[Closed] Space Exploration...... Is it really worth the cost?

If there was some higher being looking down on us at the moment I think it'd do well to keep us quarantined on this planet, at least until we've learned to be a good universal citizen by clearing up the mess we've made of the earth, social inequity, greed, wars and all our other unpleasant traits.

Have you seen how nasty aliens can be! There's some proper wrong 'uns out there! 😀

No, no its not a good point: the effect of space travel on humans has high relevance to not only future space exploration, but also relevance here on earth (materials, propulsion systems, computer technology, communications etc etc). Studying standing on your head in a bucket of sewage only has one result: how to survive standing on your head in a bucket of sewage.

No, no its not a good point: the effect of space travel on humans has high relevance to not only future space exploration, but also relevance here on earth (materials, propulsion systems, computer technology, communications etc etc).

Yeah yeah, that old one! Think of all the beneficial side products of space exploration - like Teflon!

Trouble is the gaping (black) hole in that argument is that the beneficial things that come out of the space programme are just that - coincidental side products. If instead we took the space budget (and all the industrial might and brainy people it absorbed) and directed in solely on developing new products for the benefit of humanity, we'd have come up with a lot more than a non-stick coating for frying pans! We could have advanced renewable energy by decades, developed new antibiotics that bacteria aren't resistant to, and maybe even solved third world hunger through advances in agriculture.

I say it again - let's put the effort and money into solving the problems we have created here on our own planet, before we have the audacity and arrogance to reach out and start populating other worlds!

how much do we learn from far flung unmanned missions that is of actual use to us today or in the near future?
The sums spent are massive, and as for the idea that we've got it so why not spend it, I'm not sure I agree with that?

Need to unpick this a bit:

What do you mean by near future? It's only in living memory that anyone even orbited the earth with anything, let alone further exploration. That was far flung exploration once (recently!). And you agree satellites are useful? Other far flung human exploration includes the Americas....

Are the sums massive? They're massive for an individual (even then, I could argue), but for a government, really?

Look at EU or US funding on space [b]exploration[/b] (not the "useful" stuff like satellites etc) and compare it to total spending. What would massive be? 10%? 50%? 1%? 0.001%? Which of those is it [b]actually[/b].

600 million for india.... sounds like pocket change down the back of the sofa to me. And it's money spent employing indians in high tech industry, driving demand for well educated population etc.*

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30137334 - wonder how many spacecraft that would pay for? Oh wait, I can check... http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities ok that's buying them privately, but that's about 50 rockets. And I'm sure Elon would give us a bulk buy discount 😉

*ponders firing politicians into space for the same cost as re-doing the houses of parliament*

Next you'll be advocating we cut funding for the arts... ( i leave it to an interested party to look up and compare those numbers, here are some old ESA ones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Space_Agency#Budget_appropriation_and_allocation but bear in mind that's all of europe)

*just checked, 2015 spending about 200 billion, assuming all that 600million is in one year (it won't be) their space spending is about a quarter of a percent.

Well that quotation from The Matrix may be good theatre but it's inaccurate. Any mammal (well any lifeform) will multiply unchecked given enough resources and few predators. Eventually the population will level out when there is a limit on resources. I would suggest our population has reached the unsustainable point.

Coming back to the why of unmanned missions - as I said before it's acquisition of knowledge. How can you possibly not want to know stuff if you have the means to find out? Or is whatever form of "Woo" is currently en vogue adequate to explain everything?

Think of all the beneficial side products of space exploration - like Teflon!

Don't forget those pens that can write underwater as well 😀

perthmtb - Member

Trouble is the gaping (black) hole in that argument is that the beneficial things that come out of the space programme are just that - coincidental side products. If instead we took the space budget (and all the industrial might and brainy people it absorbed) and directed in solely on developing new products for the benefit of humanity, we'd have come up with a lot more than a non-stick coating for frying pans!

