Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost? A Freakonomics Quorum

Page 1 of 2 [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

alex
Developer
Developer

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,214
Location: Beverly Hills, CA

11 Jan 2008, 12:29 pm

Here's a great article on Space Exploration and why it's worth the cost:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2 ... cs-quorum/

Quote:
Right now, all of America’s human space flight programs cost around $7 billion a year. That’s pennies per person per day. In 2006, according to the USDA, Americans spent more than $154 billion on alcohol. We spend around $10 billion a month in Iraq. And so on. Are these things more important than human spaceflight because we spend more money on them? Is space exploration less important?


Quote:
Asking if space exploration — with humans or robots or both — is worth the effort is like questioning the value of Columbus’s voyages to the New World in the late 1490s. The promise at the time was obvious to some, but not to others. Is manned space exploration worth the cost? If we Americans do not think so, then why is it that nations such as China and India — nations with far greater social welfare issues to address with their limited budgets — are speeding up their space exploration programs? What is it about human space exploration that they see? Could it be what we once saw, and have now forgotten?


_________________
I'm Alex Plank, the founder of Wrong Planet. Follow me (Alex Plank) on Blue Sky: https://bsky.app/profile/alexplank.bsky.social


Syd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Dec 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,280

11 Jan 2008, 2:54 pm

I don't get why some people are opposed to space programs. I hear them speak of these programs as useless relics from the cold war era, claiming they're a waste of government funds, and so forth. This is often the same crowd pushing to increase the defense budget and pursue foreign operations which drain the nation's resources, limiting what's available for science, education, health care, environment, and other social areas here at home that should be a priority.

Some general societal benefits of space technology and exploration are listed in the following links.

http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home.html
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/as ... AST027.HTM

I shudder to think that some people would consider the following proposed budget to be acceptable. Notice the tiny slice reserved for the General Science, Space, and Technology category. Only a small portion of this slice would be allocated to NASA.

Image

Taking a look at the spending on military, defense, foreign affairs, etc. from the years 1962-2009 (Section 4—Federal Government Outlays by Agency) we can see that space programs were never a huge financial burden in comparison to defense expenditures.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/hist.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy ... st04z2.xls

Here are some more pages with information related to the issue.

http://www.richardb.us/nasa.html#table1
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/898/1

I think the main reason people are uninterested in space exploration is simply personal greed. They figure collapsing societies, irreparable damage to Earth's ecosystems, overpopulation, etc. won't happen in their own lifetimes - they're content to continue living in excess, leaving later generations to clean up the mess. Fortunately, we're seeing positive advances in science, technology, and sustainability these days.

Thanks for sharing the article, I ought to read further into the ideas being discussed there at some point. Some of what was said reminds me of a site I saw awhile back (lost the link) where an organization of scientists and theorists designed a time line spanning from 21st century to about the 30th century - filling in possibilities and predictions concerning computer technology, transhumanism, space exploration, colonization of new areas and so forth. I need to find that site again too, when I get some free time.



Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

12 Jan 2008, 12:09 am

Opposed, for several reasons.

First is Government control, NASA was doing planetary studies, and were told to quit, they are to focus outward. We paid billions for a high view of Earth, now forbiden.

Technology has been ret*d by NASA, job security comes first. The Shuttle is a 1968 design.

Space Stations have been a mess, low orbit, with little use.

What is out there? Beyond the Clark Belt, a lot of nothing. Clark himself thought elevators, leading to the Clark Belt with stations, for world communication, and looking outward.

The National Control of space lead to Clark Belt sites being under the control of the FCC, and somehow that became private property.

There is no use for the Moon, the cost of maintaining a colony, the shipping back and forth, for what? To prepare to spend more to go to Mars? It is dead and cold. Venus is hot, and everything else is a gravitational nighmare. Hard radiation, space junk, and what is found is what people on Earth could figure out.

I could see a Clark Belt ring world, Clark + Tesla, a world communication net, and solar collectors, beaming down energy to make it pay. But it is not Science, it is using the tax payer to gain private monopolies.

