High School Debate topic: Space development and Exploration

[Khanguy]

I thought that the high school debate topic for 2011-2012 would be fun to share. Any thoughts on how space exploration and development of space can be implemented is appreciated.

Topic:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth’s mesosphere.

 

[Chronos]

Probes are more efficient. Sending humans into space is unnecessarily expensive and complicated. Sending a man to the moon was an exercise in politics, not practicality. There is no need to repeat that waste of resources. The international space station is a more sensible laboratory for testing human endurance.

 

[ladykrimson]

Probes are more efficient. Sending humans into space is unnecessarily expensive and complicated. Sending a man to the moon was an exercise in politics, not practicality. There is no need to repeat that waste of resources. The international space station is a more sensible laboratory for testing human endurance.

I am just curious. Why do you consider the moon landings as a waste of resources?

 

[phyzguy]

Probes are more efficient. Sending humans into space is unnecessarily expensive and complicated. Sending a man to the moon was an exercise in politics, not practicality. There is no need to repeat that waste of resources. The international space station is a more sensible laboratory for testing human endurance.

The point is not just exploration, the point is eventual colonization of space. We eventually need to move beyond the Earth as the only habitat for humans. Arthur C. Clarke said, "The Earth is just too small and rickety a basket for the human race to keep all of its eggs in," Try reading some books about space colonization - "The High Frontier" by Gerard O'Neill is a good one.

Since we are the only intelligent race that we know of, I think we have an obligation to spread, rather than sit here passively until we are snuffed out by the next Chicxclub asteroid, the sun heating up, or some other disaster.

 

[Nabeshin]

The point is not just exploration, the point is eventual colonization of space. We eventually need to move beyond the Earth as the only habitat for humans. Arthur C. Clarke said, "The Earth is just too small and rickety a basket for the human race to keep all of its eggs in," Try reading some books about space colonization - "The High Frontier" by Gerard O'Neill is a good one.

Since we are the only intelligent race that we know of, I think we have an obligation to spread, rather than sit here passively until we are snuffed out by the next Chicxclub asteroid, the sun heating up, or some other disaster.

While this may be true on long timescales, in the short term I think almost everybody would agree that the money would be better spent on raising the quality of life for people here on Earth rather than manned space exploration and colonization. There is a time and a place to begin to begin wading out into the cosmic pond, as it were, for survival's sake, and we clearly are not at that point yet. So the only other reason then for manned space exploration besides survival is science, and Chronos is absolutely correct -- humans are marvelously inefficient at this. The benefits involved in sending humans are completely outstripped by the extra costs.

For example, while it is true that a Mars rover might make a poor decision and get itself lost, stuck, or miss something we might consider "interesting", for the cost of sending a manned mission we could have dozens!

It's a glorious idea, sending humans to space and all, and it involves a little bit of wonder in us all no doubt. But simply because it strikes a chord with us does not make it practical.

 

[ladykrimson]

While this may be true on long timescales, in the short term I think almost everybody would agree that the money would be better spent on raising the quality of life for people here on Earth rather than manned space exploration and colonization. There is a time and a place to begin to begin wading out into the cosmic pond, as it were, for survival's sake, and we clearly are not at that point yet. So the only other reason then for manned space exploration besides survival is science, and Chronos is absolutely correct -- humans are marvelously inefficient at this. The benefits involved in sending humans are completely outstripped by the extra costs.

For example, while it is true that a Mars rover might make a poor decision and get itself lost, stuck, or miss something we might consider "interesting", for the cost of sending a manned mission we could have dozens!

It's a glorious idea, sending humans to space and all, and it involves a little bit of wonder in us all no doubt. But simply because it strikes a chord with us does not make it practical.

Probes miss the human element. Take the lunar surface, for example. No one knew that regolith would be so sticky on the moon. The probes did not relay this bit of information. If you would like to see benefits that might not have developed had humans simply sent probes to the moon, have a look at this:

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/apollo.htm

In my opinion, the benefits far exceed the cost. There may not be immediate benefits, true. Since when is science impatient?

I also agree with phyzguy about the human race being on one planet. Instead of putting it off, we should be exploring space and overcoming any obstacles that prevent us from doing so now instead of waiting for an event that necessitates a deadline.

 

[phyzguy]

While this may be true on long timescales, in the short term I think almost everybody would agree that the money would be better spent on raising the quality of life for people here on Earth rather than manned space exploration and colonization. There is a time and a place to begin to begin wading out into the cosmic pond, as it were, for survival's sake, and we clearly are not at that point yet. So the only other reason then for manned space exploration besides survival is science, and Chronos is absolutely correct -- humans are marvelously inefficient at this. The benefits involved in sending humans are completely outstripped by the extra costs.

