Top 10 Reasons for a Space Program 447
Its_My_Hair writes "Space.com has an article on the top ten reasons for a space program. Most of the reasons seem to say that our space programs are here for our safety." The only necessary reason is "because it's there".
Space... (Score:2, Insightful)
FYI for Slashdotters (Score:5, Insightful)
Chicken or Egg? (Score:5, Insightful)
... :P (Score:5, Insightful)
The ESA?
Space program not necessarily "manned" (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think many people think that near space and upper atmosphere research is a waste, nor the observation of distant stars and galaxies for their obvious scientific use in comparing our environment with others, and understanding our origins. NASA is an important precursor to a lot of the work, and defence technology often spaws useful commercial tech - satellite TV, GPS, international telecoms, weather stations...
If you made this a top ten of reasons to send men into space, you'd have a harder time justifying it, but the debate would be more interesting. Especially since current Reuters [yahoo.com] news asks that very question today, with mixed conclusions. An allusion in general to space left us with this interesting quote, which ties in with what I said about military tech:
Re:FYI for Slashdotters (Score:5, Insightful)
Or at least created for people who will react to buzzwords. For example:
The only way to provide global education and health care services in coming decades at reasonable cost and broad coverage is via space-based communication systems.
Uhhh... Health Care Services require things like trained medical staff, medical equipment, drugs, and so forth. Broad coverage is via having more hospitals and better working conditions within them, not satellite communications. Education needs the same things -- schools, teachers and better resources.
Yes, Ethopia, you thought you needed hospitals and schools, but what you really need are satellites!
-- Azaroth
Re:Space... (Score:5, Insightful)
Private industry.
Re:Chicken or Egg? (Score:5, Insightful)
One more Reason (Score:4, Insightful)
or the more correct reason... because it's not there. Space is a vacuum.
I have another reason. becuase human survival depends on it. The sun will eventually die and we gotta bust outta here
Great, but why humans now, and why the Shuttle? (Score:5, Insightful)
Manned missions are great PR, and in the future we must have them, but I fail to see why we need them now, with the current state of space propulsion technology (i.e., large rockets to propel a small payload into orbit). Other than congressional pork-barrel spending, why should we continue to use the Shuttle, a technology that is now well past its prime? Why not start with a fresh sheet of paper and exploit what we have learned in the decades since the Shuttle was conceived?
In fact, when we retire the Shuttle, why do we need to rush into a new manned-space transportation system? Why not wait a few decades for a much more revolutionary system, such as a space elevator? What critical missions in the next few decades will really require humans in space?
Re:Space... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FYI for Slashdotters (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because we've only had the knowledge and capability to track near earth objects very recently, says nothing about the likelihood of such an event occurring.
Some might say we're overdue a big one...
Sad truth (Score:4, Insightful)
Im guessing that when the Chinese land on the moon America might take a new interest in space exploration. But until then they seem to be happier spending money on blowing things up.
We had the reason forty years ago. (Score:5, Insightful)
"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard" [dudeface.com]
Cynical old bastard though I am, my throat closes up and my eyes water every time I hear or read those words. Everything that defines us as human has come about because our reach has always exceeded our grasp. If we forget that now, then we might as well just go back to hooting, grunting and flinging our faeces at each other [jerryspringer.com].
Re:Space... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FYI for Slashdotters (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Chicken or Egg? (Score:2, Insightful)
Knowledge enables us a race to grow and mature, space exploration would be a huge learning curve, and I am reasonably(sort of) optimistic we can cope with the responsibility.
Society always has a choice in these things... (Score:5, Insightful)
If we only did things that were "obviously" useful at the time of their discovery, we'd have dumped lasers, RADAR, the gas laws, astronomy, electricity, gunpowder and genetics.
If we only pursued zero-risk technologies, we'd have no refrigeration (the discoverer died from over-exposure to the cold), no cars (early experimentors frequently crashed, and the death toll from early racing was often double or triple digits), and no medicine (even today, the risks in trials is extremely high).