That's not really how it works. For one thing, the developments weren't "coincidental", they were absolutely integral. Essentially the space programmes become massive directed research programmes with huge amounts of spinoffs and spinouts, and very little of it's pointless outside those fields. But more importantly, it's hard to sit down and go "let's invent this". Studying materials leads to novel discoveries on their properties which then leads to "hey, this thing we discovered can do this". Which is why you design spaceships and get frying pans (and teflon is a hell of a lot more useful than that).

The other is that if you subtract funds from space programs, chances are you don't end up spending it on your now-directionless large scale research program, you spend it on bombs or tax cuts or MP expenses. Or, 500 small research programmes without the scope to produce big results (and which often get saddled with "discover X using Y" and end up doing nothing much)

perthmtb - Member
I say it again - let's put the effort and money into solving the problems we have created here on our own planet, before we have the audacity and arrogance to reach out and start populating other worlds!

Space travel helps to inspire us in solving these problems too.

Space travel helps to inspire us in solving these problems too.

I wonder how we measure global climate, monitor receding ice caps, provide timely information in the event of floods, extreme weather or other natural disaster? When we spill oil (deepwater etc.) I wonder how we monitor that?

Do any of those count as solving this planet's problems? Guess not 😉

I say it again - let's put the effort and money into solving the problems we have created here on our own planet, before we have the audacity and arrogance to reach out and start populating other worlds!

I completely agree. However, we should still explore space and benefit from all the knowledge, perspective, and technology that goes with it.

I say it again - let's put the effort and money into solving the problems we have created here on our own planet, before we have the audacity and arrogance to reach out and start populating other worlds!

The biggest problem we have on our own planet is over population - a cull would be a very cheap and quick option.

Space exploration is fine and dandy...

If we really want to solve problems on this planet, we have to take a long hard look at the arms industry, as not only does it swallow up vast sums of money, but it also [url= http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/06/whats-the-environmental-impact-of-modern-war ]spreads pollution on a global scale[/url], both physical and spiritual.

Imagine for a moment if instead of being radicalized by being bombed and left homeless/injured/fatherless/motherless/childless etc as a result of corporate pursuit of resources and power, people were being encouraged to reach their full potential in exploring alternative sources of energy and advancing space travel technology for the benefit of us all.

Then maybe we could ship off all the nasty pasties who start wars for profit on a gleaming space cruiser called something majestic like 'Titanic' or something.

Technology development may be a nice by product but surely space travel is the acceptable, if expensive, by product of war.

So what we need is better weapons development of course we may not survive to turn it into space travel.

Where does all this money they spend go? On wages. They don't burn tenners to get these things in orbit. So the money just goes back in to the system.

We don't even spend that much on space exploration. Single digit percentages of national budgets (at most). The costs have been returned as profit many times over. Sending 'robots' to Mars, and probes to Pluto (and beyond), is a small part of the overall (profitable) budget.
If you ask me, we're *too* focused on research with expected outcomes and quantifiable return, there's not enough blue sky research.
Countries with advanced technology economies, like south Korea, spend waaaay more than we do on R&D, including space research.

If the beauty of discovery doesn't inspire you, then just think of the basics. We spend a little bit of money researching valuable technology, and we get to learn about the universe beyond our atmosphere as a spectacular bonus. And make lots of profit too.

So, we spend a little bit of money on space research, we make lots of profit from the new technology needed (because space is hard), and some people think we spend too much money on space?

FFS.

Look how far we have come since Wright brothers.
How far could we be in the next 150 years?
[img] /revision/latest?cb=20090319165201[/img]

We could have advanced renewable energy by decades, developed new antibiotics that bacteria aren't resistant to

A lot of renewable or eco friendly tech is developed for space exploration. Resources are highly limited in space so we need to recycle and reuse as much as we can. The machinery also needs to be highly efficient to harness as much energy as possible into what ever useful job it's doing rather than convert it to heat.

There have been some major advances in antiviral and antibacterial medicines from experiments done in the ISS. Viruses seem to thrive in microgravity a lot more than on Earth and can become a lot more aggressive as a result we've been able to do experiments and gather data which could be very hard to do on Earth.

