GeekNights 20100920 - Manned Space Exploration can Wait

MrPeriod

Tonight on GeekNights, after being distracted by a bright light, we discuss our opinion on the current state of manned space exploration. In the news, HDCP is broken, and Captcha Ads are definitely on the horizon.

• Rym's Thing - Brooklyn Tornado
• Scott's Thing - From Hell: Vagina Bubbles
• Scott's Thing - From Hell: More Vagina Bubbles

Download MP3

Starfox

Manned Space Exploration can Wait

Until I can go! ENGAGE.

progSHELL

Less than a day later, everybody is posting vagina bubbles videos.

TheWhaleShark

The poll is a little vague. How should we proceed in general, or in the immediate future, or in our lifetimes, or what? Clarifications! I needz them.

Rym

The poll is a little vague. How should we proceed in general, or in the immediate future, or in our lifetimes, or what? Clarifications! I needz them.

Updated. In the next 50 years.

Sail

It also doesn't specify if we're talking government programs, the private sector, or just in general.

theknoxinator

I think we can go for just in general.

TheWhaleShark

It also doesn't specify if we're talking government programs, the private sector, or just in general.

I think "we" implies a mass directed effort, i.e. government funding. Richard Branson is probably going to pursue it no matter what.

Cremlian

I'm all in, we should drop all our war funding and work completely on space travel. As the invading armies approach our launch pad we will launch into the heavens only to return with a giant space fleet.

HungryJoe

This is something I think that private industry can actually do better than government. As long as it's just science, sadly, no one is really interested. If there are military applications, government becomes a little more interested, but we haven't seen much real progress in that area of space exploration.

However, if there is something that can be cheaply exploited, private industry will send something up every day. It doesn't have to be a resource. There might be some great processing methods that rely of free fall, for instance. The problem is the cost to get things up is so high.

That problem goes back to the circus nature of the 60s space program. Anyone with any sense could see that it wasn't sustainable as it was being prosecuted. If you always have to pay the cost of getting something into orbit, you're going to have a difficult time getting anything accomplished, because you always have that tremendous cost to deal with first.

That's why they should have built a sustainable space station first. It would be much, much cheaper to send things out from a station in low earth orbit than to constantly require things to be pushed out of earth's gravity well. Also, if there were a large, sustainable station with space given over to private R&D, then those free fall processing methods might have actually been developed.

I'm not entirely sure that more investment in a government program is needed so much as economic pressure on private industry.

As far as the "cut exploration in favor of local pursuits (for now)" option, I've been hearing that since 1973. No joke. 1973 was the first time I heard that, and the people espousing it then were adding the "for now" clause then as well. "For now" should be over by now, don't you think?

Apreche

"For now" should be over by now, don't you think?

Nope. We still don't have anything better than rockets and such.

zehaeva

According to WikiPedia the ISS is in LEO, LEO defined as 160KM to 2000KM above the earths surface, the ISS is a mere ~330Km up. Most satellites are in LEO as well.

The biggest issue with gravity is that it takes more fuel to go the first 100Km than the second 100Km. Its that whole r² in the F_g = Gm₁m₂/r².

HungryJoe

"For now" should be over by now, don't you think?

Nope. We still don't have anything better than rockets and such.

The point was that, with a large, sustainable station in LEO, rockets and such are not nearly as expensive and unweildy. We could have such a station by now even if we had devoted time to those "other problems". Once something like this gets placed on the back burner, it tends to stay there.

The ISS is not what I'm talking about. We could have had a station by now that would make the ISS look like an outhouse if we had done this with a view towards a sustainable future instead of making it a political circus.

zehaeva

The ISS is not what I'm talking about. We could have had a station by now that would make the ISS look like an outhouse if we had done this with a view towards a sustainable future instead of making it a political circus.

I agree that we could have a, for the lack of a better word, real space station floating up there. That, however, would not do much for the cost of getting a Kg of mass into orbit. That alone is a huge barrier to entry and until you can really prove that there is enough money to be made up there it's going to be a huge uphill battle.

What business cases there are for going into space have a huge barrier to entry to for maybe some pay off, and woe to the company that tries and fails.

Do you really think you can get enough venture capital by pitching the idea of "We have this product that has to be produced under free fall and want the funds to develop a cheap vehicle system to get to LEO to develop this product to sell, oh and we're going to have to spend 5 to 10 years developing the tech just to get into LEO and at the same time develop the technology for the station to make the product and get it back to earth safely".

