I have recently been spending a lot of time thinking about space exploration and all the things that come along with that, and that has lead me to want to make this post. My hope is that it will spur discussion and maybe something will come of it - so feel free to let me know what you think and why. ______________________________________
The idea of exploring space is awe inspiring. The amount of information we would derive from exploring space is boundless and invaluable. This will to explore and discover is what eventually led us into space in the first place. But if you look closely at why we went into space you discover that essentially it was an 'arms race' between the United States and the Soviet Union. This race is what fueled the funding of space capabilities, and since both governments were in a perceived arms race against one another, no amount of funding was too much (this mentality is still prevalent among governments and their peoples - they want a standing army, and they will pay for one to an extent, even if that army stands there forever doing nothing). After the cold war ends and we have successfully landed a person on the moon, there was nothing left to do, the arms race is over, there is no economical reason to go into space - so the governments begin pulling more and more funding. The lack of funding is the biggest problem with space exploration at this point in time. The cost of getting there is extremely high, high enough that our governments aren't interested enough to foot the bill. ? The old model of government run space programs is obsolete now, it does us no good. Unless there is another 'space race', which there may or may not be, the governments of the world will in my opinion remain relatively uninterested in or unable to spend enormous amounts of money on space programs.
So what is the solution to this problem? How do we get the people that want to explore space, who want to learn and discover new things out there? You needing something beyond the scope of a government, you need a corporation. A wealthy enough and powerful enough corporation could get into space if they wanted, they could at least provide the means to do it; whereas governments really aren't able to at this point in time - it is beyond their scope. This is the most likely course that space exploration will take, a large corporation, or conglomerate of corporations will lead the way. Now we get to another core issue - why? If a corporation is to go into space there has to be an economical reason to do so. I believe the reason they aren't already there is because the question of how are they ever going to get their money back is difficult to answer. So there needs to be a clear way to make some sort of gain on this substantial cost of R&D. The only thing that comes to mind immediately are raw resources - gas', minerals, metals, and even 'land'. Imagine for a second, that we discover there is an object the size of the moon that is full of oil (I know - this is a stretch, but I want to illustrate what such an event would cause), can you imagine the space race that would ensue between companies who want to secure those resources - it would change the course of history. So if there is a way to harvest resources, the chance that a corporation will get involved is substantially higher. Another example that comes to mind would be a datacenter on the moon. Why could we not set up a data archive of some sort on the moon. Surely such a thing is doable, and the benefit that comes immediately to mind is that the uptime would be extremely high (there would be no climate problems. Yes there are numerous other issues, such as asteroids inevitably pelting the structure - but there are surely ways to circumvent such a problem, such as building a stronger structure, but that discussion is beyond the scope of this piece).
What is most important is that there be a discussion between the people who know or can figure out what we can do and the people who can fund it; that is, the scientists and the corporations would need to work together to figure out what can be achieved and how. If this discussion is already taking place (which on some level it is - think aerospace companies for example), what results is it yielding, what progress is being made. This sort of information should be more public to further drive the effort.
Why in the name of all that is good in this world would anyone want to put a data center on the moon.
If there was something full of oil in space, not only would that be just a little bit weird (given how oil is made...), but I'd bet getting it back to earth would be more expensive than getting it out of the ground.
The problem with private space exploration is that the ROI on it is too low and/or capital investment required is too high and too long term to make any real fiscal sense.
SpaceX is an example of commercialized spaceflight. I'd argue that only wealthy national governments have the resources to sink into Massive and likely unprofitable (at least for years) space dreams
there is development into asteroid harvesting technology. but you hit the nail on the head with if its not profitable or we are not racing russia it wont be invested in.
additionally i believe that exploring space is significantly less important than making our planet sustainable. and that's not getting invested into as much as it should either due to how its not profitable. i love space and astronomy but i don't see the information we would attain as being "invaluable" outside the realm of academia. what did you mean by this? I am not convinced that space travel is necessary or advantageous to earth for at least a century and probably longer. we got enough shit to take care of at home imo. they discover dozens of species here on earth every expedition to the deep sea/ deep rain forest and people are still raping babies, starving, dying of curable illnesses, and castrating women and shit. money could be spent on better things than getting rocks from far away imo.
