This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Culture

Which Future In Space Do You Want To See?

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
September 18, 2018
Filed under

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

43 responses to “Which Future In Space Do You Want To See?”

  1. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    One where humanity conquers the Solar System and then expands out into the Galaxy. If all it is going to be are some robotic missions and a few astronauts clinging to the Earth-Moon system we might as well shut NASA down and prepare for extinction.

    • Donald Barker says:
      0
      0

      I think humanity has done quite enough “conquering” in its history, and instead should learn, and relearn, and keep learning to live in sustainable nondestructive harmony with all proposed destinations.
      As for extinction, it is inevitable. The question is whether we hasten it or make it take as long as possible. And then the question is whether or not that continued existence will be pleasant or not.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        It will be a bit difficult to make use of in-situ resources in space without breaking up and grinding a few rocks. Destruction is basic part of the process. Humanity has already ground the first holes in Martian rocks and dissolved the Martian soil starting with Viking. It is only a matter of time before we start rearranging the Solar System for our convenience and benefit.

        And like it or not conquering is part of life, it is what evolution is all about. We are the product of 4.4 billion years of biological conquest starting with the first pre-bacteria conquering their environment. Extinction basically starts when a species abandons seeking to be the conqueror of its environment.

        • Bob Mahoney says:
          0
          0

          I’m sorry, but your cliched description of ‘what evolution is all about’ belies an apparent ignorance of the actual subject matter. The flaws in what you say are too involved to fully correct here.

          Seeking analogies between biological evolution & the growth/advancement (or shrinking/decline) of civilization are fraught with difficulties since the fundamental mechanisms of each array of processes are so different.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Biological evolutionary is just a special case of evolutionary systems theory. The really successful organisms don’t just adapt to their environment, the conquer it. Just look at ants and how have conquered their part of the ecosystem. I know it’s politically incorrect to talk today about Conquering the environment, but it was humans have doing since the invention of the first tool.

          • Bob Mahoney says:
            0
            0

            Biological evolutionary is just

            their environment, the conquer it

            look at ants and how have conquered

            but it was humans have doing since the invention

            ???

            As for your supposed point(s?), no. Politically incorrect or not, the word ‘conquer’ is a poor fit for the way biological evolution actually operates. That you describe ant success in given ecosystems with the term demonstrates (again) an apparent misunderstanding of either biology or the meaning of the word ‘conquer’.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            I am using it as defined in the dictionary, in particular the third definition.

            https://www.merriam-webster

            to gain mastery over or win by overcoming obstacles or opposition –
            conquered the mountain

            As for the use in reference to ants, if you do a little research you will see it is commonly accepted by entomologists that ants, especially the genus Pheidole, have conquered their environment. In short, it is used as a term to describe evolutionary success.

            https://phys.org/news/2014-

            The ants that conquered the world

          • Bob Mahoney says:
            0
            0

            Nowhere in the article link do I find any entomologists employing the term ‘conquer’. In fact, not even the reporter uses it except in the title of the piece, which is certainly not a scientific paper. If one does a search for the keywords ‘conquer’ and ‘ecosystem’ or ‘conquer’ and ‘evolution’ on the Web, one hears crickets in terms of biological systems. [That ‘hearing crickets’ is just a metaphor; I don’t want to mislead here.]

            I carefully reviewed M-W’s definitions of ‘conquer’ prior to replying. I hold to my position; definition 3 doesn’t fit currently understood mechanisms of biological evolution & adaptation, either. It only fits the popular misconception of how evolution works, fueled in part by the misinformed adoption of the expression ‘survival of the fittest’ by social & economic ‘Darwinists’. It may work great for article titles designed to catch someone’s eye, but as for accurately modeling the way things work ‘out there’ in the land of species, successful adaptation, & ecosystems…nope.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Yes, the old humans are different argument… Call it what you want but there are always winners and losers in evolutionary theory and we are the descendants of the winners which is why we are here and not the other extinct subspecies of humans.

            BTW You need to read some of Dr. Wheeler’s old books on Ants. One thing is sure and that is Ants won’t be included in the fauna of a space settlement, they are just too dangerous to take along.

            BTW speaking of books, one of the earliest books to present the dream of space exploration to the public was the 1949 book by Willy Ley called the “Conquest of Space”. It served to inspire the first generation of space advocates, along with the Disney series and a great movie of the same name. It was the generation that went to the Moon, something to think about.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            How do you expect people to keep ants (and other insects) out of a space settlement?

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            By not including them among the cargo shipped?

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            And how do you expect that to work? Insects and other animals have a known ability to get on ships and into cargo, despite efforts to keep them out. As you noted, ants are quite capable of expanding into new environments.