So space is risky and we can't see any obvious immediate benefit. So what? If we'd prefer to stagnate, then why not just end the world now? All life is genetically designed to move forward, and if we deny this fundamental core of biology, in the name of being cheapskates, the consequence is inevitable.
"Because it's there" is not a statement - it is a fundamental law of biology.
Re:Safety? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Objectives (Score:5, Insightful)
Won't happen. The space race occured in the 1960ies, when America feared to be overtaken by the Soviets. At this time many things were new and unproven: can humans reach outer space, can they live there for sustained periods, can they reach another celestial body, can they live there, etc. This was exciting and perfectly suited for TV. But the most important reason to do all this was the fear that the Soviets may gain military superiority.
Going to mars will not reveal exciting new facts about space to the general public. We went to the moon, we have done that. It will not do anything for preserving military superiority. We know by now that the military needs satellites and manned space travel is not of much use for this. So it just won't happen.
In my opinion, this sucks. The 21th century ain't what it used to be anymore.
Re:Space... (Score:5, Insightful)
-t
Irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we have to (Score:5, Insightful)
But the real reason to go into space is because we, as a species, must. It's what we do. We find something we don't understand and we go figure it out. We find uninhabited places and we go live there. It's a major part of being human.
Revisionists may take great joy in dismantling his mythology, but John Kennedy and the generation he led understood this. Raised on the notion that we can do anything, we did the impossible and roared to the moon - and the fact that we were spurred on by fear of the Soviet boogieman was only secondary. Kennedy had a vision for what space meant to the U.S. and to man as a species.
Today, we're all practicality and logic and bottom-lines, and that sucks our soul away. We go into space because we must, because we're called there, and if we don't answer the call, we've lost something vitally important within ourselves.
Pointless Top 10 (Score:5, Insightful)
More like monitoring of onngoing environmental disasters. The money would be better spent on preventing them on the ground rather than just watching them from space.
"Creating a global network for modern communications, entertainment and networking"
I thought that was what M$ was trying to do. So our great space program is about being a slave to the telecoms... Why don't we just put a giant Verizon logo on all the rockets from now on?
"Global education and health services"
Give me a break. What, are we going to try to broadcast PBS to the entire world? The only people who will benefit the satalites and all the other space based comunications are the people who can afford the devices to tap into those communications. Last time I checked the poor in Africa want food, not TV's. The only people that will be able to afford these devices are the people that don't need these services.
"Cheap and environmentally friendly energy"
Let me guess: widespread use of potatoes to power clocks. They have gone a long way to create operational systems but they still need to develope them and they haven't been put into practice? In other words you have a coupel of ideas but you have done jack shit asbout them.
"Transportation safety"
This is part of the the satalite argument. As for the rest, space travel will always be inherently unsafe. The only recourse is to deal with it. When your shuttle explodes, be a man! Face the pain! I didn't hear any of the apollo astronauts whining about safety. They flew with what they had and if that wasn't good enough, tough!
"Emergency warning and recovery systems"
More satalites.
"National defense and strategic security"
And more satalite systems.
"Protection against catastrophic planetary accidents"
Not too useful since it doesn't seem we are seriously developing any of the tech necessary to prevent a strike if one was imminent(sic). And knowing NASA, the mission to save earth will eb pushed back and eventually scraped due to budget cuts. We have to put saving the world on the back burner cause our president wants to go to war with someone else to boost his poll ratings. Plus, unless the asteroid is in low earth orbit, how is NASA ever going to get to it? Satalites again...
"Creation of new jobs and Industries -- a new vision for the 21st century and a mandate to explore truly new frontiers"
This is the best and possibly the sole reason to have a space program. This alone makes it worth it. But lets face it: they haven't done anything in this theater since apollo (with the exception of a few probes). NASA and the shuttles is like an old man and his model T. He is constantly fixing the car just so he can go down to the local convience mart. Chuck the jollipe and get a hot rod.
