Space, the final frontier

[Ursus]

Starting next year, America to be out of the space game for 5 years.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8106247.stm

 

 

What do you think? Is it worth building a moon base? Going to Mars?

 

If it is, can't America, the EU and Japan jointly share the costs and the glory?

[sylla]

Starting next year, America to be out of the space game for 5 years.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8106247.stm

 

 

What do you think? Is it worth building a moon base? Going to Mars?

 

If it is, can't America, the EU and Japan jointly share the costs and the glory?

Why the hurry? As there seems to be no immediate economic incentive, it may be better to wait until glory pays for itself.

[Kosmo]

It is the human flight part of space exploration that is most questioned. It is very expensive and unsafe to send humans in space. Extensive data was gathered about Mars for example from robots like those 2 impressive rovers (MER) that are working there since 2003. You can't beat that with a human that has to take a sizable chunk of earth's environment with him just to waste time and resources sleeping, eating and going crazy.

I doubt that long range space exploration will ever be cheap or will bring profits. What will be done will be done by robots.

In orbit we have the large ISS, more states and business competing for satellite launch and maybe soon more space tourism so things don't look so bad.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Kosmo

[Ursus]

Why the hurry? As there seems to be no immediate economic incentive, it may be better to wait until glory pays for itself.

 

 

An excellent question. I've always been in favor of spending government dollars here on earth where they can do more good. NASA sometimes comes off as welfare for engineers.

 

However, I submit the Western world leaving a void for China to fill is not a good thing....

 

In any event, my main problem is the presumption that America most go it alone. By 2025, America will probably lose its superpower status and just be one great power among several other great powers. I think it, the EU and Japan need to learn to share the costs and the glory of any future space endeavors.

[Formosus Viriustus]

It seems to be a widespread misconception that those dollars, or euros or yens, spent on space exploration are actually launched into space and are thus gone and lost forever. They are not. They stay here on earth and are earned by someone who will spend them again and so on.

But why should governments still be involved in space exploration ? Why don't they just leave it to the free market ?

 

F rmosus

[sylla]

It seems to be a widespread misconception that those dollars, or euros or yens, spent on space exploration are actually launched into space and are thus gone and lost forever. They are not. They stay here on earth and are earned by someone who will spend them again and so on.

But why should governments still be involved in space exploration ? Why don't they just leave it to the free market ?

 

F rmosus

For now, free market doesn't care.

[sylla]

An excellent question. I've always been in favor of spending government dollars here on earth where they can do more good. NASA sometimes comes off as welfare for engineers.

 

However, I submit the Western world leaving a void for China to fill is not a good thing....

 

In any event, my main problem is the presumption that America most go it alone. By 2025, America will probably lose its superpower status and just be one great power among several other great powers. I think it, the EU and Japan need to learn to share the costs and the glory of any future space endeavors.

Military money is also an investment; "glory" is not.

 

It seems that the military value of the outer space is currently restricted to the orbits around the Earth.

 

For the Soviet Union the space race was clearly a catastrophic investment.

 

If China wants to waste some billions of Yuans in the cosmic void, that might be good news for any of their competitors.

[Klingan]

Military money is also an investment; "glory" is not.

 

I don't really want to argue against here, your main point is valid, but I believe that glory actually is an investment. A proud and happy people with confidence is an investment. Not saying that there ain't cheaper ways to achieve that

 

Anyway I've always been for the idea of putting a base on the moon (or Mars for that sake), at least on a theoretical level since I can't ignore the costs.

[sylla]

Military money is also an investment; "glory" is not.

 

I don't really want to argue against here, your main point is valid, but I believe that glory actually is an investment. A proud and happy people with confidence is an investment. Not saying that there ain't cheaper ways to achieve that

 

Anyway I've always been for the idea of putting a base on the moon (or Mars for that sake), at least on a theoretical level since I can't ignore the costs.

Neither do I, as we essentially entirely agree.

[caldrail]

Keep your eyes on China. They have ambitions in space and whilst not as bad as North Korea, they aren't about to let a few domestic problems stop them from hogging all that potential propaganda

[Ingsoc]

Military money is also an investment; "glory" is not.

 

It seems that the military value of the outer space is currently restricted to the orbits around the Earth.

 

For the Soviet Union the space race was clearly a catastrophic investment.

 

If China wants to waste some billions of Yuans in the cosmic void, that might be good news for any of their competitors.

 

In the past the main motivation to the space program was the competition with the USSR, both states saw themselves as the leading powers in the world and if you are the leading power you need to be first at every field. The Soviets launch the first man to outer space so the American wanted to be the first on the moon.

 

I would say that "glory" as you put it (I would used the word "prestige") is an essential to the image of a powerful nation that want to be the leading power in the world. If China would increase it's space program it's could very well cause to the USA to do the same.

[Formosus Viriustus]

For the Soviet Union the space race was clearly a catastrophic investment.

 

If China wants to waste some billions of Yuans in the cosmic void, that might be good news for any of their competitors.

 

The space race was probably not in any significant way responsible for the downfall of the Soviet Union. There's a thousand other more important factors. In fact, I think that just like the US it boosted the Soviet Union no end. Soviet morale was really sky high at the end of the 50s and the beginning of the 60s. (Remember poor VP Nixon having to defend the US against a boastful Chrutsjov by saying that well, they - the US - had color tv ? )

Loosing the moon race which they officially never really entered probably had a negative effect. But that certainly didn't bring down the regime.

 

If China is now entering the space race it will have and is already having a similar effect : the Chinese are proving to themselves and the rest of the world that where science and technology are concerned they can hold their own with the best. I have no doubt that the Chinese people today have a completely different view of themselves and their country in relation to the rest of the world than they had thirty years ago when they just came out of the shock of the cultural revolution.

The prestige of being able to organise a perfect Olympic Games and lead the medals table as well, if my memory is correct, also boosted Chinese morale

[Kosmo]

Significant space exploration for prestige reasons like the 50's and 60's space race it's hard to believe now. China and other competitors are more likely to do again what was done 40-50 years ago then make some dramatic, difficult and expensive new moves like manned flight to Mars.

The industrial period it's over and excepting IT&C our technological level it's the same like 50 years ago. The IT&C evolution makes it more easy to use robots for space exploration while technological stagnation makes it unlikely to see man in space for complex missions.

The presence of man in space flight was from the beginning usually unnecessary and very costly. It was/is done only for propaganda reasons.

[sylla]

The space race was probably not in any significant way responsible for the downfall of the Soviet Union. There's a thousand other more important factors.

The available financial maths simply don't support the previous statement.

[Formosus Viriustus]

The space race was probably not in any significant way responsible for the downfall of the Soviet Union. There's a thousand other more important factors.

The available financial maths simply don't support the previous statement.

Welcome to Creative Accounting 101 ?

 

In what currency do you calculate 'national morale' ?

 

In any case, except for the Americans, most people think space exploration is still well worth it. The Chinese, the Japanese, the Indians, yes, even the Belgians. ('We' are very proud of having a man 'up there' at the moment. The rest of the world hardly noticed but in Belgium it was front page news for over a week. There was hardly any talk about splitting the country up at all for a week.) As investing in science goes, I think that space exploration is still a better investment than 'magic' large hadron colliders that don't work.

 

F rmosus