For example, while it is true that a Mars rover might make a poor decision and get itself lost, stuck, or miss something we might consider "interesting", for the cost of sending a manned mission we could have dozens!

It's a glorious idea, sending humans to space and all, and it involves a little bit of wonder in us all no doubt. But simply because it strikes a chord with us does not make it practical.

A couple of questions:

(1) When do we start?
(2) How rich do we need to be before we spend money on space colonization? The NASA budget is about 16 Billion$/year. As a point of comparison, Americans spend 160 Billion$/year on luxury goods. Do we need to increase the spending on luxury goods 10X, 100X, 1000X before we can afford human exploration of space?
(3) Where would we be if Columbus had made the same decisions?

 

[Nabeshin]

Probes miss the human element. Take the lunar surface, for example. No one knew that regolith would be so sticky on the moon. The probes did not relay this bit of information. If you would like to see benefits that might not have developed had humans simply sent probes to the moon, have a look at this:

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/apollo.htm

Do you honestly think those technologies justify the pricetag for the Apollo program?

As far as the regolith goes, I'm not really a planetary scientist, but it seems to me that there is no reason probes could not have obtained that same information. True, perhaps they were programmed not to, but if we imagine a Spirit or Opportunity being sent to the moon, certainly we would have learned of this.

In my opinion, the benefits far exceed the cost. There may not be immediate benefits, true. Since when is science impatient?

It is not the science that is impatient. I would love to see more money spent on science, but productive science! Sending humans into space yields very little science that could not be gotten by a probe at a fraction of the cost. And in the economic state we're in, we need to get every bit of science we can for our dollar.

I've really yet to hear any convincing explanation of what humans in space could do for us that probes could not -- science wise.

 

[Nabeshin]

A couple of questions:

(1) When do we start?
(2) How rich do we need to be before we spend money on space colonization? The NASA budget is about 16 Billion$/year. As a point of comparison, Americans spend 160 Billion$/year on luxury goods. Do we need to increase the spending on luxury goods 10X, 100X, 1000X before we can afford human exploration of space?

These are good questions and of course I cannot give answers, nor do I intend to. I could turn this around and ask you "When should we start sending humans to Mars? How much of the NASA budget should be allocated towards this cause?" Finding a logical answer here is difficult, as anything you pick seems arbitrary. I'm simply arguing that right now, it certainly should not be a priority. It is for future generations to continually reevaluate this based on changing circumstances and find a point where it is a worthwhile endeavor.

As far as good old Columbus is concerned, he was motivated basically by profit. The New World held a wealth of riches and goods which could be (and were) exploited by the Europeans. So from an economic standpoint, sure sending expeditions may have been an economic risk, but one with enormous payoff. I ask, then, what is the payoff of human space exploration? I'm not really interested in entertaining the answers "spreading the human race" or "a sense of wonder" or any of that -- what tangible payoff other than a fuzzy feeling inside?

 

[phyzguy]

Well, we've proven one thing - it is certainly a good debate topic!

In terms of the payback, I think most people think too small. The energy and materials resources in outer space are enormous - vastly greater than what is available on Earth. Given reasonable scenarios of space colonization (I'm not talking Mars, but space habitats as advocated by O'Neill), it is perfectly conceivable that in 500-1000 years there are more people living in space than on the Earth, with space being the major engine for economic growth. Many people would call this unrealistic, as I'm sure most Europeans would have laughed at the idea that 500 years after Columbus the Americas would be a larger economic power than Europe.

 

[Drakkith]

I see it like this. The necessary technology and processes required to sustain human life somewhere other than the Earth will come much faster if we actively work toward that goal. Part of doing that is to get manned missions out there to see the effect of space and other planets/moons on the human body. Now robotic missions are still a very good idea. I prefer to have both. If you want to land on a moon or planet, its much better to send a probe ahead to scout around instead of trying to send a manned mission before you have that info.

 

[FtlIsAwesome]

The international space station is a more sensible laboratory for testing human endurance.

Yeah, but I think it would have been better if it was a rotating space station. Experiments for weightlessness can still be conducted in the center area.


I think we need better methods for spacelaunch. Our current methods are impractical, and the most expensive out of the other spaceflight costs. The amount of delta-v to go from Earth's surface to LEO is the same as going from LEO to Saturn.

 

[Drakkith]

Yeah, but I think it would have been better if it was a rotating space station. Experiments for weightlessness can still be conducted in the center area.


