The next Space Age

Posted: Thursday, October 04, 2007 8:00 PM by Alan Boyle

NASA

A photo taken on the moon frames Apollo 17
astronaut Harrison Schmitt as well as the U.S. flag and Earth in 1972, during Apollo's last lunar mission.

Will the next Space Age simply retrace the steps of the past 50 years with cooler gizmos, or will we find a way to realize the science-fiction dreams that were floating around even before 1957?

Cheap energy from space … tourists circling the moon … industrial resources on other worlds: Those are some of the promises for the next Space Age. But the debate over China’s anti-satellite test demonstrates that the world’s nations also have to keep peace on the space frontier. That may be the biggest reason for pushing onward - just as it was in 1957.

Today's 50th anniversary of the start of the Space Age provides one of the occasions for looking forward as well as backward.

Another occasion is the successful release of "In the Shadow of the Moon," a documentary that retells the story of America's space effort, using the voices of the astronauts themselves. One of those astronauts is Apollo 17's Harrison Schmitt, whose name is the very last on a chronological list of humans who have walked on the moon. After his stint at NASA, Schmitt went on to become a one-term Republican senator representing New Mexico. Today, at the age of 72, he serves as chairman of the NASA Advisory Council.

Schmitt cautions that it's going to take more than a movie - or a golden anniversary - to push the world into a new Space Age.

"It's going to come from circumstances, and a more general understanding of just how important space is in the future of humankind," he told me. "Unfortunately, our educational system is not teaching history, much less providing the kind of information to the general electorate that is necessary to understand why space and other major projects ... are important to the future of the country, and the future of humankind."

OK, so what are the whys and wherefores for the next 50 years? Here are five E's that come to mind, in roughly chronological order if not in order of importance:

1. Exploration
This is NASA's oft-stated reason for heading back to the moon and setting its sights on Mars and beyond. Even though the first space race was primarily a clash of empires (see No. 4 below), Schmitt said the space effort's scientific and technological benefits are still underappreciated, 35 years after the last moon mission.

The trips to the moon marked the first time humans ever explored a "second planet," and studying the lunar surface shed light on Earth's hidden origins as well, Schmitt said. "To have that contextual information about what the nature of the environment was here on Earth, during the first almost billion years of Earth history ... is extremely important scientifically, and philosophically as well," he said.

But is exploration alone enough of a reason to spend tens of billions, even hundreds of billions of dollars on spaceflight? To sustain that outward push, and justify the risks to humans, weightier reasons are needed.

2. Entertainment
Entertainment may not sound like a weighty reason for expanding the space age. But it already has a proven economic payoff. And you don't even have to go into space. Even our "Space Shots" slide show is an example of space-themed entertainment with financial benefits (in the form of ad revenue). Space camps, tourist destinations and zero-gravity airplane flights are other examples of earthbound entertainment with space themes. To celebrate the Sputnik anniversary, nine students from around the world will be taking a zero-gravity flight from Las Vegas on Saturday, thanks to the sponsors of World Space Week.

Even Schmitt has space-based entertainment on his mind. For years, he's been working with retired professor Ron Wells on the concept for a virtual-reality simulation of lunar landing sites. Players would put on VR headsets and walk around a modeled moonscape, seeing high-resolution lunar vistas in a 3-D setting.

In a series of e-mails, Wells told me that he's looking into the financial as well as the technical aspects of the project. The plans could heat up after next year's scheduled launch of NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.

"A major inroad to really seeing what the moon looks like as the astronauts themselves saw it will occur when the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter starts sending back extremely high resolution images of the lunar surface," Wells said. "I hope to be in a position by that time to be able to do something more than just talk about it."

Schmitt said the project could take on a more serious purpose in the years ahead.

"It will provide not only that opportunity for the public to visit at least the last three mission landing sites ... but it also is going to be something that will be very useful, I think, in training future explorers of the moon as well as future settlers of the moon."

Meanwhile, on the high end of the entertainment spectrum, five people have paid up to $25 million each to buy Russian rides to the international space station. A sixth "private space explorer" (also known as space tourist) made himself known just last week. Virginia-based Space Adventures brokered all those trips - and the company's president and chief executive officer, Eric Anderson, told me that many more such trips could be on the way.

"Within five years' time we could be signing up 10 people per year on orbital flights," he said today.

Anderson said his company has proved that private enterprise can make space travel profitable.

"We've created a new market," he said. "People before Dennis Tito's flight did not believe that someone would pay $20 million, let alone $30 million or $40 million, to go to orbit. ... I think that the work that we've done here on the eve of the next 50 years in space will certainly be a huge motivator."

Space Adventures' next giant leap would be a $100 million-per-seat tour around the moon, which the company is offering in cooperation with the Russian space agency. "I love that mission, but I'm still working on it," Anderson told me. "We're just going to have to see."

Sustaining the private space travel trend will require cheaper flights, for suborbital as well as orbital excursions. Several companies are aiming to fill that need, including SpaceX and Rocketplane Kistler, PlanetSpace and t/Space, SpaceDev, Constellation Services International and Spacehab.

It's worth noting that in addition to the Sputnik anniversary, today marks the third anniversary of SpaceShipOne's prize-winning launch. But it's also worth noting that the picture for private-sector spaceflight is still hazy. Rocketplane's current troubles, most recently documented on NASASpaceFlight.com and Space Fellowship, illustrate how difficult the job can be.

