web
counter
 

We Have to Go for an Ideal

By Steven Lloyd Wilson | Posted Under Trade News | Comments (17)



ironman-2.jpg

“Is Stark Industries an Appropriate Model for Private-Industry Space Exploration?” It’s a cute question around which to form a panel, hooking a serious topic to something entertaining while at the same time using it as a perfect metaphor for the crisis of identity in the space industry. The bottom line is that NASA is considered hopelessly broken by many who care about the final frontier, a feeling reinforced by the decades-long stall in any real progress since the Soviets dropped out of the space race by default. The last few years have seen a resurgence in interest as private companies have picked up the reins of innovation. These little guys are in a lot of ways hopelessly behind the giant corporations like Lockheed that provide NASA with its rockets, celebrating accomplishments that were old hat to NASA back in the sixties. On the other hand, these start-up companies have started winning contracts for launching satellites because their streamlined, cut-to-the-bone approach has won them cost advantages over the big guys.

The panel was composed of a number of engineers from the various small companies, and they quickly modified the question to be a more accurate mapping of the movie to the reality of space flight. Is the future of space flight Stark Industries, the giant corporate behemoth with government contracts and private jets, or is the future Tony Stark constructing miracles in the basement?

Obviously the panel was biased, with the big companies having no representation whatsoever. But it’s a Comic-Con panel, not an impartial jury, so we’ll take what we can get. One of the primary criticisms was that the big companies had absolutely no incentive to experiment in order to make space flight affordable, that they made a comfortable profit and could not justify sinking money into experimental R&D. A panelist, a bio-medical engineer who worked on spacesuit design at a start-up, gave the example of Boeing’s construction of new airliners. They have designs that work. When they build a new plane, it’s more a matter of tweaking, of incremental improvement. But the problem with that is that revolutions in capability do not happen incrementally, they come from trying new things and learning from the failures. “When I was earning my Ph.D. in particle physics, the dumbest guys I knew were the ones looking for jobs with NASA,” said another panelist.

“NASA is like the March of Dimes Foundation,” another argued, pointing out that they did great things in the past, but had deteriorated into dead end of a bureaucracy. March of Dimes cured polio, but then persisted as a bureaucracy criticized for massive overhead and waste.

And there is a problem to be solved, a problem to which the panelists did not have an answer. Launching mass into space costs $5000 per pound. That would be $1,000,000 to put a fairly average guy into orbit, not taking into account all the food, air, water, and fuel he’d need once he was up there. For all the talk of space tourism, that’s a hell of a long way from the $29.99 Los Angeles to San Francisco special. One of the panelists put it into even starker terms of calculation. Any fuel used in space needs launched into orbit from Earth, and it would take a million pounds of fuel to get a person from Earth to Mars. That’s $5 billion to get one person to make the trip, before taking into account all the things needed to keep them alive. NASA’s budget is only $18 billion per year, and much of that is tied up in politically mandated projects.

Of course, the panelists noted, if they had Iron Man’s arc reactors, this would all be a moot point. There was a distinct hunger there, a desire to figure out new perspectives that could solve the insolvable. Wozniak was cited as an example, the way he left HP after they couldn’t appreciate the computer that anyone could use that he built in the basement.

A series of audience members asked questions, each citing a more elaborate college degree than the last, until finally a rough cut young man looking to have just come from the beach stepped up to the microphone. “Well, I just work at a coffee shop,” he said, and proceeded to ask the classic question that torments those who dream of the stars. “Why should we spending all this money launching a few people up into space? Shouldn’t we solve the problems we have down here first?”

I hammer home his self deprecating manner, his humble occupation, not to emphasize ignorance but to applaud the sheer guts it took to stand up to a panel of PhDs and ask them to simply justify what they were doing. And also to emphasize exactly the question that lovers of space exploration must be prepared to answer. One panelist pointed out that the amount of money being spent was a drop in the bucket, that NASA’s entire budget would fit dozens of times over in the Pentagon’s budget, or the Social Security Administration’s. Of course, another pointed out the truism that “we have always had problems and we always will. If we waited until our problems were solved before doing anything, we’d never do anything at all.”

