Is Space flight worth it?

[Lunchbox]

Love the points being made here.

I am completely in favor of space exploration and yes, cost-wise, it is worth it.
Fix me if I'm wrong, but I recall that the Ares 1-X flight cost 460 million. Fairly cheap compared to the U.S. Gov'ts other endeavours. A space shuttle flight costs ~1-3 billion, depending on whats riding it, but how many shuttle launches could we fit into the 780 billion stimulus package? Granted, some issues on Earth may require time and energy, but spaceflight is a worthy avenue to explore.

Space never ceases to amaze. Remember Spirit and Opportunity? They are still going. After 5 years. Incredible.

 

[Artlav]

They tried to improve the education by investing in schools, it failed.
They tried to solve the hunger/poverty heads-on, it failed.
They tried to solve war with brute force - it failed.

So, why not try from the other end - develop the space flight, research novelty phenomena?
You can never know what will come out of it, sooner or later, making it's totally worth it.

It will take generations to solve "global world problems" whichever way you go, why not seek the abstract knowledge along the way?

 

[insanity]

They tried to improve the education by investing in schools, it failed.
They tried to solve the hunger/poverty heads-on, it failed.
They tried to solve war with brute force - it failed.

So, why not try from the other end - develop the space flight, research novelty phenomena?
You can never know what will come out of it, sooner or later, making it's totally worth it.

It will take generations to solve "global world problems" whichever way you go, why not seek the abstract knowledge along the way?

I don't buy two of your premises. I don't think we invest in education in a meaningful way and haven't far a long time. We put too much emphasis on quantitative outcomes instead of qualitative learning. We try to produce robots and then expect them to have intellectual curiosity.

Nor have we tried to fight poverty in a meaningful way. Again we largely focus on macro-level results without micro-level thinking. Micro-credit is a perfect example of how tackling poverty should be done.

On the issue of brute-force being ineffective of war, I think it again proves the point I'm trying to make here. We focus so much on the big picture that we loose sight of how to win. Overwhelming force has worked, when used intelligently; but pure numbers and force alone will never win a war.

Which in-lies part of my contention with manned space flight. We constantly seem to set bigger and bigger goals, but we seem to lack objectives. Why not do the material science and study first, find something that needs actual human presence for human benefit, and then use the technology we gained to make it easier and safer to put people there.

 

[SiberianTiger]

And you can't draw a line between "useful" commercial spaceflight (Joe Sixpack sure likes satellites which have 50% of their transponder channels wasted on porn) and "useless" space exploration.

And what's the aliens intercepting the sats' beams think? "They are transmitting visual guidances on the most advanced ways of reproduction all over their globe. Apparently, they hope to boost their population growth to incredible levels. Very dangerous for us!" :rofl:

Nor have we tried to fight poverty in a meaningful way. Again we largely focus on macro-level results without micro-level thinking. Micro-credit is a perfect example of how tackling poverty should be done.

Just out of curiosity: what do you mean? Isn't present day's retail credit suited well enough just for that?

 

[insanity]

Just out of curiosity: what do you mean? Isn't present day's retail credit suited well enough just for that?

I mean giving small loans to people to become producers. The retail credit-line has become too stagnate and predatory for innovative risks like micro-credit.

Look into Dr. Muhammad Yunus and why he won the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[SiberianTiger]

I mean giving small loans to people to become producers. The retail credit-line has become too stagnate and predatory for innovative risks like micro-credit.

Look into Dr. Muhammad Yunus and why he won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Feels very controversal even just from the overall descriptions. Can't see how purely monetary means can really reduce poverty.

 

[JamesG]

What did the lowest level people have from discovering America? Absolutely nothing. It had been already rich people, who attempted to become even richer...

Not totally accurate. The intial colonial attempts were the rich and elite. And they failed miserably or were ineffective footholds. Most activity for the first century after Columbus were "get rich quick" schemes, looking for gold or stealing it from the Native Americans. They had plenty of Senior Sixpack volenteers for a share in the spoils.

It wasn't until the social, political, and religious conditions changed in Europe (not the new world) that true colonization occured, and it generally wan't positive changes either. Famine, religious persecution, and overpopulation/poverty drove the migration of mass Joe Sixpacks not higher motives or even a desire to "strike it rich".

So if you want to try to extend the New World analogy, right now we are in the "elite dabbling with New World" phase, where governments sponsor a tiny few with small scale, non-persistant endevors. Hopefully, it won't take a change in conditions here to "push" colonization off-world because its pretty hard to imagine conditions bad enough on Earth to make people consider the hazards of space a preferable alternative.

Industry.

I seriously doubt you will ever see asteroids deorbited onto Earth for their raw materials. Or even refined bulk metals or other materials. Except for the rarer elements, there is no reason, even the harshest most expensive environment on Earth (the poles or deep seafloor) are cheaper and more hospitable than space. The only exception will be those materials that can only be found in space. Rare elements (not gold BTW) and stuff that can only be fabricated in micro-G.
What space mining and manufacturing will be focused on is building the capacity to build things needed to travel and work in space outside Earth's gravity well, because the hardest, most expensive part about putting something in space is... getting there from Earth.
That will be expensive and show limited returns for the mother planet in the short term. And thats why you haven't seen it happen yet. To date everyone has been more focused on short term gain, beating the other guy to orbit, the Moon, to Mars, etc. and the "what can you do for me now" mentality that drives the capitalist markets.

I do not know how or when that will change. Probably when the cost of space travel drops to a petance of what it is today, or when an external force motivates us to do so.
Hopefully not a .

 

[Urwumpe]

Feels very controversal even just from the overall descriptions. Can't see how purely monetary means can really reduce poverty.