3. Energy
If there's ever going to be a space gold rush, it will take more than entertainment. After all, Christopher Columbus didn't sail to America 500 years ago just to take passengers on tours of the ocean blue. He was looking for trade advantages, and riches as well.

Anderson expects that the payoffs from space exploration will become more attractive in the decades ahead. "In 100 years or more, or even sooner, space will be far more critical to our welfare on Earth even than it is now," he said. "Being able to use the resources in space, and perfect transportation systems that can take us to space, is something we have to do."

When Anderson talks about resources in space, he's not necessarily talking about shipping space rocks back to Earth. Sure, some folks may put their faith in asteroid mining, but the bigger prize would be cheaper energy from space.

One oft-mentioned option is electrical power collected by space satellite systems and then beamed down to Earth, perhaps as microwaves. A Pentagon study recently said the idea was interesting enough to pursue further - and next week, space advocates and Apollo 11 moonwalker Buzz Aldrin will be announcing the formation of a new alliance to push for space solar power.

Schmitt has another energy strategy in mind: extracting helium-3 from lunar soil and transporting it to Earth for use in future fusion reactors. Helium-3 is a substance that's rare on Earth but much more abundant on the moon, and Schmitt argues that it would make an environmentally clean, economically affordable fuel once the fusion process is perfected.

"The economics are competitive with the current price of coal, and as energy prices go up, they just become increasingly competitive with those other energy sources that we use today on Earth," he said.

Commercial fusion power may sound as much like science fiction as affordable moon travel, but Schmitt insists that researchers at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and elsewhere are making progress toward a workable reactor that would use helium-3.

"It's not pie in the sky," Schmitt told me. "These things are happening. Of course, break-even is a long way away, but it still is something that has gone forward with very, very little funding."

Would it still be worth the risk and expense to ferry helium-3 from the moon to Earth? If the fusion dream really does come to pass, and if the ore extraction and delivery could be done robotically, Schmitt's calculations could conceivably make sense. For more on the concept, you can delve into his book, "Return to the Moon."

4. Empire building
When enthusiasts gush about moon tours, space solar power and fusion fuel, it's sometimes easy to forget that we already have a huge economic stake in keeping the peace on Earth's satellite frontier. Over the past 50 years, satellites have revolutionized daily life - and if further space exploitation can yield even higher returns, that just raises the stakes for defending against an orbital "Pearl Harbor" attack.

This January, China sparked a mini-Sputnik spat when it fired a rocket to shoot down one of its own satellites. Other countries feared that such test shots could eventually open the way to space warfare - although Chinese officials said that wasn't their intent. Nevertheless, the old concerns about national competitiveness have been reawakened by recent developments, including NASA Administrator Michael Griffin's view that Chinese astronauts could well set foot on the moon before American astronauts return there.

"For the United States to sit back and let other nations move forward in this arena would be extraordinarily detrimental to our self-esteem, as well as to our ability to compete in other arenas on this planet," Schmitt said. "Whether we think we have a choice or not, we do not - particularly with respect to China."

Of course, the world has changed since Sputnik in 1957 and Apollo in 1969. Washington and Moscow aren't the only ones with space programs anymore - and NASA can no longer presume to speak "for all mankind."

To keep the peace, Russia, China, Japan, India, Europe and other space players will have to have a piece of the action. Just this week, the Secure World Foundation issued a call for a global space action plan, complete with an international space traffic management system and cooperative space surveillance system.

Some parts of the plan may sound too utopian, but an international approach to managing satellites, orbital debris and potential threats from near-Earth objects is already taking shape. After all, in the long run, we're all in this together.

5. Extinction avoidance
In the long run, we're all dead. But we still hope that civilization will endure even after our own bodies have turned back into stardust. Underlying the next phase of the space age is the idea that the human species will have to extend itself outward to new frontiers, if it is to survive a future cataclysm like the asteroid strike that killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

Sure, the chances of a civilization-killer - or even a "cosmic Katrina" caused by a smaller space rock - are astronomically low. But now is as good a time as any to start the outward push, Space Adventures' Anderson said.

"All of this is something that is very long term, but of critical need to humanity," he told me. "Commercial human spaceflight is a small part. Maybe it's not such a small part. Maybe it's a big part."

Feel free to weigh in with your own thoughts on the next space age, and have a great Columbus Day weekend. The next Cosmic Log posting will be on Monday.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

High - tech autonomous robotics and advanced propulsion systems should dominate and be exploited
over the next 25-50 years along with globalization of
space. No more "races" and competition. The costs involved just aren't doable by independent nations. Even the actual returns from the investment in Apollo were marginal..and the moon is only 3 days away!

Thomas Ashby, Calgary (Sent Thursday, October 04, 2007 11:43 PM)

This space propulsion technology could change the
future of mankind in space.

http://nlspropulsion.net

mthomas (Sent Friday, October 05, 2007 1:06 AM)

until we stop taking time with us on the ride, we ain't goin' nowhere...time does not exist anywhere else in the Universe...except in our minds...
think about it...time is a man-devised measurement of the passing of life on Earth...
I'll get back later with the simpler, safer, cheaper propulsion system...
that should take care of things, eh?

steve smyth lynn ma (Sent Friday, October 05, 2007 4:35 AM)

"High - tech autonomous robotics"

This is brazen low-tech robot racism, show some respect damnit.

"along with globalization of space."

And what about the spacification of the globe? Did you ever consider that?

"No more "races" and competition."

Because everyones a winner.