If there was a way to get to the next star with planets, and if, there might be an Earth type world, it is still a trip of generations. Light Years do not get shorter, humans can only take so much acceleration, and it takes fuel, power, that we do not have.

Space Exploration has left a mess for the future to deal with, near Earth orbit is a high speed junkyard. Nuts and bolts, parts and pieces, litter, moving 17,000 miles an hour.

The other side is we have been broadcasting for 75 years, telling any who could notice that we are primitive, and here on a planet that can support life. A water world. Any that could get here would have superior technology, and the two choices are, first the Wraith feed on the prey, or Romulins would just exterminate the vermin, and make it an outpost prison planet.

We are dumb, dangerous, kill each other and the planet, and no one would look forward to us growing up. The Prime Directive is make the Universe safe for your species.

It would be the same if we went to the next star, and found a planet with life. Someone is going to die. Columbus killed millions on first contact, and lead to many more millions dying. The Age of Exploration was about finding peaceful people and killing, enslaving, and stealing their land. It was Genocide, theft, one nation looting another, and subjecting the survivors to slavery for hundreds of years.

The current space program is military, spying, weapons, and NASA is just a cover story.

Columbus should have been hung as the pirate looter he was.



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

13 Jan 2008, 10:26 pm

Some people in the private sector have been eyeing space as having economic uses.

Chiefly tourism if I remember.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


lau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,618
Location: Somerset UK

14 Jan 2008, 3:44 am

Life. Expand or die. So far as we know, we're it. We need to go out. There's a big galaxy to fill up, and a few more beyond that. It may take us a while. If we sit here on this rock, we won't last more than a century.


_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer


The_Q
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 24 Dec 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 193
Location: The Continuum

15 Jan 2008, 2:01 am

lau wrote:
Life. Expand or die. So far as we know, we're it.


I agree with this. Life in general is like a fire, it needs to grow and expand or it eventually dies. If humans ever spread out into the galaxy, it will be much more difficult for us to be wiped out. Our sun's only got about 5 billion years of life left in it as well. At some point, were going to have to expand if we have any inclination to survive, why not now?

Space exploration often has practical benefits for people on the ground. Much of the technology designed for various uses in space has been found to have uses on Earth. Some may see it as a waste of money, but it's not in the grand scheme imo.


_________________
Q: "Humans are such commonplace little creatures."
--"Deja Q"


Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

17 Jan 2008, 10:03 pm

We live in space now. We have one craft that has supported life for five billion years, and is being destroyed for the short term gain of a few.

Remember 2001? Panam to the Moon and beyond? We still have money eating 1968 shuttles.

I think this fire will burn out in fity years or less, and the surviviors will not be thinking of space, but of food.

There is no science that even suggests crossing space to the next star. Physics gets in the way.

What we could do, with existing technology, is in the Clark Belt, and producing clean energy.

It seems others are in the energy business, and they want to fund going to Mars in 2020.



Avenger
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 84

18 Jan 2008, 7:14 pm

People who don't believe in the absolute imperative necessity of purposeful space exploration are hopelessly shortsighted.

If not space, then what? We're doomed to extinction when our Sun bites the big one, if not sooner by our own devices. But at best we have a few billion years. What is the ultimate objective of mankind? Survive on this rock until the end, then disappear? I should hope not. (If you're one of those nuts who thinks our only purpose is to sit around waiting to be raptured, then I'm not even going to waste any brain bytes trying to reason with you).

Some will argue that it is not yet time for humans to try to expand into space; that we are too young and immature, that we have earthly problems to solve first. I say -- if not now, when? Indeed, we must go sooner than later, now is the time, as the perils we have brought upon ourselves (overpopulation, pollution, famine, water shortages) are likely to end us. And realistically, our earthly problems will never completely go away. Disease, hunger and poverty will always exist, as they always have. The threshold may move in one direction or another, but in the end everything always normalizes about a bell curve. The defining purpose of this century should be to establish a self-sustaining foothold on some rock other than our cradle Earth. If it is not already too late.

