The Why of Space Program Races

Deinhard writes "USA Today is running a story about the "why" behind the newly rekindled international space race. From the article: 'The science of space raises levels in areas such as computers, space materials, manufacturing technology, electronic equipment, systems integration and testing.' While it is a matter of national pride, China in specific also sees this as a way to increase the reputation of its high-tech exports."

Comments

Justifying space research

[LeonGeeste]

If you've seen my posts on this issue before, you probably know how I hate these justifications for space research See:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=164516&cid=137 33897

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=165623&cid=138 20378

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=164705&cid=137 47052

Long story short, if you want better computers, research better computers. If you want better materials, research better materials. You shouldn't say "Invest in ways to get into space so we can make better materials". And you shouldn't say "Space research is good because it gets us better computers." It was the computer research that produced the benefit, irrespective of whether that research is "for space" or not. Don't use peripheral gains to justify a different goal. Just say what you mean.

Re:Justifying space research

[Anonymous Coward]

Your missing the point. It does China no good to have better computers if nobody else knows about it. The whole point for China is to sell their products. They need a vehicle to demonstrate their competative improvements they have made in their technicle capabilities. TFA even pointed out China's space effort was not a "crash course" 2 missions in two years is not really much of a space effort. What it does do is get a lot of international press saying WOW! look what they can do! They are hoping that this will make people think "look a chinese car if they can put a guy in space they must make a decent car" rather then "look a chinese car what a piece of crap from an underdeveloped nation".

So yes your point is well taken but there is no point for the Chinese uless they can sell those advancements and the space program is their billboard. Whether it works or not is debateable and yet to be seen but thats the point in this case anyway.

Re:Justifying space research

[thesandtiger]

This should say: It is the nature of white humans to explore, conquer, and colonize.

Correction, you should have said: "I am completely fucking ignorant of history, and have no idea what I'm talking about."

Re:Justifying space research

[AviLazar]

As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention. Our journey to space has brought us many great technologies...maybe they would have come about anyhow, but they DEFINITELY did come out because of our space endeavors. Some items: Flame retardant material used on the space ship to protect the astronauts is used in fire fighter equipment. Microwave (you know the stuff people use to cook with) was invented for astronauts. Satellite technology - yea those satellites sure don't get up there on their own. There are plenty of other examples.

There are many reasons to explore space:
1)It is an endeavor that will help bind many of us together - look at the projects we do with other countries that surround space travel, even during the cold war -it was one of the few positive connections we had with Russia
2)We are explorers - we always have been...because we first ventured beyond our cave and discovered fire, and then explored accross the ocean to bring us to a new land, and from there we found that we could fly...space is the next step..this is fuel for our souls.
3)The research done can yield new techniques, technologies, etc that may have a benefit to our everyday lives - just reference my example's above.
4)We may not be alone, and while we won't find life (probably) in this generation or the next ten, we eventually will
5)For the tin-foil hat folks - well some asteroid is bound to destroy us eventually, it would be nice if we were say spread out on different planets.
6)Travelling to space and doing research may bring more knowledge to us about us.


I don't care what we use to justify exploration into space, as long as we get there. Unfortunately, our elected officials and all those people who look at the bottom line want to see immediate benefits. You tell them we should spend 50 billion so we can find out that Mars may have had a couple of water molecules 3 million years and politicians will laugh; on the other hand, you tell them that by doing this research we could find a way to bring resources from Mars that will make our lives easier then they are more likely to consider it.

Re:Justifying space research

[ArsonSmith]

Sounds great. Lets just invent a bunch of solutions wether or not they have probelms. I bet Henry Ford could have just invented the Assembly line with building something. I'm sure Ugg said "I build round disk that rolls on ground, someday we find use for it." People don't invent things for the sake of inventing them.

"Necessity is the mother of invention." -someone

Space research is a Necessity that will birth the inventions. You're putting the cart before the horse, as they say.

