Space pessimists

[Rune]

On the forum for a game that promotes ideas of space exploration and colonization, I see many posts talking about how "reusable launch vehicles will never be economical because mass production and labor costs are more important" and "we will never have flight rates high enough for affordable space travel" and "space colonization will never be practical" and "humans will never go to Mars in this century, or never at all."

Now I do see the point about colonization being impractical. It's true that the most extreme environment on Earth (not counting the deep ocean) will still be better than Mars or the Moon, so how can we avoid having "all our eggs in one basket?"

But I get tired of this letdown attitude, that we will never get anywhere. That it will always be a pointless endeavor. Especially when it's on a forum like this one.

You say that because you expect to see the far future. By definition, you'll be dead, and that makes you sad. But even when I tell you that it's very likely NASA won't get anywhere in the next 50 years, I also tell you that in 500 hundred years there will be more humans living off Earth than in Earth, and in 5,000 the word "ship" will not invoke images of seas and sails, but of space. Either that, or we go extinct, and I highly doubt that: to smart and adaptable to completely die off, even if we screw ourselves royally.

It took 25 years for the telcom satellite market to pick up and it is still in the process of becoming truly private-owned. It took planes a whole century to become a common occurrence, and a coupe of big wars to actually improve to the point where they can be used for mass transport. Space is so much harder, it'll take us likely longer still to make it turn a profit for space workers (which is the only way you'll get colonization, when it's worth it living there if only for lack of space here). But I sincerely believe we will, so I refuse to be called a pessimist just because I think it'll take more than a single human lifetime.

Rune. People's mentality also need to shift, and that takes generations.

[Kibble]

in 500 hundred years there will be more humans living off Earth than in Earth

Just 500 years? Anatomically modern humans appeared around 200 000 years ago, but only started migrating to anywhere out of Africa 130 000 years after that.

[cicatrix]

Just 500 years? Anatomically modern humans appeared around 200 000 years ago, but only started migrating to anywhere out of Africa 130 000 years after that.

Progress is said to be exponential.

[Rune]

Just 500 years? Anatomically modern humans appeared around 200 000 years ago, but only started migrating to anywhere out of Africa 130 000 years after that.

And the world population 500 years ago was 500 million, 1,500 400 years later, and today we are over 7,000. These things are exponential, and the exponent increases with technological prowess. But sure, apply a +/- 50% error factor.

Rune. Ditto for the economy to support the space industry.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Rune

[Frozen_Heart]

I do think that some people on the forum are overly pessimistic though even I try to not get too optimistic with regards to space.

People are like this due to having space travel on the decline their entire lives. We haven't been back to the Moon, then the shuttle program was finished leaving the US with no manned space flight, the ISS has no planned replacement, and the senate launch system is only going to fly a couple of test missions if that. Of course people are going to be pessimistic.

Hopefully now private companies are finally appearing they can gradually restart proper space travel. Profit can motivate humans more than anything else to if someone can make it in space then others will join them.

I heavily dislike the pessimist attitude though. If you say nothing can ever improve and that we're at the most advanced space travel can get then it will never advance.

[Nibb31]

Progress is said to be exponential.

Technological progress isn't linear or exponential. It works by leaps, alterning exponential acceleration with slower periods until a new breakthrough is made. The rapid progression of computer science since the 60's is the tree hiding the forest of other fields, because the progression also varies for each field of research. Aerodynamics or chemical propulsion haven't evolved much over the last 20 years. Computers have, but they seem to be reaching a plateau in term of processing density for example. Moore's law is slowing down.

It's the rule of dimishing returns. When a new technology appears (flight, DNA, automobile, nuclear power...), the early progress is spectacular and can appear exponential. Early improvements are impressive and require little effort, but the more you advance, the more complex it gets and each iteration of improvement gets more and more expensive, requiring more work and more compromises.

- - - Updated - - -

I heavily dislike the pessimist attitude though. If you say nothing can ever improve and that we're at the most advanced space travel can get then it will never advance.

I disagree. Anything that we say or do won't have any impact on these forums. When the time comes when space travel make sense economically, socially, and politically, then we will find the technological ways to do it. Until then, the best we can do is to fund research in hope that we might find a new application that opens those economical, social, and political gates. If those reasons don't materialize, well, no big deal. In the grand scheme of the Universe and Time, we are as insignificant as a spec of dust. Our achievements don't matter.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Nibb31

[AngelLestat]

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.

Ok, is true, but is not very realistic invest money in an unsustainable way. So a good comparison is sustainable money income vs talent.

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.

Ok, I was not thinking in interstellar travel. But a manned interstellar travel is at hundred of years away, any prediction with so large time spawn worth nothing, is like try to predict weather with 50 days ahead.

So being pessimist or optimist does not change the fact that both are being silly in their predictions.

Besides the paradox may be wrong in its hypothesis, maybe interstellar travel is not necessary, maybe communications are different, there are many logic aspects which can asnwer the question "why is so difficult to make contact if the universe is full of live".

