DCSIMG
Tor Forge

Science fiction. Fantasy. The universe. And related subjects.

Latest Posts

› archive

Latest Comments

› show all

Hot Bookmarks


Blog Archive


posted Monday October 26, 2009 12:14pm EDT

Spacing out

Edward M. Lerner

What SF author or fan isn’t interested in human space travel? I’ve yet to meet one.
And so we wonder: will humans ever again travel beyond low Earth orbit?

Forty years ago Apollo 11 landed on the moon and Neil Armstrong took his small step for [a] man. Three years later, Eugene Cernan was the last man on the moon. Since then, crewed spaceflight, by any and all countries, has been nothing but endless circling of the Earth.

NASA’s current plans call for the space shuttle to be retired next year, after which the U.S. crewed space program becomes—paying for a ride like space tourists. (In theory, NASA will have a new human-rated launch system, Constellation, in 2017.)

And why will NASA continue to send people into orbit? To go to the International Space Station (despite its name, mostly funded by NASA), the orbital facility whose mission all too often appears to be getting itself completed. The ISS, whose on-orbit assembly began in 1998, with construction expected to extend until 2011—may not be operated beyond 2015.

So how many of us believe NASA’s official forecasts of a crewed moon landing in 2019? What about a crewed Mars mission … ever?

Many experts are skeptical.

Consider the July 19th Washington Post opinion piece by Michael Griffin, former NASA Administrator. It begins:

What is most striking about this 40th anniversary of the first human landing on the moon is that we can no longer do what we’re celebrating. Not “do not choose to,” but “can’t.”

And goes on to observe:

The United States spent eight years and $21 billion—around $150 billion today—to develop a transportation system to take people to the moon. We then spent less than four years and $4 billion using it, after which we threw it away. Not mothballed, or assigned to caretaker status for possible later use. Destroyed. Just as the Chinese, having explored the world in the early 15th century and found nothing better than what they had at home, burned their fleet of ships.

Only last September, the United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee (aka, the Augustine Committee, after its chairman, retired CEO of aerospace giant Lockheed Martin), expressed its own skepticism. The Washington Post article is headlined:

Mars and Moon Are Out of NASA’s Reach for Now, Review Panel Says

The Washington Post headlines the committee’s final conclusion, released October 22nd, as

Manned NASA efforts are at a “tipping point” on funds

Tipping point as in “put up more money, or forget about human spaceflight.”

Conventional wisdom has it that the U.S. went to the moon in Cold War competition with the Soviets. We won. Game over. Which begs the question: will new competition—with, say, the Chinese, Japanese, or Indians—remotivate the U.S.? I see no evidence of that (but then again, a case can be made those other programs are less than serious).

Larry Niven famously observed,

The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn’t have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don’t have a space program, it’ll serve us right!

Will the threat of big rocks from the sky motivate us? Not based on the evidence. NASA’s budget for tracking Near Earth Objects seems flat-lined around $4M per year. That’s million, with an m.

How about private enterprise? Things like the Google Lunar X Prize and space tourism? I’m slightly optimistic that these will help humanity reclaim much of what we threw away. But can private enterprise make investments beyond what national governments can (choose to) afford? Can private enterprise take on projects of many years’ duration? Can private enterprise take us, say, to Mars? In a century, perhaps, when corporate budgets grow to exceed today’s national GDPs. But within my lifetime? I don’t see that happening.

I want to be wrong—about everything I’ve just written.

I want to believe humanity has not forgotten how to explore. I want to believe humanity still knows how to take risks when the reward—there’s a whole freaking universe out there!—is so big. I have to believe SF writers will continue to inspire the public to have faith in—to demand!—a future that is at least as big and bold as the past.

Come on, NASA/ESA/JAXA/Roscosmos/CNSA/ISRO: prove me wrong.


Edward M. Lerner worked in high tech for thirty years, as everything from engineer to senior vice president. He writes near-future techno-thrillers, most recently Fools’ Experiments and Small Miracles, and far-future space epics like the Fleet of Worlds series with colleague Larry Niven. Ed blogs regularly at SF and Nonsense.

ReddIt Stumble Upon del.icio.us Digg It Send via Mail
BOOKMARK
PRINT

categories: Science
tags: space

11 comments
seth johnson
1.  seth
VIEW ALL BY · Monday October 26, 2009 01:53pm EDT
We need a technological breakthrough to make human space flight economically sound. At present, one-way trips with robots are an exponentially cheaper means of exploring space. I know I'm stating the obvious here, but since the question is being asked, I feel responsible to answer it.

Seth
outsidecounsel
2.  outsidecounsel
Monday October 26, 2009 01:59pm EDT
It seems to me that there are two chief barriers to interplanetary travel. Finding a way to fuel a vessel, and the biological limitations of the human body. Space travelers right now would be ruined for life back at the bottom of a gravity well.
Edward M. Lerner
3.  EdwardMLerner
VIEW ALL BY · Monday October 26, 2009 02:21pm EDT
Both comments are correct, and yet (IMO) incomplete.

I wonder ... if fifteenth and sixteenth century Europeans had had robots, would they have been content to remotely observe scenes of the New World? Or would they still have wanted to exploit those resources? Exploration then was hardly cheap, either.

Sea voyaging in the so-called Age of Exploration wasn't good for the health. Lots of fatalities from accidents, exposure, long times without medical care, and scurvy. Now, an ocean crossing is nothing -- but that progress took investment and sacrifice.

Astronauts and cosmonauts have been aboard space stations for periods of time comparable to Mars crossings and come back to Earth. Centrifugal "gravity" might help for long trips -- we have yet (to my knowledge) to try it. Perhaps there could be gene therapies to prevent or treat the bone-depleting effects of micro-gee and/or long-term exposure to solar radiation.

