The value of manned space flight?

[Umbran]

From my point of view the technological advantages earned by the effort, alone, make it well worthwhile. The tech that's been developed for space travel has had very real benefits here, on Earth.

Not broken down between manned and unmanned projects, but in 2023, NASA had a budget of about $25 billion.

In that year, NASA generated a $75 billion boost to the economy.

Threefold return on investment seems pretty good to me.

 

[Umbran]

I don’t have my copy of Physics For Future Presidents handy, but I think it had a pretty convincing section on why manned space flight is resource intensive and unnecessary when space probes are sufficient to do all the work.

Note that much of the return from NASA isn't directly from the work, but from the materials and engineering problems solved in the process that can then be used in the private sector.

Crewed flight presents more problems, and so spins off more tech.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Mars and the Moon are dumb for permanent residents, although the moon would be a good place to set up a relay station (and concomitant services for transient travellers) who are going to...

VENUS!

Gravity near to earth gravity.
Air pressure almost equal to earth air pressure at about 50km above surface of planet. Atmo also filters out cosmic radiation, and heat is close to earth temperature. Now it is sulfur dioxide or somethiing horrible; and travelling at a speed wherein a particle at that elevation circumnavigates the planet in 4 days. But! don't have to worry about muscle mass loss. Oh, and Venus has a magnetosphere, but if I understand correctly is due to different sources than earths.

Of course, the first colonial city on Venus must be called Bespin - yes?

Colonization of Venus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[MGibster]

Gravity near to earth gravity.
Air pressure almost equal to earth air pressure at about 50km above surface of planet. Atmo also filters out cosmic radiation, and heat is close to earth temperature.

At 50 km, the temperature is going to be 75 celsius (167 freedom units for Americans), you're dealing with winds in excess of two hundred miles per hour, and then there's the sulfuric acid. Even if you could engineer your way through the challenges of creating a colony that's stationed 50 km above the surface, why would you? The surface of Venus is pretty much a no go zone making it imposible for any floating city to tap into whatever resources might be down there. The floating colony would be entirely dependent on Earth for everything. That's not a colony, it's a temporary research station.

 

[MarkB]

Coincidentally, this article came out on Gizmodo a few weeks ago, and while not strictly about manned space flight or more about Mars colonization, I think it applies.

New Research on Muscle Loss Suggests Humans Will Really Suffer on Mars

Wanna colonize Mars? You may find these latest findings a bit discouraging.

gizmodo.com

I was struck by the last paragraph of the article though:



I had the opposite reaction - such work is telling us that space and the other planets within reasonable grasp are deadly to us: a big flashing warning sign saying “Do Not Enter.” Colonization and long range space flight are mind boggling enormous challenges but there’s an aspect of them that feels like people giving up on Earth’s challenges, which obviously are numerous and also big. I think the difference is space and Mars and all that feel like “do overs.” Oh well, we can’t fix the Earth - let’s try again elsewhere.

There's a concept that author Larry Niven came up with in his Known Space stories called "Flatlander syndrome". It's the idea that anyone who's grown up and spent most of their life on Earth have an innate belief that the universe is basically set up for their convenience, because that's how it feels when you spend most of your time in the environment you evolved to inhabit - and they have a commensurate attitude to risk and safety.

Whereas anyone who grew up literally anywhere else, whether in an orbital habitat or on a colony on another planet, innately knows the reality that the universe is a hostile environment that will kill you if you don't take your safety seriously and exercise due caution in all your interactions with it, because that's what it's like being in an environment you haven't spent hundreds of millions of years trying to get along with.

Colonisation of other planets and environments is certainly potentially possible, but it will never not be challenging.

 

[Belen]

Coincidentally, this article came out on Gizmodo a few weeks ago, and while not strictly about manned space flight or more about Mars colonization, I think it applies.

New Research on Muscle Loss Suggests Humans Will Really Suffer on Mars

Wanna colonize Mars? You may find these latest findings a bit discouraging.

gizmodo.com

I was struck by the last paragraph of the article though:



I had the opposite reaction - such work is telling us that space and the other planets within reasonable grasp are deadly to us: a big flashing warning sign saying “Do Not Enter.” Colonization and long range space flight are mind boggling enormous challenges but there’s an aspect of them that feels like people giving up on Earth’s challenges, which obviously are numerous and also big. I think the difference is space and Mars and all that feel like “do overs.” Oh well, we can’t fix the Earth - let’s try again elsewhere.

I have heard the tired argument that we can use that money to fix things on Earth for my entire life. The western economies have massively spent more money.

Things have gotten worse.

We absolutely should spent money on manned space flight.

There are enormous resources in space and the key to clean energy. Factories and data centers can be moved.

We can build O’Neal type colonies at the Lagrange points to have full gravity.

Manned space travel and colonization is key to building a post scarcity future.

Spending that money here will never fix things. The planet has finite resources and room and it is clear that the massive amounts of social spending has not moved the needle at all.

 

[VashVet]

I have heard the tired argument that we can use that money to fix things on Earth for my entire life. The western economies have massively spent more money.

Things have gotten worse.

We absolutely should spent money on manned space flight.

There are enormous resources in space and the key to clean energy. Factories and data centers can be moved.

We can build O’Neal type colonies at the Lagrange points to have full gravity.

Manned space travel and colonization is key to building a post scarcity future.

Spending that money here will never fix things. The planet has finite resources and room and it is clear that the massive amounts of social spending has not moved the needle at all.

Yes, well that certainly underscores my concern. I think many view the problems of our actual home as intractable but the challenges of space travel and colonization as optimistically achievable - even utopian.

 

[Ryujin]

Not broken down between manned and unmanned projects, but in 2023, NASA had a budget of about $25 billion.

In that year, NASA generated a $75 billion boost to the economy.

Threefold return on investment seems pretty good to me.

The sort of ROE enough to make a Crypto Bro hyperventilate. And the advancements seem to be a sort of leapfrog effect. Old tech is thrown into space, resulting in new tech, that is in turn thrown into space and results in even newer tech. The medical advances from crewed missions are remarkable. I'm wondering how long it will be before research into treating calcium loss from space travel might result in treatments for conditions like Osteogenesis Imperfecta.

 

[Morrus]

This thread makes me want to know more about the British space programme, which is how I assume it legally has to be spelled.

As far as I know, it's mainly focused on satellite launches and research. It's sent a few astronauts up on US space flights, and built parts of US space vehicles, and Branson has (had?) some commercial sub-orbital stuff going on, but no human launch capability of its own. Also the UK is at a terrible latitude for rocket launches--you need to be as near the equator as possible, ideally, which is why the US ones are usually in the southern latitudes of that country.

But yeah, the US NASA budget is 25 times the UK budget. It's not really comparable.

 

[dragoner]

Yes, there has been a positive return on the investment, beyond science and technology knowledge.

As far as "fixing the world" is kind of doctor heal thyself.