I think we need better methods for spacelaunch. Our current methods are impractical, and the most expensive out of the other spaceflight costs. The amount of delta-v to go from Earth's surface to LEO is the same as going from LEO to Saturn.

If anyone can come up with a way to lower the cost and still keep it reliable, I'm sure it will catch on.

 

[Khanguy]

I see here from the posts above, that spending is a HUGE part of topic. Can the US really afford to spend billions of taxpayer money to explore and potentially colonize space?

Another point of view I would like to throw out here is that of foreign policy. How will other countries react to the US colonization of space? Will this lead to another space race or even the possibility of militarization of space?

I would also like to point out that the topic may include the use of telescopes like that of the Hubble Space Telescope, because it does specify exploration of space. So instead of developing space, we can actually explore more of it.

 

[FtlIsAwesome]

I would also like to point out that the topic may include the use of telescopes like that of the Hubble Space Telescope, because it does specify exploration of space. So instead of developing space, we can actually explore more of it.

I would like to see a network of satellite observatories across the solar system for exoplanet detection. The increased parallax would allow for more precision.

 

[Khanguy]

I would like to see a network of satellite observatories across the solar system for exoplanet detection. The increased parallax would allow for more precision.

We already have networks of satellite observatories, SETI@home and Einstein@home just two examples of this.

 

[Chronos]

The world would assuredly be nervous over a significant US presence in space. They would fear the US would be unable to resist militarization of space. The converse is certainly also true. The US military would be squirming if say China started pouring an exta 100 billion a year into their space program.

Space telescopes are a fabulous use of our space dollars. The Hubble has been totally worth the scant ~10 billion dollars spent thus far on the project. The James Webb telescope will have ~10x the light gathering power of the Hubble and will cost a 'mere' ~ 6 billion dollars to put into space in 2015. I am, of course, prejudiced.

 

[Chronos]

ESA has the HIPPARCOS project, a space probe that gathered parallax measurements on nearby stars. NASA has launched Kepler, a space probe specifically intended to detect extrasolar planets.

 

[phyzguy]

Just to clarify my position, I think automated probes are great - I agree the Hubble space telescope has been a great return on investment. I just take issue with automated probes instead of human exploration and colonization. We need to do both. Can we afford it? Of course we can. Which is more important, a bigger house, a 3rd car and the new big screen 3D TV, or the future of the human race?

 

[D H]

I have an admitted bias toward the pro-human spaceflight side of the equation.

I'm of the opposite opinion of those espoused by many in this thread. When it comes to scientific research with the lowest scientific return on investment, you don't need to look much further afield than those robotic space missions. The justification for those automated missions is that humans may one day follow. If humans one day will not follow, or if that day is a long, long ways to come, why bother? Admitting humanity into the equation changes the dynamics. We do need those robotic missions, but as precursors to human missions.

 

[jambaugh]

While this may be true on long timescales, in the short term I think almost everybody would agree that the money would be better spent on raising the quality of life for people here on Earth rather than manned space exploration and colonization.

I certainly do not agree. Firstly I'm of the opinion that government money spent specifically for the purpose of "raising the quality of life for people here on Earth" has a negative efficiency, i.e. spending money makes things worse...especially in the long term. Secondly I disagree that money spent on manned space exploration has not also had the effect of improving the "quality of life for people here on Earth". Investment in technical knowledge never stops giving a return and the builds upon itself. Setting a goal, even if it is a "circus" in your opinion, focuses the effort of development. For example the shuttle program lacked a clear cut goal such as "the best way to service orbital satellites" but was rather a goal unto itself. That is fine for development but not for continued and exclusive use of the shuttle as a launch vehicle.

There is a time and a place to begin to begin wading out into the cosmic pond, as it were, for survival's sake, and we clearly are not at that point yet.

No there is no specific time and place, there is the time we will reach when we are able to so "wade" and that will occur when we've made the commitment and then developed the techniques. The point when we find out our survival is at stake will likely be far too late to begin such an endeavor. Which means now is as good a time as any to start investing in bringing THAT time closer.

So the only other reason then for manned space exploration besides survival is science, and Chronos is absolutely correct -- humans are marvelously inefficient at this. The benefits involved in sending humans are completely outstripped by the extra costs.

Assuming your premise of purpose for the moment, I would say this is a matter of how we have gone about it. We can't really "ease" into human presence in space. I don't think NASA is any longer the bureaucracy to do it and I think the whole shuttle program has been a major waste of time and money.

A more efficient approach would be to push forward with the capital investment to create a sustainable manned presence in space, specifically colonization of the moon. That is something we could do now (e.g. self sufficiency w.r.t. food and air within 20 years) for far less than say the welfare budget (which is one of those negative efficiency examples I asserted) and have much more positive effect on the target of that budget by being spent on such a program.