[quote]The costs involved just aren't doable by independent nations.[/quote]

Which proven conclusively by: the European Space Agency, the Japanese space program, the Chinese space program, the Indian space program, and SpaceX.

"Even the actual returns from the investment in Apollo were marginal.."

All joking aside, this is the main point: there were many, many advances from the Apollo program that became widespread and had unknowable contributions to the economony and culture. Not the least of which was miniaturized video cameras and other miniature electronics.

The image of the pale blue Earth rising over the Moon has been credited with triggering global Environmental Awareness.

To bad these things are not more widely publicized.

Mark, KC, Mo (Sent Friday, October 05, 2007 7:38 AM)

Sara (Sent Friday, October 05, 2007 7:44 AM)

What needs to happen is a gold rush in space. Even when this article pointed out that the value of space energy and resources is underappreciated just that statement alone doesn't say it strongly enough.

Everyone talks about the asteroids slamming into the Earth but what they fail to mention is that asteroid is worth enough in material value, stuff you can hold in your hand, to pay off the US national debt! All it takes is the first company to go grab it to instantly make Microsoft look like a mom-and-pop store, and for less money than building an offshore oil well.

This website says it better than I ever could. Bring on the Gold Rush!!!

www.permanent.com

James Stepp, Orlando, Florida (Sent Friday, October 05, 2007 9:28 AM)

There are two roads humanity can take to advance technology and humanity, war, or space. You make the choice.

G. Behrend (Sent Friday, October 05, 2007 9:34 AM)

Humans will have to take a big evolutionary step to make this a possibility. Thomas was right, "No more "races" and competition." We will have to be at ease in our own minds before we clutter up the space frontier with our own worldly problems. This is a challenge I put on myself on a daily basis to not clutter up the outside with my own personal problems before I can even step out to go to work! Much less an environment such as space.

Bryan,Burnsville, Minnesota (Sent Friday, October 05, 2007 10:40 AM)

It is a fact that this world will run out of resources in the future. We should start looking to space now to stay ahead of our own destiny.

scott gorczyca mchenry illinois (Sent Friday, October 05, 2007 11:04 AM)

I don't really see much advantage in using He3 over deuterium. You get a lower neutron flux, but the amount radioactivity issues with deuterium power stations are minor compared with fission, which we already have to deal with. The energy you get back from He3 is not as great as with deuterium and you have to operate at higher temperatures and densities. And you have to go to the moon and back. It is not a good reason to go. If you already there, it may become worthwhile and could be a useful energy source on the moon itself.

Nick Cross, Edinburgh, UK (Sent Friday, October 05, 2007 11:24 AM)

"No more "races" and competition. The costs involved just aren't doable by independent nations. Even the actual returns from the investment in Apollo were marginal..and the moon is only 3 days away!"

Distance alone isn't what made Apollo diffficult (though having done it, we don't have to re-invent the wheel...those same, or better technologies are available) Technically Skylab went much farther, though entirely around the Earth. As you and others have said, if we want to do more, farther out, humans or machines, we need to work on better propulsion.

"There are two roads humanity can take to advance technology and humanity, war, or space. You make the choice."

Human nature, like it or not, won't change merely because we go beyond the atmosphere. Expect both.

However you look at it 'History' is really only just beginning...

Frank Glover (Sent Friday, October 05, 2007 12:30 PM)

What the space industry needs is a fully reusable space transport system. The goal should be for a craft that can take off from a conventional runway, attain orbit, deliver a payload, and return to earth to be reused again in one week or less.

The craft could be a single or tandem design, similar to the Spaceship One design by Scaled Composites. The payload should be close to the capacity of the current space shuttle. It should be able to attain an altitude of 300 miles, and stay in orbit for at least one week with a crew of five. The cost per flight should be equivalent to a Trans-Pacific flight by a large airliner.

Once this craft is developed and successfully placed into operation, it will lead to an explosion in space industry and colonization.

Derek Meche (Sent Friday, October 05, 2007 1:24 PM)

I either love it or hate it when people say stupid things like 'actual returns on the investment in Apollo were marginal'. I love it because it shows how right I am when I think of how accurate 'Wizards First Rule' might be. But then I hate it becuase it just shows how misinformed and sadly lacking in either education, intelligence, or common sense people really are.

What return are you talking about? Monetary? The biggest problem with government research programs, and government programs in general, is that they are not supposed to make a profit! The USA didn't sit down and say 'Lets go to the moon, it'll make a boatload of cash!'. So by a strict accounting equation, of COURSE the Apollo program had very poor returns.

So maybe we should look somewhere else. How about the affect it has had on the economy? Estimating exactly how much of a boost the Apollo program in particular gave to the economy is pretty tough, after all it was just one small program in a HUGE Federal budget. Still, depending on the REPUTABLE source looked at, estimates range anywhere from 20 to 100 times the money spent one the program were generated in the economy just at that time! Lets forget all those past and ongoing benefits and econimics. Computers, the internet, sattelites, the list goes on and on. ALL either generated by or improved on because of the Apollo program.

This is not some weak welfare program where money is just handed over to be spent on whatever. REAL and TANGIBLE science, infrastructure, and ultimately revenure are generated. Think of it as building a bridge or highway. Unless that bridge or highway charges a toll, it doesn't actually make any revenue, in fact is continues to be a revenue sink with maintenance and repair needed. But without that road or bridge (or technology or new discovery or new resource) the revenue generated by people or buisnesses USING that road (to go to work, to shop, to get entertained, whatever) would not occur. Roads, like the Apollo program, do not generate revenue in and of themselves, they ENABLE it to happen by thier existence.