There are also studies being performed on growing plants in space. If we could use the moon or other bodies for agriculture it would reduce the impact farm land has on natural habitat. There are also many other rare minerals in space which could stop us from digging up the planet.

But I understand the point you are making ie why not just focus on fixing these things in first place rather than using spin off ideas.

I think this is because ideas thrive more when there is a real goal or problem to solve. i.e. "We need to make a person survive in space for 1 week with only 20 litres of water ... How do we do this?" I think this type of situation usually creates better advances compared to "lets figure out how to use water more efficiently". The resource limits put on engineers for space exploration in terms of mass, available power etc .. makes them think out of the box a lot more giving better solutions.

If you ask me, we're *too* focused on research with expected outcomes and quantifiable return, there's not enough blue sky research.

FFS

makes them think out of the box a lot more giving better solutions.

But does the over reliance on our existing academic structure prevent them doing this? Being taught how to think conventionally is arguably the biggest challenge to being able to think outside the box.

Starlite anyone?

Most of the deep space missions are relatively cheap as there are so few of them, and manned missions are non existent. Unmanned they are very cheap. Manned missions so far have been low orbit and the one bunch of moon missions long ago now.

The majority of our exploration of things "out there" are done from observatories and satellites back home.

Unmanned deep space missions have generally been to understand the rocks that surround us. Far more interesting recently has been to look at things other than the main planets, but smaller bodies and asteroids. These are things that benefit us in understanding geology back home. Could even help us predict earthquakes. Places with atmospheres can help us look at our own climate. Mars and Venus in particular are examples of what may happen to Earth in the future.

Looking at asteroids and even landing on them, is vital as we could easily be wiped out by one. It's easy to dismiss as it will never happen just because we haven't had a major extinction size asteroid in millions of years, but doesn't mean we won't get one tomorrow. Smaller scale, enough to wipe out a town or city, that happens more frequently. Just we've been lucky they've been in remote areas.

Understanding all this could save us.

Besides all this, cost of space exploration is shifting to the private sector which unlike costly wasteful government funded space programmes, are competitive and look for the biggest return for lowest cost.

At present private missions are commercial satellite launching ventures, but they're getting cheaper and the results are cheaper technology for longer missions. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35157782

Space exploration pays for itself.

[url= https://theconversation.com/space-research-pays-for-itself-but-inspires-fewer-people-23549 ]https://theconversation.com/space-research-pays-for-itself-but-inspires-fewer-people-23549[/url]

There has been a lot written about the effect of the Apollo missions upon the USA, including the huge leaps in tech and the inspiration of the next generation of scientists and engineers.

Being as the mariana trench is likely to be more livable than any of the planets we yet know about (at least it has water) I really don't get the colonization aspect of space travel. The technology advancement/because it's there/s**ts and giggles aspects are perfectly acceptable reasons but personally I'd rather the Billionaires used their money and influence to help us stop sha$$ing the planet in the first place rather than finding us somewhere to live once we do.

Being as the mariana trench is likely to be more livable than any of the planets we yet know about (at least it has water) I really don't get the colonization aspect of space travel. The technology advancement/because it's there/s**ts and giggles aspects are perfectly acceptable reasons but personally I'd rather the Billionaires used their money and influence to help us stop sha$$ing the planet in the first place rather than finding us somewhere to live once we do.

Of the things we could cut spending on, space research and exploration is way down the list. In both terms of how much would be "redirected" and the effect of not funding it in the first place.

I'd rather the Billionaires used their money and influence to help us stop sha$$ing the planet in the first place rather than finding us somewhere to live once we do.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

not to mention that the job of trying to work out how to live on another planet DOES feed back into more renewable, sustainable and resourceful ways of doing things on this one, and that's before you look at all the other myriad of benefits, but the big one about working out how to reliably move beyond this chunk of rock is to ensure the continuation of our species, an admirable goal no?

Space exploration pays for itself

Having read the source for your statement (and the source of the source) I think that is a spurious argument.

Their logic is that the billions of dollars the US Government pours into NASA has beneficial knock-on effects for society as a whole, because every dollar invested creates ten dollars of 'goods and services' circulating in the wider economy - therefore it "pays for itself".