Technological progress isn't linear or exponential. It works by leaps, alterning exponential acceleration with slower periods until a new breakthrough is made. The rapid progression of computer science since the 60's is the tree hiding the forest of other fields, because the progression also varies for each field of research. Aerodynamics or chemical propulsion haven't evolved much over the last 20 years. Computers have, but they seem to be reaching a plateau in term of processing density for example. Moore's law is slowing down.

It's the rule of dimishing returns. When a new technology appears (flight, DNA, automobile, nuclear power...), the early progress is spectacular and can appear exponential. Early improvements are impressive and require little effort, but the more you advance, the more complex it gets and each iteration of improvement gets more and more expensive, requiring more work and more compromises.

.

He was talking of general progress, and you change the answer to technological progress.

But even technological progress follow a exponential trend if you join those point leaps, population growth and new technologic tools helps to discover more things each year compared with previous years, patents growth exponential.

Your aerodynamics example is also incorrect in this subject, you can not measure technology progress by single branchs, is a whole.

Once you discover how the forces act over a bounce spring, there is not much left to discover in that matter.

Edited May 19, 2015 by AngelLestat

[tater]

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.

I was talking about track records since the 1950s, not Rome

[AngelLestat]

I was answering to PakledHostage too.. you dint notice it?

[tater]

I was answering to PakledHostage too.. you dint notice it?

Yeah, it was after my quote, though, and I was the one who talked about track records (meaning NASA, and other world space programs).

No worries.

[Mr Shifty]

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.

Oil wasn't the game changer. Both oil and coil have been used for heat and light for thousands of years. There was even refinement of oil into kerosene as early as the 13th century. But oil wasn't used as a large-scale fuel source for engines until the mid 19th century. The first electric power stations, in the late 19th century, were hydro-electric or coal-fired. The industrial revolution itself was powered mostly by energy from coal (and water), but the game-changing technology wasn't fossil fuel utilization, but standardization of tooling and large-scale manufacturing (particularly of textiles) using machines. I'm no student of Roman history, but I can speculate that the Romans developed similarly disruptive technologies: aquaduct water transfer, paving, bridge building, concrete, glass-blowing, mining, plumbing, siege engines, turbine-driven mills, etc.

[crazyewok]

I'm all for space travel. Jeez, if I randomly won the lottery the first thing I'd do is book a ticket to the ISS or some other orbital flight. But from the standpoint of the whole of humanity, I see right where they're coming from.

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.

We solved world hunger years ago, we have enough food to feed the world a number of times over.

Problem is broken country s and massive political corruption in the country’s with starvation.

NASA,ESA,JAXA and th countrys they belong too ect are not responsible for those country’s, they can only fix themselves.

If NASA or ESA had its budget increases 10 fold I would not have a single issue.

If Angola started a billion doller space program I would have a problem....

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Chemical rockets are slow, they are expensive, they are unreliable and they and inefficient.

They could get a short term manned expedition to mars but thats there limit for manned exploration. Unmanned we are nearing there limit too as they will NEVER get beyond the solar system at least in any reasonable time.

If we want want mars and moon colonies and manned mission beyond mars and Probes outside the the solar system we need a NEW propulsion method.

[Goomblah]

For anyone who feels that there is insufficient desire / financial motivation / technology for humanity to expand beyond Earth:

http://www.mars-one.com/

Mars One is a foundation that intends to build a permanent Mars colony, with the first humans leaving for Mars in 2026. Unmanned missions will assemble infrastructure and land necessary equipment in place for when people arrive.

They plan to pay for the mission primarily through media; such an audacious goal as landing a permanent colony on Mars is going to attract a lot of attention, so naturally, Mars One plans on taking full advantage of that hype by forming deals with television producers and advertisers to make money through sponsorship deals and a TV series based around the candidate selection process, training, and the mission itself.

Building a Mars colony on ad revenue is probably just crazy enough to work, haha

[SargeRho]

Mars One is also unlikely to ever go anywhere. No funding, no spacecraft. nothing that indicates that they have any kind of chance to succeed.

[Mr Shifty]

<stuff about Mars One>

Mars One's been hashed to death on the forums. See [thread=47036]this thread[/thread], which runs to 65 pages.

[PakledHostage]

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.

Just for the record, "Rome wasn't built in a day" is an English (and French, it seems) idiom. To quote the Wikipedia article I linked to, it is an "adage attesting to the need for time to create great things".

[ZetaX]

We solved world hunger years ago, we have enough food to feed the world a number of times over.

Problem is broken country s and massive political corruption in the country’s with starvation.

NASA,ESA,JAXA and th countrys they belong too ect are not responsible for those country’s, they can only fix themselves.

Your understanding of politics is... severaly lacking. Do you really think that poor countries are poor by choice or how else would your post make any sense beyond being horribly naive¿ Those countries are part of the same world we live on and are not existing on their own. They are also not just us but 100 years backwards or so.

Not even speaking about how NASA's budget could solve the problems of many; which would at least be serious argument ("is spending money on research instead of helping the poor possibly a net positive?").

Edit: stupid typo.