            Stopping this sort of biological spread has been, historically, extremely difficult if not impossible. Personally, I think those small forms of live will, inevitably travel with people, no matter how much we try to stop it or how much we want to do so. To quote an author I don’t entirely like, “Life finds a way.” Ants and roaches and mammals like rats will go into space with humans. They are just too good at surviving and moving to new environments to prevent that.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Ants and other insects are good at stowing away, so space firms will have to be better at insuring they don’t.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Or just learn to live with them. It’s not like we don’t already live with insects. They are part of the environment. When it comes to constructing an artificial environment, I think we’re better off accepting and dealing with the things which are inevitable, rather than making futile efforts to change the inevitable.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Keep in mind the very different ecological characteristics of space settlements. Everyone thinks of massive domes or the very open O’Neil Habitats, but in practice space settlements will look much different. It will be a radically different living environment than Earth. Safety, reliability and engineering will require them to be much more restrictive in space and the simplicity of their ecosystems will require active management to be stable. They won’t look like Earth II in Arizona.

            Ants are far too aggressive in nature to work well in such environments, which is why efforts will be made to prevent them from arriving in the first place and to elminate any that make it. The safety of the habitat will depend on it. This will also go for many other organisms.

            The biggest risk will of course be in the settlements closest to Earth, in the Lagrange points and ones the Moon. Those further out in the Solar System (Mars, Asteriod belt, Jupiter system, Saturn system etc.) will have a lower risk as the distance and Cislunar settlements will serve as a filter.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            This whole ant thing makes me wonder of one of us has been reading too much Clifford Simak recently, specifically his novel, _City_. And I haven’t read it in years…

            In any case, I don’t think keeping ants off a space settlement is realistic. They are really good at getting into new places. It’s like planetary protection (no, it is a form of planetary protection.) I don’t think you can prevent it, just set up a system that can deal with it. We do that on Earth, since human society actually does exist and the ants haven’t taken over the world.

            I’d just say ship up some spiders and geckos, and have a healthy (but partially uncontrolled and unmanaged) urban ecosystem. In my opinion, trying to keep all the undesirable species off just isn’t viable. Trying to do so will simply mean some will slip through and the ones which do will get out of hand.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            No, but I have been thinking about space settlements and how they would work since I read Isaac Asimov’s essays on them in the late 1960’s. I also read Danridge Cole’s excellent book “Islands in Space: The Challenge of the Planetoids”. This was before Dr. O’Neill popularized the idea. More recently I have been researching just what it will take to build them and make them work. It is not going to be as simple as you think. The engineering is straight forward, its the self-sustaining environment that will be tough. Really, it’s a problem folks needed to have started working on 20 years ago now that the rockets to build them are on the horizon.

            First, in regards to ants, they actually have few predators,other than other species of ants that have any real impact on them, Spiders are predators but the main spiders that feed on them are members of the Black Widow family, not a species you want in a enclosed space habitat. But one reason they are so successful is their ability of overcome predator attacks,

            Second, it may not be as difficult as you think to keep ants out of space. Ant colonies require a fertile queen to establish themselves. You just focus on preventing the queen from establishing the colony. Quarantining cargo will be a start. Freezing it will also help. Ant poison bait will be a third option. Applied with a will these methods will work.

            And again, the problem will only be on the settlements within a few days travel from Earth.

      • Sam S says:
        0
        0

        What is the inherent value in a remote asteroid around Proxima Centauri? Especially if no conscious mind is around to even know it exists?

        Why would any rational civilization realistically consider living in “nondestructive harmony” with a barren wasteland, when that wasteland could be remade into a home for future generations?

        Maybe extinction is inevitable, but resigning yourself to it is a surefire way to hasten it.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      A friend at JPL put a qoute in his email signature:
      “I don’t think I’m alone when I say I’d like to see more and more planets fall under the ruthless domination of our solar system.”
      I should ask him where that came from. (And, yes, he also appended a disclaimer about his views not representing those of his employer…)

  2. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    I just want to be alive long enough to see something happen.

    • Daniel Woodard says:
      0
      0

      Things are happening, Michael. Watching a night launch and seeing the booster separate from the upper stage and, instead of dropping inert into the sea as was always the case in the past, seeing it come to life again, busily fire its jets, turn about, fire its main enjine to reverse course back to the launch site, then drop at beakneck speed, apparently straight toward me, and come to a halt, engines blazing, at the very last second, was the stuff of science fiction. We are seeing robotic cars, robotic surgery, robotic exploration of the planets, but the robots are extensions of ourselves. We live in exciting times.

  3. pathfinder_01 says:
    0
    0

    I so agree with that statement.. I think if spaceflight does not move beyond a few civil servants making a few flights a year, human space flight might be given up as a frivolous waste.

