Space Exploration And the Incoming President

[NeedleCast]

Poll question: Space Exploration And the Incoming President

As most of us know, Bush proposed a series of new space exploration goals a few years back. It's one of maybe three things he's done during his eight years that I actually liked (despite the fact that his proposed goals are probably impossible considering his proposed funding. If the Democrats take back the White House this year (please...please), what should they do about the Bush space initiative?

[midnight]

1. Don't do anything about Bush's space initiative. Clean up our

International mess, and quick get some jobs back into the states.

[Occulus]

Which is a rather amusing statement, since we could do those exact things

with a good, well-funded space program.

[Muttocracy]

2. cut back on manned missions

Other programs can provide good support for environmental science.

I'd rather we spent this sort of money exploring the deep oceans. We know there are amazing things to be learned and found down there.

[Johonny]

3. Bush did not upgrade funding to NASA

therefore the poll is pointless. Bush proposed a pointless, scientifically vacuous, but incredibly expensive set of manned NASA missions then gave not nearly enough money to plan the new shuttle replacement vehicle, planned Bushes new Mars vehicle, continue to fly the shuttle, continue the unmanned Earth missions... Bush screwed NASA like everything else.

[NeedleCast]

4. I Agree

but it would have taken longer to type all that out. Thanks for doing it. I agree that the Bush "plan" needs re-structuring and more funding and that it was mainly an excuse to draw away negative attention about the war and his approval ratings.

I updated the OP to reflect what you said. Hope that clarifies.

[tridim]

5. More space telescopes, more rovers, and more robotic probes

Less humans in space, for now at least.

[NeedleCast]

7. Question

Is your concern mainly out of the safety of astronauts or expense (or both)? How do you feel about permanent structures like the International Space Station?

[tridim]

12. The ISS is fine, I'm talking about manned missions to Mars and beyond

At present they're too dangerous, too expensive and have no real point.

Hubble and the Mars Rovers are the models we should follow. They have the best bang for the buck by a mile.

[Political Heretic]

6. Will we be weaponizing space or exploring space?

The type of space program will affect my support.

Although, for now, I chose cut back because I think we need to do a massive overhaul to our spending priorities, and while we're doing that (not an overnight process) we should spend more money in other areas of scientific exploration while we cut waste from military spending and waste from our aggressive foreign policy, increase spending on social development and infrastructure. Ultimately, after a multi-year process of budgetary and tax reform, the budget for space exploration would be larger than it currently is.

[NeedleCast]

8. As far as this poll is concerned

My poll would be only for scientific research and exploration...no weaponization.

[dysfunctional press]

9. i'd be for whatever funding gives us the most bang for our buck- jobs and economy-wise.

but i would hold off on manned exploration at this point, and focus more on robotic probes, although i would probably want to see a successor to the shuttle. i would NOT do anything to further militarize space.

someone else mentioned ocean exploration, and i agree that it's more worthwhile at this point.

[The Traveler]

10. The Apollo project

Back in the late 70s, the GAO stopped tracking the return on investment from project Apollo. By that time they estimated $7 for every dollar spent over the period 1962-about 1977. They gave up because tracking that return was no longer meaningful ... the impact had become ubiquitous to the economy.

Much of that return came in the form of LSI (large scale integrated) circuit technology and advances in materials science that enabled new techologies. Personal computers were already available by this point ... expensive, weak little machines barely usable by the most talented of geeks. It would take a few years for software to catch up with the potential offered by that modest hardware, and ultimately launch the PC revolution.

The moral of the story is that efforts which push the boundaries of knowledge and capabilities cause one to learn. In the 60s, the requirements of manned space flight forced us to extend our knowledge in ways that opened new doors for us, and it long ago paid for itself.

But would a manned spaceflight program of that magnitude have a comparable effect today? I think not. We've already been over that ground ...

On the other hand an Apollo like project to convert our power production and transportation system to low emissions technologies could well produce similar synergistic effects in the economy.

[Phoonzang]

11. Increase funding for manned, unmanned, space telescopes

etc. Cancel the flawed Ares rocket program and go with the Direct Launcher. Work on a reusable space plane like Alan Bond's Skylon so more can be done in low earth orbit. Push for permanent settlement of the Moon and eventually Mars. We can do this. We have the technology. We would have done it decades ago if Nixon hadn't canceled the Apollo program and laid the foundation for 30 years of stagnant development in the area of manned space flight. If we stop thinking in terms of conventional rockets and actually develop some of the more logical propulsion systems out there, it will cut the flight times to other planets significantly.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I think he's wrong on space. The human race can't afford a delay. A push towards space would create new jobs, bring industry back to the US, accelerate technological development (especially environmental) exponentially, and foster international cooperation.