Microcredits work by opening chances for earning money, that would otherwise not exist. You need some initial money for making money.

 

[T.Neo]

all optimized for power, reliability and quick development.

Cost issues aside, I can't really see what is wrong with optimising a launch vehicle (or anything, for that matter) for reliability...

 

[Urwumpe]

Cost issues aside, I can't really see what is wrong with optimising a launch vehicle (or anything, for that matter) for reliability...

The key problem of the Saturn V was, that it was made reliable not by testing stuff and finding problems, but by adding more redundancy than needed, just in case. More engines, more fuel, more structure.

This coupled with more telemetry sensors than even, and with the requirement of more workers on the pad than ever.

 

[T.Neo]

The key problem of the Saturn V was, that it was made reliable not by testing stuff and finding problems, but by adding more redundancy than needed, just in case. More engines, more fuel, more structure.

This coupled with more telemetry sensors than even, and with the requirement of more workers on the pad than ever.

Fair enough, but I guess that's just bad engineering.

But it did the job...

 

[SiberianTiger]

Microcredits work by opening chances for earning money, that would otherwise not exist. You need some initial money for making money.

Whoever wants to enter the microcredit market must first ensure the expected return would be above the breakeven level at such a high risk venture. Which can be achieved only in cases where all that people need to become effective producers are just some initial money. First of all, this requires stable political ground, easy to enter business opportunities and somewhat developed job market. Making neither of which is in scope of pure credit investment. That's what I mean. Otherwise, the banker can just choose to have the microcredit be a junk part of securitized portfolio and blow up another credit bubble, hoping to harvest crops once - but that's largely a fraud scheme.

 

[Urwumpe]

Fair enough, but I guess that's just bad engineering.

But it did the job...

It wasn't bad engineering, it was just not a economic solution, but a rocket that does the needed job as soon as possible. It was never planned to fly more than for the first moon landings, NASA had Saturn V replacements, which had been more suitable for future missions, but which required more engineering work and time.

 

[T.Neo]

It wasn't bad engineering,

It was bad engineering, because I would have done it differently. :rofl:

But seriously, yeah. I agree with you.

 

[Urwumpe]

It was bad engineering, because I would have done it differently. :rofl:

*cough*

More spoilers and add a primary boasting mode?

 

[T.Neo]

More spoilers and add a primary boasting mode?

[moron] HUR, I are better then everyone else! [/moron]

 

[Artlav]

I don't think we invest in education in a meaningful way and haven't far a long time. We put too much emphasis on quantitative outcomes instead of qualitative learning. We try to produce robots and then expect them to have intellectual curiosity.

20/20 hindsight?
If that system was implemented in the first place, then someone thought it would improve the situation, and invested in the changes.

Nor have we tried to fight poverty in a meaningful way. Again we largely focus on macro-level results without micro-level thinking. Micro-credit is a perfect example of how tackling poverty should be done.

That assumes that the people these credits will be offered to care and capable of using them, which is likely not true, or they would not have been "poor" in the first place.
It might be better to fight it by improving general population's problem solving skills - don't just wait for the government to increase your pension, grow your own food on the windows instead.

Which in-lies part of my contention with manned space flight. We constantly seem to set bigger and bigger goals, but we seem to lack objectives.

Objective is in abstract knowledge. It might become obvious in the 22nd century what to do up here and how to make gigantic profits, but it would never have to happen if we won't try this and that back here, in 21st.

 

[Eagle]

Whoever wants to enter the microcredit market must first ensure the expected return would be above the breakeven level at such a high risk venture. Which can be achieved only in cases where all that people need to become effective producers are just some initial money. First of all, this requires stable political ground, easy to enter business opportunities and somewhat developed job market. Making neither of which is in scope of pure credit investment. That's what I mean. Otherwise, the banker can just choose to have the microcredit be a junk part of securitized portfolio and blow up another credit bubble, hoping to harvest crops once - but that's largely a fraud scheme.

http://www.kiva.org/ is one of the better known ways to lend microcredit. The purpose is not benefit for the investor (though a small amount of interest is charged and the loan repayment rate is >90%).

The purpose is to give an entrepreneur the necessary capital to start or expand their business. Think of it like charitable lending. Check out the site and TED talk if you have the time.

---------- Post added at 12:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 PM ----------

That assumes that the people these credits will be offered to care and capable of using them, which is likely not true, or they would not have been "poor" in the first place.
It might be better to fight it by improving general population's problem solving skills - don't just wait for the government to increase your pension, grow your own food on the windows instead.

They are required to create a business plan that the lender(you) selects and they agree to repay the loan. http://www.kiva.org/about/how/

 

[SiberianTiger]

http://www.kiva.org/ is one of the better known ways to lend microcredit. The purpose is not benefit for the investor (though a small amount of interest is charged and the loan repayment rate is >90%).http://www.kiva.org/about/how/

A P2P credit business? Very interesting. Thank you.

 

[Eagle]

I seriously doubt you will ever see asteroids deorbited onto Earth for their raw materials. Or even refined bulk metals or other materials. Except for the rarer elements, there is no reason, even the harshest most expensive environment on Earth (the poles or deep seafloor) are cheaper and more hospitable than space. The only exception will be those materials that can only be found in space. Rare elements (not gold BTW) and stuff that can only be fabricated in micro-G.

The primary advantages of asteroid resource are:

1. Already up there (in orbit)(All types including carbon-water, silicate and iron nickel)
2. km^3 Hunks of non-oxidized metal
3. More accessible Heavy metals (as the majority percentage didn't sink unreachable into the planetary mantle)

The primary disadvantages mostly stem from the fact that asteroids are in space:

1. Vacuum environment
2. Far away
3. Hasn't exactly ever been done.