Re:Justifying space research

[bluGill]

Flame retardant material used on the space ship to protect the astronauts is used in fire fighter equipment.

Not to mention flame retardant material developed for use in movies.

Microwave (you know the stuff people use to cook with) was invented for astronauts.

No, Microwave was invented when engineers noticed that candybars in the pockets started to melt when they stood in front of WWII radar. (which wasn't a smart thing to do, but in the war you cared more about winning than your own life). After the war those engineers worked on making a product out of it. The first Microwaves were used on luxury ships because they were too large for any home (note that today many home microwaves have a large oven chamber and more power than those first ones)

Now I will grant that some things have come sooner because of space research. However what is the cost in things that we could have now if engineers hadn't been focused on space? This question cannot of course be answered, which is why I reject all arguments that space was really good for us. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, since we don't have a proper scientific controlled experiment we cannot know.

Re:Justifying space research

[hackstraw]

Long story short, if you want better computers, research better computers. If you want better materials, research better materials. You shouldn't say "Invest in ways to get into space so we can make better materials". And you shouldn't say "Space research is good because it gets us better computers." It was the computer research that produced the benefit, irrespective of whether that research is "for space" or not. Don't use peripheral gains to justify a different goal. Just say what you mean.

Until your theory is "more rigorously prove"n, most will accept the animal instinct to do nothing after ones basic needs are met, with the only exception would be some kind of ideology to initiate a change.

Look, plain and simple, "normal" people do not need computers that will survive the vacuum of space and consume very little power, and the g forces of going up and coming down from space. Normal people don't need computers that can survive a nuclear bomb, an Iraqi desert heat, have extra long battery life, and be shock resistant to whatever some grunt puts them through.

However, we all want "more" battery life, and "more" reliable computers, etc.

Space and the military provide these things because they are well beyond people's normal requirements, and engineers work at the edge of current technology with no real constraints on R&D costs nor manufacturing costs. I bolded the last part there for a reason.

For profit companies can spend at most around 10-20% on R&D, and have limits on manufacturing costs.

After reading an article about the Hummer today, I guess this is appropriate. Look at the Hummer. An amazingly successful car that is overpriced and not terribly designed for driving to work or carting kids around. One of the designers was talking about it, and he said that he was on the original design team for the Humvee. In that article, he said that there were no considerations for fuel consumption. The vehicle was designed to replace the Jeep and other transportation and medical vehicles that was designed to drive with flat tires (in the 80s) and through 6 feet of water with continuous service for something like 15 years. He also said, he would never drive one on the road because they were a waste to do so.

Automobile racing is another similar adventure. Nobody is going (except for a stupid ricer who is confused) to spend time and money to put carbon fiber and whatever state of the art into a Neon. But if the R&D for the carbon fiber is already in place and its now known how to manufacture the parts and they are better/cheaper or whatever compared to conventional metal parts, then everybody wins with the newer stuff in their Neon.

Re:Justifying space research

[StalinsNotDead]

Or, maybe a better question, how does one such as yourself get through the day without getting the shit beaten out of them for saying such ignorant things?

Because the comment is percieved to be against one of the few remaining demographics allowing anti-group comments.

Also acceptable:

It is the nature of christians to explore, conquer, and colonize.

or

It is the nature of males to explore, conquer, and colonize.

Re:Justifying space research

[R3d M3rcury]

"[...] I reject all arguments that space was really good for us. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, since we don't have a proper scientific controlled experiment we cannot know."

I'll agree that it's a "Virtual History" question and that there is no way of knowing whether there could have been other paths. But the benefits of space research are proven and should not be ignored. What you're questioning shouldn't be the benefits of space research but, instead, whether there are other better ways to achieve the same results.