For example, while it is true that a Mars rover might make a poor decision and get itself lost, stuck, or miss something we might consider "interesting", for the cost of sending a manned mission we could have dozens!

This is true but one example does not prove your point. For example, development of a manned lunar launch facility would dramatically decrease the cost of hundreds of robotic Mars missions. I think the first manned trip to Mars should be for the purpose of colonization and that is indeed some time off in the future...but an indefinite time until we begin progressing towards that goal.

It's a glorious idea, sending humans to space and all, and it involves a little bit of wonder in us all no doubt. But simply because it strikes a chord with us does not make it practical.

Practicality is a matter of cost/benefit analysis. The Apollo program has more than paid for itself in spin-off technology and so the "wonder" part is just gravy on the biscuit. As far as progressing the long term practical goal of colonizing space and developing off-Earth resources, it provided major technical knowledge toward that goal. Could we have done it better and more efficiently in hind sight? Almost certainly but that hindsight is itself enlightened by knowledge gained in the very same manned program. I don't find the criticism valid.

There are multiple levels of meta-knowledge which could only be obtained by "just doing it" most importantly of which that it could be done. I find the value of that immense and incomparable to the cost in mere dollars. That is the source of that wonder and awe and why we seek to experience it by such grand endeavors. It is the very very practical return on the investment.

 

[FtlIsAwesome]

If anyone can come up with a way to lower the cost and still keep it reliable, I'm sure it will catch on.

Space elevator? Launch loop?

 

[jambaugh]

...
Another point of view I would like to throw out here is that of foreign policy. How will other countries react to the US colonization of space? Will this lead to another space race or even the possibility of militarization of space?

As for militarization of space, that's already happening. http://www.cfr.org/china/china-space-weapons-us-security/p16707"

My question is what will we do say 10 or 20 years from now if China sets up a moon base and declares the moon part of the Peoples Republic. We can scream about international treaties all we like. It will belong to whoever is willing to go there and take possession.

 

[Radrook]

The incentive for further space exploration has already been found in the lunar soil or regolith. Once mining becomes profitable, we are off and away! There is nothing like material wealth to prod mankind to greater heights of acievement! Look at the enthusiasm the Spaniards amd other European nations had in reference to the New World because of gold.

Helium-3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3

 

[Radrook]

As for militarization of space, that's already happening. http://www.cfr.org/china/china-space-weapons-us-security/p16707"

My question is what will we do say 10 or 20 years from now if China sets up a moon base and declares the moon part of the Peoples Republic. We can scream about international treaties all we like. It will belong to whoever is willing to go there and take possession.

How about all the people who supposedly have legal documents proving that they own parts o the moon? LOL

Buy Moon Real Estate
http://www.moonshop.com/

 

[Nabeshin]

I certainly do not agree. Firstly I'm of the opinion that government money spent specifically for the purpose of "raising the quality of life for people here on Earth" has a negative efficiency, i.e. spending money makes things worse...especially in the long term.

That's possible. What I meant was a little more general than just, say, welfare projects though. To take a random example, the money could be used to fund research leading to cheaper power generation, or some other such useful goal.

Investment in technical knowledge never stops giving a return and the builds upon itself. Setting a goal, even if it is a "circus" in your opinion, focuses the effort of development. For example the shuttle program lacked a clear cut goal such as "the best way to service orbital satellites" but was rather a goal unto itself. That is fine for development but not for continued and exclusive use of the shuttle as a launch vehicle.

This is very true. I feel this is especially the case for the space station, so that's a good example of something that is an end in and of itself perhaps more so than anything else. So for the most part I am agreeing with you here, it's just a question of scaling. I.e. how much money do we really want to throw into this as a fraction of the NASA budget?

No there is no specific time and place, there is the time we will reach when we are able to so "wade" and that will occur when we've made the commitment and then developed the techniques. The point when we find out our survival is at stake will likely be far too late to begin such an endeavor. Which means now is as good a time as any to start investing in bringing THAT time closer.

Obviously one does not want to wait until we know that we need to do it to begin this whole process! Ideally, I would like to see it begin once it reaches the financial point where it no longer needs to be so heavily subsidized by the government. To take a concrete example, when things like orbital space flights begin to become profitable for private companies. Of course you need to spend many years and dollars getting the technology to that point. I don't know, maybe it is the case that you just need to focus a lot of attention from an agency like NASA to get there.

