will be able to download their consciousnesses into artificial brains and bodies that are more suited for solar system settlement before we start living offworld using our existing biology.

FWIW…

Thanks for the lesson

All right. I already countered your “preservation” rationale (correct spelling this time) with the Katrina debacle and the (near?) zero funding for NEOs observation at NASA. Therefore I am showing you that not all people at NASA or FEMA would think that HSF may be justified with a “preservation” rationale. I am not saying it is wrong. I am saying that it will not work just as is. I also said that if you or anyone can come up with a justification that ties with national priorities (security, economy, education, health) than you will most likely get some funding. And for that matter any rationale linked to said priorities will work. Not only preservation.

Getting any clearer?

Oops, that was Shupp. My apologies. You didn’t say that. Good question as to whether he was equating Taliban and Al Queda with Muslims as a whole. I hope not.

“Remember how you reacted once when I tried to “simulate” the people’s demand? You thought I was saying I was the voice of the people…”

Gee, that was a long time ago. But you did say “Because we, the public, the customers, want it. Period” My problem was that I didn’t know who “we” was, and I called you on that. The words “We the public” means you’re speaking for the public. It means you’re the voice of the people (that’s the public, you see). You weren’t.

Just the words, ma’am …

I believe I did say somewhere up north in this topic that *we* all know that human space flight is not about science, but that’s a call that hardly anyone would argue with. Otherwise, I don’t think I was ever trying to speak for others.

“Yes but when you claim the only rational is preservation, why do you think it is the only rational? It is the only rational you can come up with.”

I was talking about “rationale”, not “rational”. Um, yep, that’s why I claimed that human expansion was the only rationale for human space flight, because I laid out what I thought were arguments for claiming it. That’s how “discussion” is supposed to work. You make a statement, and then back it up with supporting thoughts. No arrogance intended. If you disagree (and I welcome any constructive disagreement), then do so, but back it up your disagreement with supporting thoughts. That’s what we usually do here. Don’t think about how I “sound”. Think about what I say.

“I certainly never said I was defining it for everyone else. ”

You “sounded” like you did. Remember how you reacted once when I tried to “simulate” the people’s demand? You thought I was saying I was the voice of the people…

“This is the best space policy discussion site around. It’s where people present views and others comment on them.”

Yes but when you claim the only rational is preservation, why do you think it is the only rational? It is the only rational you can come up with. Hence the “arrogance” but enough of that if you don’t mind.

” In fact, with regard to certain suggestions about becoming Muslims and convincing idiots, punctuated by exclamation marks and full caps, I was wondering about that myself. Was that supposed to help your own case?”

Not sure what you mean. Reference to the Alcatraz joke above? Is that it? Do you equate the Taliban and Al Qaeda with the Muslims as a whole? Just questions because I do not know where I did so. If it is what you think please show me where I said so and I am will provide an apology. What about convincing idiots? Where did I mention “idiots” anywhere? And btw I am not trying for a case, what case?

I certainly never said I was defining it for everyone else. Yeah, that sure went right past me. I was saying that in my view, just about all the other reasons for human space flight — space science, space resource development, technology leadership, soft power, inspiration and education (which all sit under the umbrella of “exploration”, I guess)– can be envisioned as being achieved more effectively, and at lower cost, in other ways. So it’s just a matter of taking those standard rationales for human space flight (what did I miss?), and considering how unique they are to human spaceflight. Sure, these considerations might be arguable, but I haven’t heard any good arguments against them here.

But you can’t do human expansion robotically. That you can’t isn’t arguable. QED, that makes it the only rational justification I can think of. The question then becomes, why is human expansion important? Answering that question in a way that acknowledges national need, and can be compelling to the public, is both a challenge for the community, and an invitation for discourse.

The space advocacy community has largely missed all that.

Too bad you “detect some arrogance here”. None is intended. This is the best space policy discussion site around. It’s where people present views and others comment on them. In fact, with regard to certain suggestions about becoming Muslims and convincing idiots, punctuated by exclamation marks and full caps, I was wondering about that myself. Was that supposed to help your own case?

You just don’t get it. I never said it was the point that Hawking said it. Someone else tried to say that (but didn’t quite succeed). My point is that, as I said, I don’t even care if it was Stephen Hawkins who said it, whoever he might be. That human expansion is the only rational reason for human spaceflight is right. That’s uncomfortable, because it’s hard to sell as a national need, but it’s right. ”

Okay, I NEVER daid you said it… Someone else indeed said it first. Sometimes it fells we’re talking opast each other but I guess it’s okay, it’s one of the traits of Internet blogging. Frustrating though.