To use an analogy, if I take I-5 to CA-22, I'll get home. This is proven. But is it the fastest way to get home at 5:00PM on a weekday? Might another route, say CA-91 to CA-57 to CA-22 be a faster way to get home? Perhaps. To find this out, I would probably have to do various tests and average the times together for the two routes over a given period. But, regardless of whether it is faster or not, I-5 to CA-22 will achieve the desired result: I'll get home. To follow your analogy, you're saying that you don't believe that taking I-5 to CA-22 will get me home because all possible other routes have not been considered.

Thus, you can't really argue that space research benefits various industries which use that research to produce products which have improved our lives. It obviously has and there are plenty of examples of it. I agree with you, though, that the not-so-subtle implication--that if we don't commit to space research, we are doomed to stagnate--is not valid.

Re:Justifying space research

[LeonGeeste]

Space program proponents claim: the space program is/was a good idea, because it led to good thing X.

I claim: It does not suffice to show that Y led to good thing X, to prove that Y was a good idea. You must also show that X was better than what not-Y would have led to.

Example: I take $100 from you. I buy a candy bar. I give you the candy bar. I then claim that the Theft-Candy Program was a good idea because it led to you having a candy bar.

You respond: I could have gotten a candy bar for less than $100. Also, there were things I wanted more than a candy bar. If I had spent my own money on my own needs, I would be better off. Therefore, the $100 candy bar was a waste.

Space program proponents: Government takes ~$100e9 from the economy. It bankrolls a trip to the moon. It then notices that some of the things it made with the intent of getting to the mood happen to have uses outside of getting to the moon. It gives people these technologies to people. It then claims the space program was a good idea because it led to us having the technologies.

I respond: I could have gotten those technologies for less than $100e9. Also, there were more pressing needs at the time. If consumers had spend their own money on their own needs, money would have been invested in satisfying demands higher on consumers' priority lists, and they would be better off. Therefore, the $100e9 was a waste.

The only real difference is that people have a "hard time" imagining private industry investing that forgone income in technology, because of public goods' problems, shortsightedness, etc. But those are separate arguments, rarely discussed in the context of the space program. Space program proponents typically stop at "The space program produced good thing X. Ergo, it was better than all alternatives"... which is really a poor argument when you think about it. I didn't start this thread to deny other possible justifications, just to deny that that one is valid.

Let's go over your LCD example again. NASA saw the possibility of LCD technology. More than likely, so did many people not working for NASA. All of those people at the time ruled it out as not being cost effective for consumer and industrial purposes. But NASA wasn't satisfying specific consumer or industrial demands: its solitary goal was to get a man on the moon and get him back safely. That alters the equation. An LCD may be cost-effective for that specific goal. So it produced this thing, which at the time was probably not cost effective for actual other human desires. Had it not happened, those funds would be diverted to higher-ranked cost-effective consumer and industrial demands outside of getting to the moon. Because such funds would then be directly targeted at pressing human desires, rather than getting to the moon, it is very likely they would have yielded something better, as judged by the average person (i.e., the benchmark you used to justify the LCD in the first place).

Now, you do have a point that maybe NASA "saw the light" and "guessed right" that the LCD had more and better uses than entrepreneurs at the time judged. But, like I keep saying, "that's not enough". You have to show that the government's "guessing what satisfies human desires" is correct more often than private entrepreneurs "guessing what satisfies human desires" in the aggregate - i.e., that the Social Security Administration is more efficient than McDonald's. Showing that the government outguessed private industry one time doesn't prove much.

Since private industry directly targets human desires, while the space program was targeting getting to moon; and since private industry guesses consumer desires and cost-effectiveness generally better than the government, the diversion from private industry into a government program not specifically intended to develop better technology likely means we got something not as good as what we could have.

Now, agree or not, do you understand the point I'm trying to make?

Re:Justifying space research

[ghoul]

The thing is you have to have some kind of candy to tempt the smart kids. Let me elaborate. In grade school the smartest kids can figure out they can have a much easier time in college and a richer life if they become Doctors and Lawyers than Engineers and Scientists. So why do these kids go into Engineering. It is the dream of mega projects like the Space program. Of course most Engineers dont make it to NASA but they spend their lives in guilt thinking they are not good enough and work their asses off for private industry hence providing the life blood of the country. Take away the space program, military research(which is cool in a nerdish way) and soon all you would have left would be Doctors, Lawyers , Plumbers and others who feed off the misery and misfortune of others. The politicians understand this better than you do hence they continue the funding

The space race...