Re:NASA/ESA are just not the right guys (Score:4, Insightful)
How would you feel if for the sake of arguement the eventual winner of the X-Prize were to become the MS of space exploration, with almost total control over who does what in space. The private sector is not about bettering mankind, its about profit and many private sector companies are not averse to using very dubious, and in many cases downright criminal methods to achieve their aims. Suppose they discover valuable caches of materials. Do you think they are going to share them with the rest of the world or make us pay thru the nose ? What will the visa requirements be for landing on Planet Microsoft I wonder ? Suppose you are vacationing on Mars and disaster strikes, what do you reckon the odds would be the highest bidders get the first seats off the planet.
In typical fashion the private sector will not become a serious player in space travel until NASA and the other space agencies have made serious reductions in the cost of entry with lots of tax payer research dollars. The private sector will then demand access and want to cherry pick the most lucrative aspects. Remember, there was a time when Bill Gates was an entreprenuer.
Re:Great, but why humans now, and why the Shuttle? (Score:3, Insightful)
it'll knock NASA out of space for about 10 years if they spend all of their money researching and developing a new space vehicle. Having a huge wasteful rocket send up a few hundred pounds of cargo is probably the way it's going to be for a while. Redesigning the most complicated machine ever conceived will take time, and will end up the new "Most complicated machine ever conceived."
Not sending man into space sounds like a good idea in theory, but the underlying point of space exploration is that we will eventually mess up earth so bad, we will HAVE to be in space. Yeah, it's good to make communication satellites and stuff, but if we miss out on living experiments in space, it will take much longer to colonize.
Also, if there are no astronauts, who are kids going to look up to? I bet NASA would have a hard time getting funding if they didn't have public figures like the elderly John Glenn keeping their cause in the limelight.
Re:Space... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Because its there" is not good enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Fortunately there ARE other reasons aside from "because its there". Now we just have to inform the public of them.
We need an "outside",... (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't prove this, this belief might be the result of decades of science fiction reading and a biased reading of the history of the Middle Kingdom, but cultures that interact with forces that don't care about their beliefs seem preferable to me to ones that believe they have it all figured-out and have all they need right there. Space, although its manned exploration will inevitably be a social affair, is not the sort of place that will forgive strong deviations from knowing where you are and what things are like. The feedback loop works better with some connection to a non--socially-constructed reality.
In the other direction, that of societies that are too interesting, I'm afraid that a society without an actual Outside will find its replacement in internal divisions, that without a Grand Project we'll end up in petty bickering (think of the value of unsuccessful escape plans to the P.O.W.s who are kept busy by them, and believe that they're putting one over on their jailers). As long as we can honestly say, "If we can put a Man on the Moon, why can't we....?" we'll have broader horizons than if the immediate retort is, "No we can't."
Of course, maybe I just want all the he-men and strong-chinned monosyllabically-named inventor-heroes to clear off for months at a time (and die in larger numbers) so that more {Robert Crumb}-like men like me can have their women.
Finally, here's some "Lear" on the subject of the importance of non-necessities, at least as a bitter, spoilt, old, men sees it:
those who don't dream eventually go crazy... (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you see when you look up at the stars at night?
Anyway, how about a more concrete reason for humans to go to space? Here's one: Because there are humans who are willing to go. There are people who are perfectly willing to risk there lives for the future of mankind (not to mention to have the most thrilling ride imaginable). I cannot speak for other humans but in my experiences through life, I know that I am not meant to be caged. I cannot help but feel that we, as a species, are not meant to "be caged" on this planet.
Perhaps these people who are willing to go right now only serve as guinea pigs (giving us important information on how the human body reacts in such an environment), but I'm sure they don't mind (and if any of them do, I am more than willing to take their place...).
Or, how about this for a reason: Robots, remotely operated vehicles, and computers lack the physical and mental ability to deal with equipment problems in space. Here's an example: the Hubble telescope. Without humans, we would have a peice of junk floating around with a bad mirror.
Unmanned vehicles lack two very important things that will allow them to deal with emergencies and keep themselves functioning when things go wrong: imagination and a will to survive. Put those two things together, and you have the kind of stuff that brought Apollo 13 home. Take those things away and you have probes that crash themselves uselessly into Mars.