Mike, Arlington, VA (Sent Friday, October 05, 2007 2:02 PM)

The discovery of life outside this solar system will definately fuel the space race, and it will happen. New planets in habitable zones are being discovered at an ever increasing pace. Tantalized by the fact that even if we could travel at the speed of light, it would take generations to reach such places and more generations to report findings. The planet may not even be there when we get there. We may not be alone, but we're alone. We may want to concentrate on making this place better.

Mike M. (Sent Friday, October 05, 2007 2:17 PM)

A space elevator on Earth will be difficult and costly, but it might actually be an easy and very cost effective way of mining the Moon and lifting the results back toward Earth in simple "crash landers or splashers".

Jim D, Long Island NY (Sent Friday, October 05, 2007 2:24 PM)

I'm in favor of a dramatic increase of the U.S. space program and of the hard sciences in general for the good of the nation and of the world, but our present focus on old and rickety technologies will lead to the same dead end we saw with Apollo. Get the costs-to-orbit down, way down, the safety levels up, way up. We're too timid about pursuing new propulsion systems and exotic energy sources. Talk to the particle physics community about this...they're the ones who really know something. Dump our current manned Moon/Mars efforts...that stuff will lead to another big technological dead end. If we must stick with rickety and expensive chemical rockets, then it's best to just use robots. We're spending a lot now, but are getting very little scientific, technological and economic return compared to what we could have (unmanned program excepted, of course). Give the poor taxpayer something back for the money, don't just endlessly repeat what has already been done!

Fred, La Crosse, WI (Sent Friday, October 05, 2007 2:35 PM)

If the commercial side of things can make some progress in the next 5-10 years (SpaceX, Suborbital adventure companies, etc) then we could most definitely see some major advances over the next 50 years since we will no longer be at the mercy of political whims in government run programs.

[...]

Todd, Billerica, MA (Sent Friday, October 05, 2007 3:22 PM)

What happens when you put too many fish in an aquarium? They all die! That's what will happen to us if we do not find new real estate in the future. Of course we could also keep killing off enough people to control the crowding too, but I like the first alternative better, how about you?

scott (Sent Friday, October 05, 2007 3:34 PM)

If China gets to the moon, it will be more than 50 years AFTER the U.S. has planted several flags there!

Also, note to Russia (re: North Pole), maybe the U.S. flags on the moon means that the U.S. owns the moon!?

Bob, Orlando, Florida (Sent Friday, October 05, 2007 3:56 PM)

The question I have about the moon is this, "Who owns the rights to the moon?" We got there first, but we laid no personal claim to the moon. In fact, we claimed it for all mankind. Unfortunately, most other nations probably won't recognize that as a viable claim. Are there future wars and battles to be fought over land, mineral, and water rights on the moon? With various countries manuevering to land on the moon, what are they planning on claiming when they get there? How many of the wars during the history of mankind have been fought over land? Hang onto your rocket ships, there could be a bumpy ride ahead of us.

Wayne, Alamogordo, NM (Sent Friday, October 05, 2007 4:41 PM)

There is a credible idea floating around SF circles that we are at a critical point in human development where we have the technical knowledge to move into space AND the natural resources to accomplish the feat.

If we continue to gobble up earth resources at an ever increasing pace without securing off-planet resources, we may use up the earth based resources to the point we can't sustain a space based industry.

I say to heck with discussion, let's just go!

Mark Brown, Portland, OR (Sent Friday, October 05, 2007 5:54 PM)

I thought your readers would be interested in looking at these energy technologies and EPS's theoretic base for ball lighting.

Aneutronic Fusion: Here I am not talking about the big science ITER project taking thirty years, but the several small alternative plasma fusion efforts.

There are three companies pursuing hydrogen-boron plasma toroid fusion, Paul Koloc, Prometheus II, Eric Lerner, Focus Fusion and Clint Seward of Electron Power Systems

Vincent Page (a technology officer at GE!!) gave a presentation at the 05 6th symposium on current trends in international fusion research , which high lights the need to fully fund three different approaches to P-B11 fusion

He quotes costs and time to development of P-B11 Fusion as tens of million $, and years verses the many decades and ten Billion plus $ projected for ITER and other "Big" science efforts like H-3 from the moon.

Here are the links:

http://www.electronpowersystems.com/

U.S., Chilean Labs to Collaborate on Testing Scientific Feasibility of Focus Fusion http://pesn.com/2006/03/18/9600250_LPP_Chilean_Nuclear_Commission/

However, short of a Energy "silver bullet" like fusion , Here is a fully DOABLE technology

Time to Master the Carbon Cycle with Terra Preta Soil Technology;

The integrated energy strategy offered by Charcoal based Terra Preta Soil technology may
provide the only path to sustain our agricultural and fossil fueled power
structure without climate degradation, other than nuclear power.

The economics look good, and truly great if we had CO2 cap & trade in place:

Terra Preta soils I feel has great possibilities to revolutionize sustainable agriculture into a major CO2 sequestration strategy.

I thought the current news and links on Terra Preta soils and closed-loop pyrolysis would interest you.

SCIAM Article May 15 07

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=5670236C-E7F2-99DF-3E2163B9FB144E40

After many years of reviewing solutions to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) I believe this technology can manage Carbon for the greatest collective benefit at the lowest economic price, on vast scales. It just needs to be seen by ethical globally minded companies.

