Space pessimists

[Rakaydos]

The main "pessimistic" thing about manned exploration is the Fermi paradox, I think.

The fact that space pessimists are mostly right is the ANSWER to the Fermi paradox.

It is effectively impossible to both survive controlling the atom, and to cost effectively explore space. if you have one, the other will get you.

[SargeRho]

At the same time, controlling the Atom is the key to expanding into outer space economically.

[Rakaydos]

At the same time, controlling the Atom is the key to expanding into outer space economically.

That's not the hard part, the hard part is surviving it.

The ability to wipe ourselves out is limited by the very restrictions we impose that keep us out of space.

[Mr Shifty]

Just look at NASA. Getting forced to waste almost 40 years of its existence. The trend is that not much more will come about.

You mean the 40 years where we sent orbiters to Jupiter, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn, Ceres, Vesta, Eros, etc? Where we sent robots to crawl around Mars for years gathering scientific data? Send a lander to Titan? Where we have flown by every planet in the solar system, including -- by July -- Pluto and its moons? Where we've maintained a nearly continuous human presence in LEO? Assembled an enormous orbiting space station? Photographed the moon in high enough detail to see the Apollo landing and booster impact sites? Sent dozens of telescopes into space to gather un-imagined information about the distant galaxies, exoplanets, cosmic radiation, and countless data about our solar system, galaxy and the universe we live in? Successfully prototyped exciting new technologies like solar sails, ion drives, remotely piloted mini space cameras, on-orbit refueling, etc etc? Set up a global network of satellites that allow you to pinpoint your position anywhere on the planet to within a couple meters? Enabled a global communication network? Made hundreds of discoveries about Earth's climate, weather, geology, biosphere, oceans, etc?

In what world has NASA wasted the last 40 years?

[Pipcard]

Well, it's the world where people think only manned spaceflight beyond Earth orbit matters. That, and people have been expecting a manned Mars mission or Moon bases for those decades already, but they keep getting delayed.

[Kibble]

We don't need nuclear fission to explore outer space. Apollo showed us that high-energy chemical reactions can land two Earthlings on the Moon and bring them back. Space Station showed us that with chemical reactions and persistent spirit we can keep a piloted orbital facility continuously occupied, comfortable, and safe.

[Jonboy]

Optimism is "SpaceX will go to Mars in 5 years without any problems at all."

<-- I am right about here

Realism is "SpaceX will go to Mars in 10-15 years, after having learned from some failures along the way."

Pessimism is "SpaceX will never do anything because nobody is interested."

10 to 15 years is still very optimistic, IMO.

[Brotoro]

That's why I'm not believing that the space budget should be anything more than a couple percent.

...And this is the only thing in this thread that makes ME pessimistic about space travel. There will never be agreement that we have solved all of our problems here on Earth. If that's the prerequisite for getting more money to expand into space, we're never getting there.

[tater]

No, just the opposite, the pessimists make in fact bad predictions based on ignorance, they just project the current space progression time line which is something very silly to do. Those 45 years of space inactivity are based in many factors which does not follow a trend line.

There are many aspects that will grow exponential after certain changes.

Many of those pessimist ignore technology changes, business / economics, political and public interest.

The people OP referred to here are not pessimists, they are realists. Optimists tend to be irrationally optimistic, pessimists tend to be irrationally pessimistic. Being optimistic is fine, but if you want to claim it is justified, you are making a positive claim that needs to be demonstrated. Track records are fine to use, as they are at least real data. Space is cool, and I even like manned space quite a lot, even though it is not actually useful compared to robots (a situation which will certainly get WORSE, not better if you are a fan of manned spaceflight as AI/learning systems give probes more autonomy).

Irrational optimists simply make up economics. Politics is a constant, and if public money is involved the process is by definition political. The money must go to the right districts to buy votes, that's how it works, and has worked since the Washington Administration decided to spend the great bulk of the entire US budget on 6 medium sized warships.

[DaveofDefeat]

...And this is the only thing in this thread that makes ME pessimistic about space travel. There will never be agreement that we have solved all of our problems here on Earth. If that's the prerequisite for getting more money to expand into space, we're never getting there.