The flaw in this particular argument is that the same would happen if the government poured the same amount of money into just about anything else - such as infrastructure, education, healthcare etc. It's called the 'multiplier effect' and is the basic economic principle behind all Government spending, used to good effect by a number of countries recently to 'stimulate' their way out of recession.

And if you add into the equation that the Government coffers aren't bottomless and so they have to pick and choose what they invest in, then the argument becomes which investment gives the better overall return for society.

My personal view is that space programmes have more to do with ego, posturing, and general willy waving by governments than economic stimulus, and that the economic multiplier effects and eventual trickle down of [u]some[/u] of the technology into the general economy is used as a justification, but isn't as much as would happen by investing the same money directly into things such as biotech, IT, or renewable energy.

Of course that totally ignores the more existential arguments about the search for knowledge and the future of mankind, but that's not what the article was saying, it was trying to justify the spend on space programmes by economic benefit alone.

Of course that totally ignores the more existential arguments about the search for knowledge and the future of mankind, but that's not what the article was saying, it was trying to justify the spend on space programmes by economic benefit alone.

Indeed, it's a distraction argument in itself as it's borne from the idea that something must have an economic benefit to be worthwhile, which is kinda the point that is being argued. There are benefits beyond the economic that make it worthwhile, some level of economic feedback is a side benefit, but the people that can't see the other benefits are the ones who tend to focus on the economic and want that element justified like it's all that matters.

but isn't as much as would happen by investing the same money directly into things such as biotech, IT, or renewable energy.

The amusing thing is that they (^) ARE an integral part of space tech and vice versa!

We can afford anything, all the numbers are made up bullshit

Where does all this money they spend go? On wages. They don't burn tenners to get these things in orbit. So the money just goes back in to the system

As stated most space missions ultimately only throw a few hundred pounds worth (scrap value) of aluminium, batteries and electronics. The money goes into making these incredibly strong, light powerful and resilient and eventually this knowledge will benefit us all (i't not just material science - it's certainly helped push the development of microelectronics and telecommunications. The missions by their very nature throw up a lot of difficult technological questions and the money is spent answering them.

Are there more important challenges? (yes improving female eduction in the developing world is well regarded as our best hope of a better future) and is it a little carbon intensive? (probably not comapered to something like videogaming). But it's sexy science, it attracts the best and the brightest, it certainly has its place.

natrix - Member
Think of all the beneficial side products of space exploration - like Teflon!
[b]Don't forget those pens that can write underwater as well[/b]

A common urban legend states that NASA spent a large amount of money to develop a pen that would write in space (the result purportedly being the Fisher Space Pen), while the Soviets just used pencils.[2][3] There is a grain of truth: NASA began to develop a space pen, but when development costs skyrocketed the project was abandoned and astronauts went back to using pencils, along with the Soviets.[2][3] However, the claim that NASA spent millions on the Space Pen is incorrect, as the Fisher pen was developed using private capital, not government funding. NASA – and the Soviets[3][4][5] – eventually began purchasing such pens.

NASA programs previously used pencils[6] (for example a 1965 order of mechanical pencils[7]) but because of the substantial dangers that broken pencil tips and graphite dust pose to electronics in zero gravity, the flammable nature of wood present in pencils,[7] and the inadequate quality documentation produced by non-permanent or smeared recordkeeping, a better solution was needed. Russian cosmonauts used pencils, and grease pencils on plastic slates until also adopting a space pen in 1969 with a purchase of 100 units for use on all future missions.[8] NASA never approached Paul Fisher to develop a pen, nor did Fisher receive any government funding for the pen's development.[7] Fisher invented it independently and then, in 1965, asked NASA to try it. After extensive testing, NASA decided to use the pens in future Apollo missions.[6][8][9] Subsequently, in 1967 it was reported that NASA purchased approximately 400 pens for $6 a piece.[8]

Money is arbitrary in the grand scheme of things. We should explore - because we can.

Lets also scotch the "teflon" rumour. Polytetrafluoroethene products were on sale in the USA in 1946.