NASA has explored advanced propulsion techniques. I think propulsion is the least of the constraints.

I don't claim to have foolproof answers. My gripe is the lack of evidence that anyone is seriously looking for answers. Sooner or later -- when a big rock is headed our way, or a deadly pandemic is devastating the population, or we run out of some critical resource -- we'll wish we had more space technology.
outsidecounsel
4.  Chet Twarog
Monday October 26, 2009 04:29pm EDT
There are new technologies, engineering, and private/commercial companies: Ad Astra, SpaceX, Lockheed Martin (tested a 2.4m RLV), Cyrus Space Systems' MAGLEV launch system [www.cyrus-space-system.com], Bigelow, etc.
As Ed commented, try to imagine a voyage across the Atlantic Ocean in the the sailing vessels of the 15th-19th centuries--very high risk yet all sorts of people risked it. Why are we so shy of risks?
Yep, I felt emotional sadness for the crew and family/friends of Space Shuttle Challenger and Columbia--preventable and avoidable--but we all understood the risks, and learned from them.
Gary Schaper
5.  Garyfury
VIEW ALL BY · Monday October 26, 2009 04:51pm EDT
I'll bite: we're shy of the risk because the palpable, sustainable reward to justify that much risk -- I'm talking hard, salable commodities, not spiritual fulfillment or spinoff -- is not evident. At least not to those who control the money required.
Edward M. Lerner
6.  EdwardMLerner
VIEW ALL BY · Monday October 26, 2009 05:42pm EDT
The "we" who are shy of risk varies. Consider proposals for a one-way trip (much cheaper than two-way) to Mars:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/opinion/01krauss.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=krauss+mars&st=nyt

Looking at 2008 Census data

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0232.pdf

there were 4549 private-industry workplace fatalities (826 just in natural resources & mining). I'd rather be an astronaut than a miner.

On the investment side ... the payoff from space exploration remains beyond the planning horizon of private parties. So were the investments that brought us jet travel, semiconductor technology, and the Internet. (Some of that investment was direct government spending. Some was merely government sponsored: AT&T did lots of basic research at Bell Labs, investing part of its guaranteed profits as a quid pro quo for its national monopoly.)
Bel Bauer
7.  Belcyrlis
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday October 29, 2009 06:12pm EDT
Ok...
Has anyone ever heard of SpaceShip2 and WhiteKnight2? They're going to be the vehicles in the first passenger space flight, the company is already selling tickets. It's not NASA. It's not exploring. But it's a step in the right direction.
Edward M. Lerner
8.  EdwardMLerner
VIEW ALL BY · Thursday October 29, 2009 06:33pm EDT
A small step, to purloin a phrase.
Luke M
9.  lmelior
VIEW ALL BY · Friday October 30, 2009 12:59pm EDT
But can private enterprise make investments beyond what national governments can (choose to) afford?

Part of this, and I'm sure you were aware of this from your previous experience, is that government puts a great deal of stock in what they call flight heritage. That flight computer with a thousand times less computational power than your typical cell phone? Sure it might cost $1000/hour to service and test it, but it's flown before. Sure the company who made it was gobbled up by 7 other companies since then, the engineers who worked on it left 20 years ago, and the only ones left are buried in a forgotten storage room. They've flown before, and doggone it, that's what they're going to use.

Now multiply that by about a hundred, to include the rest of the control system, the power system, communications, thermal, life support, and don't forget the propulsion system. Gotta cannibalize that ICBM payload in a rusty warehouse in the Ukraine for its cold gas thrusters built in the 50's, newer ones haven't flown!

Sorry, got carried away there. The point is, flight heritage is a very good thing to an extent, but government takes it way overboard. Private industry can bypass most of that. SpaceX's designs are modeled after successful designs, with modern upgrades. They don't need to traverse a massive bureaucracy campaigning to switch their rivet supplier. They make their own flight heritage, taking all the risk, just as SpaceX's mission failure in their first three flights show. Private enterprise is flexible in a way that our government can never, ever be, and indeed, refuses to be. The people in charge at those companies haven't forgotten how to explore, and I wouldn't be surprised if they outstrip the government in capability before too long.

And for the record, I fully expect a permanent lunar settlement in my lifetime, and I will be sorely, sorely disappointed if that fails to materialize.
Edward M. Lerner
10.  EdwardMLerner
VIEW ALL BY · Friday October 30, 2009 01:40pm EDT
Imelior: I agree to a point.

Private companies will eventually -- maybe even soon -- reproduce some of the one-daunting feats of national space programs. That will get us to space tourism in LEO. Maybe -- but I'm more skeptical of this -- it'll get us to lunar excursions for the super-rich.

What I fear will take a loooong time is companies going where a figurative trail has yet to be blazed. I extrapolate from a history of exploration: governments go first. Such as the crown-chartered missions that preceded the British and Dutch East India Companies.

I'll be happy to be proven wrong.
Luke M
11.  lmelior
VIEW ALL BY · Friday October 30, 2009 03:46pm EDT
Well, you also have to consider that private enterprise isn't solely funded by tourism. To use them as an example once again, SpaceX is receiving funding to supply the ISS. So while they are subject to government constraints for those contracts, they can still fund their more ambitious projects.

And don't forget, in terms of energy required to get to the moon (and possibly even Mars), just getting to LEO is the hardest part. Doing a slingshot flyby and coming right back only takes about a third of that. I think SpaceX could make minor modifications to their current designs (smaller crew module) and pull that off in a couple years, especially if they can boost to GTO. Actually landing on the moon and coming back safely...well, that's a tough one.
POST A COMMENT Name: Email Address: Comment (bbCode allowed):