Final Thoughts
Part 7 of a 7 part series
Part 1: On The Proposed NASA Budget
Part 2: Understanding Current NASA Structure: Space Race to the Shuttle
Part 3: Fundamental Problems with the Shuttle, ISS, and Constellation
Part 4: Commercial Space
Part 5: 2009: The Obama Administration Takes Stewardship of NASA
Part 6: Mars: Still Within Reach
So yeah, this is the last of this series. Now I can get to other projects I've promised, like a report on my use of electronic cigarettes to quit tobacco cigarettes (early report: awesome. I'm gonna track down some stuff on the health aspect of it for people to read, and then have something to say about the legal aspect, not to mention a report on my own usage.) Also, hey, remember when my LJ was something I kept personal notes on?
Also, this issue is starting to hit the news feeds. Obama speaks Thursday in Florida, which is Ballsy, because Florida is getting a big kick in the balls from the new budget (though it also preserves a lot of the Florida infrastructure). At this point it looks like Constellation is dead, but that this is going to be a big ass budget fight. We'll see-- if it turns out that way, well, now you're primed on the issues yourself. Anyway, back to this whole shebang:
I started out thinking that I would split the difference a neutral party. In fact, for the month I've been doing this series, this sentence in my rough draft started out "I think I come out of this a nuetral party." I'm changing it now because I don't think that's the case, anymore. The more I've thought about it, the more I think the new route for NASA is really the best.
One the one hand, It would be awesome to go back to the Moon and learn about long-term survival on other planets (and planetoids), and then eventually to go to Mars and do a long-term survival mission there. We will eventually need to do that if it is our intention to expand our civilization beyond Earth itself, and I think that this is actually imperative upon our evolution as a species. In the short term-- I think it's imperitive because I think eventually, as technology continues to evolve, it's highly possible that humanity will ruin Earth as a living environment, either through nuclear war, or perhaps a physics experiment gone awry, or some super-virus, or whatever.
I think modern culture is obsessed with apocalyptic visions because since the rise of nuclear weaponry, it has become clear that our possible extinction as a species could come as a result of our own actions-- and we are well aware that we are not perfect. More, I think that overall, the human population will continue to grow-- as it should-- and that eventually we will overpopulate the world if we don't find a way to expand beyond it, even if we don't accidentally (or purposefully) destroy ourselves first. Currently, all our eggs are in this basket called Earth-- eventually it would be the wise course to put some eggs in the 'baskets' of the Moon and Mars.
On the other hand, we (being the collective we, humanity) spent gabillions on the Space Station, and by skipping the Moon to do a VASIMR-based flag-plant mission to Mars, we'd be developing new propulsion technology which would cut our travel time in the Solar System to a sixth of our current capability. That's not just Mars, but it would enhance our access to every other planet and planetary satellite in the Solar System. VASIMR, if it works, is the next step in exploring our Solar System, not just Mars. That puts more potential baskets in our reach.
More, the US isn't the only sizable economy supporting a space program anymore. Russia has more or less been economically crippled, but now there's China. China, who is already suffering from the effects of overpopulation, will probably engender a space program more focused on colonization rather than exploration. These are potentially parallel paths, if we can break the Cold War Space Race mentality and think about it as citizens of humanity before we think of ourselves as citizens of given nations.
Constellation-based access to Mars would take years, if not a decade or more, of the study of long-term effects of partial gravity on human physiology before we ever went to Mars. That means expensive lunar base facilities where such study can be had, which, while a noble scientific goal in and of itself, is easily within the capability of other space-faring nations to carry out. The Chinese, the Indians, the Europeans-- the Moon is something they can achieve. It gives them something to work towards. For the US, the Moon is just trying to recapture old glory. We've done it, we know how to do it again. Mars is something I believe only the US can achieve, and I believe we can achieve it better and probably faster using a VASIMR-based approach.