What out there is there that has to be or could be improved by producing it in free fall?

I know that some smelting processes would be quite interesting when performed in a vacuum. Not having to worry about atmospheric contaminants would be very beneficial.

I am hoping, my own bit of wishful thinking, for one of the companies going after the Space X-Prize will aim a little farther and work out how to nab a Nickel Iron asteroid and put it into LEO or land it someplace unpopulated (or someplace we really don't care about, maybe Antarctica) and show how much raw material is up there for those who are determined.

Rym

As far as the "cut exploration in favor of local pursuits (for now)" option, I've been hearing that since 1973. No joke. 1973 was the first time I heard that, and the people espousing it then were adding the "for now" clause then as well. "For now" should be over by now, don't you think?

I say "for now" is easily a hundred-year cycle.

George Patches

I'm in favor of manned exploration ASAP based on all the things we learned from the Apollo program. We're still today riding its coat-tails. Screw the business case, lets advance the knowledge of our race!

Rym

I'm in favor of manned exploration ASAP based on all the things we learned from the Apollo program. We're still today riding its coat-tails. Screw the business case, lets advance the knowledge of our race!

I believe prudence is a better course. Spend similar resources on unmanned exploration and space science, and you'll achieve similar results likely faster without hitting the diminishing returns of our current technology.

George Patches

I'm in favor of manned exploration ASAP based on all the things we learned from the Apollo program. We're still today riding its coat-tails. Screw the business case, lets advance the knowledge of our race!

I believe prudence is a better course. Spend similar resources on unmanned exploration and space science, and you'll achieve similar results likely faster without hitting the diminishing returns of our current technology.

I think we should push the boundaries of what we consider possible. Really see what's possible. Build that moon base that people have been talking about. But then I have been watching a lot of Star Trek lately.

Andrew

I think we should push the boundaries of what we consider possible. Really see what's possible. Build that moon base that people have been talking about. But then I have been watching a lot of Star Trek lately.

What's the point of this other than to say we did it? Are there any reasonable and convincing arguments that show net benefit to us in an economic or scientific realm?

Rym

I think we should push the boundaries of what we consider possible. Really see what's possible. Build that moon base that people have been talking about.

And can we justify building a moon base when we have crumbling infrastructure back on Earth? Would that money not be better spent on better trains and cars, more efficient systems, and research that can easily be conducted terrestrially?

A moon base doesn't have a lot of practical application yet. Someday it will, and we should continue to plan and study for one, but actually making it happen seems an appalling waste of resources when you have an electrical infrastructure that's lucky to still be standing and trains that barely run.

Apreche

The most practical use I see for keeping human beings in outer space is in case of a big disaster. If a giant meteor strikes the earth, those people can watch and wait. Then they can return with survival equipment, and be Adams and Eves. Gotta have a few for the sake of redundancy.

lackofcheese

Would we be forced to discriminate against homosexuals for the Adams and Eves? Or do we get around that issue by having everyone sign a contract to produce babby in case of problem?

Apreche

Would we be forced to discriminate against homosexuals for the Adams and Eves? Or do we get around that issue by having everyone sign a contract to produce babby in case of problem?

You can be gay and still make a baby. If you want to survive in a post apocalyptic world, you have to do a lot of things that you won't like. Having sex with a gender that is not of your preference is the least of your worries.

George Patches

And can we justify building a moon base when we have crumbling infrastructure back on Earth? Would that money not be better spent on better trains and cars, more efficient systems, and research that can easily be conducted terrestrially?

A moon base doesn't have a lot of practical application yet. Someday it will, and we should continue to plan and study for one, but actually making it happen seems an appalling waste of resources when you have an electrical infrastructure that's lucky to still be standing and trains that barely run.

Well if we're going this route you need to give up on trains right now. The suburban sprawl of most of America makes such an infrastructure completely impractical without tearing down most of what we already have. The problem with investing in roads in the American government construction mentality. Everything is "good enough," never something we can really be proud of. The Germans take pride in what they do and as a result have roads where it's flat enough and smooth enough to explore the exciting side of 150 mph. And electricity is just hilarious, we can't even bring ourselves to invest in Nuclear energy which is the only viable way to power our country if you look a decade or two out.

American's are too worried about themselves and their taxes to spend the money to do it right. So I ask you, if we aren't going to do it right, why do it?

lackofcheese

Would we be forced to discriminate against homosexuals for the Adams and Eves? Or do we get around that issue by having everyone sign a contract to produce babby in case of problem?