Assuming your premise of purpose for the moment, I would say this is a matter of how we have gone about it. We can't really "ease" into human presence in space. I don't think NASA is any longer the bureaucracy to do it and I think the whole shuttle program has been a major waste of time and money.

I agree NASA doesn't have the capability to do it, but what about private companies?

A more efficient approach would be to push forward with the capital investment to create a sustainable manned presence in space, specifically colonization of the moon. That is something we could do now (e.g. self sufficiency w.r.t. food and air within 20 years) for far less than say the welfare budget (which is one of those negative efficiency examples I asserted) and have much more positive effect on the target of that budget by being spent on such a program.

I just flat out disagree. For the initial investment necessary to get a project like that underway, I would much rather have a dozen (or however many) James Webb Space Telescope like projects.

This is true but one example does not prove your point. For example, development of a manned lunar launch facility would dramatically decrease the cost of hundreds of robotic Mars missions. I think the first manned trip to Mars should be for the purpose of colonization and that is indeed some time off in the future...but an indefinite time until we begin progressing towards that goal.

If someone could show me figures saying "Yes, it will cost 1 trillion to put a base on the moon, but given the reduction in costs of launching probes, it will pay for itself within 30 years" I would be right on board with you. The thing is, I don't think anyone could say that. Perhaps I'm wrong, and of course there always is the unknown element to how having a lunar base would reduce costs of current NASA operations and plans.

Practicality is a matter of cost/benefit analysis. The Apollo program has more than paid for itself in spin-off technology and so the "wonder" part is just gravy on the biscuit. As far as progressing the long term practical goal of colonizing space and developing off-Earth resources, it provided major technical knowledge toward that goal. Could we have done it better and more efficiently in hind sight? Almost certainly but that hindsight is itself enlightened by knowledge gained in the very same manned program. I don't find the criticism valid.

There are multiple levels of meta-knowledge which could only be obtained by "just doing it" most importantly of which that it could be done. I find the value of that immense and incomparable to the cost in mere dollars. That is the source of that wonder and awe and why we seek to experience it by such grand endeavors. It is the very very practical return on the investment.

I'll just start off this one by saying that I'm not terribly familiar with the cost/benefit of the Apollo program other than it was costing a significant fraction of our GDP at the time. Also, it seems to me like whichever technologies came out of the program could have been obtained much cheaper without all the bells and whistles of going to the moon (Of course, perhaps you didn't even know about them until you needed them for your rocket, so this criticism is weak). The question of whether or not the Apollo program was worth it monetarily, solely in terms of offspring technologies, is a question of numbers which I don't have so I cannot debate it.

Absolutely it is the case that missions like Apollo give us invaluable experience in how to send humans into space. This experience in and of itself is an immense reward, as it allows us to pursue more complicated projects like permanent space settlements or travel to other worlds. However, this "benefit" can only really be considered as such if manned space exploration is one of our top priorities. I.e. if you have a space agency whose primary goal is to create bigger telescopes, knowledge on how to send men to Mars is useless. I am arguing, and have tried to make a case for, a set of priorities in which manned space exploration is not high on the list, in which case the knowledge and experience gained is not valued much.


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

I really want to be able to support manned space exploration, as like I've said before it does strike a very deep chord with me. When I was a bit younger (mind you I'm still only an undergraduate), I made the kind of arguments people have made here for space exploration. Then when I started actually studying physics and astronomy I placed greater and greater value on those missions which could actually yield great scientific results (hubble, voyager, JWST, etc.). So I'd like to be able to say that it is a good use of money, but when I hear about real scientists' research proposals or how telescope X or satellite Y will enhance our knowledge of subject Z, I just find it difficult to compare that with the more abstract benefits of manned space exploration.

 

[Khanguy]

I agree NASA doesn't have the capability to do it, but what about private companies?

I think that the best solution is in fact to create a global space agency which integrates all current space agencies and programs. This space agency would have income from every country, making funding less of a hassle. We also avoid petty political squabbles between countries. We ultimately accomplish more at a faster rate.

 

[ladykrimson]

Do you honestly think those technologies justify the pricetag for the Apollo program?

Yes, I do. These are huge developments that help to save energy resources and human lives, priceless.

As far as the regolith goes, I'm not really a planetary scientist, but it seems to me that there is no reason probes could not have obtained that same information. True, perhaps they were programmed not to, but if we imagine a Spirit or Opportunity being sent to the moon, certainly we would have learned of this.

