Americans need to get serious again about space! 11

[whotmewory]

I wanna toss my hat in for American getting serious again about space!

American's gotten a pretty black eye from industry shifts away from home, and now with chine being soooo good at aircraft manufacturing thanks to the traitorous folks at Boeing, seems to me there's one last area where - at least for now - America leads the way, and that's SPACE!

Sure would be great if GW or the next Prez would come out - like Kennedy - and say "Let's do this!"

In '69 with Armstrong kicking up dust on the Moon, Stanley Kubrick's "2001 Space Odyssey" was seemingly a No Brainer and a lot of us kids envisioned working for NASA and us being as far as Mars if not at leaset mining the Moon.

Something went wrong somewhere - now all we have is a junker shuttle and a program lacking vision.

Perhaps we ought to hassle our legislators about this screw up - so younger engineers have a field to work in in 2020.

Let's go for space again and leave the Earth to China!

Cheers!

 

[BillPSU]

Great post just keepgiviner. We need a few more laughs around this serious group.

I hear Dilbert signed up for the Google job (trying to get away from the pointy hair guy).

 

[flamby]

Getting serious about space is no longer easy. Even if we travel at the speed of light, we are not going past the crap of solar system to any useful thing. Given our present level of science and if one great president exclaims someday, "lets go to Jupiter" it may excite scientists but not the general public (votes) hassled with the taxes.

During sixties, it was a cold war period and public support for such programs was very high because of ego embedded in human nature. In present times, I do not think the political will can be garnered for such big missions.

Ciao.

 

[CSLufkin]

I would love to see NASA shut down for two consecutive years, and their budget spent on alternative energy. Man we would have cars that ran on the exaust from our home generation units that run on the sewage generated by the household (or something like that).

 

[EddyC]

When my Grandmother heard that humans had landed on the moon, she was angry because we had found another place to pollute. The 60s space race was more for political bragging rights than for humanity's benefit. The real question is whether the funds proposed for the space program can be put to better use elsewhere. I think they can and so do most people.

 

[CajunCenturion]

To properly evaluate the space program and its benefits, I think you need to factor in the value of "space spinoffs". Space spinoffs are those products and technologies that are by-products of space investment.

A Google search for "space spinoffs" should yield lots of reading material. Here is one for starters:
NASA Spinoffs Bringing Space down to Earth

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Beggar]

Cajun, I've always considered that line of reasoning flawed because it presumes that such spinoffs would/could not have been otherwise developed in the pursuit of other technologies.

--------------------
Bring back the HP-15

http://www.hp15c.org

--------------------

 

[CajunCenturion]

Anyone can say they might have happened otherwise, or that they might not have happened otherwise. It is just as flawed to presume that such spinoffs would or could not have been otherwise developed as it is to presume that such spinoffs would have actually been developed otherwise.

In most of the spinoffs, it was the the unique and hostile environment of space that defined the need, or at least the circumstances around those problems in need of unique solutions. The problems of getting you and everything you need into space, functioning safely in the hostile environment of space, and getting back home safely drove many of the technological developments.

"Necessity is the mother of invention", and space travel created a lot of necessity which in turn, led to considerable invention.

You cannot argue with the spinoffs that DID happen, by whom, when, and under what circumstances. Nor can you discount the benefits to us because of those development, and the length of time we've been able to enjoy that technology.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[GregLocock]

The trouble with that, is that /if/ you regard nuclear power as a good thing then developing and using atomic bombs was a good idea.

The ends do not justify the means, necessarily.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> The trouble with that, is that /if/ you regard nuclear power as a good thing then developing and using atomic bombs was a good idea.
That's a non-sequitur on several levels, the most basic being that just because something had a less than auspicious beginning doesn't mean it hasn't evolved into something quite useful. Nor is it practical to throw away a technological advancement because you don't like who, how, or under what circumstances it was originally developed. Further, if a beneficial application is the result of a spinoff, then it doesn't really fit into the means-end paradigm. History is replete with serendipitous invention.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[GregLocock]

several levels?

initial desired technology -> useful spinoff

spaceflight -> teflon (etc)
atomic bombs -> nuclear power (etc)

I think that works reasonably well as a broad brush comparison.





Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> The trouble with that, is that /if/ you regard nuclear power as a good thing then developing and using atomic bombs was a good idea. (emphasis mine)
The first non-sequitur is assuming that just because the ending spinoff is good, that the initial desired goal was also good. The atomic bomb does not have to be good in order for nuclear power to be good.

A second non-sequitur is the "and using" attachment of use to development in making the comparison. I submit there is no inherent lack of goodness in the development of atomic bombs, but there is considerable question about the goodness of using them. The use was, although perhaps inevitable, not a necessary condition for the further and positive development of the spinoff.

Finally, why is that notion if troubling?

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[VisiGoth]

What is the engineer's estimate of the military superiority gained from space superiority (to take a phrase from air superiority)?

What are the ramifications of an imbalance of space control by governments?

Is there another technology that could give military superiority that would trump space superiority? (like quantum computers breaking all other nations crypto)

While the US slept peacefully after WWI, Japan and Germany advanced military technology to dangerous superiority levels.

What is the safe level of spending to limit the disaster of that could take place if the wrong people got too much power.

I would posit that it is incumbent upon the responsible people to make sure a dangerous gap does not exist in space superiority. Of course the responsible people would take the blame for not spending the money on obvious good things for the poor and those that do not want to take care of themselves or just can't. But it is also irresponsible to not take care of those very same people by not letting the "bad guys" gain too much of a superiority.

 

[BitTwiddler]

Visigoth asked: What is the engineer's estimate of the military superiority gained from space superiority (to take a phrase from air superiority)?

I think that the first nation that establishes effective control of space and deploys large numbers of weapons in space will establish effective control of the oceans. This will give that nation the same advantages of sea power that allowed Britain to defeat Napoleonic France and the Allies to win both World Wars.

For example, what happens if China decides to invade Taiwan in 2015? The US Navy has about 250 ships. It is estimated that in ten years China's Navy will be roughly the same size as the US Navy. This would normally create a balance of power, but space-based weapons could change everything.

Imagine that China launches several hundred one-ton payloads of antishipping weapons into low Earth orbit. If China develops radar satellites (RORSATs), then they could locate US ships anywhere on the planet. The weapons would be guided by the Galileo navsats which China and Europe are building already. If China deorbited all of the weapons at the same time, then 250 US Navy ships would have at least one warhead moving at more than 7 km per second headed directly for them. Larger ships such as carriers would have multiple weapons targeting them. I do not know of any existing defense that could stop such weapons.

The US Navy could suffer a global version of Pearl Harbor. It isn't too far fetched to assume that most of the US surface Navy could be sunk or severely damaged in a single hour. American supercarriers could become the 21st century equivalent of WWII battleships: dangerous at close range but extremely vulnerable to attack by weapons with a longer range deployed from a new environment.

After that, the Chinese could take Taiwan and then blockade the Persian Gulf and take over the world's oil supply. In ten years Europe will be effectively demilitarized, so they won't be able to stop them. The Russian Navy is rusting to death. Who else has a significant Navy? Japan? India?

It isn't too fantastic to imagine the Chinese building 500 or 1000 orbital antishipping weapons. The US deployed thousands of ICBMs during the Cold War. China has demonstrated that it can launch heavy payloads into orbit. China will be the world's largest manufacturer by 2015. If they decide to outbuild the US in a new arms race, they will have many more trained engineers and a greater manufacturing capacity.

What is the US doing to meet this potential challenge? The Shuttle is grounded. Congress just authorized the purchase of two Russian spacecraft and rockets to keep the space station operating. The space station was ordered in 1984 and still isn't finished and delivered. NASA plans to go back to the moon - one year later than the Chinese, in 2018.

 

[EddyC]

BitTwiddler,

Are you really sure that China plans to do this? Does China desire world domination or merely regional domination? Should the USA plan for this scenario in advance or should it wait until it draws closer to reality? Other countries don't seem to be worried, why should we? Why does it seem that there is always some enemy out there that the USA needs to fight to protect the world?