Regarding weaponization of space, oh well. It's going to happen no matter what we do, whether it's now or 100 years from now. As more people and more corporations/goverments go into space someone eventually is going to mount a "freakin' laser" on a spacecraft. With a Dem in the White House, hopefully it will be mitigated.

If people think that there's nothing worthwhile in space, keep this figure in mind:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining:

"In 2004, the world production of iron ore exceeded 1,000 million metric tons<1>. In comparison, a comparatively small M-type asteroid with a mean diameter of 1 km could contain more than 2,000 million metric tons of iron-nickel ore<2>, or two to three times the annual production for 2004. The asteroid 16 Psyche is believed to contain 1.7×1019 kg of iron-nickel, which could supply the 2004 world production requirement for several million years. A small portion of the extracted material would also contain precious metals, although these would likely be more difficult to extract."

[NeedleCast]

23. I agree

and thanks for the wiki, very interesting.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. I say maximize funding for space exploration

and stop Bush's program in its tracks.

He appointed a weapons systems engineer to head NASA. All his 'space program' was, was a cover for getting weapons platforms in orbit. He never had any intention to colonize the moon or go to Mars.

Return the space programs to what it was meant to be, and fund it to the max.

[Norrin Radd]

15. Agreed. Peaceful exploration of space is in our DNA.

Cut the super bloated military budget (but increase pay and benefits for troops and vets), and we can fund everything worthwhile.

[Orsino]

16. And to be consistent, increase funding for education...

...so that American citizens can get the maximum benefit.

[Norrin Radd]

18. Yep. File that under my "everything worthwhile."

[Romulox]

14. We KNOW the solution to childhood poverty

What excuse can there be for such a selfish waste as the space program when we don't care for people on earth?

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. As Carl Sagan said, we need to be a two-planet species.

We've only been around for a hundred thousand years or so, and we have the capability of saving our species from extinction. The dinosaurs were the most successful creatures the earth has ever known, existing for 280 million years, but they are all gone because they were limited to this one little rock.

The only way to ensure our survival as a species - not to mention those other species we would take with us - is to colonize space. One day another planet killer WILL hit the earth. Even more likely, we will poison this planet beyond recovery.

Rule 1: Always know where the back door is.

[Romulox]

19. I find this thinking horrifying--use this planet up and leave the losers behind...

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. And I think it is horrifying that you don't care if the species, and

all other species on earth, go extinct.

What you are talking about is feeding the seed corn to hungry people. That will feed them today, but next season EVERYONE will starve.

We are closing in on 7 billion people on this rock. In 20 years it will be 11 billion, at a minimum, which is estimated to be the carrying capacity of the earth - without taking into account the ecological effects of global warming - desertification, coastal flooding, destructive weather systems, emerging diseases. What happens the day that Marburg virus jumps into the general populaion of 11 billion - with a kill rate of 75%? Entire societies collapse, nobody can work and provide food, widespread starvation, opportunistic disease because of hundreds of millions on unburied bodies...

It is not that we are choosing to use up the planet - with these population numbers it is inevitable without extraordinary scientific advances - the kind of advances that come from pure research that spins off a program like space exploration. You are aware that EVERY advance in solar power came from research begun in finding ways to power up space capsules, shuttles and stations? Advances in water purification, food preservation, microelectronics... The list goes on and on. Millions of people are living better today as a direct result of the space race in the 60s.

Space exploration is the anti-war - it gives all the economic boosts that war production does, but it actually benefits millions, rather than kills millions. You want to see clean water, abundant food, quality jobs? Support the exploration of space.

[Romulox]

21. No I don't give a flip about "the species"--I care about extant human beings

"What you are talking about is feeding the seed corn to hungry people."

So the --planet earth-- is merely "seed corn" for the human species, to be mindlessly devoured our way to bigger and better things?

This is a conception of humanity as a virus that mindlessly devours and kills its host. In your scenario, the "species" survives in the same way a parasitic germ survives--a few of the most virulent organisms latch onto a new host, while the bulk of the colonies perish along with the previous victim. I see no victory for "the species" in this ghastly scenario.

[NeedleCast]

22. I tend to agree with this

and would argue that it is possible to both work on a better Earth AND explore space. As you've pointed out, at some point we're going to tap out our physical resources and the more humans there are, the faster that happens. Failing to explore space until we've achieved a "perfect" earth is a great way to ensure that we never explore space.

[Bill McBlueState]

24. I don't know about "space exploration" but NASA needs more funding

"Space exploration" is a tricky concept. Exploration usually implies going somewhere, but the most bang for our buck comes from basic research with ground-based and space-based telescopes. Those are the only ways to understand the universe beyond our solar system, at any rate.

I support sensible robotic and manned missions (Bush's ideas are not particularly sensible), but we should put a high priority on basic research, too. NASA and the astronomy portion of the NSF budget should both receive more support for basic research.