On September 26 2013 06:15 ComaDose wrote: there is development into asteroid harvesting technology. but you hit the nail on the head with if its not profitable or we are not racing russia it wont be invested in.
additionally i believe that exploring space is significantly less important than making our planet sustainable. and that's not getting invested into as much as it should either due to how its not profitable. i love space and astronomy but i don't see the information we would attain as being "invaluable" outside the realm of academia. what did you mean by this? I am not convinced that space travel is necessary or advantageous to earth for at least a century and probably longer. we got enough shit to take care of at home imo. they discover dozens of species here on earth every expedition to the deep sea/ deep rain forest and people are still raping babies, starving, dying of curable illnesses, and castrating women and shit. money could be spent on better things than getting rocks from far away imo.
People have always said that we need to fix things at home before we do something. Things never have been and will not ever be fixed at home unless government and economies as we know them are completely changed. In the past, problems at home did not stop the colonization of the new world, nor did they stop the creation of empires. In fact, problems at home often served as the impetus to do so.
We won't solve poverty and inequality. Ever. There will always be someone in charge, there will always be people that are born in to better situations, and there will always be people who are just better at doing things than others. We will also continue to raise the poverty line. Most people in poverty in the USA have phones, free education, and plenty of food. That's not really poverty. It actually might cause less poverty at home if we colonized space, because there would be less competitors for jobs on Earth.
In far off countries, the only way to solve violence and problems are external intervention. It's nice to want to create world peace, but the only way to "bring peace" to instable countries is through military occupation, and that shit doesn't work too well. Those problems won't be solved in our lifetimes.
I think a different way to drive exploration in space would be the existence of a wealthy country that is socialist and finds it important to do stuff in space. A country like the USA, maybe the EU as a whole, Japan, or China could probably pull it off at present if they change attitudes and government a little bit.
On September 26 2013 06:15 ComaDose wrote: there is development into asteroid harvesting technology. but you hit the nail on the head with if its not profitable or we are not racing russia it wont be invested in.
additionally i believe that exploring space is significantly less important than making our planet sustainable. and that's not getting invested into as much as it should either due to how its not profitable. i love space and astronomy but i don't see the information we would attain as being "invaluable" outside the realm of academia. what did you mean by this? I am not convinced that space travel is necessary or advantageous to earth for at least a century and probably longer. we got enough shit to take care of at home imo. they discover dozens of species here on earth every expedition to the deep sea/ deep rain forest and people are still raping babies, starving, dying of curable illnesses, and castrating women and shit. money could be spent on better things than getting rocks from far away imo.
People have always said that we need to fix things at home before we do something. Things never have been and will not ever be fixed at home unless government and economies as we know them are completely changed. In the past, problems at home did not stop the colonization of the new world, nor did they stop the creation of empires. In fact, problems at home often served as the impetus to do so.
We won't solve poverty and inequality. Ever. There will always be someone in charge, there will always be people that are born in to better situations, and there will always be people who are just better at doing things than others. We will also continue to raise the poverty line. Most people in poverty in the USA have phones, free education, and plenty of food. That's not really poverty. It actually might cause less poverty at home if we colonized space, because there would be less competitors for jobs on Earth.
In far off countries, the only way to solve violence and problems are external intervention. It's nice to want to create world peace, but the only way to "bring peace" to instable countries is through military occupation, and that shit doesn't work too well. Those problems won't be solved in our lifetimes.
well... i didn't mention poverty... nor did i talk about anyone having it rough in the states or that we "shouldn't do anything till things are fixed at home"
i respect your patriotism but we are all citizens of the world and i will never concede that providing basic human rights to the entire population of my planet is not an attainable and high priority goal.
but you briefly touched on my point about finding it important to do stuff in space. please tell me what we can do in space that is more important than curing aids/cancer and developing global agriculture systems capable of sustaining the current human population.
EDIT:
I think a different way to drive exploration in space would be the existence of a wealthy country that is socialist and finds it important to do stuff in space. A country like the USA, maybe the EU as a whole, Japan, or China could probably pull it off at present if they change attitudes and government a little bit.