In my opinion, humans are eventually meant to be in space. Maybe some will be afraid to leave the cage when the door is eventually opened for all to pass through if they choose, but others are anxious to get out and move on to the next stage of human existance. And there is no time like the present to start taking the necessary baby steps to do it.
Sorry for the rant, but views [nasa.gov] like [nasa.gov] these [nasa.gov] are [nasa.gov] all [nasa.gov] the [nasa.gov] reason [nasa.gov] I personally need.
Those pictures were taken by the astronauts on the final mission of the Space Shuttle Columbia, STS-107. I can do nothing now but salute and honor those heros who have died while chasing their dreams and the dreams of many of us, just as I can do nothing but salute and honor those heros who are still up there realizing the dream and those who have all returned safely.
Anyway, my apologies for any flamebait that may be in this post, but it kind of bothers me whenever anyone suggests that humans should not be in space.
needed hospitals and schools, but what you really (Score:3, Insightful)
But what can really make those hospitals and schools effective, and multiply the value of each one of them many times, is satellites. An isolated hospital or school out in the rough really amounts to a few dedicated workers trying push the world uphill. Give them a satellite link, and the rest of the world can easily give them help and make them more effective. (Open Source style)
"If only I knew more about surgery, I could save this man's/woman's leg instead of amputating." How about remote assistance that can give that local doctor a shot at saving the leg?
What about the Ocean? (Score:3, Insightful)
Space is yet another area to explore, but what about the depths of the ocean? There's ongoing research, but much of it lacks the funding and technology. Sound familiar? The majority of the planet's surface is covered with water, but little of it has been explored in-depth. Sure, we might not have a base on the moon, but we don't have one on the ocean floor either.
Fuck Space (Score:0, Insightful)
AMEN! (Score:3, Insightful)
I think this is my new favorite quote. In my experience as a biologist, this is quite true. Life is always pushing the limits and trying to spread to wherever it can. Though harsh conditions may kill the first pioneers who venture into a new realm, over time, life finds a way to get there for no other reason that because it is there.
In time, we will be no different. We will move on and broaden our scope, or we will stagnate and die off.
Thank you, jd, for an incredibly enlightening statement (and for the new .sig ;) )
Re:an upper limit... (Score:2, Insightful)
where exactly are you getting this 1 billion years from? mankind as we know it has been on this earth for approx. 2 million years [and that's being generous]. any sort of life [algae, bacteria, etc] is believed to have started evolving about 1.5 billion years ago. to say that our species will last up to a billion years is utterly absurd given modern evolutionary theory. us and any sort of genetic offspring of ours will be long gone by the time the sun becomes a serious concern.
Re:Chicken or Egg? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ready access to orbit and beyond means ready access to that much energy. As long as we're an immature species, ready access to that much energy means that it's practically certain that someone is going to use it for immature purposes. (war)
I just did a quick back of the envelope calculation. The total change in energy (kinetic and potential) associated with going from a point on the equator to a point in geosynchronous orbit is roughly eight megajoules per kilogram lifed. At 100% efficiency, that's 2.3 kilowatt hours, or about twenty U.S. cents' worth of electricity. At 20% efficiency, that's a buck per kilo to geosynch orbit. (This is the sort of performance one would expect from a space elevator, say.) Incidentally, with a space elevator, you can also get a lot of energy back on the return trip...
Sure it takes a lot of energy to get to orbit, and always will...as long as we keep using rockets.
Re:Space... (Score:3, Insightful)
(Not to mention the military possibilities)
Re:Objectives (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes it will. It will show what Martian sunset and sunrise look like. From human eyes.
If Hubble proved anything, it proved the US public loves pretty pictures. Hubble rather quickly entered public consciousness as something that we were proud of (thus the MST3K the Movie joke "You killed the Hubble!") and major manned space travel would do the same.
I think you're being a little too cynical about the American public. If it were an international collaborative effort, I'd say you were being too cynical about the collective public, as well. It's true the support may not be there initially - but I think NASA'd find that support for manned space travel to another space body (like Mars) would have tremendous public support, once it started. Considering reaching Mars is a real long term effort, I think NASA'd only find that the public support would grow tremendously over time. I mean, c'mon, stuck on a ship with 3-4 other people for months on end? It's Fox's new reality show!