You can be gay and still make a baby. If you want to survive in a post apocalyptic world, you have to do a lot of things that you won't like. Having sex with a gender that is not of your preference is the least of your worries.

Yeah, I realise that they can still make babby - that's why I was thinking about the contract idea - but it's a significant waste of resources having them there if they don't. Having thought about it, the contract is void in case of apocalypse anyway.

Impotent people would definitely be out, though.

Apreche

In any case, impotent people would definitely be out.

That's also a reason for redundancy. What if someone suddenly becomes impotent?

lackofcheese

Of course, you could argue that you can be impotent and still make a baby, but it's going to be much less likely to occur, post-apocalypse or no.


Come to think of it, it would probably be much more efficient to only keep women and semen in space.

HungryJoe

I agree that we could have a, for the lack of a better word, real space station floating up there. That, however, would not do much for the cost of getting a Kg of mass into orbit. That alone is a huge barrier to entry and until you can really prove that there is enough money to be made up there it's going to be a huge uphill battle.

What business cases there are for going into space have a huge barrier to entry to for maybe some pay off, and woe to the company that tries and fails.

Do you really think you can get enough venture capital by pitching the idea of "We have this product that has to be produced under free fall and want the funds to develop a cheap vehicle system to get to LEO to develop this product to sell, oh and we're going to have to spend 5 to 10 years developing the tech just to get into LEO and at the same time develop the technology for the station to make the product and get it back to earth safely".

What out there is there that has to be or could be improved by producing it in free fall?

I know that some smelting processes would be quite interesting when performed in a vacuum. Not having to worry about atmospheric contaminants would be very beneficial.

If the program had been more logical, we wouldn't have to worry now about pitching the idea of "We have this product that has to be produced under free fall and want the funds to develop a cheap vehicle system to get to LEO to develop this product to sell, oh and we're going to have to spend 5 to 10 years developing the tech just to get into LEO and at the same time develop the technology for the station to make the product and get it back to earth safely" because we'd already have it. That's my complaint.

As far as processes that could be improved in free fall, you've thought of a very good one yourself. Now, before anyone blasts me for this, please remember that this is pure speculation - I submit that free fall may be an advantageous environment for process such as drug manufacture, biotech (the main reason we don't know whether these things would work better in LEO than here is that many economic processes simply have not been tried there), and others that haven't been worked out simply because that's not the way anyone is approaching the problem. The last age of exploration was driven by economic exploitation, not by bringing American rocks back to Europe, and if the Europeans had said, "Why go to America? We don't know what's there, so we can't think of a way to make money from what's there", nothing would have happened at all. Some R&D; has to be done with the view towards making money on some product or process.

Argument from ignorance is not going to get us anywhere.

And can we justify building a moon base when we have crumbling infrastructure back on Earth? Would that money not be better spent on better trains and cars, more efficient systems, and research that can easily be conducted terrestrially?

This is another line of thought that would have crippled the last age of exploration. Did the Europeans wait until everything was fixed up nice and tidy at home before trying to exploit other lands? Europe was a shithole. The very fact that it was a shithole produced some pressure towards outward expansion.

If getting everything nice and tidy here is your prerequisite for exploring space, then space will never be explored. Face it - with that attitude as the starting point, there will ALWAYS be something that seems more pressing here. If not infrastructure, then some shortage of something or other, if not that, then environmental problems, if not theat, then overpopulation, if not that, then the energy crisis, and on, and on, and on.

Cremlian

This is another line of thought that would have crippled the last age of exploration. Did the Europeans wait until everything was fixed up nice and tidy at home before trying to exploit other lands? Europe was a shithole. The very fact that it was a shithole produced some pressure towards outward expansion.

Yea, I have to agree with Joe here, if we had a lunar base or a orbital space station of some sort of actual use. It would inspire an entire generation.

Rym

If getting everything nice and tidy here is your prerequisite for exploring space, then space will never be explored. Face it - with that attitude as the starting point, there will ALWAYS be something that seems more pressing here. If not infrastructure, then some shortage of something or other, if not that, then environmental problems, if not theat, then overpopulation, if not that, then the energy crisis, and on, and on, and on.

But this is a multi-generational effort, and our technology is advancing rapidly. A few scant decades of advancement without actively sending people up there would likely immensely decrease the opportunity cost of sending said people up there later. Increasing our own efficiency increases our outward productivity. A better educated populace generates more scholars and scientists.

George Patches

So we can spend money on trains that benefit the NYC Metro Area and no one else?