The latter path also costs less, in the long run, and is likely to give us more broad access to Mars. Looking ahead to second, and third ventures to Mars, and beyond that, to a 15th or further-- the VASIMR path to Mars is simply more robust, cheaper, and safer. The only technical advantage Constellation offers is that it uses known technology (for the most part) and thus has a faster development cycle, getting us there faster (maybe)-- the first time (but not the second, or the third, etc.). It requires us to do all this research on the Moon to boot, which is cool in a science geek kind of way, but not so cool in the expanding human access to space kind of way, and way not so cool in thinking about what kind of budget would be needed. While it is safer in some respects, there is a great deal that we just don't know about surviving in the long term in partial gravity on another planet, and that itself presents risks that I don't think are being weighted as heavily as they should when considering the Constellation program.
As someone who believes the next step in human evolution is achieving the ability to establish self-sustaining colonies beyond our home planet, I think the latter option is the more robust of the two, even if it means mankind doesn't reach Mars until I'm in my 50's oor 60's.
Further, NASA shouldn't be making the choice to play it safe, which is effectively what Constellation essentially represents (even if this estimation underestimates what we have yet to learn about living on other planets). NASA exists to push the boundaries of known technology to accomplish the seemingly impossible. By setting the high bar for the capability of technology, the innovations produced and discoveries attained benefit society as a whole when these solutions are then turned to every day use. The applications of technologies originally developed for use in space continue to bear fruit, creating entirely new technology markets and industries.
A pertinent example in our current economy would be fuel cells-- those Prius' and other Hybrids wouldn't be possible without technology originally developed to bring lightweight electrical power to Moon missions. Space technology broke ground on fuel cells, and eventually a domestic market put further development into it and produced a new technology that has filtered down to the every-day. There are a great many examples of this, and one should seriously consider it's impact on our long-term economic growth, considering we live in an economy which is ever more driven by technological development and applications.
The new budget spends much more on new technologies, instead of spending instead into legacy technologies that are just plain expensive. New tech means an expansion of the economy, as new products and industries develop. This new budget is more responsible, not only because it avoids the glaringly obvious cost-overruns Constellation was going to cost, not only because it recognizes that NASA was never going to abandon the International Space Station (even though their budget said they were going to), but also because it means greater investment in new technologies, development that will have long-term dividends for the economy at large for decades to come. It builds the future, rather revisiting the past. That's what NASA should do.
Part 1: On The Proposed NASA Budget
Part 2: Understanding Current NASA Structure: Space Race to the Shuttle
Part 3: Fundamental Problems with the Shuttle, ISS, and Constellation
Part 4: Commercial Space
Part 5: 2009: The Obama Administration Takes Stewardship of NASA
Part 6: Mars: Still Within Reach
So yeah, this is the last of this series. Now I can get to other projects I've promised, like a report on my use of electronic cigarettes to quit tobacco cigarettes (early report: awesome. I'm gonna track down some stuff on the health aspect of it for people to read, and then have something to say about the legal aspect, not to mention a report on my own usage.) Also, hey, remember when my LJ was something I kept personal notes on?
Also, this issue is starting to hit the news feeds. Obama speaks Thursday in Florida, which is Ballsy, because Florida is getting a big kick in the balls from the new budget (though it also preserves a lot of the Florida infrastructure). At this point it looks like Constellation is dead, but that this is going to be a big ass budget fight. We'll see-- if it turns out that way, well, now you're primed on the issues yourself. Anyway, back to this whole shebang:
I started out thinking that I would split the difference a neutral party. In fact, for the month I've been doing this series, this sentence in my rough draft started out "I think I come out of this a nuetral party." I'm changing it now because I don't think that's the case, anymore. The more I've thought about it, the more I think the new route for NASA is really the best.
One the one hand, It would be awesome to go back to the Moon and learn about long-term survival on other planets (and planetoids), and then eventually to go to Mars and do a long-term survival mission there. We will eventually need to do that if it is our intention to expand our civilization beyond Earth itself, and I think that this is actually imperative upon our evolution as a species. In the short term-- I think it's imperitive because I think eventually, as technology continues to evolve, it's highly possible that humanity will ruin Earth as a living environment, either through nuclear war, or perhaps a physics experiment gone awry, or some super-virus, or whatever.
