Deciding Exploration Priorities
Mars can wait. Oceans can’t, CNN
“While space travel still gets a lot of attention, not enough attention has been accorded to a major new expedition to the deepest point in the ocean, some 7 miles deep — the recent journey by James Cameron, on behalf of National Geographic. The cover story of the prestigious journal Foreign Affairs lays out the “Case for Space.” “60 Minutes” recently ran a story about the dire effects on Florida’s space industry of scaling back our extraterrestrial endeavors. Newt Gingrich gained attention earlier this year by calling for building a permanent base on the moon. And President Obama has talked of preparing to eventually send Americans into orbit around Mars. Actually, there are very good reasons to stop spending billions of dollars on manned space missions, to explore space in ways that are safer and much less costly, and to grant much higher priority to other scientific and engineering mega-projects, the oceans in particular.”
Keith’s note: Is exploration a zero sum game – one wherein we must do one thing well (Earth) but not another (space)? Or can we do both? Should we do both? If the current (traditional) way of funding exploration via government funding is running out of steam, what other ways (i.e. Jim Cameron’s recent private expedition) should be considered?
Proceedings from the NASA Administrator’s Symposium: “Risk and Exploration: Earth, Sea and the Stars”
We are in (and have been in) a reductionist mode in the US. No one wants to pay one dime for anything/anyone not “theirs”. It’s zero sum on everything Keith!
Why do research when religion tells you what you think you want to know? Why pay for anything that doesn’t serve your immediate needs directly? Why underwrite medicine, since you’ll never get those diseases?
If others want any of that, let’em pay for it. If you get something at the same time … well its for free so don’t care.
Hear this quite a bit. Back in the 60’s, you’d get a hearty disdain if you spouted any of this – because you’d be weakening the US for the Soviets to take advantage.
But now its common. Denying the common good to elevate the “chosen” only.
Its a short step to take to regressing to a 3rd world nation.
How much exploring do any of them do?
No one: mighty damn cynical. And sadly true.
Yeah. Sucks don’t it? Probably comes from the company I’ve kept … and being an academic who can’t ignore the obvious.
Don’t get me wrong – America is a great country, can do the greatest things … once it stops doing … everything else first.
You don’t have to be an academic to see the obvious. Just be willing to put your pet project aside and open your eyes and mind a little.
Hunger can make the eyes see clearer at times too. lol
Same drivel as he always peddles. Etzioni has had an animus towards space from the beginning of the program. He’s the guy who coined the term “moondoggle” to describe the Apollo program.
Etzioni is basically a Luddite — he doesn’t care about “the oceans” any more than he does about space, but it makes a useful counterpoint to express his disdain for space exploration. In his world, the federal government exists to redistribute wealth.
The US is a big country. We’re capable of both walking and chewing gum at the same time. We can explore both space and the sea.
Of course there’s really nothing wrong with suggesting more ocean research but do these people always have to be so insulting? The way he pisses on our curiousity at the end as if we only want to search for life to beat down the Chinese makes me wish he said it to my face so I could punch him.
Yes and how do you expect the human race to extend beyond the reliance of one world when you continuously support mammoth programs that will only manage a handful of flights?
We will extend our reliance on other worlds when we can do it on a sustainable level. Same reason you “drive” a Cessna I assume.
Wow. This would be akin to an article in the Rift Valley Times 80.000 years ago about how our species as a whole would benefit more from exploring Lake Victoria than exploring the world.
But perhaps noone ever explained to mr. Etzioni that spaceflight is about much more than mere science?
… but it has to be more than just your usual “manifest destiny” rant.
The crying shame of it is that we have the means, the need … to explore and economically develop a solar system.
We lack reason. We lack unity. We lack genuine resolve, born out of carefully tested reason and the unity of a confident and curious community. But we are split into polar opposites, schismed in two.
The right tries to compel this with brutal simplistic ideology meant to subvert the process using the forms without regard for the need for them, to shortcut (they think) to the end result (they never obtain).
The left sees it as a game for the right to obtain corporate welfare in competition for resources against their master plan “great society”, which may get around to space among all the other like “science projects” as its relative merits waxes/wanes.
You can’t shortcut. You can’t postpone. You must appropriately answer the challenge. Together.
But we can’t even agree on lunch.
We don’t currently have the technological means to develop the solar system. It would be incredibly expensive and currently has no credible return on investment to warrant the expenditure. We are desperately in need of new technology to make space travel more routine and two orders of magnitude less expensive. Massive research into propulsion and materials with significant breakthroughs, that is what we are lacking to explore the solar system. But if we spent, say, 20% of the annual federal budget (what the military gets) on space exploration, Star Trek would be a reality by the end of this century.
We don’t currently have the technological means to develop the solar system.
I believe what you mean by this is – we don’t have systems with flight history that can be accepted, that can be apply to the role of developing the solar system.
In that context, I would agree with you.
But I did not mean that. I meant what I said. We have the technology – energy, propulsion, habitat/ECLSS, …
meaning the ability to produce systems of scale/scope that can be constructed with the capacity to fulfill the purpose for such. Not that these are quantifiable under current rubrics for flight systems – thus inaccessible to current use as you would correctly conclude. Meaning we could never use them as we currently commission systems for use.
That doesn’t mean they aren’t usable, just that we don’t develop them.
Which we didn’t before Apollo and ISS and Shuttle as well with certain systems at the time.
It would be incredibly expensive and currently has no credible return on investment to warrant the expenditure.
This is an unexplored presumption to eliminate the need to investigate such.
Massive research into propulsion and materials with significant breakthroughs,
No – attempts (like in FY2011) to go in this direction, were redirected into things like SLS. Commercial space itself is being raided in like kind. Current politics precludes putting any funds into this.
if we spent, say, 20% of the annual federal budget (what the military gets)
In two years even the military won’t be getting 20%. The world is changing, and the economics of space also are being transformed. Its highly dependent on architectures to scale solar system exploration, thus not only the technology but the means by which it is being used.
You’re missing my point.
I get your point, and I agree. Everything in politics these days is about opposition to the other side on every issue, even if you were for that issue yesterday. Space policy is such an issue with both sides.
I was just making a different point but not very well. If it could made a priority, we could do it. And the unforeseen returns would be as great as those discovered when we first crossed the Atlantic.
Lets be honest here, civil space budgets have been disproportionately large as a leftover artifact of the cold war space race. The fact that NASA budget is about twice as big as the ENTIRE NSF makes zero sense, considering the actual value returned.
Maybe trimming some of that fat would force efficiency and more cost-effective approaches, huh.
<cynical> So instead of bringing Star Trek to life, this guy wants to bring Seaquest:DSV to life. Guess it’s easier to compete and war in the water than it is in space.</cynical>