Yes, probes could have obtained the same information about the regolith. Consider this, though: how would we know to look for that kind of information? How would we know to program a probe to search for that kind of detail. Human perception is one of the most valuable tool on these missions. Spirit and Opportunity have been on Mars for years now, but when we sent Phoenix, we still had issues processing soil samples. The soil was so frozen that it clumped together, making it almost impossible to go through the sifter. After years on the Martian surface, why didn't Spirit or Opportunity relay that information to NASA? The reason is because we didn't even know to look for it.

It is not the science that is impatient. I would love to see more money spent on science, but productive science! Sending humans into space yields very little science that could not be gotten by a probe at a fraction of the cost. And in the economic state we're in, we need to get every bit of science we can for our dollar.

I've really yet to hear any convincing explanation of what humans in space could do for us that probes could not -- science wise.

Well, saving human lives, science-wise, is convincing enough for me. Improvement to dialysis, housing and water pipe insulation, fire-resistance, water-filtration, and dangerous gas detection. None of these things would have been possible if humans had not gone to the moon. How many more lives have these improvements saved? How much in heating and water resources have we preserved thanks to these breakthroughs? Is that not worth enough?

We also learned a great deal scientifically about our own planet. Thanks to humans being in a weightless environment, the theory of accretion gained more evidence. The human presence in space is definitely worth the cost.

 

[russ_watters]

Which is more important, a bigger house, a 3rd car and the new big screen 3D TV, or the future of the human race?

Ridiculously improperly formed question. Besides the fact that almost certainly none of us will ever go into space, you could buy TWO BILLION 3D tvs (or a hundred million cars...) for the price of one Mars mission, not just one.

You're not weighing both sides fairly.

 

[Chronos]

I'm not opposed to human exploration of space. I just think we should be better prepared. The risks of meteors, solar radiation, physiological effects of low gravity and psychological effects over time are, IMO, not well enough understood to justify a manned mission to mars. Cost is a separate issue, Earth based launches resource intensive. A moon base makes sense as a launch facility in the long term. A space elevator makes more sense in the short term

 

[ladykrimson]

I'm not opposed to human exploration of space. I just think we should be better prepared. The risks of meteors, solar radiation, physiological effects of low gravity and psychological effects over time are, IMO, not well enough understood to justify a manned mission to mars. Cost is a separate issue, Earth based launches resource intensive. A moon base makes sense as a launch facility in the long term. A space elevator makes more sense in the short term

With this, I completely agree. Even with all the benefits we accumulated through the Apollo program, it was reckless to send people into space without a full understanding of the consequences.

Science is closing in on a method to protect humans from radiation. There is a Chemistry lab in Ohio that has developed a compound called CBLB502, a chemical that, when injected into living tissue protects the subject from radiation. It is being developed to protect people from exposure to nuclear radiation or cancer patients undergoing radiation treatment. I am not exactly certain how to convert the results to cosmic and solar radiation, but Rachel Levine, whom I contacted at the facility, said that it has successfully protected non-human primates up to 6.5Gy of ionizing radiation.

 

[D H]

With this, I completely agree. Even with all the benefits we accumulated through the Apollo program, it was reckless to send people into space without a full understanding of the consequences.

First off, you are judging the mores of fifty years ago per the risk-averse mindset (IMHO overly risk-averse mindset) of today.

Moreover, if we had done what you are suggesting there never would have been an Apollo program, and there never would have been much of an unmanned space program either. It was the push to put people on the surface of the Moon that drove much of the development of our unmanned space program. Without that huge impetus there would have been little reason to have an unmanned program.

One need only look at what happened in Great Britain. The British parliament, at the urging of British space scientists, banned all governmental involvement in or support of human spaceflight activities. Those space scientists thought more money would come their way without that incredible waste of expenditures on human spaceflight. That isn't what happened. What happened was that British spending on space dwindled to the point that Britain had very few space scientists left. Those few remaining space scientists recently urged Parliament to reconsider this ban, resulting in the ban being lifted about two years ago.Parliament to reconsider this ban.

 

[ladykrimson]

First off, you are judging the mores of fifty years ago per the risk-averse mindset (IMHO overly risk-averse mindset) of today.

Moreover, if we had done what you are suggesting there never would have been an Apollo program, and there never would have been much of an unmanned space program either. It was the push to put people on the surface of the Moon that drove much of the development of our unmanned space program. Without that huge impetus there would have been little reason to have an unmanned program.

One need only look at what happened in Great Britain. The British parliament, at the urging of British space scientists, banned all governmental involvement in or support of human spaceflight activities. Those space scientists thought more money would come their way without that incredible waste of expenditures on human spaceflight. That isn't what happened. What happened was that British spending on space dwindled to the point that Britain had very few space scientists left. Those few remaining space scientists recently urged Parliament to reconsider this ban, resulting in the ban being lifted about two years ago.Parliament to reconsider this ban.