One mans problem is another mans solution.

[tater]

We don't need nuclear fission to explore outer space. Apollo showed us that high-energy chemical reactions can land two Earthlings on the Moon and bring them back. Space Station showed us that with chemical reactions and persistent spirit we can keep a piloted orbital facility continuously occupied, comfortable, and safe.

In LEO, safe from radiation hazards. With constant resupply.

[Rakaydos]

We don't need nuclear fission to explore outer space. Apollo showed us that high-energy chemical reactions can land two Earthlings on the Moon and bring them back. Space Station showed us that with chemical reactions and persistent spirit we can keep a piloted orbital facility continuously occupied, comfortable, and safe.

5 trips, and that's it.

And that's from a small, marginably life-bearing world that has no less than 4 major nearby colonizable bodies (Moon, Mars, upper Venus atmosphere, and Calisto). Our solar system is practically made for beating the fermi paradox, and not even we can muster the economic willpower to take more than the first step. If we cant do it, why should any other species?

[Kibble]

In LEO, safe from radiation hazards. With constant resupply.

Any BLEO spacecraft has to take radiation into account. And are you implying that a BLEO facility wouldn't have regular resupply? At the very least it would have to cycle out crew, and once you have spacecraft that can regularly visit, there is absolutely no reason you can't have a similar space vehicle for resupply missions. If ISRU is a priority, then as the experimental ISRU procedures become more mature, sophisticated, and operational, the rate of cargo missions can wind down to a minimum.

[tater]

Well, it's the world where people think only manned spaceflight beyond Earth orbit matters. That, and people have been expecting a manned Mars mission or Moon bases for those decades already, but they keep getting delayed.

Are we discussing manned, or unmanned flight here? Unmanned flight has been ongoing, with huge strides. We have a %$#@%$#@% SUV driving around Mars right now, a probe about to reach Pluto, ESA put a probe (in somewhat kerbal fashion ) on a comet, among many other nifty programs. Unmanned can only improve as communications lags become less and less important due to more intelligent systems aboard.

Manned flight is a stunt. Period. I love stunts, and I love manned spaceflight for the sheer adventure of it---but that is all it is for the near future, make no mistake. There needs to be a compelling economic reason to drive humans into space instead of expendable and cost effective robots. Human habitation for good is a distant dream, IMO, and stations probably make more sense than most planetary bodies, frankly.

- - - Updated - - -

Any BLEO spacecraft has to take radiation into account. And are you implying that a BLEO facility wouldn't have regular resupply? At the very least it would have to cycle out crew, and once you have spacecraft that can regularly visit, there is absolutely no reason you can't have a similar space vehicle for resupply missions. If ISRU is a priority, then as the experimental ISRU procedures become more mature, sophisticated, and operational, the rate of cargo missions can wind down to a minimum.

LEO radiation hazards are real, but the Van Allen belt heavily mitigates the issue. We can certainly resupply, we'd have to. But LEO is the minimal ante in terms of dv budget.

[Rakaydos]

Manned flight is a stunt. Period. I love stunts, and I love manned spaceflight for the sheer adventure of it---but that is all it is for the near future, make no mistake. There needs to be a compelling economic reason to drive humans into space instead of expendable and cost effective robots. Human habitation for good is a distant dream, IMO, and stations probably make more sense than most planetary bodies, frankly.

Which is why I say this is the answer to the Fermi paradox. It will never be economical to expand a species into space, and the most economical approach is also the one most likely to end the species.

[PakledHostage]

That is not a rule, it will not be expensive and hard for always..

You are thinking that the NASA way is the only way...

Is impossible to be less cost and time effective than that.

Please re-read my post. Where did I say anything about NASA? I talked about laying the technological foundations for, among other things, cheaper access to space. I have said over and over again on these forums that I think SpaceX is doing some excellent work in this regard. You may have a jaded view of government funded space agencies, but that doesn't mean that they aren't contributing significantly to the eventual goals that we all dream of achieving.

My point is and has always been that Rome wasn't built in a day. It took the efforts of generations of talented people to make it what it is. Space technology is much the same. It may be disappointing for some that progress isn't quicker, but a lot of those people are probably naive to the true magnitude of the challenges involved.