I think it'd be better to spend more money on researching better technology for space travel first before we randomly throw a piece of metal into space, just my two cents.
On September 26 2013 06:15 ComaDose wrote: there is development into asteroid harvesting technology. but you hit the nail on the head with if its not profitable or we are not racing russia it wont be invested in.
additionally i believe that exploring space is significantly less important than making our planet sustainable. and that's not getting invested into as much as it should either due to how its not profitable. i love space and astronomy but i don't see the information we would attain as being "invaluable" outside the realm of academia. what did you mean by this? I am not convinced that space travel is necessary or advantageous to earth for at least a century and probably longer. we got enough shit to take care of at home imo. they discover dozens of species here on earth every expedition to the deep sea/ deep rain forest and people are still raping babies, starving, dying of curable illnesses, and castrating women and shit. money could be spent on better things than getting rocks from far away imo.
People have always said that we need to fix things at home before we do something. Things never have been and will not ever be fixed at home unless government and economies as we know them are completely changed. In the past, problems at home did not stop the colonization of the new world, nor did they stop the creation of empires. In fact, problems at home often served as the impetus to do so.
We won't solve poverty and inequality. Ever. There will always be someone in charge, there will always be people that are born in to better situations, and there will always be people who are just better at doing things than others. We will also continue to raise the poverty line. Most people in poverty in the USA have phones, free education, and plenty of food. That's not really poverty. It actually might cause less poverty at home if we colonized space, because there would be less competitors for jobs on Earth.
In far off countries, the only way to solve violence and problems are external intervention. It's nice to want to create world peace, but the only way to "bring peace" to instable countries is through military occupation, and that shit doesn't work too well. Those problems won't be solved in our lifetimes.
I think a different way to drive exploration in space would be the existence of a wealthy country that is socialist and finds it important to do stuff in space. A country like the USA, maybe the EU as a whole, Japan, or China could probably pull it off at present if they change attitudes and government a little bit.
well... i didn't mention poverty... nor did i talk about anyone having it rough in the states or that we "shouldn't do anything till things are fixed at home"
i respect your patriotism but we are all citizens of the world and i will never concede that providing basic human rights to the entire population of my planet is not an attainable and high priority goal.
but you briefly touched on my point about finding it important to do stuff in space. please tell me what we can do in space that is more important than curing aids/cancer and developing global agriculture systems capable of sustaining the current human population.
Poverty is like the main argument against doing anything. Same with the economy. I address poverty specifically because usually poverty goes hand in hand with atrocities (you mentioned starving. starving is usually basically a result of poverty). People who rape babies and castrate women are mostly uneducated. Being uneducated mostly is a result, and a cause, of poverty. Yes, people do that in wealthier countries, but they are few and far between and are often immigrants from those countries where that typically occurs.
We are citizens of the world. As human beings we should colonize space to ensure the survival of our species in case of a large collision or other great extinction event. We should also not develop tunnel vision towards problems. Poverty is hard to eradicate and you can't just throw money at it. Space is something that is much more straightforward, and doable. I too believe that basic human rights can cover the globe, but there will always be these nebulous issues that some of us believe we need to address first. The issues will not go away if we address them, there will simply pop up another one on which the media/ politicians/ people on tumblr feel the need to focus. You want to solve social issues in other countries. Cool. Other people say they want to fix the economy. Also cool. But there is not a binary relationship between fixing things. We can do multiple things at a time.
Curing AIDS is quite the undertaking, but possible. Even more so is cancer. I actually do research in breast cancer, and can tell you that the search for a cure is basically a snipe hunt. There is no universal cure, and even different strains of cancer will have different treatments. Cancer research is nice but hardly of pressing importance. Also, we currently grow enough food to support our current population. Starvation is mostly due to logistics problems in countries with instability and poor infrastructure.
Space provides us with lots of useful economic activities. Asteroids could contain rare earth metals, useful for computing, that are rare on Earth or monopolized by China. The metal from asteroids could be used to construct things in outer space, so that with planning we won't need to keep sending things up. Helium 3 on the moon and gas giants could be useful for nuclear fusion. There is also very interesting research to be done on Titan, Enceladus, and Europa as to whether there is life on other celestial bodies in our solar system.