I understand what you are saying, and I do not regret the Apollo missions at all. My point was that the dangers of that mission were not known. Imagine if there had been a CME (directed towards Earth) while the astronauts were on the moon or on their way to the moon. They would have died. Nothing would have protected them. In space, cosmic radiation bombarded their systems. Some astronauts described flashing lights while they were sleeping. Look at Apollo 13.

It was reckless, done at top speed in order to "beat the Russians" to the moon. In our haste, we overlooked some massive dangers. Would I take it back? Absolutely not. It has benefited our lives tremendously. I would, however, classify it as reckless.

 

[D H]

It was reckless by today's standards. You are judging the past by the standards of today, which in itself is a reckless thing to do.

 

[ladykrimson]

It was reckless by today's standards. You are judging the past by the standards of today, which in itself is a reckless thing to do.

I see what you mean. Hindsight is 20/20.

Yes, that is correct. I am judging by today's standards.

Even if we were to turn back the clock, I still think it was a little reckless. Our goals should not have been to "beat the Russians" to the moon. In that haste, we might have overlooked certain details, like that damaged part on the Apollo 13. A little more caution might have benefited the Apollo program.

 

[mistergrinch]

The thing a lot of scientists don’t seem to get is that space exploration is not fundamentally about science! It’s about human survival and opening new frontiers so we can avoid stagnation and a Malthusian trap here on Earth. We only have one shot at becoming a cosmic species before resource scarcity and other problems kick in, and the clock is ticking. I’m so fanatical about this issue that I’m actually founding a new religion called “Cosmism”, because I think space exploration requires that kind of commitment. If a new space race starts between the USA and China, Russia or whoever, I can live with it if that’s what it takes to get our monkey asses moving onto the High Frontier!

Why are people today so #(*#$@ timid and lacking in ambition? Where is the "can do" spirit of our ancestors? Don’t you see what is at stake, and what is available to us in the Cosmos? There’s a whole universe up there and a highly unstable planet down here, and it’s always going to be that way because that’s the nature of the beast. Up in space we can create entire worlds from the ground up without tsunamis, super-volcanoes, hurricanes, droughts, etc., and any limits to growth are *far* in the future. Manned space exploration is the most rational and important thing in the world, even more important than looking at galaxies 13 billions light years away with space telescopes, so WTF are we waiting for?

 

[D H]

I see what you mean. Hindsight is 20/20.Yes, that is correct. I am judging by today's standards.

You are not only judging by today's standards, you are judging by today's standards for automobiles and airplanes.

NASA flew STS-125, the last Hubble repair mission, less than a couple years ago (May 2009). NASA did this with full knowledge that such a flight was particularly hazardous, much more hazardous than the typical Shuttle flight. The standards you deem reckless are run of the mill when it comes to human spaceflight. The Shuttle is sitting next to (not on top of!) a tank of liquid hydrogen and two solid rocket boosters. The astronauts are sitting on bombs. The solids are bombs. They cannot be turned off once they are started. To make them even more bomb-like, they are outfitted with remote control self-destruct mechanisms. One of the key jobs of the range safety officer is to send the signal that will make those mechanisms go off. (The signal has been sent once, with STS-51L.)

Yet astronauts still volunteer to go up.

 

[ladykrimson]

You are not only judging by today's standards, you are judging by today's standards for automobiles and airplanes.

NASA flew STS-125, the last Hubble repair mission, less than a couple years ago (May 2009). NASA did this with full knowledge that such a flight was particularly hazardous, much more hazardous than the typical Shuttle flight. The standards you deem reckless are run of the mill when it comes to human spaceflight. The Shuttle is sitting next to (not on top of!) a tank of liquid hydrogen and two solid rocket boosters. The astronauts are sitting on bombs. The solids are bombs. They cannot be turned off once they are started. To make them even more bomb-like, they are outfitted with remote control self-destruct mechanisms. One of the key jobs of the range safety officer is to send the signal that will make those mechanisms go off. (The signal has been sent once, with STS-51L.)

Yet astronauts still volunteer to go up.

I understand now. Still, I guess we need to be a little reckless in order to learn.

 

[jambaugh]

How about all the people who supposedly have legal documents proving that they own parts o the moon? LOL

Buy Moon Real Estate
http://www.moonshop.com/

Heinlein wrote a great story "The Man Who Sold The Moon" in which he used the legal premise that an owner of real estate owns the airspace above it with no limit on altitude. Thus the hero of the story purchased the moon from all the countries over which it orbits, and then sold shares in is venture to explore and develop it.