[tater]

Which is why I say this is the answer to the Fermi paradox. It will never be economical to expand a species into space, and the most economical approach is also the one most likely to end the species.

Which is why no one goes up Everest… there's nothing to be gained, and we can fly up there and take pictures, right?

People want adventure, and that is a useful thing to have in the world. The economics is trickier.

If enough robots are sent out, costs can drop (say any sort of resource return, like rare earth elements is the model). Then all of a sudden it becomes relatively cheap to send people. Or even tourism. Any model that makes money might result in lowered costs, which starts changing the math.

I'm happy to speculate, I'm just not sanguine about it.

[Kibble]

not even we can muster the economic willpower to take more than the first step. If we cant do it, why should any other species?

That's kind of unfair. We have only been flying piloted missions for 54 years.

LEO is the minimal ante in terms of dv budget.

Extant GTO-optimized launch vehicles like Proton and Delta IVH could put nicely sized resupply vehicles onto TLI.

[Rakaydos]

Which is why no one goes up Everest… there's nothing to be gained, and we can fly up there and take pictures, right?

People want adventure, and that is a useful thing to have in the world. The economics is trickier.

If enough robots are sent out, costs can drop (say any sort of resource return, like rare earth elements is the model). Then all of a sudden it becomes relatively cheap to send people. Or even tourism. Any model that makes money might result in lowered costs, which starts changing the math.

I'm happy to speculate, I'm just not sanguine about it.

I'm sure any number of "space realists" would be happy to point out various sources saying it would never happen. but that's beside my point.

My point is that the Fermi paradox presupposes an innate expansionistic attitude that I feel would never survive the alien equivilant of the Cold War- the very worldview that would drive a species to space would drive that group's subspecies to throw nukes at each other, ending the expansion before it begins. We have one of the best shots of overcoming it, and I weep inside each time we, too demonstrate that lack of will.

[AngelLestat]

Why so many people mention the Fermi Paradox in this thread? Is not very related... And it does not work to make a point either

Track records are fine to use, as they are at least real data. Space is cool, and I even like manned space quite a lot, even though it is not actually useful compared to robots (a situation which will certainly get WORSE, not better if you are a fan of manned spaceflight as AI/learning systems give probes more autonomy).

Irrational optimists simply make up economics. Politics is a constant, and if public money is involved the process is by definition political. The money must go to the right districts to buy votes, that's how it works, and has worked since the Washington Administration decided to spend the great bulk of the entire US budget on 6 medium sized warships.

Please re-read my post. Where did I say anything about NASA? ****

My point is and has always been that Rome wasn't built in a day. It took the efforts of generations of talented people to make it what it is. Space technology is much the same. It may be disappointing for some that progress isn't quicker, but a lot of those people are probably naive to the true magnitude of the challenges involved.

Sorry if I cut part of your posts.

Track records or Rome are not good parameters to make predictions. For example in rome there was none game changer technology, the Oil age by the other hand was a game changer technology who allow the exponantial grow of all world cities in no time.

To make a good prediction we need to analize all the logics steps under the current technology and the closest new technology.

Then we need to analize all the logics steps in economics, politics, etc.

I am not saying that nobody do that, but from my experience everyone just used them as a constant which is a simplification that brings errors in the final prediction.

Of course things not always follow the most logic path (what is good for humanity), that is why nobody can be very accurate in predictions, but logic choices are slightly more likely to happen than bad choices.

[baggers]

Why so many people mention the Fermi Paradox in this thread? Is not very related... And it does not work to make a point either

The idea behind it is "if we have no evidence of anybody doing an interstelar travel before, maybe it's simply because it's impossible/impraticable"

It's only one in a bunch of answers of this "paradox", tough.

[vger]

But you need talent more than money to be successful in something.

If you could hold a press conference and say, "I can fund a space program with more cash per year than NASA has had during its entire lifespan," getting the talent wouldn't be very difficult.

[baggers]

If you could hold a press conference and say, "I can fund a space program with more cash per year than NASA has had during its entire lifespan," getting the talent wouldn't be very difficult.

Maybe you can try a Kickstarter?