And for one, it's news about something that the US is doing that will go down in history that does NOT involve mindlessly blowing things up. People like feeling good about themselves (regardless of what current television portrays).
You're definitely correct though that there is no political reason to do it, and that is why it probably will not happen. I'm amazed that no one's written a "Congress simulator" yet - they're so predictable it's frightening. The only thing that moves them to action is fear of not being reelected.
Listen to yourself Re:Objectives (Score:3, Insightful)
The Singular? Why singular? Why is space a program? Presumably you mean it's a government program. What makes you think a bunch of expensive bureaucrats are ever going to do anything useful for you in space? Why does an organisation doing something for 'the good of a country' not equal a form of communism or atleast socialism? Now personally, I'm not against socialism, if it benefits people directly (for example in the UK a health service really does help out the population fairly uniformly- it makes some kind of sense for a tax to cover that)- but in the case of space, specifically NASA, who is benefiting here? A few astronauts mostly, chosen by a bunch of bureaucrats to best spout the party line about how great everything is in NASA, which in turn benefits the bureaucrats. It isn't that great; at best it is OK, and in many cases it is giving terrible value for money.
Space is a place not a program. Space launch needs to be run like along business lines, with some competition, otherwise it ends up getting run like the USSR before the wall came down; and that's pretty much what NASA is- a centralised command economy. These things are not good.
Mind you, it's not that businesses are higher moral entities either; but right now a modicum of competition would help. As an example, how is it that the Space Shuttle, which is more expensive per kg of payload, how is it that it replaced Saturn V? If you had a company that did something dumb like that in a marketplace, they would be dead; their competition would kill them off. No, NASA only survives because they are a monopoly, and a taxation funded one at that.
Re:Space... (Score:3, Insightful)
How about this ... we create "billions and billions" of resource locations but put stuff real far away from each other (even requiring generations of travel) and make it really expensive in resources (by creating deep gravity wells) to get to 'em and surround 'em with killer cosmic rays and vacuum?
Re:Fuck Space (Score:2, Insightful)
underfunded schools -- Throwing money into state of the art computer labs, or resurfacing basketball courts does nothing to improve students motivation to learn. Dumping money into video's that are geared towards learning don't motivate students to learn. Paying teachers more money doesn't make teachers teach any better. While there is a valid arguement that our teachers are underfunded for the jobs they do, and a lack of teachers and schools, and in some instances a lack of basic necessities within the schools (pencils, pens, paper), there is not a justification that says that more money will correllate to higher grades, or students that have a desire to learn. Paying a teacher more may improve their attitudes, and may even influence better teaching styles, but without a student interested in subjects instead of sports, grades instead of goals, or simply education instead of ignorance, then you continue to perpetuate the cycle of motivation-less americans.
predatory health care system -- The best cartoon I've ever seen was on a psychology professors door. A man sitting on a couch, the councelor saying "I could tell you what's wrong with you, but I've got a mortgage, a car, and a boat to pay off." I don't think anyone here will argue that we have a failing health care system with doctors who spend less time with patients than they do with insurance companies. We have insurance companies dictating to doctors what treatments to prescribe, with very nearly hostile consequences for failure to comply. My question is why does the doctor, who's spent most of his adult life in school and learning how to 'heal', have to take orders from a business major who spent 6 years in school getting his/her BS (because they partied the first couple years)? We have a problem in this country with the authoritative structure. There should never have come a time when doctors were required to not only not treat, but not efficiently 'heal' patients because insurance agencies dictate what they will and won't pay for; nor should there have ever come a time when the Hippocratic oath was subnoted with company logos. We have a very real problem with our health care system, but dumping money into it, will only perpetuate insurance companies to continue to dictate health care standards, at the expense of your health, to protect the 'almighty buck'.
Yes, we have real problems in this nation, I would suggest you start focusing, instead of on where money is going, to who's making decisions, and on fixing the 'authority structure' that is badly screwed up.