But in the end, the owner will be whoever can occupy the moon and has the power to hold on to it. This is the practical definition behind any legal one. Legal ownership only dictates what a government which has the power to enforce the dictate shall recognize and use its power to enforce as ownership. If aliens come along and plant a flag in the name of Zork the Great, then they own the moon by right of might and we would have the recourse only to appeal to their government (Zork) or fight a war with them.

...My point was that the dangers of that mission were not known. Imagine if there had been a CME (directed towards Earth) while the astronauts were on the moon or on their way to the moon. They would have died. Nothing would have protected them [...]
It was reckless, [...]

Firstly I dispute that they were totally ignorant of the dangers. Second I would compare this risk with the risk of a hurricane scuttling Columbus' fleet (or anyone of a number of other dangers in crossing the uncharted Atlantic in a rickety wooden sail boat). I would not call it reckless but calculated risk...and daring.

Give me the chance to take one of those Apollo trips, with the risks known, and given no one would know so there's no glory in it, I'd jump at the chance just to walk on the moon for an hour or two. That is not reckless as I'm assuming a known risk for what I deem a proportionate reward within my own value system. You can deem it reckless only in so far as what value you'd see in it...

This I distinguish from the reckless use of graphite reactors for civilian power production which led inevitably to the Chernobyl disaster, and its demonstrated risk to life and health for the regional population. That was reckless (unless you buy the arithmetic of socialism.)

[... which I likewise distinguish --lest I be misunderstood-- from the acceptable risk of using modern reactors in Japan wherein only a disaster orders of magnitude higher in damage and loss of life could cause the relatively minor concerns we are seeing now.]

 

[ladykrimson]

Heinlein wrote a great story "The Man Who Sold The Moon" in which he used the legal premise that an owner of real estate owns the airspace above it with no limit on altitude. Thus the hero of the story purchased the moon from all the countries over which it orbits, and then sold shares in is venture to explore and develop it.

But in the end, the owner will be whoever can occupy the moon and has the power to hold on to it. This is the practical definition behind any legal one. Legal ownership only dictates what a government which has the power to enforce the dictate shall recognize and use its power to enforce as ownership. If aliens come along and plant a flag in the name of Zork the Great, then they own the moon by right of might and we would have the recourse only to appeal to their government (Zork) or fight a war with them.



Firstly I dispute that they were totally ignorant of the dangers. Second I would compare this risk with the risk of a hurricane scuttling Columbus' fleet (or anyone of a number of other dangers in crossing the uncharted Atlantic in a rickety wooden sail boat). I would not call it reckless but calculated risk...and daring.

Give me the chance to take one of those Apollo trips, with the risks known, and given no one would know so there's no glory in it, I'd jump at the chance just to walk on the moon for an hour or two. That is not reckless as I'm assuming a known risk for what I deem a proportionate reward within my own value system. You can deem it reckless only in so far as what value you'd see in it...

This I distinguish from the reckless use of graphite reactors for civilian power production which led inevitably to the Chernobyl disaster, and its demonstrated risk to life and health for the regional population. That was reckless (unless you buy the arithmetic of socialism.)

[... which I likewise distinguish --lest I be misunderstood-- from the acceptable risk of using modern reactors in Japan wherein only a disaster orders of magnitude higher in damage and loss of life could cause the relatively minor concerns we are seeing now.]

Back in the days before Apollo, no one knew about the dangers of traveling outside of the protective electro-magnetic field or how one CME could have completely ended the mission and the astronauts' lives. I never said they were totally ignorant, but cosmic radiation and solar activity are huge factors.

It was reckless to make it a political race.

 

[D H]

Back in the days before Apollo, no one knew about the dangers of traveling outside of the protective electro-magnetic field or how one CME could have completely ended the mission and the astronauts' lives.

Baloney.

NASA knew the risks. The key risks were radiation from passing through the Van Allen belts and radiation from solar flares / coronal mass ejections.

The Van Allen belts were discovered in 1958, and the configuration of these belts was well-known by the time of the Apollo missions. NASA's solution was to pass through these belts quickly and to choose a path that avoided the thickest part of these belts.

Solar flares / coronal mass ejections were also a known problem. While NASA couldn't predict when solar events would occur (they still cannot do so), they did know the frequency of such of events. The Apollo missions were intentionally short so as to keep the risks small. NASA had backup plans such as delaying/canceling the launch or the translunar ejection in the case of a solar flare near the start of a mission, flying in an attitude that placed as much spacecraft bulk as possible between the astronauts and the Sun, and cutting lunar excursion short.