Like: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102678844

XXI economy, man!

[ChrisSpace]

, Here's a few things I have to say.

First, this post I made in a similar thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/116849-The-Dark-%28seriously-very-dark%29-future-of-human-space-flight/page9

Second, this forum blog I made a while back: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/entries/3462-The-Future-of-Manned-Interplanetary-Missions

I'm as supportive of space travel as can be, and I really think governments and more private space companies should work more on advancing human spaceflight. However, I do agree that we should be spending more focus on the humanitarian problems right here on the ground. When we solve our energy and hunger crises, then we can focus on getting our tentacles out there and colonizing other worlds.

Agreed. While there will never be a time of total peace and equality on earth, problems such as terrorism, racial equality, gender equality, poverty, hunger, Cold War II, healthcare, homelessness, WMDs etc etc should be reduced by a significant amount before world governments start colonizing other worlds. Private companies, such as SpaceX, do not have as many such setbacks and should go for it.

Realism is supposed to be in-between optimism and pessimism.

And it is! Humans could go extinct within the next 50 years from a wide range of natural or man-made catastrophii, but, despite knowing that, we still have hope.

Bill Gates should start his own space program. It's not like he's going to do anything else with that money.

Whoa, whoa, slow down there! Bill Gates is doing a lot of good things for the world with his money! He's, like, wiping out diseases and stuff!

That last one isn't quite pessimistic, pessimistic is "not in this millenia".

Or 'not at all'

Optimism is "SpaceX will go to Mars in 5 years without any problems at all."

<-- I am right about here

Realism is "SpaceX will go to Mars in 10-15 years, after having learned from some failures along the way."

Pessimism is "SpaceX will never do anything because nobody is interested."

By that scale, I am very slightly below 'Realism'. I'm thinking 15-25 years for SpaceX (2030 to 2040)

But you need talent more than money to be successful in something.

Nope. When it comes to any world-changing venture, money is always more vital than anything else.

We don't need nuclear fission to explore outer space. Apollo showed us that high-energy chemical reactions can land two Earthlings on the Moon and bring them back. Space Station showed us that with chemical reactions and persistent spirit we can keep a piloted orbital facility continuously occupied, comfortable, and safe.

If we are going to try to make space payload launching affordable, or try to send humans anywhere beyond mars, chemical propulsion simply will not do. It is only a matter of time before SpaceX, China and India see that.

...And this is the only thing in this thread that makes ME pessimistic about space travel. There will never be agreement that we have solved all of our problems here on Earth. If that's the prerequisite for getting more money to expand into space, we're never getting there.

There is always the possibility a sudden nuclear war or climate catastrophe will make conditions on earth so bad that we will prefer to colonise space more than stay on a deteriorating earth.

Sorta like the background story of Civilisation: Beyond Earth. the video where they explain the background story can be found here:

...that has no less than 4 major nearby colonizable bodies (Moon, Mars, upper Venus atmosphere, and Calisto)...

If we expand our range slightly, that number goes up dramatically with Mercury, Ceres, Ganymede, Europa and the moons of Saturn.

[cicatrix]

I think the real turning point will be at the moment we build a space elevator. It will dramatically reduce the kg to orbit costs and will allow large orbital constructions. Now we have 6 people on orbit but at this point we'll have hundreds or even thousands. There will be stations that offer not only basic living conditions but some comfort as well. It will be a good terminal for Moon transportation. I don't think anyone would be willing to live on the Moon permanently but some working shifts that last for several months might become real. If there is anything on the Moon that is worth building an outpost there it would be built at this point.

Space would become less thought of as 'costly and unnecessary' but simply as one of many industries. Some business models and private enterprises will follow. I think we would stop there for some quite time. We will continue sending probes or even manned spacecrafts to other planets but they will be still rare and would still raise some questions from 'space pessimists'. Really, several months of travel to Mars in a tiny cabin is not what one might consider an attractive perspective. Probably some automatic probes will do the work. That, I think is the prospect for the next 200-300 years. Perhaps then we'll be able to think of colonies outposts on the other planets (Mars, Titan, maybe).

I don't think we'll attempt any serious interstellar mission in the next five hundred years though.