[jamesgamble]

The Earth's resources are dwindling and if we intend to survive the next two thousand years, we're going to have to find resources elsewhere to sustain ourselves. It's not soley a matter of scientific interest now, but a matter of survival.

Re:The space race...

[Alef]

Or we could just learn to recycle the resources we have. Very few resources have left the Earth (a few space probes and some atmosphere mainly), so why do we need to bring more of them here?

Re:The space race...

[lawpoop]

How about learning how to successfully or sustainably manage resources once we do find them? Space is vast and empty. We live in a cornucopia. If we're screwing up this badly while living in a virtual paradise, there's no way we can survive the 1000+ year trip to the next planet. We'd eat ourselves of out food a fuel 10 years into the space journey.

Re:The space race...

[Anonymous Coward]

This argument does not work because if we don't need something for 2000 years we can wait 1500 years.

Really in the end the only reason to send people into space is because we like to do so. It is for the same reason we like to take trips to (say) the Grand Canyon. If you think standing at th edge of a giant hole in the ground and looking down is a waste of time and money you would think space is a waste too. Stop with the contrived jstifications. Humans are simply made such that they like looking at stuff they've not seen. Likely this was a surival skill a million years ago and natural selection caused us to be something that wants to just look around

I can imagine that folks who walked to the other side of the river just to look because they have nothingbetter to do where at an advantge to others who didn't. They had a higher chance of finding something usfull. Even if they dodn't need it, they'd remember seeing it later when they did.

High tech is good but....

[tktk]

While it is a matter of national pride, China in specific also sees this as a way to increase the reputation of its high-tech exports.

What I really want to see are low-tech solutions to the space race. Not to prove your own country's superiority but to make other governments look bad. Any large government can throw billions or trillions of dollars to get into space.

What I want to see is some guy get into space by sitting on a huge jug of exploding moonshine.

Pfft.

[Britissippi]

There is no real country based 'space race' anymore in the western world. Corporations are going to take over where the governments leave off. China is 50 years behind the times, and eventually it'll be the corporations there that take over the space flights, too.

Re:Pfft.

[TrevorB]

China may be 50 years behind (let's say 45 to be more accurate), but the US is about 25 years behind (Shuttle) and Russia about 38 years behind.

We could be kinder to each country. The US has been upgrading their shuttles with newer materials. The Russians developed a new variant of their Soyuz craft (TMA class) as recently as 2002.

However America is about to go with a new CEV design, which while an upgrade in technology basically puts them back to where they were in 1968.

I'm very impressed with the Shenzhou spacecraft. It's larger than Soyuz by about 10-20%, which itself had significantly more space available than Apollo did on its own (not sure about Apollo-LEM). It's orbital module can operate autonomously, staying in orbit for many months, making the potential for Shenzhou orbital modules to be used as space station components. If its launch safety can be shown to be equivelant to Soyuz, the Shenzhou spacecraft will be the best operating in 2010.

The actual "space race" may be taking place now, in the design stage of the American CEV. Can they build a craft superior to the Chinese?

China has been building a lot of momentum here, while the US has stalled. I'm very curious to know how things will turn out in the next decade.

Re:Pfft.

[Guppy06]

"Corporations are going to take over where the governments leave off."

Why? Unless tomorrow somebody discovers something everybody must have and must be made in microgravity, or some probe discovers a huge stash of unobtainium on the surface of Mars, there's no commercial impulse for space travel to progress beyond where it is now: putting microwave repeaters into geosynchronus orbit.

Exploration (space or otherwise) is nothing if not a long-term investment, and Wall Street prefers the short-term to boost quarterly profits.