Several panelists eagerly pointed out that space exploration had many avenues of potentially paying for itself. Space tourism for one, solar power production for another, and of course the oft cited proposition to mine asteroids. But one of the panelists spoke quite eloquently against these false hopes. “I have run the numbers. There is no cost benefit analysis that can justify going to space.” Even if the asteroids were pure platinum or diamond, mining them would be orders of magnitude from being profitable. “We have to go for an ideal.”









Look at Everything You're Missing Because You're Not at Comic-con, Losers! | The Kids Are All Right Review | Let's Get Together Before We Get Much Older













Comments

What if the asteroids were made of Unobtanium? Would this perhaps offset the significant dollar value attached to these missions?

Also:

I only want people to go to space and colonise other planets so, FINALLY, I can join up and become a colonial marine.

Posted by: Alex at July 23, 2010 11:11 AM

“Why should we spending all this money launching a few people up into space?" Because innovation breeds innovation...but someone's got to innovate first.

Posted by: Jay at July 23, 2010 11:13 AM

“Why should we spending all this money launching a few people up into space? Shouldn’t we solve the problems we have down here first?”

I always think back to the answer Joe Straczynski came up for this question in Babylon 5 back in 1995:

"Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu, Einstein, Morobuto, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes .. and all of this .. all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars."

Is it expensive? Yes. Is it dangerous? Yes. Is it necessary? Yes.

But the only time anyone's cared enough to pour money into it has been when nationalistic/political reasons were on the line. It takes time to switch to a more "needs-based" approach.

Posted by: Fredo at July 23, 2010 11:28 AM

I want to make nerd-love to you, SLW.

Posted by: Sean at July 23, 2010 11:29 AM

Innovation is all well and good, but there is still no good reason to be launching humans into space when machines can do those same jobs without the extra expense of food, air and water or the risk of flaming death.

Posted by: Tracer Bullet at July 23, 2010 11:47 AM

We gotta go sometime.

Posted by: Jay at July 23, 2010 11:49 AM

And since I'm not so much a fan of Babylon 5, I'd probably point to a quote from the West Wing, (Season 2, Episode 9),"Because it's next. For we came out of the cave, and we looked over the hill, and we saw fire. And we crossed the ocean, and we pioneered the West, and we took to the sky. The history of man is hung on the timeline of exploration, and this is what's next."

Posted by: Ruby at July 23, 2010 11:59 AM

Ah, Ruby beat me to it. One of my favorite quotes from that show.

And it's true. Not, mind you, at the cost of helping people down here. But I'd cut the massively bloated and embarrassing defense budget before I start cutting NASA.

And Tracer:

Innovation is all well and good, but there is still no good reason to be launching humans into space when machines can do those same jobs without the extra expense of food, air and water or the risk of flaming death.

It's not like they didn't volunteer.

Posted by: The Other Agent Johnson at July 23, 2010 12:11 PM

there is still no good reason to be launching humans into space when machines can do those same jobs

I agree. No HAL 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. They are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.

Posted by: branded at July 23, 2010 12:14 PM

I'm a scientist myself, and frankly, space is the wrong tree to be barking up right now.

Oceans, kids. We know more about the Moon than we do our oceans, and our oceans are beginning to show us some wacky shit about our planet.

We don't have time to colonize other planets right now, but we might have time to figure out how to make this one work if we put our money in the right places.

Posted by: ZombieScientist at July 23, 2010 12:18 PM

The ocean, you say?

::lightbulb illuminates::

Posted by: Andrew Ryan at July 23, 2010 12:32 PM

A good point, though I say there's no need to only have one type of exploration, plus deep space and deep sea kinda go hand in hand, and I say we're slacking on both. If it wasn't for Popular Science/Mechanics I'd be worried that no one had any imagination anymore, but they give me hope that people are thinking about this shit. Them and EPCOT remain voices in the wilderness. "Try something, fer chrissakes! It'll be great!" Plus, there's the whole Golden Path, you know. That shit is true.

Posted by: Jay at July 23, 2010 12:44 PM

“Why should we spending all this money launching a few people up into space? Shouldn’t we solve the problems we have down here first?”

This is like asking, "Why build a bridge that will last hundreds of years? Why not build one that will last about ten years and spend the money elsewhere?"

The endeavour to go into space isn't about 'you', it's about everyone that will come after you.

