Value of space science questioned

Associated Press ^ | Tuesday, May 27, 2003

[presidio9]

Some experts say microgravity research conducted by astronauts in space doesn't appear to produce much value for scientists.

Academics and scientists on both sides of the debate over scientific value of human spaceflight have disagreed for decades.

Differing opinions have erupted in the aftermath of space shuttle Columbia's disintegration over Texas on February 1, leaving seven astronauts dead.

[RightWhale]

It's a jealous world out there and they are not going to stand by while the US takes advantage of our lead in space exploration.

Bullseye!

[Moonman62]

Real experiments would come later when entire ISS lab modules are attached to the station. Minor league versus Major League. Correct, real experiments = serious dollars.

I'm skeptical. I'd like to see some corporate investors, or sponsors other than Pizza Hut.

[MarketR]

I think the key to getting rid of this treaty is being "second" to break it.

We have to be prepared to expand rapidly into space as soon as some other country breaks this treaty...i.e. Russia, China, et al. We will assume the scorn if we do it first, but in response to a clearly aggressive move by another?

The treaty is history and our way is clear. We just have to be ready to take advantage. That's why I see the new innitiatives at NASA as so important. The most important thing is going to be the engines and their intra-planetary specific impulse!

[RightWhale]

Japan has a science module ready to be attached to the ISS. The EU has a science module. China is thinking about a science module. National science modules. That's participation in their eyes, after America [Canada, too, of course] and Russia finish building the station.

[RightWhale]

The treaty has a withdrawal clause. Give notice and it's done. No need to break it.

[ffusco]

Okay.

[ffusco]

Target practice.

[NonZeroSum]

An average of $5 billion a year to maintain a foothold in space is pretty frickin' cheap, considering it is a government program.

Not when you consider how trivial a level of activity it supports. It's outrageously expensive. For that kind of money we should, could have hundreds, even thousands of people in orbit.

[Frank_Discussion]

"For that kind of money we should, could have hundreds, even thousands of people in orbit."

Think about what you are saying:

$5 billion divided by 100 people = $5 million per person
$5 billion devided by 1000 people = $0.5 million per person

If you can find a way to make that happen, you'll be rich. Seriously. And I think that level of money will be marketable in the next decade.

But for the moment, it's a better bang-for-the-buck than most other big governmental projects. I want it to be a lot better myself, but NASA runs pretty lean for what it is.

[Frank_Discussion]

OOOOOPS! BAD MATH - MY BAD!

$5 billion divided by 100 people = $50 million per person
$5 billion devided by 1000 people = $5 million per person

The lower end is still very profitable, and gets a whole lot better if you go to "thousands".

[NonZeroSum]

Think about what you are saying:

$5 billion divided by 100 people = $5 million per person
$5 billion devided by 1000 people = $0.5 million per person

Yes, that sounds about right. Perfectly doable if it were the goal. It's called economies of scale. But NASA (and the nation) has never had a goal of large-scale activities in space.

[DPB101]

Chicoms in orbit won't motivate Americans to fund space programs. Been there done that. We'll watch them float around and be amused. Anyone who has the sums needed to invest in exploration might do it for fun but not as a serious investment. NASA squandered the postive image it had by engaging in gimmicks in a futile attempt to gain support. So.....that leaves the one motivating force which has not yet been mentioned:

Sex.

The first zero gravity porno film will make a quadrillion bucks. But what about the second? Perhaps the genre was not smut as intended but ended up as a slap stick comedy.

[Frank_Discussion]

Well, the government may not be too crazy about the economy scale idea, but the public sector (industry and citizen level) sure is. Imagine if the army labs were still building our computers!

EoS will come with time, it's just hard to wait. So don't, I always say. If you want to see the USA in space, and the government is moving too slow for you, or seems too expensive find a better way.

I am looking for a way out of the problem myself, so I assure you it's not an empty challenge. OTOH, while I'm looking for that way out, helping to build the only existing and expanding space station seems pretty good right now.

[Jeff Gordon]

The first zero gravity porno film will make a quadrillion bucks.

You are an enconomic genius. It is too bad Dan Golden was an economic and managerial idiot. I would rather you see as the NASA Administrator than either Dan or that current boring wimp. Let me know if you need me to email the White House on your behalf.

[watchin]

Thanks for the answer to that riddle.