I think a different way to drive exploration in space would be the existence of a wealthy country that is socialist and finds it important to do stuff in space. A country like the USA, maybe the EU as a whole, Japan, or China could probably pull it off at present if they change attitudes and government a little bit.
how is this a different or new way at all?[/QUOTE] Previously, the USSR and the USA only did things because space race. Now, countries do space-things only very sparingly. If a country focused like 5% of its GDP on space exploration that would be totally revolutionary. Such large spending would probably have to come from a socialist economic structure.
On September 26 2013 06:15 ComaDose wrote: there is development into asteroid harvesting technology. but you hit the nail on the head with if its not profitable or we are not racing russia it wont be invested in.
additionally i believe that exploring space is significantly less important than making our planet sustainable. and that's not getting invested into as much as it should either due to how its not profitable. i love space and astronomy but i don't see the information we would attain as being "invaluable" outside the realm of academia. what did you mean by this? I am not convinced that space travel is necessary or advantageous to earth for at least a century and probably longer. we got enough shit to take care of at home imo. they discover dozens of species here on earth every expedition to the deep sea/ deep rain forest and people are still raping babies, starving, dying of curable illnesses, and castrating women and shit. money could be spent on better things than getting rocks from far away imo.
People have always said that we need to fix things at home before we do something. Things never have been and will not ever be fixed at home unless government and economies as we know them are completely changed. In the past, problems at home did not stop the colonization of the new world, nor did they stop the creation of empires. In fact, problems at home often served as the impetus to do so.
We won't solve poverty and inequality. Ever. There will always be someone in charge, there will always be people that are born in to better situations, and there will always be people who are just better at doing things than others. We will also continue to raise the poverty line. Most people in poverty in the USA have phones, free education, and plenty of food. That's not really poverty. It actually might cause less poverty at home if we colonized space, because there would be less competitors for jobs on Earth.
In far off countries, the only way to solve violence and problems are external intervention. It's nice to want to create world peace, but the only way to "bring peace" to instable countries is through military occupation, and that shit doesn't work too well. Those problems won't be solved in our lifetimes.
I think a different way to drive exploration in space would be the existence of a wealthy country that is socialist and finds it important to do stuff in space. A country like the USA, maybe the EU as a whole, Japan, or China could probably pull it off at present if they change attitudes and government a little bit.
well... i didn't mention poverty... nor did i talk about anyone having it rough in the states or that we "shouldn't do anything till things are fixed at home"
i respect your patriotism but we are all citizens of the world and i will never concede that providing basic human rights to the entire population of my planet is not an attainable and high priority goal.
but you briefly touched on my point about finding it important to do stuff in space. please tell me what we can do in space that is more important than curing aids/cancer and developing global agriculture systems capable of sustaining the current human population.
Poverty is like the main argument against doing anything. Same with the economy. I address poverty specifically because usually poverty goes hand in hand with atrocities (you mentioned starving. starving is usually basically a result of poverty). People who rape babies and castrate women are mostly uneducated. Being uneducated mostly is a result, and a cause, of poverty. Yes, people do that in wealthier countries, but they are few and far between and are often immigrants from those countries where that typically occurs.
listen i understand where your coming from but literally half your post is about poverty and the only thing i've said about poverty so far is that that's not what i'm talking about. so your going to have to believe me instead of dictating what the main argument against doing anything is. additionally i do not see how this paragraph indicates we should not try and educate people and stop them from starving with the billions of dollars we have saved by not sending metal tubes into space.
We are citizens of the world. As human beings we should colonize space to ensure the survival of our species in case of a large collision or other great extinction event. We should also not develop tunnel vision towards problems. Poverty is hard to eradicate and you can't just throw money at it. Space is something that is much more straightforward, and doable. I too believe that basic human rights can cover the globe, but there will always be these nebulous issues that some of us believe we need to address first. The issues will not go away if we address them, there will simply pop up another one on which the media/ politicians/ people on tumblr feel the need to focus. You want to solve social issues in other countries. Cool. Other people say they want to fix the economy. Also cool. But there is not a binary relationship between fixing things. We can do multiple things at a time.