Re:Pfft.

[Martin Blank]

However America is about to go with a new CEV design, which while an upgrade in technology basically puts them back to where they were in 1968.

Just because it's a capsule design doesn't mean that it's a step backwards in technology. Your argument seems to be based on the capsule to shuttle to aerospace plane development map that failed.

I would argue that the CEV is a step forward, because it adds flexibility to the design. The second phase of the CEV includes not only a lunar module, but also the capacity to start building a lunar base. Where the Apollo mission could support two people on the lunar surface for a maximum of three days, the CEV will be able to support four people on the surface for a week, and those four people will be able to do much more than just pick up a few rocks and wander a few hundred meters at a time.

I base where we are on what we can do once we get there. If the CEV merely duplicated Apollo, that would put us back at 1968, and would be a sad waste of tax dollars. If it's capable of living up to its promise, then that puts us much further along, and only 10-15 years behind where we should be.

The original reason for the space race

[mbkennel]

It was a proxy for development of ICBM technology. An ICBM warhead is a satellite whose orbit happens to intersect the surface of the earth.

Having the capability for heavy lift, accurate guidance, precise orbital adjustments and robust communication shows that your ICBMs are probably also just as good, without divulging specific classified technological details.

Basic research is very good (and underfunded and underappreciated) but there is also something significant to be learned when basic research is applied to a rigorous problem, e.g. space technology, before it has to hit the commercial market.

There is the "valley of death" in R&D development: it takes about 25 years from a technology to go from lab discovery to commercial development.

Academic development does the first 7 years, by then it is "old" and professors can't really write good papers or get good grants and tenure dicking around with small things.

Commercial development funds the last 2 years only.

The middle is the Valley of Death and you need some kind of funding source and goal to take technologies from a lab formula to a product of economic significance.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple; the US is not #1 anymore

Wow, what a troll. Anyone who understands the Space Programs of the world can tell you that the US still has a significant technological lead. i.e. There's only one country that flys a super-booster. In case you're wondering who, the answer is the United States of America. The Space Shuttle is capable of 137 metric tonnes to low earth orbit, making it the most powerful booster to have ever flown. Sadly, it's saddled by the orbiter itself, making its cargo capacity a mere (but highly respectable) 28 metric tonnes.

China is starting to stand on their two feet

"Starting" is the operative term here. They've flown precisely 3 taikonauts to date, who have had very short up and down missions. Prior to this, China has been all talk and no put up on manned space flight. And that's despite the fact that they stole the Dynasoar design for their early attempts at manned flight.

On the bright side, their Long March program has done well for itself, despite the relatively poor payload of the rocket. Now if they'd just place a bit more value on human life (see: Feb 15, 1996), they'd be off to a decent start.

fighting the last war

[Quadraginta]

Eh, this is the problem with Stalinist top-down economic planning. The Chicoms are fighting the last (economic) war here. I seriously doubt the future belongs to the nation that makes best progress in rocket technology, semiconductors, or high-energy materials physics for that matter. Sure, these things are important, but they are well-developed, mature fields of research, and there's no indication that Holy Cow Wow low-hanging fruit breakthroughs are just waiting to happen.

But it's a different story in biotech, nanotech or even funky networked software, which are areas where the US is megaparsecs ahead of the Chinese and if anything pulling away. Sure, a new cadre of starry-eyed Chinese metallurgists and aerospace engineers are going to have influence on the future, make stuff that people in the rest of the world -- say, in Southeast Asia or Africa -- are going to want to buy.