Even with all the big corporations coming to the GHG negotiation table, like Exxon, Alcoa, .etc, we still need to keep watch as they try to influence how carbon management is legislated in the USA. Carbon must have a fair price, that fair price and the changes in the view of how the soil carbon cycle now can be used as a massive sink verses it now being viewed as a wash, will be of particular value to farmers and a global cool breath of fresh air for us all.

If you have any other questions please feel free to call me or visit the TP web site I've been drafted to co-administer. http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=node

It has been immensely gratifying to see all the major players join the mail list , Cornell folks, T. Beer of Kings Ford Charcoal (Clorox), Novozyne the M-Roots guys(fungus), chemical engineers, Dr. Danny Day of EPRIDA , Dr. Antal of U. of H., Virginia Tech folks and probably many others who's back round I don't know have joined.

Also Here is the Latest BIG Terra Preta Soil news;

ConocoPhillips Establishes $22.5 Million Pyrolysis Program at Iowa State 04/10/07

Erich J. Knight, McGaheysville, VA (Sent Friday, October 05, 2007 5:58 PM)

I agree with sara...

Mark of KC...miniaturization of electronics is what helped the moon landings in the first place. They are called "integrated circuits". The very un-pale blue earth just reinforced an already "well under way" environmental consciousness. Granted 12 billion of 1960's dollars and Apollo did bring back 800 lbs. of moon rocks and in real terms did NOTHING to continue this romance with human space travel other than LEO missions and a lot of dreaming about Mars.

Thomas Ashby, Calgary (Sent Friday, October 05, 2007 6:09 PM)

This is a desperate attempt to keep the manned space program going in spite of the very high cost and lack of financial return. The US is threatened by massive debt, we really can't affort such extravagance. Bush has threatened to veto NASAs budget, effectively cancelling his own lunar/mars plans, just to continue funding his war.

G. Behrend is wrong, we can advance technology and humanity without war or space travel. Indeed, most of the advancements in technology came in spite of war, and had no connection to space travel. The "spinoffs" so often trotted out were a result of basic research, not manned space flights.

CM modesto ca (Sent Friday, October 05, 2007 7:01 PM)

Off the surface of Earth we have access to thousands of times the energy that is available on the surface of the Earth. Tons of raw materials can be accelerated easily into the desired orbit. With the technology of advanced automation there is almost unlimited potential for building a wealthy space economy if we can conquer the transporation issues. What else do we need to build wealth but energy, automation, raw materials and transportation? Let's get going!

Beaverton, OR (Sent Friday, October 05, 2007 8:32 PM)

Kevin Baker, Beaverton, OR (Sent Friday, October 05, 2007 8:34 PM)

The Apollo program should have taught us one thing for sure. Whithout competition, very little actually gets done. As for the technilogical benifits of the Apollo moon projects, electronic miniturization is not one of them. That was the result of military applications. In fact, the whole space program is a very thin wrapper around a military program. The real reason we take up people from Russia and Europe is so that those countries won't be tempted to shoot it down. The Chinese are upset about being left out, hence the not-so-sutble threat implied by their anti-satilite test.

Guy S. Newell (Sent Saturday, October 06, 2007 10:29 AM)

We are Americans. The most violent people on Earth. Everything we do has military implications. Especially the space program. The Arabs are jelous. They think THEY are the most violent people on Earth. We make them look like kittens dressed up in baby clothes. Aren't they cute?

Guy S. Newell (Sent Saturday, October 06, 2007 10:35 AM)

What needs to happen is mankind uniting for the greater good. Yes there are problems with poverty, hunger, etc., in the world today. How many of those problems would no longer exist if money no longer existed (a la Star Trek?)

We need a First Contact. Or maybe at the least a Trekkie or two (or 100) as the heads of state of the worlds powers...

Jeff B., Jacksonville, FL (Sent Saturday, October 06, 2007 2:09 PM)

The technological spin offs from the lunar program have revolutionized society, from the life saving medical scans developed to study the astronauts after long flights, to the computer I write this on. Nothing has had the peaceful effect on modern society in the last 50 years as the space program. It is not to far to say that continuing, or even doubling or tripling that effort will have similar direct benefits to the peoples of tomorrow. We may have a boon one day mining space rocks, but that harvest will have a hard time beating the technology the space program has put in the average humans life.

Bill Hilburn Jr. (Sent Saturday, October 06, 2007 6:47 PM)

I think all of this is crap. Sure we can do it to gain more knowledge and to understand our universe better, but in the long run, the Earth will die. Nothing can last forver, so why work so hard to keep it going when it's going to end anyways?

Hannah Adkison, Magnolia, AR (Sent Saturday, October 06, 2007 8:10 PM)

G. Behrend hit the nail right on the head. This planet cannot possibly continue to support the ever-expanding population and its demand for resources. In the end, survival will require war (to thin out the herd and reduce demand for scarce resources) or colonization of other worlds (and extraction of resources from otherwise unusable celestial objects). There is no workable third alternative that I have ever heard of.

Craig Wilson (Sent Saturday, October 06, 2007 11:22 PM)

Paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 hit an important note.

Starting with paragraph 3, Energy: Civilization did not flurish until the beginning of the interglacial period about 11,500 years ago. We call this Epoch the Holocene beginning about 10,000 years ago (is the Pleistocene really over?). With the exception of the CO2 monkey wrench provided by the Industrial Revolution (and our population explosion), we should be nearing the peak of the Interglacial Period with the oceans possibly rising an additional plus or minus 25-feet, followed by glaciation for the next 100,000 years or so. Most Interglacial Periods last about 10,000 years.