I'm not talking about poverty hue. your use of ultimatums is very confusing. things like poverty will always exist but basic human rights can can cover the globe but there will always be these nebulous issues. "issues will not go away if we address them" are you claiming that no human quality of life issue has ever or will ever be solved? i never said we had to do one thing at a time and i'm having difficulty discerning if your actually talking to me still. You're quite right that we should be doing multiple things at one time. I want to hear what everyone thinks is an issue and solve as many of them as fast as possible. who wouldn't. but to say chinas control on computer building metals is ranked highly requires some seriously fucked up morals.
Curing AIDS is quite the undertaking, but possible. Even more so is cancer. I actually do research in breast cancer, and can tell you that the search for a cure is basically a snipe hunt. There is no universal cure, and even different strains of cancer will have different treatments. Cancer research is nice but hardly of pressing importance. Also, we currently grow enough food to support our current population. Starvation is mostly due to logistics problems in countries with instability and poor infrastructure.
So you are an advocate for taking away your own funding that is currently saving lives (someone is dying right now and to them it is very much of pressing importance) to populate space in case in the next 100-200 years we get more unlucky in our cosmic travel than the last 4 540 000 000 years. and it would take some serious unluck to destroy our planet considering what its been through so far. not to mention that we have approximately that long again untill the natural lifespan of our planet is done and since then we have come pretty far from water and dust. also these logistics problems in countries with poor infrastructure would probably cost less to fix than the mars rover.
Space provides us with lots of useful economic activities. Asteroids could contain rare earth metals, useful for computing, that are rare on Earth or monopolized by China. The metal from asteroids could be used to construct things in outer space, so that with planning we won't need to keep sending things up. Helium 3 on the moon and gas giants could be useful for nuclear fusion. There is also very interesting research to be done on Titan, Enceladus, and Europa as to whether there is life on other celestial bodies in our solar system.
Earth is not short on computers and nuclear fusion components tho. I mean there are things you can do in space but you have not sold me that finding out that something lives on a moon of Jupiter is worth billions and billions of dollars that could have literally fed every human on the planet! i mean its cool and interesting but its just not usefull and people are dying right now and we can actually save them.
I think a different way to drive exploration in space would be the existence of a wealthy country that is socialist and finds it important to do stuff in space. A country like the USA, maybe the EU as a whole, Japan, or China could probably pull it off at present if they change attitudes and government a little bit.
how is this a different or new way at all?
Previously, the USSR and the USA only did things because space race. Now, countries do space-things only very sparingly. If a country focused like 5% of its GDP on space exploration that would be totally revolutionary. Such large spending would probably have to come from a socialist economic structure.
So they used to find it important. Then they didn't find it important. But if they find it important again it would be a totally new way to drive exploration in space. (note no reason for finding it important provided.)
I agree that there are issues here on our planet that need to be solved. But - I don't think it will be for corporations to do. Solving issues such as poverty, education, disease is the job of the government and non-profits for the most part. I would argue that if it were profitable to do these things (profitable in the sense that if I pay for your education I will get xxxx money back from you), they would be solved by now. I think the problem with the space frontier is similar in that it isn't happening because it is not yet profitable. The difference is that we know there are ways to make a profit in space (in that the possibility to make a ROI is there), the issue is I don't think people really know how. The problem is expounded by the fact that there needs to be a starting point for the technology to take off, for example, if we begin harvesting asteroids then all sorts of technological advanced will be made in that area, eventually leading to other possibilities (like bigger cargo hold in space, better ships, etc). I just don't think we have that starting point yet and that it needs to be figured out. There must be some way to make space exploration profitable on some level, whether its the amount of 'land' that a corp. could use, or the materials that could be harvested, or something else entirely. But whatever that starting point is it would undoubtedly spur technological advances in space.
EDIT: I think the idea of governments funding space programs is out-dated. I said a little bit in the OP but I believe that space exploration falls outside the scope of what governments need to focus on or what they should focus on. As discussed here, the government's job is to take care of it's people - so it should concern itself with the issues of education, poverty, health, etc. In other words, governments have too many 'boundaries' for them to be good at overseeing (or even funding) a task such as space exploration. This is why I think it is the place of the corporation to drive space exploration - it makes more sense for them to do so. Of course if and when corporations do eventually make it into space, that brings up a whole slew of new economic, political, and everything else issues. But again, there needs to be a starting point for that sort of growth to happen.
The problem with space exploration is the ridiculous travel times. Seriously 50+ years for the voyager probe to escape our solar system?
Until we can get people to the moon within a day and Mars within a week space exploration won't be interesting enough the average person to pursue. Robots don't have the impact people do (most people don't know that USSR beat the USA to the moon because the US got the first people there).
On September 26 2013 08:02 Kickstart wrote: I agree that there are issues here on our planet that need to be solved. But - I don't think it will be for corporations to do. Solving issues such as poverty, education, disease is the job of the government and non-profits for the most part. I would argue that if it were profitable to do these things (profitable in the sense that if I pay for your education I will get xxxx money back from you), they would be solved by now. I think the problem with the space frontier is similar in that it isn't happening because it is not yet profitable. The difference is that we know there are ways to make a profit in space (in that the possibility to make a ROI is there), the issue is I don't think people really know how. The problem is expounded by the fact that there needs to be a starting point for the technology to take off, for example, if we begin harvesting asteroids then all sorts of technological advanced will be made in that area, eventually leading to other possibilities (like bigger cargo hold in space, better ships, etc). I just don't think we have that starting point yet and that it needs to be figured out. There must be some way to make space exploration profitable on some level, whether its the amount of 'land' that a corp. could use, or the materials that could be harvested, or something else entirely. But whatever that starting point is it would undoubtedly spur technological advances in space.
Look, the point is that you will not find a reasonable company or individual with the resources to invest in harvesting the asteroid belt. You just won't. Not at our current level of technology.
Space exploration on the scale you are thinking is, given current technological constraints, out of reach of the free market. No private corporation is going to invest heavily into something as "out there" as mining asteroids. It's too expensive and too hard, and no private corporation can realistically expect to drop billions of dollars into something that far-fetched.
There is far more money to be made on Earth than in space, at least for the short-term. And few to no companies have the resources, willingness, or drive to invest in something as long-term as space exploration for profit.
That will change only if space technology advances to the point where it becomes practical to explore and exploit space resources, thereby giving an incentive for private corporations to invest in space. The alternative is funding from major national governments.
I think the idea of governments funding space programs is out-dated. I said a little bit in the OP but I believe that space exploration falls outside the scope of what governments need to focus on or what they should focus on. As discussed here, the government's job is to take care of it's people - so it should concern itself with the issues of education, poverty, health, etc. In other words, governments have too many 'boundaries' for them to be good at overseeing (or even funding) a task such as space exploration. This is why I think it is the place of the corporation to drive space exploration - it makes more sense for them to do so. Of course if and when corporations do eventually make it into space, that brings up a whole slew of new economic, political, and everything else issues. But again, there needs to be a starting point for that sort of growth to happen.
No, it doesn't.
The point of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders. The ones that are currently living. It is not the job, responsibility, or role of a corporation to invest in space exploration unless you can show, empirically, a sufficient return-on-investment within a reasonable time frame and acceptable liability that would make investment logical and sane.
On September 26 2013 08:14 Burrfoot wrote: Just need a war with aliens.
Well yeah, that would do it :D. Either we would advance or get taken out. But I agree with you on the general idea that something will have to happen to force us to make a push towards space exploration, whether it is for economic gain or for combating aliens
On September 26 2013 08:02 Kickstart wrote: I agree that there are issues here on our planet that need to be solved. But - I don't think it will be for corporations to do. Solving issues such as poverty, education, disease is the job of the government and non-profits for the most part. I would argue that if it were profitable to do these things (profitable in the sense that if I pay for your education I will get xxxx money back from you), they would be solved by now. I think the problem with the space frontier is similar in that it isn't happening because it is not yet profitable. The difference is that we know there are ways to make a profit in space (in that the possibility to make a ROI is there), the issue is I don't think people really know how. The problem is expounded by the fact that there needs to be a starting point for the technology to take off, for example, if we begin harvesting asteroids then all sorts of technological advanced will be made in that area, eventually leading to other possibilities (like bigger cargo hold in space, better ships, etc). I just don't think we have that starting point yet and that it needs to be figured out. There must be some way to make space exploration profitable on some level, whether its the amount of 'land' that a corp. could use, or the materials that could be harvested, or something else entirely. But whatever that starting point is it would undoubtedly spur technological advances in space.
Look, the point is that you will not find a reasonable company or individual with the resources to invest in harvesting the asteroid belt. You just won't. Not at our current level of technology.
Space exploration on the scale you are thinking is, given current technological constraints, out of reach of the free market. No private corporation is going to invest heavily into something as "out there" as mining asteroids. It's too expensive and too hard, and no private corporation can realistically expect to drop billions of dollars into something that far-fetched.
There is far more money to be made on Earth than in space, at least for the short-term. And few to no companies have the resources, willingness, or drive to invest in something as long-term as space exploration for profit.
That will change only if space technology advances to the point where it becomes practical to explore and exploit space resources, thereby giving an incentive for private corporations to invest in space. The alternative is funding from major national governments.
I think the idea of governments funding space programs is out-dated. I said a little bit in the OP but I believe that space exploration falls outside the scope of what governments need to focus on or what they should focus on. As discussed here, the government's job is to take care of it's people - so it should concern itself with the issues of education, poverty, health, etc. In other words, governments have too many 'boundaries' for them to be good at overseeing (or even funding) a task such as space exploration. This is why I think it is the place of the corporation to drive space exploration - it makes more sense for them to do so. Of course if and when corporations do eventually make it into space, that brings up a whole slew of new economic, political, and everything else issues. But again, there needs to be a starting point for that sort of growth to happen.
No, it doesn't.
The point of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders. The ones that are currently living. It is not the job, responsibility, or role of a corporation to invest in space exploration unless you can show, empirically, a sufficient return-on-investment within a reasonable time frame and acceptable liability that would make investment logical and sane.
Right now, in 2013, that doesn't exist.
I agree with you entirely. I didn't mean to say that mining asteroids is the way to go, or that putting a datacenter on the moon is - I was just trying to throw out things that could work. My main point is that SOMETHING needs to be profitable NOW for space technology to advance at all. What that is I don't know, but surely someone out there who knows a lot more about space than you or I can come up with something - if not, then I don't see it advancing in any real fashion. There is a disconnect between what science is focusing on and what is feasible as a starting point. We are looking into solar systems that are forever away when we need to be figuring out what we can do with what is near to us.
man on the moon was 1969. cold war ended 1989. human space exploration made no advancement of any kind for 20 years. in fact, it regressed 1,000 fold. despite this "unlimited budget" to fight the godless commies.
all the apollo missions are looking more suspect the longer NASA or any organization takes to bother to show us pictures of where the LEMs are on the moon.
On September 26 2013 08:02 Kickstart wrote: I think the idea of governments funding space programs is out-dated. I said a little bit in the OP but I believe that space exploration falls outside the scope of what governments need to focus on or what they should focus on. As discussed here, the government's job is to take care of it's people - so it should concern itself with the issues of education, poverty, health, etc. In other words, governments have too many 'boundaries' for them to be good at overseeing (or even funding) a task such as space exploration. This is why I think it is the place of the corporation to drive space exploration - it makes more sense for them to do so. Of course if and when corporations do eventually make it into space, that brings up a whole slew of new economic, political, and everything else issues. But again, there needs to be a starting point for that sort of growth to happen.
No, it doesn't.
The point of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders. The ones that are currently living. It is not the job, responsibility, or role of a corporation to invest in space exploration unless you can show, empirically, a sufficient return-on-investment within a reasonable time frame and acceptable liability that would make investment logical and sane.
Right now, in 2013, that doesn't exist.
