The value of manned space flight?

[robertsconley]

Edit: Like, we already know how to fix climate change. There are plenty of perfectly viable plans that involve far less expense than space colonization, for which we don't even have the beginning of a plan. And yet we lack the will to deal with our self-created issue - a substantial number of people refuse to even accept that it is a problem. But space travel will fix things?

Of course, space travel will not fix all things. It will, however, fix some things. Historically, human civilization has taken an “all of the above” approach. Some efforts succeed, others fail, but collectively they expand what is possible. We are capable of addressing climate change, space travel, and many other issues we are grappling with in the 21st century.

For a long time, human spaceflight was largely static. We improved our understanding of hypersonic flight, long-duration habitation, and orbital construction through programs like the Shuttle, Skylab, Salyut, Mir, and the ISS. But the underlying economics did not change, and activity remained limited to governments and a narrow set of applications like communications and remote sensing.

Reusable rockets have reduced the cost to orbit by an order of magnitude. That shift allows smaller organizations, universities, and private groups to run experiments and projects that were previously impossible. Programs like SpaceX’s Transporter missions, which carry dozens of payloads at once, are a direct example of this. Even YouTubers are getting in on the action. Allowing me to send a photo of my cat into orbit.

The result is more people trying more things, increasing the likelihood that something meaningful will happen as a result of space travel positively impacting our lives.

Whatever governments decide about other priorities, like climate policy, this process is already underway. People are choosing to push forward, and that will shape what space becomes.

 

[The Firebird]

However, I am NOT a fan of duffers deciding what is, or isn't likely to "pay off". That suggestion shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how science pays off - unpredictably.

How would you supervise how the money is spent, then? Someone has to choose. We don't have infinite money.

 

[Tigris]

I will dig that up for you when I am not on my phone.

Not necessary someone was faster

I wasn't looking for your University, specifically. I was looking for information on what was being considered part of the budget being applied for the comparison, and how the boost was measured.

I just found 2 articles of 2 different universities which did similar calculations than the nasa one by googling 1 minute each. So do the research yourself, like a good scientist would.

Also you where the one to throw out the times 3 without checking how big the impact of other research is.

What you may not realize is that I am a product of science university education. I have no problem with the idea that universities are a net boost. I just want to look at the assertion to make sure it is an apples to apples comparison. You know, like a good scientist should do.

No I would have never guessed that honestly would have been my last guess.

However, I am NOT a fan of duffers deciding what is, or isn't likely to "pay off". That suggestion shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how science pays off - unpredictably.

So it is ok for you to call me a duffer, because you dont like my oppinion?

If science was completly unpredictable, no company would have a big R&D section spending billions on a year long roadmap, but they do exist.

 

[Dire Bare]

Could we get to the point that not all our human eggs are in one basket? I have no idea, but it would be nice of we could.

<Insert commentary about how many problems could be solved by sending a bunch of oligarchs on one-way space trips here>

Colonizing Mars or another body in our solar system, or beyond, is not happening before unchecked climate change risks our extinction. Not even space station colonies. Colonizing the solar system will not save us.

The research, the exploration, the knowledge gained has value and can help us with our problems here. But our problems will not be solved by leaving Earth, all of us or just some of us.

Well, except for the techbro oligarchs. I'm supportive of them all emigrating to Mars, post haste.

 

[robertsconley]

How would you supervise how the money is spent, then? Someone has to choose. We don't have infinite money.

When it comes to science for its own sake and government, we already have solutions. The Antarctic program is a good example. It operates in a hostile environment, is publicly funded, and is managed through a mix of peer review, objectives, and fiscal oversight. It’s not perfect, but it works well enough to be sustained over decades.

Space doesn’t require inventing new systems. When it comes to science, governments already allocate what they can afford, prioritize through peer review, and hold programs to budgetary standards.

With the United States and NASA, the main complication is the long shadow of Apollo. That created an expectation that human spaceflight should be large, centralized, and spectacular. That’s more of a cultural constraint that transcends poltics than a technical or financial one.

A more effective approach would be to treat space infrastructure the way earlier generations treated things like the National Road or the Air Mail system. The government funds and maintains the capability, but doesn’t try to dictate every use.

This is easier to supervise because it is more focused and easier to supervise. You are funding access and capacity, not betting everything on a few outcomes. From there, the users of that infrastructure determine what it is actually good for.

 

[Dire Bare]

I am highly skeptical of this claim--in what sense is earth a dying planet? If dead = Mars then climate change isn't even a fever.

You're kidding me, right?

Are you playing semantics? That the Earth itself isn't dying and will survive whatever humanity throws at it? Which is true, Earth will survive. We may not.

If you are denying the reality or severity of human-caused climate change . . . .

 

[Belen]

You're not wrong, but how to do that? Corruption and graft have been with us forever, and they'll continue to do long as resources are limited and some people have more than others.

I've already said it. No amount of spending will ever solve Earth's problems when we are dealing with scarcity. Corruption and graft corrupt any organization in order to siphon resources. In fact, there are those who will actively work to avoid solving problems to keep the gravy train moving.

I did not always think this way but I have seen it happen too many times now.

It is only by expanding resources that we will move the needle to improving the global condition.

 

[Belen]

When it comes to science for its own sake and government, we already have solutions. The Antarctic program is a good example. It operates in a hostile environment, is publicly funded, and is managed through a mix of peer review, objectives, and fiscal oversight. It’s not perfect, but it works well enough to be sustained over decades.

Space doesn’t require inventing new systems. When it comes to science, governments already allocate what they can afford, prioritize through peer review, and hold programs to budgetary standards.

With the United States and NASA, the main complication is the long shadow of Apollo. That created an expectation that human spaceflight should be large, centralized, and spectacular. That’s more of a cultural constraint that transcends poltics than a technical or financial one.

A more effective approach would be to treat space infrastructure the way earlier generations treated things like the National Road or the Air Mail system. The government funds and maintains the capability, but doesn’t try to dictate every use.

This is easier to supervise because it is more focused and easier to supervise. You are funding access and capacity, not betting everything on a few outcomes. From there, the users of that infrastructure determine what it is actually good for.

The government has actively suppressed access to space and stifled innovation for many decades. It was a playground for a few government elite.

I agree with you that we should open it up as much as possible and see what takes off and focus spending on supporting innovation.

If it was me in charge, I would offer funding for say "capture a rock, park it at a Lagrange point, mine it, and the government gets a portion of the profits."

 

[The Firebird]

You're kidding me, right?

Are you playing semantics? That the Earth itself isn't dying and will survive whatever humanity throws at it? Which is true, Earth will survive. We may not.

If you are denying the reality or severity of human-caused climate change . . . .

There is no comparison between how bad the Earth could get from climate change and Mars. Climate change is not going to strip the Earth of its atmosphere or remove its magnetosphere. And a distressingly high average temperature of 17 or 18 on Earth will be relatively pleasant compared to -60 on Mars. Just for starters.

 

[Morrus]

Space is harder to settle than present day Earth, easier to settle than another planet, and in time could be easier to settle than staying on a dying planet - as scaling of the tech advances.

If you can make Mars habitable, you can definitely make Earth habitable for a lot less money. And while climate change is bad, and has the potential for massive consequences worldwide, it’s not going to make Earth less viable than Mars.