We have an immediate need for a cleaner energy source. In ice core samples we are able to detect the past atmospheric CO2 levels for at least the last 400,000 years of the Pleistocene Epoch with at least 3 Interglacial Periods. The CO2 levels rise and fall with these periods up to an approximate maximum of 290 to 300 parts per million (PPM). At the beginning of the 20th century we were up to 280 PPM, we are now up to 380 PPM and rising rapidly. We have no idea what this will cause, there are no records of such a past occurance.

Paragraph 5, Extinction avoidance: Our planet will cease to be habitable long before the suns life cycle ends in 4-1/2 to 5 billion years, there are numerous reasons for that fact. In addition, we still don't know what caused the major extinctions and we don't know what to expect in the distant future. Our solar system is speeding through our galaxy in a wobbly orbit that can take us through some pretty inhospitable space. For our race to survive, we need mobility.

Finally, paragraph 1, Exploration: See paragraph 3 and 5. We need to know more about what's out there.

William Bartish, Miami, FL (Sent Sunday, October 07, 2007 6:30 AM)

I would like to make 2 points on space. First manned space program is more value than an robotic and second the US's success in space is a large part of our dominance in the world.
On the first point I will reply to the comment above, "Even the actual returns from the investment in Apollo were marginal". This is often stated and completely wrong. The main reason for this is that most people look for something like the jeep that was manufature for the government and went straight into production in the same form. The space program did much more than this. One example is what it has done for hospitals. If you are a patient at a hospital chance are you will use equipment based on a patent generated from a NASA contract. All automated life sign monitoring equipment started with the manned space program. It is currently a billion dollar a year business. By it self as a small example of the many inventions that have come from the manned space program it has more than payed for the entire manned space program in rise in GNP and saved lives. There are many more examples.
The second point is that our place in the world has a lot to do with our success in space. In part because of the industries given a boost by needing to develop radically new technology for NASA. It has also given us the image in the world of the nation that can do the impossible. If anyone has wondered this is most likely the main reason China would want to go to the Moon. If they can show they can out do the US it will make a big difference in the world. It will also provide them a place to develop radical technologies that will eventually make them more technically advanced than the US. We need to ante up now or we may find ourselves out of the game.

John O'Halloran, Seattle, WA (Sent Sunday, October 07, 2007 12:47 PM)

Remember when WE fired an anti satelite weapon? It was a two stage missle fired from an F-15. Whats the big deal about someone else with anti satelite weapons?

Mark, Saint Louis, Missouri (Sent Sunday, October 07, 2007 3:44 PM)

"For the United States to sit back and let other nations move forward in this arena would be extraordinarily detrimental to our self-esteem"

So, the ignorant, apathetic, arrogant Americans should spend BILLIONS of dollars because our self esteem might suffer? It will take a little less than a million dollars a minute to sustain one single man on the moon. This article is veiled, the real purpose behind NASA's machinations is to make as much money as possible for private contractors, just like the 'war' in Iraq.

Resolute Protector (Sent Sunday, October 07, 2007 3:51 PM)

Until mankind can get beyond this crutch we have that is called MONEY, we will not be able to advance fast enough or far enough to achieve these goals in a peaceful manner nor within a reasonable time limit.

Brian, Philadelphia, PA (Sent Monday, October 08, 2007 7:38 AM)

An self-sufficient off-world colony would certainly help avoid extinction events but so would self-sufficient ON-WORLD colonies too. The more self-sufficient we are on a very local level, the less asteroid impacts, bird flu pandemics, economic collapses, and terror attacks will affect us. Just think that it only takes about 20,000 square feet of shop space to build an entire NASCAR from scratch. Shops like that should be in every community and even our own homes could have shops capable of making our own clothing, furniture, garden tools, moutain bikes and canoes... it is possible and even growing more so all the time with rapid prototyping and extremely capable computers and office software! Furhtermore, we can enhance each and every home to be more and more emergency enhanced. No... we don't have to live in a bunker to feel safe. But there are general and very realistic measure that can enhance our homes to cope with nearly any crisis you can think of. Almost all such adaptations and disaster preparedness ideas are good for other things like saving money on heating and air-conditioning and add a great deal to our lives in other ways. That's kind of the whole point... if we do things right and pick ideas that aren't just good for global warming, terrorism, or killer asteroids, we can counter them all while actually increasing our quality of living in the process. Lets make this our challenge... Lets find ways and ideas that can address the most problems with the simplest solutions like being able to work directly and productively right from home. Self-sufficiency may be a little more expensive, but "globalization" has problems all its own. It makes us too darn dependant on key areas like Silicon Valley, Everett Washington, Tokyo, NYC, Houston, and so on that could all be taken out of the picture with one super-disaster or terror attack. We have to pull ourselve up by the boot heals and prepare cause aint no one else going to do it for us.

Author Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA (Sent Monday, October 08, 2007 10:17 AM)

The problems of the earth are NOT solvable without resources from space. The simile of “Space Ship Earth” is very real, but what is missing is the understanding that we now have the technology if not he economical engineering to re-fuel Space ship Earth.