 

[BitTwiddler]

I don't know what China intends to do. I was simply answering the questions VisiGoth asked.

Other countries implicitly rely on the US to keep the peace in the Pacific. China wants Taiwan and has a longstanding policy to use force if necessary to reclaim it. China is the only country in the Pacific which is a plausible threat to US interests in the near future.

The US doesn't seem to be fully aware of the growing might of China. Perhaps China will remain at peace for the rest of the century. Perhaps not. If they choose to fight the US, we would have a real problem stopping them, and control of space could be the key factor in deciding the outcome of the conflict.

 

[VisiGoth]

BitTwiddler,
thanks for the excellent analysis. I always wondered just what good space did for the military, I thought it was great for surveillance put poor for delivery of rocks or fire.

EddyC,
China has already proposed their increasing circle, and the move to Taiwan seems to be in 2008 or 2009. I tend to agree with those who think the arrogance level as exhibited in the Chinese American clubs (between the original Chinese and the new pro Beijing Chinese gaining power in the clubs) is so high that they will attack before the Beijing Olympics. Hitler waited. He had both winter and summer Olympics in 1936 but waited until November to invade. Also, Bejing needs the intelectual property boost of Taiwan for it's space program, so they would need to invade before they can gain massive space superiority.

 

[CajunCenturion]

It's not just surveillance. It also includes meteorolgy, communications, navigation, and others. If you could knock out the GPS satellites, and kill the communications satellites, losing TV service would be the least of your problems.

Another aspect that we've not touched on yet is the value of basic scientific research. Having the ability to look back at the earth from space has been immeasureable in our studying of the environment, global warming, ocean currents, weather forecasting and warnings, and who knows how much else. Further, what we've learned by looking out, without the distortion of our atmosphere, or from other launched probes has been invaluable in the growth of scientifc knowledge.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[moltenmetal]

Scientific megaprojects are ALL a waste of our collective resources. Space exploration, supercolliders, nuclear fusion- you name it- they may be interesting, but they're hardly a defensible way to spend public money. Those PUBLIC monies could be much better spent for the betterment of the human condition if they were broken up amongst tens of thousands of smaller, more narrowly-focused technological development projects. Such projects are not only easier to manage (ie. they're less likely to be corrupted for private gain), but they're also far more likely to yield products of near-term benefit to humanity.

For the record, Teflon wasn't developed for the space program. It was an accident of materials research in the 1930s. Many of the technological developments attributed to the space program are made on very tenuous causal links as a political means to justify further expenditures of public monies. Those monies predominantly flow into the hands of large contractors whose principal other source of funding is military spending. Funding space exploration for the technological benefits derived therefrom is the "trickle-down" theory of technological development, and it's just as much bunkum in the technological sphere as it is in economic terms.

New materials, and novel uses for existing materials- both arise daily in response to new and existing needs. The capitalist marketplace funds this process. There's no more need for space exploration to spur materials development than there is a need for another world war for the same purpose.

All space exploration or war does is provide a focal point for public opinion to loosen the public pursestrings. More worthy causes related to the actual reduction of human suffering somehow aren't as "sexy" as they're not tied up with national ego. That fact speaks volumes about how twisted our values have become.

If you want space exploration done, set up a charitable foundation and put your own discretionary spending into the pursuit of your interest. Leave public money, collected using the taxation powers of the state, for uses of wider public benefit.

 

[whotmewory]

Hey Visigoth:

Regarding your statement: "What is the engineer's estimate of the military superiority gained from space superiority (to take a phrase from air superiority)?"

I cannot tell you.

But nor could the Air Mail "Jenny" flyer or the barn stormer of the 20's and 30's have estimated / anticipated the Messerschmidt Me-262 "Swallow" jet fighter, the V-2 rocket, or even flying so high as to require Oxygen masks.

How depressing there are so many people mired in "temporary humanity" that they cannot see the riches in scientific and economic adventure.

 

[whotmewory]

Ahhhh, bit Twiddler!

How refreshing is your scholarship and geopolitical foresight! A fine breath of fresh air sweeping over a swill of commentary from "socially minded" nay-sayers!