Now it is YOUR point of view that “human expansion is the only rational reason for human spaceflight” and that of a few others, not all. Let me then ask you why you hold the ability to define what is rational and what is not for all of us? I discern some arrogance here and that won’t help your case, then again I may be wrong…

Oh well…

Yes, I do. And so does our country. This has been the mantra for space advocates for a generation, quite properly. In fact, this is the basis of all national budget policy. It’s called strategic planning, which is a standard agency budget exercise. What they propose to do has to point back to something that benefits the nation, and that value can be judged against other value-generating expenditures. What they spend taxpayer money on has to benefit the nation.

Does expansion of the human race, and creation of the technologies and tools to do it benefit the nation? Well, it’s not going to put dollars directly in my pocket or yours, but that’s a narrow definition of value to the nation. Most federal expenditures don’t result in a check in the mail. Where human space flight advocates have missed the boat is not coming up with a picture for the American public about why that expansion has value. I don’t have that picture. I’m just challenging the community to come up with one.

It isn’t about me.

Oh, this explanation has nothing to do with commercial space. If you’re spending your own money, you can do whatever you want. You don’t have to prove value to me. I assume you’re doing it because it benefits you in some way.

(1) You missed my point. Yes comsats now make money. Weather satellites are an economically sensible government purchase. Airlines and hikers enjoy the benefits of GPS systems. We can now track stolen cars and perhaps even kidnapped children from the heavens. Space funerals and rocket races may become profitable enterprises. That’s fine. But there is no conglomerate SPACE, INC. which takes the profits from these businesses and plows them back into R&D for lunar bases or future space telescopes. Everything we ask of government space programs is — almost by definition — non-profitable, and this will always be the case.

(2) We can tell each other horror stories until the cows come in about NASA failures to recognize business opportunities and how this branch of NASA tripped up that branch of NASA. And so what? Big commercial firms make mistakes too — ask Chrysler or Saab, or Data General or DEC or Control Data. So NASA managers screw up? They do so just like managers in the Real World. Consider the example you linked to — NASA fucked over a generation of would-be microgravity researchers, to provide funds to space station construction. Well yeah, that sucks, and it was short-sighted in retrospect. Was it a decision that would never have been made by financially-strapped commercial firm, no matter how desperate? Or was it just the sort of thing General Electric was famous for a few years ago? (Helpful hint — the answer is YES)

(3) So going from Apollo to Shuttle was too large a technological leap? Likely, but again so what? What was the alternative, really, back in the early 1970’s? Do you seriously really god-damned absolutely in your genuinely right mind think NASA had any options except proposing some sort of miracle vehicle after Apollo was shit canned? There was NO middle-capability manned vehicle which the Nixon administration and Congress was willing to accept. There was NO possibility of building something say 10% cheaper than Apollo, and then something 20% cheaper than Apollo and something 30% cheaper than Apollo and … No frigging way. If NASA had asked to do that, American manned space programs would have ended after Skylab.

Yeah, you don’t want to believe that. All the bad ideas NASA had were entirely NASA’s fault, right? Well, I was there at Rockwell and I remember how it looked to us, and how it looked to folks at NASA and how it looked to Aviation Week and The LA Times and I gotta tell you sound sensible development programs were not on the cards back then, anymore then they have been the last five or six years.

(4) Why is it costly to lauch stuff into space? (a) it’s an insanely challenging task, compared to most engineering projects. The vehicles have to be light, yet undergo great stress. Chemical propellants are piss-poor energetically. We don’t have a good understanding of exactly how fuel and oxidizers combine in rocket engines. We simply haven’t built the thousands of flight vehicles necessary to move down the production cost curve. We’re DUMB. (b) Since we don’t know what we’re doing, we try to analyze things to death, rather than rely on simple ruggedness. (This is peculiarly an American weakness, and NASA shares it with just about every other American institution in sight). Analysis and re-analysis and re-re-analysis and constant checking is innately expensive. (c) Some very bad mistakes were made on shuttle — hard to access wiring harnesses, for example, and a basically sucky themal protection system based on fragile, hard to secure ceramic tiles — which have led to extensive pre-and post-flight servicing demands — Jerry Pournelle’s famed “Maintenance Army” of shuttle workers, which costs a bundle, Some of these were sort of anticipated — NASA was told to cut development costs and to just accept higher operational costs by OMB, and they obeyed like a government agency should, and yeah the higher operational costs were grossly underestimated. But basically: (d) NO ONE ON EARTH EVER IMAGINED IN THE 1970’s THAT SHUTTLE WOULD FLY INTO THE 2010S. The system was supposed to last for ten years and be replaced by something better, when — God, we all hoped — the American taxpayer would be willing to pay for better spacecraft. And that magic moment never came.

So shuttle became an expensive sucky system because that’s exactly what the US government was willing to fund in the 1970’s and because the US government has never been willing to bite the bullet and fund a successor system. Yea, verily, even in the Year Of Our Lord 2010, the US government has not been willing! Because Space Flight is small and unimportant in the Big Scheme of Things, and there just aren’t enough launches each year to justify the development costs of a cheaper launcher.

Note that none of this is going to change much in the next 20 years.