I do not trust the American Government, nor any other Government entity, to make the correct decisions on how to most effectively develop the infrastructure and harvest the resource of space. The best thing our, or any, government could do is to announce many huge, billions of dollars, tax-free prizes for being the first to achieve significant space milestones like:

1. Reusable rapid turn around, Low Earth Orbit supply trucks. Something that could take over the duties of the current crop of overpriced government boosters. The government must quarantine to buy the services of 20 such launches a year from such a system.
2. Deploy and then enhance a space elevator capable of lifting a 5 ton payload to Low Earth Orbit, with next to no environmental impact. As a further inducement a second smaller prize should be offered to deliver such payloads to Geosynchronous orbit. These systems must be shown to reliably and repeatedly return equal payloads back to the earth bound terminus of the elevator.
3. Building, staffing and maintaining, for a minimum of one year, an outpost on the surface of the Moon, changing out the crew three times and returning the final crew back to the earth.
4. Returning 100 tons of lunar material to either the L5 or L2 positions, or to low earth orbit. Then capturing this material and processing it into useful materials, even if just radiation shielding.
5. Building, with at least 50% lunar material, an orbiting solar power station, or stations, capable of safely beaming down 100 megawatts of power to the a receiving antenna in the American South West, and feeding that Electricity into the American Power grid.
6. Sending an exploration team out to, landing on and geologically mapping the resources of a major asteroid, like Ceres. Then safely returning the crew and 1000 pounds of asteroid samples.
7. Rendezvous with an asteroid, and changing its orbit in a controlled way, to bring it into Lunar Orbit. This would be a precursor for eventually mining such bodies. It would also prove out the techniques and technologies to save the earth from comet/meteor collisions.
8. Sending an exploration team out to and back from the Moons of Mars.
9. Landing and returning an exploration team to the surface of the Mars polar regions.

Note private entities trying for these prizes would not get a single government red-cent until they achieved the final milestones. Failed attempts would not cost the American Tax payers anything at all.

We must accept that there will be significant loss of life, from these attempts. So long as all those involved have signed and understand informed consent releases, the companies must not be held legally liable for any wrongful death or injury claims resulting from even failed attempts. The exploration and exploitation of all previous earthly frontiers have only been accomplished with significant loss of life, capital and many failures. I’m disappointed that we in America now appear to expect, the conquest of space can to be done without such losses.

Let private companies perform these services. Reward them with lavish TAX FREE prizes. Change the laws so that such enterprises can lay claim permanently to all resources within a 100 miles radius surrounding any of their permanently manned facilities. And most importantly allow them unfettered tax free rights to import resources from these bases back down to the earth.

Charles Cady, Phoenix Arizona (Sent Monday, October 08, 2007 11:16 AM)

we should first look at putting homeless people in houses instead of exploring space. how much of this space money could we be using to help ourselves NOW instead of wasting it away until we know for sure what we are going up there for? and seriously..the moon doesn't really have anything worth looking at. its the closest planetary object that we can get to, and its a dustball. if you're going to put the US even further in debt, at least go somewhere worthwhile.

andrew, fairfax, VA (Sent Monday, October 08, 2007 10:50 PM)

"Nothing can last forver, so why work so hard to keep it going when it's going to end anyways?"

Why get out of bed?

Some of us prefer to accomplish something (or at least see it accomplished) between birth and death.

Frank Glover (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 5:20 PM)

Hi All

What a lot of doom & gloom, plus runaway enthusiasm. Is there a middle ground? Or is there a BIGGER reason for spaceflight? How about the survival of the Universe?

Life is insignificant NOW, but in a few billion years our descendents could be shaping entire segments of the visible universe. And in a few trillion years, as the last stars die, they'll be doing even more dramatic things to sustain Life.

One possibility is that, left to itself, the Universe will "crash" because all the quantum information that makes the laws of physics possible will be erased by black hole decay - if the Universe expands forever. Can we stop the expansion? One theory is that the current acceleration is caused by the Higgs field not being in its true vacuum state, due to the presence of baryonic matter. If Life uses baryons, via reverse baryogenesis, for power then the Higgs field will cancel out and the Universe will recollapse.

Now a Big Crunch sounds bad, but guided by Life shifting mass around on a cosmic scale, the recollapse can both provide energy for Life and a heat-sink to make that energy usable. And that infinite recollapse energy can power infinite experiential states - infinite subjective time for an infinite number of beings - between Now and the End Point.

Thus Life doesn't have to end - if we set out and "conquer" the Universe. Don't worry about wars between intelligent life elsewhere in the cosmos - They're too far away for us to meet up until a few trillion years from now. Else They would be here by now, if they were closer than about 13 billion light years. And in a few trillion years we, and They, will know how to get on better than we do now.

Or else we don't have a future. A simple choice: Everything - real Infinity for all of us, or Nothing.

Adam (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 6:50 AM)

John O'Halloran... Don't forget that Americans in themselves just didn't have the experience or know how to make a Saturn 5 rocket. They had to scavenge a former NAZI who did...a la Werner Von Braun. In fact Russian rocketry IN ITSELF was far more advanced than anything the "good 'ol boys" of the US could match too!

The idea of medical scanning was born on a Hollywood set and went by the name Star Trek. The actual technology didn't happen really until the 80's (PET scans, MRI etc.) In spite of these facts, a total idiot would not marvel at the American accomplishment of landing on the moon. It was a marvel and to this day I remind my kids of it with the online resources available.

Do you remember how fast the moon landings became "ho-hum"? It was so laughable at how people de-sensitized to it all after the first 2 or 3 landings. I was one of them and maybe you also.