Edited May 19, 2015 by ZetaX

[Karriz]

Maybe there's a bit too much pessimism here, but also some unrealistic expectations. I'm not sure where I stand, of course I like to think I'm a realist, whether that's true or not.

I'm personally very optimistic about what SpaceX is doing, that's really where things seem to be actually going forwards. Big expendable rockets like SLS won't help us colonize Mars, it needs to be sustainable.

There'll be some big changes within the next couple of decades. A couple of private space stations and a Mars landing by 2035. No harm in hoping so.

[AngelLestat]

Oil wasn't the game changer. Both oil and coil have been used for heat and light for thousands of years. There was even refinement of oil into kerosene as early as the 13th century. But oil wasn't used as a large-scale fuel source for engines until the mid 19th century. The first electric power stations, in the late 19th century, were hydro-electric or coal-fired. The industrial revolution itself was powered mostly by energy from coal (and water), but the game-changing technology wasn't fossil fuel utilization, but standardization of tooling and large-scale manufacturing (particularly of textiles) using machines. I'm no student of Roman history, but I can speculate that the Romans developed similarly disruptive technologies: aquaduct water transfer, paving, bridge building, concrete, glass-blowing, mining, plumbing, siege engines, turbine-driven mills, etc.

Ok true, fossil fuels is not a technology, technologies breakthrough were those able to exploit with ease the fossil fuels, as the internal combustion engine.

Just for the record, "Rome wasn't built in a day" is an English (and French, it seems) idiom. To quote the Wikipedia article I linked to, it is an "adage attesting to the need for time to create great things".

heh ok. ok.

Why you use those english quotes as argument in the first place? also you know that my english level does not include english common abbreviations or phrases

But well, this is not the place to make arguments, just to analize why some people are pessimist or optimist.

[PakledHostage]

But well, this is not the place to make arguments, just to analize why some people are pessimist or optimist.

As an aside, someone once pointed out to me that pessimists are always on time while optimists are always late... So it seems that there are at least some advantages to being a pessimist.

[Beowolf]

Well, my "realist" position (I assume every one of us thinks he's the realist, though!) is there simply isn't the economic motivation for the sort of space exploitation we'd like to see. It's just too expensive to go to space. But whenever a profitable market develops, we'll be there to take advantage. Look at communications satellites for an example. They're crazy expensive, too, but still cheaper than the alternative of covering the planet with fiber optics, so launching them is a thriving business.

All we have right now is ideas of where to look for great wealth in space. But verifying whether that wealth actually exists costs tens of billions, so isn't worth it right now. But one of these days, a pure science mission will find some evidence that'll make a commercial prospecting voyage worth the risk.

IMO, the best thing humanity can do right now to hurry that day is to lower the cost of getting to LEO. You can work the supply-demand curve from either direction, but there's no escaping it.

[crazyewok]

Your understanding of politics is... severaly lacking. Do you really think that poor countries are poor by choice or how else would your post make any sense beyond being horribly naive¿ Those countries are part of the same world we live on and are not existing on their own. They are also not just us but 100 years backwards or so.

Not even speaking about how NASA's budget could solve the problems of many; which would at least be serious argument ("is spending money on research instead of helping the poor possibly a net positive?").

Edit: stupid typo.

Stop being pedantic. Yes what I said was simplified but rules say we cant go into political detail on the forum.

But my point still stands. Technology wise hunger and poverty are not a issue. The technology has been around decades. Its purely a political issue.

A issue that benefits little at randomly throwing money at. Cutting NASA ect and throwing money at 3rd world hunger ect is futile. Its futile when the system in place in such trouble areas would waste it away.

[ZetaX]

Stop being pedantic. Yes what I said was simplified but rules say we cant go into political detail on the forum.

But my point still stands. Technology wise hunger and poverty are not a issue. The technology has been around decades. Its purely a political issue.

A issue that benefits little at randomly throwing money at. Cutting NASA ect and throwing money at 3rd world hunger ect is futile. Its futile when the system in place in such trouble areas would waste it away.

Has it ever appeared to you that helping them does not just mean what you describe¿ Instead, help them to get the infrastructure, political stability and such to be self-sustaining and richer in the future. And that requires mones, lots of it. It also requires forethought and indeed politics. But it isn't politics alone; having the tech already is not enough, you need to deploy it, teach people to use it, and stabilize the areas to some degree. Some of these come hand in hand, but neither are "throw more money at it" nor "politics/people (both ours or their's) just need to want a better system". It's a complicated system that requires a lot of attention of all kinds to solve it.

[Findthepin1]

Whoever makes the next space breakthrough will probably be NASA. Whoever finds a use for it probably won't.

[randomness5555]

I'm personally pretty optimistic-Skylon's been developing steadily (Being british I will be very proud indeed when the first one takes off), Space X looks like they're going to go far indeed and I don't think public interest has either gone nor is it ever going to be gone-heck, KSP's popularity proves that. NASA does need more funding to get anything like colonisation done, but they're giving valuable help to other space programs so even they are still contributing. Personally I say it's probably best to not worry about the pessimists on the forums-because it will be progress that proves them right-or more likely (IMO) wrong.