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

[dajak]

I agree in the case of the US. Nobody doubts Americans have the knowledge to make good products, although that doesn't necessarily translate to good value for money. The German government never needed to go to the moon for its manufacturers to acquire a reputation for quality.

The Japanese, however, suffered for a long time from a reputation acquired in the early 20th century of being yellow monkeys who merely made bad copies of our great white man's gadgets. The Chinese government actually has an argument for wanting the biggest buildings, a space program etc. Chinese products ARE worth less because they are considered inferior, and Chinese achievements will increase the value of the trademark 'Chinese'. The US does not have that argument.

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

[dominator]

Your argument assumes a few things - most notably, that progress is linear and not sporadic and tangential. That if you want better computers, you should invest in better computers. But to accept that is to accept that interesting solutions to some hard, seemingly unrelated problem apply less well than dedicated research in that specialized domain. I don't accept that. Or that better computers are sufficient motivation in their own right. As an engineer, the carrot offered by space-age research has one heck of a better coolness factor than just earning another paycheck.

Pushing up against the limits often yields the most interesting ideas. And space is one of those big, cold limits that stoke the fires of our imaginations and our resourcefulness. The cube at Intel can't hold a candle.

Having a bunch of smart folks with a budget and a mission, sitting around in a room is a great investment, in large part because of its peripheral benefits. Not everything's planned. Not all development is linear. And not all significant discoveries are immediately relevant. Science for science's sake. Coz it's cool and we get to reap the benefits of its coolness.

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

Notice to the rest of the world

[j_cavera]

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

No space race for US

[sphealey]

There is no "space race" for the United States. The next president, whether Republican or Democrat, is likely to terminate the remains of the US manned program. Except perhaps a few flights using Russian hardware. And I say this as a lifelong supporter of manned exploration who fully expected in 1969 to be able to tour the Moon before the end of my life (2040 or so).

sPh

Military conquest

[Anonymous Coward]

There's valuable things in space. GPS systems; communication systems; Lagrange points; planetary redundancy. Slashdot reported that U.S. Space Command advocates seizing control of the LaGrange points before other nations do it. , and without space races, it'd be hard to do that.

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.

[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:The original reason for the space race

[timeOday]

I agree govt. ought to fund research to bridge academic and commercial interests, but that is apart from the parent's argument - that space research sometimes proceeds on weak justification by touting gains in other fields. To me, your argument that "China wants ICMBs" is much more concrete (and believable) than the argument that China wants to discover next-generation Tang or Velcro.

That said, why did the USSR give up on the moon after failing to be first, whereas China still wants to go? Your explanation of demonstrating capability might explain China's actions, but not those of the USSR.

Worked for the Russians -- NOT!

[Derling Whirvish]

Oh yeah, that strategy worked so well for the Russians. How's that Russian cell phone you are using? Reading this on a Russian computer? How about your GLONASS receiver? Your Russian-built TV? Washer-dryer? Car? Tractor even? Combine-harvester?

Unless you are a third-world dictator needing some cheap airplanes, tanks, or guns, (with the sole exception of surplus rocket engines sold to NASA) I don't know of any area where the space-program advanced Russian high-tech exports.

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.

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.