Posted by: Vi at July 23, 2010 1:05 PM

People say that they'd rather cut defense spending rather than NASA spending, and I can understand that to a degree, but think about this: other than Iraq and Afghanistan(which is too much spending IMHO, and I'm a soldier myself), the fact is that the money spent on defense can be seen in action. That money pays the salaries of brave men and women, both inside and outside the armed services. It pays for their health care, for scholarships, for social services, for education. Say what you want, but the welfare and jobs of those in the armed forces are never neglected and actually are a priority within the defense budget. Not only that, a great deal of that defense budget goes to missions of humanitarian aid. For example, my unit expects to be sent on a joint op in Egypt for humanitarian work within the next two years, really excited about that. Not only that, but the armed forces also have a symbiotic relationship with the private sector when it comes to technology. Many technologies that make our life easier have origins in military application. Just the conflict in Iraq alone has led to much innovation in the medical sector, for example, with new technologies for trauma control and great advancements in prosthetic technology.

The bottom line is that the money on the defense budget might not always be used wisely, but a lot of it is, and that money's use is PALPABLE. You can see where it went. You can ask the average soldier about the benefits he receives for his work and about the equipment and tools he needs for his job and he'll tell you he's good to go. NASA seems to have nothing to show for it's immense budget. No innovations, no new discoveries, no new technology that could be passed down to the public. THAT is what distresses me. There is a big question mark on NASA as an actual entity. NASA pretty much stays relevant because of the ideal, of the Trekkie view of space as the final frontier. But it saddens me to see no real progress there. I mean, fuck, it's been what, three decades since we last went to the moon? I'd DEFINITELY pitch in money so that we could go to the moon again! Or fuck, let's keep it more down-to-earth, how about more advanced communication satellites? More efficient solar panels? New polymers that can be used for more protectant firefighter suits? Pressure suits that enable you to explore the sea better. Or goddamn, you mean to tell me there's not a single scientist in NASA that could find a neat, space-inspired solution to the oil spill?

The fact is that yes, the exploration of space is an admirable goal we should pursue, but the fact is that pretty much all of humanity is not leaving the planet at all, so NASA's exploration of space should have as its ultimate goal to better the quality of life of those left behind. Build in that direction and you will probably see much more people stepping up to the challenge and NASA becoming a much more admired and supported entity.

Just my two cents.

Posted by: Danny from Puerto Rico at July 23, 2010 1:21 PM

Danny, that is utter BS.

NASA has spun off more tech than you can shake a stick at: Take a look at a partial list. And half the best stuff is in the "other spin-offs" sections or not there at all.

Posted by: ZombieScientist at July 23, 2010 1:57 PM

They forgot to mention the BEST reason for space travel : getting away from people. Space is nice and quiet. I would live in a lighter grav if it meant I had a place to call my own. Even if it had purple grass and big bad unknowns. Flaming death is a small price to pay for the high you get from falling away from everything you ever knew.

Posted by: DeckOfficer!! at July 23, 2010 3:13 PM

One could make the argument that the lives saved from weather satellites alone made our past investments in spaceflight worthwhile. What we will learn about life support and recycling will be applicable to humans on Earth. People with skeletal or muscle disorders may find living on our moon or Mars provides a life with less pain and greater functional ability. Most of the energy and raw material in the solar system is not on Earth; you can't pollute a place that's deadly in seconds and there are no natives to exploit; the potential is there to turn Earth into a park! A place for people where innovation is encouraged, not smothered as something that endangers the status quo. The ability to take an asteroid that might threaten human extinction and turn it into resources useful to humans on Earth and in space. The expansion of civilization to guarantee that wars and political stupidity will not make surviving humans into subsistence farmers whose lives are "nasty, brutal, and short." All this and more rides on human spaceflight development while we have the wealth and the will to do it. The alternative is a planet full of people with ever-decreasing standards of living without the resources to ever again find a home beyond the surface of our planetary prison.

Posted by: Stewart at July 24, 2010 12:45 AM

















mindholeblowers.gif viral_hits.gif
>> Pajiba Movie Posters

>> Pop Culture's 20 Greatest Dancing GIFs

>> The 100 Greatest Insults of All Time

>> The "Other" 100 Greatest Movie Quotes

>> The 100 Greatest Movie Threats of All Time

>> The Sean Bean Death Reel

>> Chicks Dig Beards: It's Science

>> The Coolest TV Show Title Sequences

>> The Most Rewatchable Movies

>> The Most Expensive Movies of All Time