Human spaceflight, the true cost.

[qso1]

After four decades of human spaceflight, what are its true costs?<br /><br />When it began in 1961, human spaceflight began with two countries. The U.S. and former Soviet Union, now Russia. Today, only three countries and one individual from one of the countries can do human spaceflight.<br /><br />Yet in 1961, only 4 countries could detonate nuclear devices. Now 8 have demonstrated this capability. Including China who was a lot faster out the gate of the nuclear race than they have been to get to space. Nothing new in the idea that humanity sees more worth in building nuclear weapons for something as wasteful as a nuclear war while questioning the idea we spend money to get people into space.<br /><br />Human Space Flight (HSF) in the U.S. has been reduced to something a large part of the general public questions and it is these questions that IMO, need to be examined.<br /><br />Should HSF be cut or eliminated to solve problems here on Earth? My take is basically that this argument is not only seriously flawed, it has been proven to be so. The idea is a noble one. Make reasonable cuts to NASA to help cure or cure disease, eliminate or greatly reduce poverty. No sane person would question the "why". But question the how.<br /><br />How?<br /><br />The NASA budgets prior to 1973-74 were around 2-4% GDP. Aftter 1974 and every year since, NASA has been held to around 1% GDP.<br /><br />The record budget year for NASA was 1966, not 2006 or 1996...but 1966. That was the peak year for Apollo spending according to budget records in the Almanac and book of facts which get their data straight from Uncle Sam.<br /><br />Still, after Apollo, the arguments for cutting HSF spending were being heard more so than the reasons for doing HSF.<br /><br />The general arguments:<br />1.....If man can go to the moon, why can't he cure cancer? Or whatever you want to put in place of cancer. <br /><br />2.....Money saved by cutting human spaceflight could be better spent right here on Earth.<br /><br />One can <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[astrowikizhang]

Space programs are not costing that much, and eliminating HSF won't help this planet even slightly. Here is an interesting link I found years ago: http://www.richardb.us/nasa.html<br /><br />There are extensive comparision between NASA space budget to other areas that people are spending huge amount of money on. You can see the vast majorty of the expenditures are made on earth. <br /><br />"Americans spent over 19 times as much at restaurants in 1997 as the federal government spent on NASA that year." <br /><br />So maybe eating less would be times of more helpful than cutting space flight.<br /><br />The number of 1% is from Total Federal Expenditures, not GDP. The GDP percentage would be around 0.2%, I think.

 

[tomnackid]

The only thing that can "cure" poverty is a strong economy. The only thing known to improve economies in the long run is research, exploration and expansion.

 

[brandbll]

Cure cancer? If we cure all these diseases, what the hell is gonnna be left to kill us off? We're out of control here, breeding worse than Rabbits and everyone is focusing on how to make it so everyone lives LONGER!?!?!?!? Doesn't anyone see something wrong with this way of life? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[strandedonearth]

" Cure cancer? If we cure all these diseases, what the hell is gonnna be left to kill us off? We're out of control here, breeding worse than Rabbits and everyone is focusing on how to make it so everyone lives LONGER!?!?!?!? Doesn't anyone see something wrong with this way of life?"<br /><br />Alfred E. Newman says "Help fight the population explosion, support your local war!"<br /><br />Which I believe is what historically happens when a population gets too big, they go find some other lands tooccupy, killing off a bunch of extra men in the process.<br /><br />Meanwhile, back on topic, while space may be rather expensive to colonize Old West-style, it's about the only place left, aside from underwater. I'd definitely agree that more needs to be spent to develop space infrastructure to make exploration cheaper and more sustainable, starting with space-based fuel and servicing depots .<br /><br />Thought I had read the original post, but after going back and reading it, I realized I had missed the OP's point. Cutting HSF will not benefit humanity, only increased development of space will, in terms of space-based metal and energy harvesting, with the associated reduction of pollution on Earth.

 

[qso1]

brandbll:<br />Doesn't anyone see something wrong with this way of life? <br /><br />Me:<br />They will when they live to be 209 and have been dead broke since 109 LOL. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[webtaz99]

1) I don't see a figure for the benefits derived from HSF. There's this time-honored well-proven thing called "cost/benefit analysis".<br /><br />2) We are actually doing pretty well in the fight against cancer. The figures are stilted because while survival rates have improved, detection rates are even better. I won't say we're "winning the war", but we are getting better. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[blacknebula]

...and then a new disease will come along to take cancer's place. All we are doing is chasing our tails in order to "improve life on earth". Instead of claiming that Earth's problems are a reason we shouldn't be in space, I'm inclined to consider it a reason we SHOULD be in space. We've been on this planet for thousands of years and still cannot defeat disease. Maybe its time to look at a whole new approach.

 

[mlorrey]

Quite so. Any cost benefit analysis should also examine opportunity costs.<br /><br />For example: compare the benefits of spending billions dropping bombs on third worlders versus spending the same amounts on space infrastructure.<br /><br />If our idiot leaders weren't so obsessed with fighting in Vietnam (and the Soviets and Chinese so obsessed with instigating the fight), we'd have had the shuttle and space station by 1980, had the money to build shuttle the right way, with a hot structure, and kept total control of our space station.<br /><br />It seems to me that any time the US is at peace and starting to make headway in space exploration, some other group or country has to try its best to force us to spend a lot of money instead bombing that (or another) country back to the stone age. It happened in the 60's, the late 80's, and in 2001.<br /><br />I recall that Walter Mondale once decried about "spending billions in space" when there were much more pressing needs to spend that money "on earth" for. All we got for that was more warfare and welfare. I'd have to say the money would have been better spent in space.

 

[qso1]

I had no figure for HSF because were in the stage where HSF is still largely research and to my knowledge, no cost benefit study has ever been done on HSF. I also left out space spin offs because I do not believe we should have to justify HSF on how much it spins off and there are those who dispute the spinoff value and NASA origins. An example being the well worn teflon spin. I was never able to determine exactly how teflon got associated as a spinoff from NASA other than its thermal ability. There were and I'm sure still some tangible spinoff benefits.<br /><br />Another note on cost benefit. Much of the work NASA does that is directly applicable to us here on Earth has not been documented from a cost benefit point of view to my knowledge but its safe to say there are few critics of unmanned NASA missions such as launching weather satellites.<br /><br />BTW, I agree we are getting better on the cancer scene. My point was, to hear early critics tell it...we would have made much faster progress on cancer long before now had we just eliminated HSF. If this was so, then cancer research would have been destroyed by the deficit for which there is absolutely no cost benefit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

Research areas such as on cancer, AIDS, ect are already highly funded to the point where they're suffering diminishing returns. NASA on the other hand is not funded to the point of diminishing returns, you don't see scads of cancer researchers fearing for their jobs like you do astrobiologists.

 

[qso1]

Some might argue that HSF has reached a point of diminishing return. Even I would question if we get anything of hard monetary value out of it but...as I noted in this thread. HSF is still the stuff of research and research is not necessarily something that has to demonstrate a hard monetary return.<br /><br />My point here was to demonstrate that as the worlds richest country, we can afford to set aside a little more for HSF. Especially if we can afford a monster deficit year after year.<br /><br />HSF IMO is worth doing because eventually it could lead to industrialization of earth orbit which would remove some of the polluting aspects of our industry here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[webtaz99]

When the "western" railroads were first proposed, covered wagons had reached the point of diminishing returns. But in the greater view, it simply took a large investment of money and time to open up "the West", which returned profits beyond the dreams of avarice. The ROI curve dipped, but then rocketed out of sight.<br /><br />This is where we are now. If we take our time and push forward step by proper step, we will get the riches of the solar system in return. <br /><br />If we could put 12 men on the Moon for 1 (Earth) year, we would learn enough to build a "permanent", largely self-sufficient base. From there we could learn to produce truly self-sufficient Lunar habitats, and Lunar-based propellants. This would enable manufacturing things like LEO-Lunar "space tugs", Mars-capable manned spacescrafts, orbital solar power units, and large rotating space stations.<br /><br />The question now - as then - is "who is going to build the railroad". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Could not have said it better myself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[vulture2]

A critical step was developing the railroad. After a first attempt that did not quite perform up to specs, we're going back to covered wagons.

 

[mlorrey]

Well, its not quite the same. Most land under railbeds was previously owned by others. The rail companies got legislative power of eminent domain to make compelled sales of property for themselves. In the current situation, there are no natives to exterminate or homesteaders to buy off, so it might be said that the present situation is far easier than when the rails were built.<br /><br />Secondly: the US is not party to that treaty.

 

[CalliArcale]

What treaty prevents the US from investing significantly more money in human spaceflight?<br /><br />There is a treaty (to which the US is not a party) preventing the weaponization of space, and there is an act of Congress forbidding the US from giving money to Russia for any kind of rocket or spaceflight technology. But these do not prevent the US from, say, tripling NASA's annual budget. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[webtaz99]

MY point is that we have reached a plateau where it is going to take a huge investment of money and manpower, with a long delay before we start seeing returns, but that those returns are going to snowball once they start.<br /><br />Just like with the railroads, we need investors who can see beyond the next quarter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

I believe the treaty they were referring to was the one banning the claiming or ownership of natural objects in space: asteroids, comets, moons, planets, or even merely areas or resources exploitable on those objects. The US is not a party to that treaty, so essentially no US enterprise is prohibited from owning a piece of the moon, or NEO, etc. Furthermore, given that spots in GSO are bartered about, it is already an established market that volumes of empty space can be owned. <br /><br />If said treaty were ratified by the US, there would be no seizable assets for such a venture in the event that the venture were to go bankrupt, and no means for a venture to list space resources as assets on their books (which is needed to figure out important things like capitalization, etc that potential stockholders look for when deciding whether to invest.)<br /><br />Yes, it is true that investors need to learn to look beyond the next quarter, however that is the fault of the governments tax and securities reporting regimes. The only way to fix that short term attitude is to change tax and securities laws.<br /><br />Some examples of problems: how do you amortize the depreciation of a reusable launcher? How do you amortize the depreciation of an investment in a permanent space or lunar habitation? If a space venture conducts all its operations in space, why should its activities be taxable under earth-bound national jurisdictions? What is the lunar taxpayer paying for, vs what are they getting? Even allowing that space resources can be privately owned, who is going to enforce the titles of the claimants? How can earth-bound investors have claims against space-bound ventures ajudicated in an objective venue that does not give one or the other home field advantage?<br /><br />At this point, the FAA is taking the first steps into suborbital and LEO regulatory regimes. It is not clear that they are the proper agency to move beyond LEO, but in any case, there is no regulatory regime to

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"I believe the treaty they were referring to was the one banning the claiming or ownership of natural objects in space: asteroids, comets, moons, planets, or even merely areas or resources exploitable on those objects. The US is not a party to that treaty, so essentially no US enterprise is prohibited from owning a piece of the moon, or NEO, etc."</font><br /><br />OST, which US has ratified, covers claims of sovereignty. But technically OST doesn't prevent private entity from claiming ownership of a property, say immediate area near your private moon base.<br /><br />The Moon Treaty is much more restrictive. For instance all efforts to exploit outer space resources should go through some 'international regime', whatever that is. US has not signed nor ratified MT and nor have pretty much any truly space faring country. <br /><br />Note that OST doesn't prevent bunch of people living on other celestial body claiming sovereignty <i>for themselves</i> <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Vive la Mars!