Thomas Ashby, Calgary (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:49 PM)

"Do you remember how fast the moon landings became "ho-hum"? It was so laughable at how people de-sensitized to it all after the first 2 or 3 landings. I was one of them and maybe you also"

The public has a short attention span. Perhaps even more so now than in the 1960's. All the more reason we need a human presence in space (not just one centralized 'program') that can operate commercially and economically, so as not to depend on the whims of the masses, any more than all human activity at sea does. (After all, there's never been a 'Sea Program' either. Commercial, scientific and military interests simply do what they believe they need to do there. So it should be, outside the atmosphere.)

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 5:08 PM)

I've admired Chris Eldridge's admonition to "think small" since I ran across this blog a couple of years ago. Becoming as self-sufficient as possible is pretty obviously the right way for us to make progress, applying the original impulses and abilities to groups now instead of individuals as we did in order to get out of the trees and begin walking across the savannahs of our genetic youth.

Even as recently as several hundred years ago we knew that the maker of wooden stools could trade one for a dozen eggs from a farmer, and another to a potter for a turned and glazed bowl to keep the eggs in. Since then we have traded that sense and sensibility, losing the connection between ourselves and our surroundings. By expecting The Marketplace to take good care of us we seem to have relinquished whatever it was that made us human.

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada (Sent Friday, October 12, 2007 2:21 AM)

We can all agree, that technology is prevailing at a high rate and will continue to do so as long the education systems flourish. Which will allow us to to accomplish our goals in space travel, global warming, transportation, trading, and whatever other issues are currently being sought. Let's take it back to the basics of understanding, our ultimate goal, " For Mankind to Prevail"!

We can all relate to gazing up at the sky and watching the sun rise, clouds cumulating, the stars and moon lighting up the sky. Our curiousity and imagination, took our minds on voyages, which would be entertaining in a humorous sense, because it really foreshadowed what you would learn later as to be, "SCIENCE". It is these basic concepts, which got mankind and its technology to where it is today, but what about tomorrow?

The education systems of today, need a consistent software (teachers), which will allow for our future generations to have a strong foundation. As the mind continues to grow and build these new ideas, we start using all this knowledge we have gain as building blocks. Now, we have a good understanding of how we got, where we are today...

Today, we are led to believe through the media the severities of global warming, the war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, Armageddon, and etc. At the present time of the broadcast, people are alarmed and ready to take action. Either we care or we give people a reason to care, and the answer to that is, "TODAY". We need to address the issues of space travel and civilization, global warming, and let everyone know, how they are all related. Grab the People's attention at city hall meetings, school functions, at their jobs, and get them involved. The more media attention, the more people start to believe in these ideas, as they did when the space program first started in the 1960s.

So, today's world revolves around, "MONEY"! How can we convince the People, their money would be well invested into the further education of space exploriation and mobility. And I think by furthering their education or training through modules, which could be set-up on the internet will give them a little incentive and get them involved at the same time. People do not want to waste their time or money by driving to a meeting across town. But by tuning them in to their PCs or TVs, and showing them what they have to gain is a victory on either side of the street.

So for Mankind to Prevail, you do have to help the man and not just the machine!

Jason Schultz, Clearwater, FL (Sent Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:13 AM)

We have not had a true industrial revolution in almost 100 years. Computers and Internet will merely facilitate the next industrial revolution that allows us to harness exponentially greater amounts of energy and raw materials. The vast bulk of industry can exist in outer space, with a lot of busines-to-busines commerce occuring there, rather than on Earth. This 3rd Industrial revolution will bring wealth to our children on a unimaginable scale, and the Earth itself can be returned to a more 'natural' state.

Kevin Baker, Portland, OR (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 2:46 PM)

Earth "receives" an giant asteroid impact, such as that which kileed dinosaurs, once a hundred million years. However, humans will kill the earth several thousand times, until that giant killer comes again.
To survive and expand outside to the space, USA has to learn how to share resources, how to cooperate with other countries instead to trying be the ruler of the world.
Population of USA is 5% of the world population, yet it consumes 25% of all world resources...
Costs of space missions are enormous and no country on the earth could in longe range sustain this kind of space research.
If humanity should survive, humans should remove bariers and treat each other as equal instead trying to be superior.

Jan (Sent Wednesday, May 21, 2008 9:19 PM)

In an age where it's all about accumulating more wealth than anyone could need, and short term quarterly results that make companies burn down the forest to make a fire, and then lament the lack of timber to build a warm cabin, I'm skeptical. What movitaved us before was proving that democratic capitalism was superior to totalitarian communism -- and to be completely honest, there were big commercial interests in making sure that battle was won (fortunately supporting freedom dovetailed with it).

Right now we could feed everyone on the world. We could give them shelter. We could educate them. It's NOT that we can't do it. So the only other explanation is for some reason we do not have the will.

And I don't think we yet have the will to invest in space exploration. Not when everything's about the buck. I hope we, as a species, get our soul back.

Keebler McRiddick, Teluride, Colorado (Sent Friday, August 29, 2008 3:27 AM)

Fusion is the future, with fusion there will be cheap power and with cheap power we will be able to tell the oil companies, it's been nice but we don't need you anymore. We will be free.
Anyone who dosen't want to spend the money to investigate the possibility of fusion power is not thinking.

ED colorado springs, colorado (Sent Friday, August 29, 2008 10:58 AM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=397977

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG