The Space Race Today

[Joshington]

This is something that's been bugging me since I started playing KSP a few months back: What if the space race never ended? Like say, we got to the moon, and Richard Nixon said "Yeah good job guys, now you have until the end of the next decade to get to Mars. Have fun!" and then we got to Mars. Then the next president said "Alright, that's cool and all, but let's get a colony up and running." So we set up a colony on the moon. Then the next president...well, you get the picture. Where do you think we would be in space by now if we continually kept on advancing in the space industry?

[Nibb31]

If we had unlimited funding, we might have a colony on Mars by now. But we can't really say, because it would be a whole different world. Your "what if" assumes that there was unlimited funding and continued support for space. There would be no Vietnam War and no economical crisis, which would have been unlikely.

I don't think it would have been possible to sustain a space race over 40 years. One of the reasons the USSR collapsed was because the spending simply wasn't sustainable.

[DerekL1963]

This is something that's been bugging me since I started playing KSP a few months back: What if the space race never ended? Like say, we got to the moon, and Richard Nixon said "Yeah good job guys, now you have until the end of the next decade to get to Mars. Have fun!" and then we got to Mars.

The problem isn't getting a President to say things - the problem is getting the President to invest political capitol and getting the Congress to pay for it. It's debatable if Apollo would have happened in the form it did had Kennedy lived, within months of his speech the mounting costs began to bother him and he began quietly exploring other avenues. But he was assassinated, and LBJ (who had something of a fascination with space) pushed Apollo as a monument to Kennedy. Even so, it wasn't sustainable - by FY '65 Congress was already in a cutting mood and LBJ lacked the juice to halt the bloodletting. By '67, Apollo was gutted.

[Motokid600]

And now the space shuttle went the way of Apollo..more or less. Its a great concern of mine about humanitys future. Ignorant people think space is a waste of money. They say "we have all these problems down here why waste money going up there." Comments like that really get under my skin. These people fail to realise that the solutions to our problems down here ( Damn near all of them ) is up there. In space. On another world. Hell the solution to the energy crisis hangs up in the night sky every other month staring us in the face. I blame social media and media in general. Humans have become far to disconnected from the outside world. Most people think the world ends at the horizon and when they look up at the stars they see a flat, 2d canvas with random points of light and go "meh" and then return to their smartphones on facebook. If only people looked up more often.

Nasa is grossly under funded. Half a penny is what comes out of your paycheck. That's what bought the shuttle. That's what bought the ISS. 0.5 cents... "How much would you pay for the universe?" - Niel DeGrasse Tyson

Edited July 12, 2013 by Motokid600

[Spartwo]

I think a new space race,a private space race is just beginning...

[Drunkrobot]

Your opinion assumes smartphones and Facebook were around in 1972. The problem is that it's hard to show people the benefit of space. Remember, a decent fraction of the people in the most developed, "advanced" nations on Earth are genuinely scared of the number 13. Try explaining to them the benefits of placing a manufacturing base on the Moon, then building Solar-Based Power Stations there and placing them into geosynchronous orbit when they're the sort of people who are scared of a number. Many people today, and many people in 1972, don't see beyond the horizon because they don't see how amazing space, and science in general, is.

[Nibb31]

And now the space shuttle went the way of Apollo..more or less. Its a great concern of mine about humanitys future. Ignorant people think space is a waste of money. They say "we have all these problems down here why waste money going up there." Comments like that really get under my skin. These people fail to realise that the solutions to our problems down here ( Damn near all of them ) is up there. In space. On another world.

I'm not too sure about that. You don't solve our problems by going to space. Space expands our boundaries, but the Earth will always be there, with the Humanity on it, and all our problems.

Hell the solution to the energy crisis hangs up in the night sky every other month staring us in the face. I blame social media and media in general. Humans have become far to disconnected from the outside world. Most people think the world ends at the horizon and when they look up at the stars they see a flat, 2d canvas with random points of light and go "meh" and then return to their smartphones on facebook. If only people looked up more often.

Humanity didn't need smartphones and facebook to be more concerned by their immediate self interests rather than the wonders of the universe. Self concern is nothing new.

Nasa is grossly under funded. Half a penny is what comes out of your paycheck. That's what bought the shuttle. That's what bought the ISS. 0.5 cents... "How much would you pay for the universe?" - Niel DeGrasse Tyson

I agree with this. We should definitely be spending more on space exploration and scientific research in general.

I think a new space race,a private space race is just beginning...

There is no private space race without government money paying for it.

[Scotius]

There is no private space race without government money paying for it.

Remember: Spanish Crown funded Columbus's expedition across the Atlantic without much hope for profit. As soon as he returned with news that there is something valuable out there merchants, colonists (and sadly conquistadors) followed en masse. Granted, there is no America-like place in our Solar System - but there are other things. Space, minerals, all the energy we would need. And other things we only theorise about for now - new industrial processes possible only in micro-gravity, new drugs, new ways of doing chemical processes. Chances of safely conducting experiments that are too risky on Earth...And we won't know what else until we get there.

[Moon Goddess]

One of the reasons the USSR collapsed was because the spending simply wasn't sustainable.

Thing is though USSR couldn't sustain it's spending because A) was kept hemmed in without room to expand. lacked ocean trade routes. C) kept getting tied up in land wars, and D) kept being push into a spending competition with a nation that had control of both major oceans and nearly unlimited ability to expand it's trade.

Implying that USA would have the same spending problems really discounts the resources available to the 2 nations. At the time USSR looked powerful, looking back in it you can see they really never had a chance, and that's not a value statement on the peoples, the nations or the ways of life, just simply the US had the resources they would need going forward.

Your opinion assumes smartphones and Facebook were around in 1972. The problem is that it's hard to show people the benefit of space. Remember, a decent fraction of the people in the most developed, "advanced" nations on Earth are genuinely scared of the number 13. Try explaining to them the benefits of placing a manufacturing base on the Moon, then building Solar-Based Power Stations there and placing them into geosynchronous orbit when they're the sort of people who are scared of a number. Many people today, and many people in 1972, don't see beyond the horizon because they don't see how amazing space, and science in general, is.

I recently had a coworker who complains about taxes all the time, and has stated that the space program is a waste, express his worry about a news report he hard about failing satellites making hurricane prediction difficult. Some people are immune to being able to see hypocrisy in themselves.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Moon Goddess

[DerekL1963]

Remember: Spanish Crown funded Columbus's expedition across the Atlantic without much hope for profit.

Well, that's a correct statement, but a hopelessly superficial summary of the situation. The only reason they didn't have much hope for profit is because of the large percentage of long distance sea voyages that failed for one reason or another. But they did expect that if there *was* a profit, it would be huge - literally millions of times cash return on investment, not to mention the political and military advantages accruing to a nation that ruled a major trade route to the Orient. It was a gamble, but a carefully considered one and not made frivolously. The money was spent knowing the odds against a certain return, not simply tossed away for the sheer hell of it.

Granted, there is no America-like place in our Solar System - but there are other things. Space, minerals, all the energy we would need. And other things we only theorise about for now - new industrial processes possible only in micro-gravity, new drugs, new ways of doing chemical processes. Chances of safely conducting experiments that are too risky on Earth...And we won't know what else until we get there.

That's some tasty kool-aid you're serving up there. But it's nonsense. We're not running short of space, minerals, or energy here on Earth - and won't be for the foreseeable future. Our current problems with those are political, not fundemental natural constraints. As far as the others... well, that's all theory, but pretty much none of them offer any reason to spend the trillions required to see if they exist.

(And yeah, the only private space race going on is a race to lap at the goverment's trough.)

[PakledHostage]

C) kept getting tied up in land wars

They fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia"...

[Dkmdlb]

And now the space shuttle went the way of Apollo..more or less. Its a great concern of mine about humanitys future.

The Space Shuttle was horrible.

Nasa is grossly under funded. Half a penny is what comes out of your paycheck. That's what bought the shuttle. That's what bought the ISS. 0.5 cents... "How much would you pay for the universe?" - Niel DeGrasse Tyson

Why don't you pitch in a little extra? Nobody is stopping you. No need to force other people who don't want to pay for it to do so.

[Moon Goddess]

They fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia"...

It is funny, we lost those wars, but our goal wasn't to win. It was just to keep the soviets busy. Now, I'm not saying we had any idea that's what our goal was. We really thought we needed to win, but all in all it didn't matter, just busy work.

[PakledHostage]

Sorry. Possibly too obscure a pop culture reference for our international audience...

Edited July 12, 2013 by PakledHostage
Fixed YouTube link

[Spartwo]

There is no private space race without government money paying for it.

copenhagen suborbitals are at a pre-sputnik stage but quickly advancing(and they are privately funded)

http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/

and there are simply not enough resorces on the planet at current population levels

http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable

(there was a bbc documentary but I can`t find it now)

[Drunkrobot]

We're not running short of space, minerals, or energy here on Earth - and won't be for the foreseeable future.

Sorry to go slightly off-topic, but there are hard limits on what the Earth can give us. Let's focus on power. I'm not going to lecture you on the environment impact fossil fuels have-climate change is a big issue, but I'm going to talk purely in an economic sense. Oil and coal are predicted to last several decades, a few centuries at the very most. That's at current demand, we're going to need much more per year as the "third world" develops and industrialises. Also, we can't just wait for the last deposit to dry out, and immediately switch to something else- it takes years, decades even, to change an entire infrastructure. We can either do that now,when we are functioning and progressing as a species,or do it later, and spend that time finding new forms of power in the dark ages. Since most people alive right now rely on infrastructure that will no longer exist, there will not be enough food or water or medicine for everyone...

It doesn't have to be like that. We could transition gradually to something else. My comment above mentions solar power stations in orbit around the earth-setting up enough to provide power for everyone will cost billions or trillions of dollars-but is that any different to the trillions invested in fossil fuels, that will evaporate when that last barrel of oil is pumped from the ground?