But what about the American firm that comes up with proteomics-based individualized cancer therapies that double lung cancer survival rates? Or a little in utero genetic magic that can cure cystic fibrosis or guarantee perfect vision and superior resistance to infection in every newborn child? How about a vaccine against Alzheimer's so everybody can be as sharp in their 90s as they were in their 50s? Cure for AIDS? Rapid-response antiviral technology that can snuff out avian flu before it gets started? Networking applications infrastructure that make it plausible for most of us to work anywhere without commuting further than from the bedroom to the home office? Nanoscopic fuel cells that let portable electronics work for days or weeks at a time off the electric grid? Any of those future-tech possibilities seems to me way more lucrative to bring to the international market in 2050 than the ability to build rockets or memory chips that are 5% more efficient than anyone else. So if I were buying stock in countries based on their R&D focus, I'd pass up the Chinese as slugfeet, based on their 1960s-era research focus.

Maybe it's just because I remember hearing similar arguments about Korean and Japanese innovations in steel- and auto-making in the 1980s, when American business was jumping out of heavy industry and getting into such weird niche vanity businesses like personal computers. (I mean, who the heck needed a computer on every single desk, just to play Solitaire and Zork and customize the fonts on your letters? Geez, you want computations, go to the computer center and punch a deck like everybody else...)

Re:R&D doesn't buy business growth

[Kelson]

Clearly, the solution for profitable business is to let someone else do all the research and development, then implement the results yourself without the burden of a huge money sink.

Actually, that's fairly typical of many industries. The leading edge is dragged down by the overhead of all the experimentation, and once they've worked out a system, the imitators have a much smoother ride. It's easier to stand on giants' shoulders than to build the stilts yourself.

Re:250 million people in 20 years

[FooGoo]

In the US we don't have poverty like they do in China. In the US being poor means you rent a DVD once a month instead of once a week.

nothing is monocausative

[globaljustin]

or, to say more correctly, technological advancements partially justify manned space programs.

you said in a previous post:

"Hey, all you entrepreneurs working on technologies to satisfy actual human desires: STOP. Give us money so we can show the Ruskies where it's it."

Do you deny the strategic advantages of space? Do you have any doubt that Russia was seeking to gain power and eventually dominion over the U.S. in some way? You can validly say that the U.S. space program was run very ineffiently, but to say that it was ONLY about beating the Russians, well, that's just wrong. Here's where I link this to your latest comment...nothing on a macro scale is monocausative.

You assume that there is always ONE central reason for something happening. Especially on the international stage, this is a fatal assumption.

And you shouldn't say "Space research is good because it gets us better computers."

Why not???

It was the computer research that produced the benefit, irrespective of whether that research is "for space" or not. Don't use peripheral gains to justify a different goal.

You wish the people in power would just:

Just say what you mean

Well my friend, especially in America, things are NOT THAT SIMPLE. It's just a reality of our American system of business, government, and research. Did we go to the moon for exploration? Yes. Did we go there to enrich texas businesses? Yes. Did we go there to prove to the Russians that we are dominant? Yes. Did we go there for science? Yes. Did we go there to advance computer technology? Yes.

We went to the moon (culmination of space race, btw) for myriad reasons because that is how America works, by consensus. Different groups with different, sometimes overlapping, interests get together for common good. The more we get together, the more we accomplish...the individual stick is weaker than a bundle of....yeah you get the idea.

So, your criticism of 'going to space just for research' is invalid...b/c whenever we go to space, there are many reasons, not one...we never went to space just for research.

mod parent down

[globaljustin]

mod parent down...this is flame and it is inaccurate.  What possible definition of 'poverty' did poster use?  What statistics?  Are these official Chinese Government stats?

Blind quotaions of random flame statistics such as this should be detected by moderators as flame already...mod down mod down mod down

Re:Simple

[brendalson]

To tell the truth, it's the fact that they see human life the way they do that is going to make their journeys into space interesting. We Americans over engineer everything to be as safe as we can make it. One of the large drawbacks to this is that we don't take to many risks and chances when human life is concerned. It's something that China isn't going to worry about. They won't over engineer and they will be willing to take risks that we won't. Yes, they are going to lose people. Yes, bad things are going to happen for them. But they are going to go a great distance in a short amount of time in the "space race" because of it.