Knowing how to handle money does not mean you are a leader, nor should it imply that you have the power to make decisions which effect people who actually work... and yet every day we face leadership centered around people who think they know what's best based on financial impacts and without understanding the full implications of the decisions mandated.
There is only one reason. (Score:3, Insightful)
One look at the surface of the Moon should be proof of the inevitability of this fact. It may not happen as soon as 2014, but there is a slight chance that it will happen before then. The odds of it happening increase a little bit every single day, and eventually, there will undoubtedly be "an Earth-shattering KA-BOOM!"
What we don't know is there, can hurt us. What we do know is there, also can. We might be able to protect ourselves against what we know, but doing so in a panicked hurry is never the best way to do things. And there will always be a chance that it will be a surprise.
If we are all still here on Earth, when that big rock comes, our being here will end, and it will not matter that we were ever here at all. With the exception of a few chunks of metal we were brave and curious enough to throw out of our solar system, there will be nothing left of us. How sad, that we should eventually be reduced to the gold records and plaques attached to the Voyager probes.
This is home, and we must protect it. This is also our crib, and it's time we grew the hell up and moved out of our parents basement.
Re:Objectives (Score:2, Insightful)
I got modded troll the last time I mentioned this AC, but what the hell...
Read The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, filter out the libertarian claptrap, and come to the basic point, which is that the organization/country controlling space not only controls access to it, but also controls the Earth as well.
Now witness the nascent India/China space race, and ask yourself if the United States can afford NOT to have an established, manned presence in orbit and on the Moon. And before you flame, no, I do not believe the US is inherently "better/good" or "worse/evil" than the other two countries I mentioned.
While I must personally agree that scientific and cultural considerations *should* take precence over the paranoid reasoning above, I am not the one who needs convincing (hell, I'd sweep floors and swab latrines on Moon Base Alpha for free...). As in the 1960's, when Joe Americana percieves a threat to his continued existence, that is when Congress and our so-called elected leaders will react, and not before.
The beautiful vision of humanity taking their rightful place blah blah blah will not motivate Washington; fear of foreign domination will.
...narrow vision...narrow mind? (Score:2, Insightful)
"fibre-optics are much better, unless you are talking about Internet in the middle of the ocean" -- Thank you NASA, Engineers and Physics institutions for getting funding that did the initial research on fibre technology 30 years ago instead of not doing the research (in which case we wouldn't have these technologies).
"ultimately fibre is again the way to go" -- Conformity is the hobgoblin of little minds... What comes after fibre-optics? Have you thought that one out yet? or is fibre the end of advancement?
"fusion is much more feasible than any space based projects." -- fusion?? fusion?? You need a couple Phyisics 101 courses before making a statement like that.
"GPS is useful, but it's not like it needs any addtional stimuli. There will also be a competing European system soon (Galileo?) and there is a Russian one already (Glonas?)." -- And while we're at it, we don't need to invest in research or be a first world nation... we can sit back on our laurels and be self-congratulatory about how wonderful our accomplishments are, while we watch the rest of the world leave us behind. The keyword in your statement was "soon"... soon is not NOW, NOW is NOW... Soon means nothing...
"What we need are scientific advances in applied sciences (geology, climatology, etc.) to analyse these pictures." -- Thank you NASA for funding NUMEROUS University Earth Science programs for the purpose of generating 'advances in applied sciences...'
"it's not like the ability to kill more people is such a compelling reason. Not for me, certainly." -- Thank you NASA for continuing research into technologies that work from space to prevent warheads from killing Americans who disagree with your work with National Defense and Strategic Security.
"It would be a smarter decision to invest more money in nanotech and AI and then get into space in a couple of years with these new capabilities." -- Thank you NASA for funding one of the most advanced AI labs and nanotech research in Universities so we have the tools available for use WHEN we get into space, and not waiting to develop the technologies when the time comes.
"we don't need new jobs, we need to eliminate existing ones. That's why nanotech and AI are important. And if you still want jobs, just open some widget-making factories." -- I welcome my AI masters rule, and taking away the need for me to think on my own. (Do you work for Microsoft by any chance?)