  4. Matthew Black says:
    0
    0

    I want to live long enough to see human footprints on Mars or at least the Moon again. Best case: Lunar Outpost and initial activities on Mars. An international Moonbase roughly similar to Antarctica models in operation.

    • Zed_WEASEL says:
      0
      0

      International Moonbase, maybe. More likely a company run Moonbase by either SpaceX or Blue Origin, if not both.

      In theory the BFS can landed on the Moon about a few months after the MZ Lunar flyby flight. Of course someone have to come up with Lunar EVA suits and Lunar Rovers first.

      IMO if the BFR works than there will be bases on and around the Moon and Mars before 2030. One have to noted that the BFS have more pressurized habitable volume than the ISS. Easy to use a BFS as orbital space station.

    • chuckc192000 says:
      0
      0

      I don’t think anyone alive today will see human footprints on Mars. The moon? Maybe.

  5. Nick K says:
    0
    0

    I think that NASA and other space agencies around the world have demonstrated that the government is small change when it comes to moving commerce, industry and, science, NASA is a good demonstration of this mainly because they use more money than all the other space agencies combined. They have become so bureaucratic they have a hard time trying to figure out how to do anything. They’ve now invested 15 billion dollars and 15 years in a post-Columbia time frame to try and come up with something and yet they are putting out requests to anybody who can answer to try and identify what they are going to do with this ‘Gateway’ in a halo orbit, and an Orion/Apollo on steroids retro 60s capsule that is so expensive they won’t be ably to fly it more than about once a year and it is so under-powered it really cannot go anywhere or do anything. What a waste of time and my money. Fifty years after the historic flights of Apollo we are still 20 years away from being able to repeat similar missions-any quite honestly why would anyone want to waste that kind of money all over again for some flags and footprints? I am hopeful that Mr. Musk can succeed. If he does then in not too many years he will succeed in taking the first steps to move civilization off the Earth. Musk and his program is inspiration. NASA consists of a lot of clueless people wandering aimlessly, not knowing where they are going, why, or how they can get there.

    • tutiger87 says:
      0
      0

      “NASA consists of a lot of clueless people wandering aimlessly..”

      In a word: Screw you Sir.

      People tend to forget that we are beholden to the people that YOU put in office.

      • Nick K says:
        0
        0

        As near as I can tell, Orion, SLS and Gateway were all homegrown NASA ideas. There were plenty of other possibilities and NASA leadership decided these were the way forward. The current situation with the Gateway is exemplary It was not an idea that originated in Congress. Congress has to date not supported establishment of a program. This was a NASA idea to give Orion something to do. It is not progress.

        • tutiger87 says:
          0
          0

          Actually, no.

          All were machinations of Congress, especially Sen Shelby of Alabama.

          • Nick K says:
            0
            0

            Sorry to disagree but SLS began as Ares 5, a NASA idea. Shelby has done his best to protect his constituents by keeping a MSFC rocket program going, but Ares 5 and its downsized little brother SLS were NASA’s doings. The most likely scenario would have been to keep Shuttle flying on an albeit slower schedule and developing Shuttle C which would have used common components. Orion was another NASA idea (mainly that of the Administrator).

          • Brian_M2525 says:
            0
            0

            I have to agree with Nick K. NASA came up with these lame ideas and they have slow rolled them. NASA was the one that Said they needed Orion and NASA said it was safe, simple and soon. Don’t point your fingers at Congress; NASA has shown they cannot get their act together to get it built. And even once they do, maybe in another 5 years (they’ve been working on it for 15 already), what will they do with it? Gateway is a lame idea; a waste of time and money. SLS was beaten as soon as Musk showed he could reuse boosters.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            This is one of those pointless blame games that probably won’t be resolved for a century. After that time, historians may have access to private documents and no fear of offending a living person.

            Until then, I think it’s safe to say NASA song a song, felt they had to sing a song Congress would like, and the song they song was one Congress liked. We don’t really have enough information to say more. It could originally have been Congress hinting about what they expected; it could be NASA managers finding something they wanted which also matched their expectations of congressional desires.

            Who knows? Perhaps the historian who gets to publish a copy of Senator Shelby’s diaries, fifty years after his death, will have a better idea.

    • Donald Barker says:
      0
      0

      That’s not entirely true. The problem with government space is that it flows from the top group down without much notice or action on ideas from all lower levels. There are plenty of ideas, good ones, but it’s the age old problem of being able to promote and get heard, and then paid for. And SpaceX is only a little better in that they only have a small group at the top that might be more open to ideas from across the board. The whole problem with advancing humans off Earth in masses, as it always has been, and that NO program addresses, is that there is no pre-made destination, no proven sustainable way to be there, no way of making sustainable money to support said endeavor and lastly, no real idea of what vast amounts of humans will do when we get there. Heck, we cant even figure out most of these problems on Earth. But there are a few out there with ideas for all of these, if only someone would listen.