This said I agree that the last couple decades of space shuttles and space stations in low orbit have been a largely fruitless waste of time, effort, life, and capital. Hell, we went to the Moon almost forty years ago... forty years after the first airplane flight, aviation was thriving. Granted space travel is a bit more challenging, but nothing out of our league.

At the very least, we have sent out a few relics of mankind (named Pioneer and Voyager) which will be deep enough into space that they should survive any solar death. They will probably be around until the end of the universe, proudly emblazoned with the Stars and Stripes. Even if mankind perishes on this rock or annihilates itself, at least we will have left a tiny fragment of immortality drifting somewhere out there among the stars.



PaperCrusade
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 49
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

23 Jan 2008, 1:43 am

I do agree that expansion into space is necessary to avoid guaranteed extinction (since we only have a few billion years until our sun dies. maybe.), but I think that the focus should be on scientific study in general.

As a previous poster mentioned, until we actually have the technology to ignore the small problem of it being physically impossible (at least as far as we know) to reach another solar system in anything under a few thousand years of travelling, there isn't really any benefit to space, unless one counts the possibility of colonizing Mars (which also seems far to complex (e.g. no water, high solar radiation) and pricey compared to the benefits).

Colony ships are a possibility, but they would take centuries (if the people on board didn't kill each other before then) to reach another solar system, perhaps to find no habitable planets.

If we can find a way to travel faster than light safely, we are sorted. Until then, space exploration should take a back seat to technological advancement (although the two go hand in hand). Just my 2c worth.


_________________
The man chooses. The slave obeys.


Last edited by PaperCrusade on 23 Jan 2008, 3:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Corona
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 5

23 Jan 2008, 3:02 am

as a member of the Planetary Society, I whole-heartedly agree with the articles presented.

...one of the main reasons for lack of interest, I think, has much more to do with government bureaucracy than with practical issues. It has been suggested that space travel might progress much more under a private company than a government organization, but I do remain a little skeptical about that.

what always surprises me is that most people are unaware of how much of our lives and technological progress is directly the result of space travel, which you can view a small sample of over here --> http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

as for natural resources, it has been estimated that the solar system has enough to sustain trillions of humans for quite a while.

-------------------------------------

.....as for interstellar travel, that may not happen for quite a while. though one idea that I'm familiar with is to put in frozen embryos and ship them off, so that they can be fertilized once they reach their destination by robots. it would certainly eliminate the need to create generation ships.....

you might also want to look into Von-Neumann probes too.

the length of the trip itself is not so much the issue, but rather how it can be done. it is quite possible to colonize the galaxy in a relatively short (read: GEOLOGICAL time periods) amount of time. the Proxima Centauri, for example, can be reached in ~43 years by a ship traveling at 0.1c.

there are an estimated 130 or so stars with 20 light years of our solar system. most are red dwarfs, but there are some yellow stars.

and here is a map of stars within 50 light years --> http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/50lys.html

It is unknown, however, how many of these contain habitable planets.....



lau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,618
Location: Somerset UK

23 Jan 2008, 5:01 am

PaperCrusade wrote:
I do agree that expansion into space is necessary to avoid guaranteed extinction (since we only have a few billion years until our sun dies. maybe.), but I think that the focus should be on scientific study in general.
Unfortunately, I think this is a VERY dubious approach... see below.

PaperCrusade wrote:
As a previous poster mentioned, until we actually have the technology to ignore the small problem of it being physically impossible (at least as far as we know) to reach another solar system in anything under a few thousand years of travelling, there isn't really any benefit to space, unless one counts the possibility of colonizing Mars (which also seems far to complex (e.g. no water, high solar radiation) and pricey compared to the benefits).
But... we do have the technology. It is not physically impossible (where did that idea come from?). The benefits are enormous. The practicalities on Mars are already well know and catered for.

PaperCrusade wrote:
Colony ships are a possibility, but they would take centuries (if the people on board didn't kill each other before then) to reach another solar system, perhaps to find no habitable planets.
See previous poster for this bit.

PaperCrusade wrote:
If we can find a way to travel faster than light safely, we are sorted. Until then, space exploration should take a back seat to technological advancement (although the two go hand in hand). Just my 2c worth.
And here is where I really wanted to make my points...

Firstly, on present evidence, we will never be able to travel faster than light. You cannot put off the diaspora UNTIL something happens, that will never happen.

Secondly, there is a distinct possibility that, for various reasons, our "window" for getting off the planet is limited. Various things are in progress which might imply that it will be impossible to wait fifty years - because resources may no longer be available. (Throw in there the odd chance of an asteroid hit, a plague, or any other natural disaster that sets us back a few centuries.)

Thirdly, and this is odd... I'm sure someone must have already thought of this... up there ^^^, you mentioned colony ships, and those colonists killing each other. Who would actually be best suited as colonists? People who breed true? People who do not require much social contact? People who are very pedantic about details. People who have deep understanding, to an almost obsessional level, of various subjects. I think the list goes on. Anyone here fancy the trip (part way, at least) to Proxima Centauri?


_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer


The_Q
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 24 Dec 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 193
Location: The Continuum

23 Jan 2008, 6:36 am

As far as FTL travel being "impossible", I thought general relativity had some loop holes, like using wormholes or space folding. I realise that both are way out of our league presently and maybe not possible, but there are theoretical physicists who are interested in FTL travel using those methods.


_________________
Q: "Humans are such commonplace little creatures."
--"Deja Q"


lau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,618
Location: Somerset UK

23 Jan 2008, 8:32 am

Indeed, The_Q, there's nothing I'd like better than a neat solution to practical FTL. Tomorrow would be nice. :)

My point is that we can't guarantee such a technology, so I would rather go with the assumption that it isn't going to happen, and colonise space as best we can, rather than depending on it, and dying out.


_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer


Corona
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 5

23 Jan 2008, 10:37 am

lau wrote:
Secondly, there is a distinct possibility that, for various reasons, our "window" for getting off the planet is limited. Various things are in progress which might imply that it will be impossible to wait fifty years - because resources may no longer be available. (Throw in there the odd chance of an asteroid hit, a plague, or any other natural disaster that sets us back a few centuries.)


Certainly true! Though, i could dispute as to when this will actually happen if we actually do wait long enough

there are many natural resources that we depend on for various applications. Aluminum, titanium, and iron will probably last for a while, at least a few centuries given current estimates (though some have predicted that iron ores could be depleted in ~60-100 years from now); that's good because these elements are necessary for basic infrastructure, aircraft and spacecraft, and most nearly other things we use.

recycling is NOT 100% efficient, however it can certainly extent the amount of time we have left to get moving into space.

other natural resources include coal, oil, natural gas; the fossil fuels. Coal will last several centuries, while oil may not last us this coming century. coal, however, is not environmentally friendly, so the future of power production will most certainly have to be something else, probably nuclear power as it is one of the only sources that can produce much more than fossil fuels and actually produces more than enough energy to increase the supply of fresh water on a massive scale (very important I may add) available to us via desalination.

then there are the renewable resources, either ecological or energy ones. of course, each of them has their strengths and weaknesses, though of them all ecological ones are very important, provided we don't destroy it first. personally I think biofuels and wind power hold the most promise.


one of the biggest problems that will face us in the very near future will be overpopulation and the depletion of current energy reserves, so that will certainly affect the length of time we have on to get moving, shifting from several centuries to maybe just over one century.....

unless we move into outer space, and shift to nuclear and hydrogen energy sources (each of which can last tens of thousands of years even with >10 bil population), things will get very problematic in the very near future.

to put this all into perspective: it has been estimated that about 75% of the world doesn't have basic telephone service available to them, and yet most of the resources are being consumed by the top ~20% of the population. even worse, under optimistic conditions it might not even be possible to supply basic services to every person on the planet (currently 6.5 billion) simply because there aren't enough resources on Earth to do so......


colonization and exploitation of space is certainly a must, lest we run out of resources or get slammed by a cosmic catastrophe (e.g. asteroids, gamma ray bursts, death of the sun, extraterrestrial life, etc.).