Re:Notice to the rest of the world

[BerntB]

Bring it on! (BTW, Burt Rutan _is_ on our side, right?)

But so is NASA; maybe the worst money sink history has known. :-(

(At least the new director went out and said that the shuttle and the space station cost at $250 billion were huge wastes of resources that should have had better uses. There might be hope, yet.)

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the large drawbacks to this is that we don't take to many risks and chances when human life is concerned. It's something that China isn't going to worry about. They won't over engineer and they will be willing to take risks that we won't.

Total trolling. Have you checked their blueprint for their rocket design? Oversee their engineers and manufacturing process?

Yes, they are going to lose people. Yes, bad things are going to happen for them. But they are going to go a great distance in a short amount of time in the "space race" because of it.

Are you just trying to be funny? Dude, how many lives we've lost in our space program? How many pieces of space-gear/component malfunctioned after take-off? What's the deal here? You sound as if they take tremendous risk and that's the only reason they succeeded? Maybe based on your reason both Chinese rockets should've just exploded without taking off a meter if they're taking such huge risk and not value human life. Dude, do we have to put down others because we can't do it here now? NASA don't have the dough, so be it. What's the problem with other countries achieving it? Why diminish other peoples achievement?

ICBMs

[Doc Ruby]

I'm all for space development. I want to see its benefits in all those things pursued. But the truth is that the US and Soviet Union raced to space as a way to develop Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles with nuclear warheads. Nations continue to pursue this path for those same reasons, with more or less the same priority for the ballistic missile research. That doesn't mean we have to keep prioritizing the warfare research. But we shouldn't pretend that we've gotten our priorities straight until we actually have.

Here is the why of the space race

[SouthSong]

Preparation for military expression of might. China has beefed up its military wing and by entering the space race it builds nationalism. It will need national support to overcome something like taking over Taiwan and rebuffing U.S. Counter Strike.

Re:250 million people in 20 years

[Anonymous Coward]

Who knows? I don't look to my country to do what people should do for themselves.

US - China debt

[captaineo]

I wonder if China is attempting to goad the US into spending billions more on space exploration... Money that will come in the form of treasury debt to the Chinese central bank.

The "manned" and the "un-manned"

[betasam]

Personally, I believe space research may be vital for us for research and experiments which cannot be performed within the earth's atmosphere, but provide vital clues to theoretical physicists to validate theories. The most successful space programmes have been "unmanned" including the Voyager series (no not the Star Trek one you see on TV), Galileo, Ulysses to name a few. The Mars Rovers that gave us quite a lot of detail from Martian terrain were "un-manned", and yet provided necessary scientific information.

Even Carl Sagan would agree that a "manned" mission under current conditions is more of a publicity stunt and a splurge of tax money. MIT's robotics labs believe they could have clustered robots (or swarm robots) programmed to search for vital mineral resources on unexplored planet terrain providing clues for life or proto-life. The Space Research programmes (be it USA or erstwhile USSR or China or even India in the future) are in the most part publicity stunts. Part of it is because of political control over the immense amount of funding required in Space research. I am not sure that one would want to spend billions of $$$s to boost public morale and achieve far too little in scientifically. I often wonder how ancient astronomy progressed significantly without the use of much equipment, but on the basis of pure observation and correlation. Some day science would be the turf for scientists, for now so long as BIG funds are necessitated, publicity stunts and "manned" missions will be inevitable.

I can't imagine humans going to the moon to collect debris and bring them 'home' for analysis when we have the technology to avoid this. No one walks into a volcanic vent to collect geological data, into which we have robots going where no man has gone before. They do provide useful scientific data, which can be scientifically analysed in non-realtime. I am not aware of a situation where a significant "realtime" response is required to have a "manned" mission to the moon (or into a volcanic vent), enough to justify endangering the life of the astronauts. (This is not about the "thrill" of space tourism.) Of the few "manned" successes was "Hubble" and the Orbital Space Stations which too can be assembled today with lesser human intervention.