      • tesh says:
        0
        0

        “…there is no pre-made destination, no proven sustainable way to be there, no way of making sustainable money to support said endeavor and lastly, no real idea of what vast amounts of humans will do when we get there.”

        Hasn’t it always been the case?

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      WRT your statement “NASA consists of a lot of clueless people wandering aimlessly, not knowing where they are going, why, or how they can get there.” 1. do you work there (you need to have first hand evidence to make claims like this) 2. Based on my personal employment history at NASA, and people who work there that I talk on a daily basis, your statement is simply not true. Not even close. The issues regarding NASA’s direction result from bad decisions outside of NASA.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        He’s got a pretty good description of the halls of Congress, though, at least as I imagine the thought processes of the average Congress critter.

        I was fortunate enough to attend one of the last JPL open houses- mid 90s, I guess? Too bad more interested citizens like MR. B don’t have that opportunity.

      • Nick K says:
        0
        0

        I think my description of Orion, SLS and Gateway is proof enough, although ISS is not a lot better off-based on what was being developed 30 years ago in terms of pharmaceuticals, cooperative agreements and commercialization the ISS program should have been much further along. They are still trying to figure out how to expedite a payload integration process that we had under control 25 years ago. ISS Program threw all that away and started over, setting the program back decades. There is no shortage of capable people in NASA. The leadership has been lacking for a long time.

  6. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    This is precisely the idea that the L5 Society tried to promote, and that Lori Garver would have pursued had she been given the chance. The number of humans that will fly in space is inversely propostional to the cost of getting there.

  7. Matt Johnson says:
    0
    0

    SpaceX lost me with BFR/BFS. If they prove me wrong, hey, more power to ’em! But after seeing every post-shuttle program fail (X-30/NASP, X-33/VentureStar, among others) for various technical and political reasons, I have a hard time believing that all of a sudden SpaceX is going to breeze through development of this sci-fi looking massive, massively complex spacecraft with unprecedented capability.

    But like I said, let ’em try! I’m just a naysayer on the sidelines. I would however be more excited about incremental steps like the now cancelled Crew Dragon/Falcon Heavy lunar flyby, which seemed much more tangible. I guess I’m a bird in hand kind of guy – maybe I just lack imagination and am too risk averse, but on the other hand, were I a betting man or an investor I’d put my money on a more modular approach using existing capabilities to expand into cislunar space, along the lines of what ULA has proposed. (I have no ties to ULA for the record, just an unemployed jaded aerospace engineer who worked in the satellite industry once upon a time.)

  8. Dewey Vanderhoff says:
    0
    0

    If history is any teacher : There is only one force in the universe strong enough to genuinely accelerate human exploration of space- to get us up and moving offworld quicker than the pace of sheepish bureaucrats and ossified politicians . The hypermagnetic attraction of Money To Be Made. Everything else lines up behind that , at least until the silvery alien starships appear in LEO. Only when there is a serious load of money to be made mining asteroids or lunar materials will you see human space exploration shift into high gear, just as the railroads did when latent wealth of resources in the interior of North America beckoned , or Clipper ships were capitalized by the British , the Dutch, the Portugese, the Spanish et al to begin hauling the bounty of the globe back home on the high seas. Even Darwin’s Beagle was a merchant ship first. His science was more as a stowaway. So as much as I regret to have to say it, and wish it were otherwise, it will be the profit motive that drives the surge in spaceflight, not altruism or exploration for exploration’s sake.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      And don’t forget, the official mission of the HMS Beagle was to gather information to make nautical charts for the Royal Navy and British Merchant Marine.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      Just for the record, the HMS Beagle was a commissioned ship in the royal navy, not a merchant ship. (Merchant ships aren’t called “HMS” and don’t fly the White Ensign.) Not a big naval ship, just a ten gun brig of war, but it was a military rather than a civilian ship.

  9. mfwright says:
    0
    0

    If private space is to get ahead of govt space, I think we’d see a few billionaires in flight suits. Their interviews may be more interesting than civil servants. If BFR becomes what Musk presents, most likely be an extension of wealthy people transports like private jets and helicopters. These two classes of aircraft have significantly evolved in past 50 years but for smucks like you and me will never ride in any of these.

    Now, if BFR is used of for sending serious amounts of mining equipment to the Moon, that will be very interesting. Forget Mars, it will always be two decades away.