"a completely outdated vision from 20th century. Flying into space will not change anything. Mars is beyond our reach, unless we get really important advanced technologies - nanotech and AI. To truly open new frontiers for us, we need to oncentrate on these, not on useless space launches." -- Thank you NASA for continuing research in all areas related to future thinking people with the vision to see beyond the 2 year limitations and think about long term goals. Thank you for not shying away from people who have nothing but criticism for the valuable research you do, and the professional way you do it. Thank you for not giving up despite the cost of many lives, and many setbacks to the invaluable programs at NASA. Thank you for the progress that most times is not seen or ever receives a single accolade that still adds to the value of this nation. In short... Thank you NASA for making this a First World Nation, and not shrinking from the responsibility of the difficult and hard to explain work that you do!
Re:Listen to yourself Re:Objectives (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope. For example, Xerox is a private company- they do(did) tonnes of research, only some of which lead to profitable commercial enterprise. In fact most research doesn't lead anywhere, and isn't government funded.
Where exactly is the profit in exploration?
Don't have a clue, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't any. But that's really not the point. The point is whether things other than exploration can make money in space- and the answer is: yes of course, they can and do. And the government can't sensibly or in the case of NASA, legally address things that do make money in space.
Where is the profit in studying geologic samples from Mars? How about developing technology like the Hubble telescope or various deep space probes to obtain images of distant planets and stars?
Possibly none. That's what NASA should be doing, not messing about with Space Shuttles and the ISS. It's not like NASA is extending the state of the art in these cases at all- the Shuttle is moribund and the ISS is mostly just a somewhat bigger MIR. Where's the exploration there?
Iridium (Score:3, Insightful)
A science writer who is unaware of science. Nobody ever blamed the death of the dinosaurs on iridium from the asteroid. The iridium was merely used as a marker, as the concentration in the asteroid was much higher than Earth's. Iridium compounds may be toxic, but there was not enough to poison an entire planet, just enough to label the ejecta blankets from the impact. The real problems were numerous: tsunamis, spontaneous combustion near secondary impacts, acid rain, release of CO2 and sulfuric acid from vaporized carbonates and evaporites, and light-blocking dust.
Re:Objectives (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Space... (Score:2, Insightful)
And the skies - can anyone honestly say we'd have 777s today if not for WWII? Government funded research and production led to huge improvements in technology and reliability of that technology, as well as pushing new initiatives - like jet power.
Have we gotten to the point in space where we were with air after WWII? I don't think so - yet. Maybe Rutan will prove me wrong... I hope so.
Re:Space... (Score:2, Insightful)
For those that think private industry welfare started late in the last century think again. Private industry will want the mining rights, and other rights to locations explored. Exploration in the past was not spurred on by "because its there", but because the explorer felt that they could make a profit.
So what is the incentive for private enterprise to enter the race for space?
Re:Chicken or Egg? (Score:3, Insightful)
And then in the expansion-pack sequel "Brood War", when the original humans showed up, they were much more polite, huh?
Being in space won't turn us into a Star Trek utopia, we'll still have all our problems and emotions.
Ironically, if space colonization becomes practical in a short time (200 years or so), it will actually preserve the current bad-habits of humanity.
Those aggressive, exploitive, destructive behavioral patterns were evolved in the context of a world bounded on all sides by the unknown. Where new terrain and new resources was always just beyond the horizon, waiting for men brave enough to claim it.
But today, that thought-patterns of the pioneer and conquistador are obselete. There are no frontiers left on earth; all the valuble land is claimed already. We're stuck with each other now, and it's going to get more and more crowded.
Maybe in time we'll learn to get along better- survival could depend on it. But if spaces colonies open up as a quick escape-valve and "new frontier", then the old-fashioned domineering, expansionists attitudes can be given a new playground to grow across.
(For a science fiction take on this, read "A Mote in God's Eye")
it's all because of terrorism and terrorists! (Score:3, Insightful)
Is "terrorism" the new buzzword that every report has to include in it as a method of persuasion? It's mentioned in three of the ten reasons for the space program. This "terrorism" fad is really getting old...