The_Q wrote:
As far as FTL travel being "impossible", I thought general relativity had some loop holes, like using wormholes or space folding. I realise that both are way out of our league presently and maybe not possible, but there are theoretical physicists who are interested in FTL travel using those methods.


it does. some solutions of general relativity do predict that wormholes should be possible, and maybe some form of warp-drive.

there are two problems: that most of these solutions require a negative mass density to maintain, and a lot of it too (to put into perspective, some solutions predict that you need a body of negative mass in as much quantity as there is mass that makes up the whole of Jupiter, in order to make a wormhole about 3 ft in diameter).

the second problem is that most solutions require a stupendous amount of energy to accomplish, about the energy output that you could expect from a large star, which puts it way out of our league for quite a while, quite possibly until we do establish ourselves within the galaxy.



as for warp drive, on the other hand, holds even another problem; for it to work the universe must have a negative curvature. so far the universe appears to be flat.


however, not all is lost, back in 2005 they discovered a solution for wormholes that wouldn't require "exotic matter" and certainly can be produce under relatively low energies (still much more than we can provide though, keep in mind that). you can read all about that here: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0503077 --- the paper is mostly about time travel, but it certainly does allow for wormholes.

stability issues have yet to be resolved though.

alternatively we could find a naturally stable wormhole out there in the universe, where we could find that is anyone's guess; never mind for a moment on whether or not they even exist....



Last edited by Corona on 23 Jan 2008, 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

The_Q
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 24 Dec 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 193
Location: The Continuum

23 Jan 2008, 11:05 am

lau wrote:
Indeed, The_Q, there's nothing I'd like better than a neat solution to practical FTL. Tomorrow would be nice. :)

My point is that we can't guarantee such a technology, so I would rather go with the assumption that it isn't going to happen, and colonise space as best we can, rather than depending on it, and dying out.


I agree that we should expand with the technology available, however, this has the obvious drawback of limiting how far humanity can expand without journeys taking a ridiculously long time. I know there are things like cold sleep, but so far as I’m aware, that has yet to be perfected either. I'm not real keen on the idea of generational ships. There's also another thing to consider, communication between colonies. With colonies spread say, fifty light years apart, inter colony communication with radio would be a nightmare. Humanity could easily splinter into isolated pockets. FTL travel would do a lot to solve this problem.

My preferred solution would be to put resources into developing conventional space travel and developing some kind of FTL capacity.


_________________
Q: "Humans are such commonplace little creatures."
--"Deja Q"


ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

23 Jan 2008, 12:52 pm

What a fascinating thread, and thought provoking article/quorum discussion link.

One thing i wanted to say was that although the parallel with Columbus is very moving , and is one i used 5 years ago to argue exactly the same thing, :) i now realise it is not a parallel because someone had to man the ships to get them over to america. They could not pilot themselves.

However i agree that it is essential to set up environments elsewhere in space where humans can live, because is a dead end here. Finite, enclosed, finished. What an end that would be, with the whole of space around us.

What use would human imagination be if could not get out there? No other animal is going to do it. :)

Contingency planners. That's what need. People who are brilliant at focussing on the best order in which to do things to achieve a goal. With all the essential stages planned for, timetabled; the robot research travel, the building of orbital bases for assembly of interplanetary craft, the vehicules for relays near by, the collection of materiels, etc etc, all the preparation, with each element in its place.

I'm not sure that the next step is another manned mission; it may not contribute anything, unless works as advertising, the most expensive ever! :) But thinking long term towards a departure of some sort to at least another planet like Mars, terra formed , or an orbital base, within the next 50-80 years, seems imperative. A practice run.

The Biosphere 2 project has shown that it is possible to create "almost" completely sealed self-sustaining eco systems so long as have sunlight. It's possible.

However hostile space is as environment at the moment, it is nothing like as deadly as would have been 100 years ago. Technology HAS advanced; it is not pipe dreams. I agree that it would be a mistake to wait for the "perfect" technology; we need to try to do it with what we've got, otherwise we could end up waiting forever.

Hundreds of new ideas would come while working on the project anyway.

8)