I think modern culture is obsessed with apocalyptic visions because since the rise of nuclear weaponry, it has become clear that our possible extinction as a species could come as a result of our own actions-- and we are well aware that we are not perfect. More, I think that overall, the human population will continue to grow-- as it should-- and that eventually we will overpopulate the world if we don't find a way to expand beyond it, even if we don't accidentally (or purposefully) destroy ourselves first. Currently, all our eggs are in this basket called Earth-- eventually it would be the wise course to put some eggs in the 'baskets' of the Moon and Mars.
On the other hand, we (being the collective we, humanity) spent gabillions on the Space Station, and by skipping the Moon to do a VASIMR-based flag-plant mission to Mars, we'd be developing new propulsion technology which would cut our travel time in the Solar System to a sixth of our current capability. That's not just Mars, but it would enhance our access to every other planet and planetary satellite in the Solar System. VASIMR, if it works, is the next step in exploring our Solar System, not just Mars. That puts more potential baskets in our reach.
More, the US isn't the only sizable economy supporting a space program anymore. Russia has more or less been economically crippled, but now there's China. China, who is already suffering from the effects of overpopulation, will probably engender a space program more focused on colonization rather than exploration. These are potentially parallel paths, if we can break the Cold War Space Race mentality and think about it as citizens of humanity before we think of ourselves as citizens of given nations.
Constellation-based access to Mars would take years, if not a decade or more, of the study of long-term effects of partial gravity on human physiology before we ever went to Mars. That means expensive lunar base facilities where such study can be had, which, while a noble scientific goal in and of itself, is easily within the capability of other space-faring nations to carry out. The Chinese, the Indians, the Europeans-- the Moon is something they can achieve. It gives them something to work towards. For the US, the Moon is just trying to recapture old glory. We've done it, we know how to do it again. Mars is something I believe only the US can achieve, and I believe we can achieve it better and probably faster using a VASIMR-based approach.
The latter path also costs less, in the long run, and is likely to give us more broad access to Mars. Looking ahead to second, and third ventures to Mars, and beyond that, to a 15th or further-- the VASIMR path to Mars is simply more robust, cheaper, and safer. The only technical advantage Constellation offers is that it uses known technology (for the most part) and thus has a faster development cycle, getting us there faster (maybe)-- the first time (but not the second, or the third, etc.). It requires us to do all this research on the Moon to boot, which is cool in a science geek kind of way, but not so cool in the expanding human access to space kind of way, and way not so cool in thinking about what kind of budget would be needed. While it is safer in some respects, there is a great deal that we just don't know about surviving in the long term in partial gravity on another planet, and that itself presents risks that I don't think are being weighted as heavily as they should when considering the Constellation program.
As someone who believes the next step in human evolution is achieving the ability to establish self-sustaining colonies beyond our home planet, I think the latter option is the more robust of the two, even if it means mankind doesn't reach Mars until I'm in my 50's oor 60's.
Further, NASA shouldn't be making the choice to play it safe, which is effectively what Constellation essentially represents (even if this estimation underestimates what we have yet to learn about living on other planets). NASA exists to push the boundaries of known technology to accomplish the seemingly impossible. By setting the high bar for the capability of technology, the innovations produced and discoveries attained benefit society as a whole when these solutions are then turned to every day use. The applications of technologies originally developed for use in space continue to bear fruit, creating entirely new technology markets and industries.
A pertinent example in our current economy would be fuel cells-- those Prius' and other Hybrids wouldn't be possible without technology originally developed to bring lightweight electrical power to Moon missions. Space technology broke ground on fuel cells, and eventually a domestic market put further development into it and produced a new technology that has filtered down to the every-day. There are a great many examples of this, and one should seriously consider it's impact on our long-term economic growth, considering we live in an economy which is ever more driven by technological development and applications.
The new budget spends much more on new technologies, instead of spending instead into legacy technologies that are just plain expensive. New tech means an expansion of the economy, as new products and industries develop. This new budget is more responsible, not only because it avoids the glaringly obvious cost-overruns Constellation was going to cost, not only because it recognizes that NASA was never going to abandon the International Space Station (even though their budget said they were going to), but also because it means greater investment in new technologies, development that will have long-term dividends for the economy at large for decades to come. It builds the future, rather revisiting the past. That's what NASA should do.