Edited July 12, 2013 by Drunkrobot

[Moon Goddess]

Sorry. Possibly too obscure a pop culture reference for our international audience...

Oh sorry, I got the reference, favorite movie of all time, second maybe to The Last Unicorn (I might be showing my age.)

I just went the serious direction rather than the funny... My apologies, I should have thrown in a "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."

[MK3424]

This is something that's been bugging me since I started playing KSP a few months back: What if the space race never ended? Like say, we got to the moon, and Richard Nixon said "Yeah good job guys, now you have until the end of the next decade to get to Mars. Have fun!" and then we got to Mars. Then the next president said "Alright, that's cool and all, but let's get a colony up and running." So we set up a colony on the moon. Then the next president...well, you get the picture. Where do you think we would be in space by now if we continually kept on advancing in the space industry?

Never heard of the book "Voyage" by Stephen Baxter?

It is a fictional novel in wich Kennedy wasn't killed, but his wife and further developed the exploration to space by going to Mars and beyond.

Ther is a Orbiter mod covering one of those missions, a video can be seen here:

[Nikolai]

No need to force other people who don't want to pay for it to do so.

Except that we all do.

I don't like paying for wars or corporate subsidies. But I do like having sidewalks, interstates, public libraries, a space program, a postal service, 911 service, police, firefighters, national parks, food for the poor, subsidies for basic research, public television, public schools, a publicly-accessible judicial system, and so on.

We all pay for things that either decrease the suck in the country, increase the awesome in the country, or both. And we all pay for some things we'd rather not. Hopefully, a responsible public can steer a representative democracy into some kind of sane direction where we all get something good. "I don't want that public program, so I shouldn't have to pay for it, even if I live in a pluralistic society" seems a trifle parochial.

[DerekL1963]

It doesn't have to be like that. We could transition gradually to something else. My comment above mentions solar power stations in orbit around the earth-setting up enough to provide power for everyone will cost billions or trillions of dollars-but is that any different to the trillions invested in fossil fuels, that will evaporate when that last barrel of oil is pumped from the ground?

If oil or space based solar were the only options - you'd have a valid argument. But like so many others that have drunk the kool-aid, you ignore all the *other* options, because they utterly destroy your argument.

[Fractal_UK]

If oil or space based solar were the only options - you'd have a valid argument. But like so many others that have drunk the kool-aid, you ignore all the *other* options, because they utterly destroy your argument.

To be fair though, space based solar power utilising resources throughout the solar system is a fairly exciting mechanism in that the theoretical generation potential outstrips what is possible on Earth by so many orders of magnitude. It's not a capacity that I imagine will be needed within my lifetime or indeed most likely many generations after that (though I imagine prototypes aren't quite so many years away) but it's still an exciting prospect and would represent a monumental human achievement.

Likewise, I mostly agree with the point you make about asteroid mining and resources. The major niche that I could see for it right now would be to target asteroids with deposits of particular metals that have an extremely low natural abudance within the Earth's crust. There are some materials for which the entire worldwide production of these materials is measured in grams or kilograms. Many of these elements are very heavy and thus extremely rare on large planetary bodies, where they are found locked up totally inaccessibly within the core but can be found much more readily on the far smaller asteroids that we'd be prospecting.

It could also allow insertion of resources into LEO in quantities that might be prohibitively expensive simply by launching them up there, potentially unlocking other avenues of advancement in space exploration.

It's certainly not going to be a profitable thing to do in the near future but I don't buy into the idea that means it isn't worth doing. By prototyping the technology and investing in the capability, we give ourselves the opportunity to later invent a way of using it for something that does prove to be profitable and will no doubt create along the way a whole host of technical capabilities that will have applications beyond even the space sector.

[Drunkrobot]

I am aware that there are many, many other options, but the thread was about the possibility of the space race continuing after the moon landings. I didn't want to start lecturing on every potential replacement to fossil fuels. I just decided to mention the most brash, ambitious and expensive option that has something to do with space, and how even it's costs don't compare to the financial disaster that will happen when the human race runs out of fossil fuels and doesn't have an alternative ready to go.

[Scotius]

Well, to be fair we already have such alternative - nuclear energy in its many variants. And we are working on another option, that might turn orbital power stations obsolete before they will be buit - fusion power.

[Fractal_UK]

Well, to be fair we already have such alternative - nuclear energy in its many variants. And we are working on another option, that might turn orbital power stations obsolete before they will be buit - fusion power.

Fusion power and space solar are completely orthogonal to one another. There is no reason to believe that one or the other would make the other obselete.

[Nibb31]

We won't be using space to get power. An orbital solar farm is twice more efficient than a solar farm on the ground? Who cares? Just build a solar farm on the ground that is twice as big. It will still be massively cheaper, and we are not running out of sunny real estate any time soon.

The sheer energy involved in building a massive power plant and accelerating it from 0 to 25000km/h will always be higher than the power output of that power plant. Also, factor in the loss of beaming that power back down to the ground, the cost of the ground stations that are going to convert that beam into electricity, and the complexity and risk involved. It's a no go.