You raise a good point. I think what you said is true, but I think that both investors and corporations are thinking too short term in that case. I mean, a corporation as an entity could exist forever, so the only reason that they can't focus that amount of money on space programs is because they can not make a case for there being a return in the near future. I would argue that given enough time corporations would make a ROI, the problem then becomes convincing shareholder's to invest for their future generations and not themselves. Again purely as an illustration, imagine that a company announces that they now have the capability to harvest an asteroid, that company immediately becomes a huge player in the world market and stock prices would go insane.
On September 26 2013 08:02 Kickstart wrote: I think the idea of governments funding space programs is out-dated. I said a little bit in the OP but I believe that space exploration falls outside the scope of what governments need to focus on or what they should focus on. As discussed here, the government's job is to take care of it's people - so it should concern itself with the issues of education, poverty, health, etc. In other words, governments have too many 'boundaries' for them to be good at overseeing (or even funding) a task such as space exploration. This is why I think it is the place of the corporation to drive space exploration - it makes more sense for them to do so. Of course if and when corporations do eventually make it into space, that brings up a whole slew of new economic, political, and everything else issues. But again, there needs to be a starting point for that sort of growth to happen.
No, it doesn't.
The point of a corporation is to make money for its shareholders. The ones that are currently living. It is not the job, responsibility, or role of a corporation to invest in space exploration unless you can show, empirically, a sufficient return-on-investment within a reasonable time frame and acceptable liability that would make investment logical and sane.
Right now, in 2013, that doesn't exist.
You raise a good point. I think what you said is true, but I think that both investors and corporations are thinking too short term in that case. I mean, a corporation as an entity could exist forever, so the only reason that they can't focus that amount of money on space programs is because they can not make a case for there being a return in the near future. I would argue that given enough time corporations would make a ROI, the problem then becomes convincing shareholder's to invest for their future generations and not themselves. Again purely as an illustration, imagine that a company announces that they now have the capability to harvest an asteroid, that company immediately becomes a huge player in the world market and stock prices would go insane.
Why?
Why would stock prices go insane? Why would that company suddenly become a huge player in the world market?
Just because you can get to an asteroid and mine it doesn't mean you'll make any profit, given how expensive it is to simply get there, mine it, and somehow bring the stuff back. Yeah yeah, we hear about there are asteroids loaded with X metal or Y mineral or Z *insert expensive thing*, but that alone doesn't mean shit if the cost of getting the damn thing back here is too high, too dangerous, or too inefficient.
I'd bet that with enough money, the tech exists now to shoot a robot drone missile thing to an asteroid, have the rocket land on it, then somehow propel the asteroid in the general direction of Earth. I bet you could do that with enough money, time, and effort. It'd be hideously difficult, insanely expensive, and very likely not worth it, but something like that is probably not out of the realm of possibility for our species and our current level of technology.
The problem is raising the level of technology to the point where it becomes feasible for private companies or, in some cases, national governments, to view space exploration as a clearly profitable venture. Until technology makes that possible, space exploration (real space exploration, not shooting something into our own orbit) is nothing more than Neil Degrasse Tyson's wet dream.
That video just gave me the impression that space laws are terribly outdated and need to be revised - or redone entirely. If x corporation wants to colonize the moon, no one would have the authority or the ability to tell them no you can't do that. If they have the money and the tech, sure they can. But these are problems that will have to be dealt with when that time comes, trying to figure them out now is secondary to getting to the point where they matter. Again though, the purpose of my post was not to argue that space exploration is profitable at the moment, to the contrary I said that it currently isn't and that is why no advances are being made. THAT is the fundamental problem. But there must be something that can be profitable, I want to try and figure out what the possibilities are - because only then will we advance.
EDIT: To expand, this is why I said earlier that science and business seem to be at a disconnect as far as space exploration is concerned. If scientists want to make advances in space exploration, they need to begin focusing on objects that are close to us and figuring out ways where a profit can be made. It sounds a bit odd saying that scientists need to be figuring out how to make rich corporations richer, but essentially that is the only thing that will succeed in getting them to explore space.
It's no ones, so if I wanted to build on it I could. Like I said, the issue of space governance will be a big issue when the time comes, and will eventually need governing bodies that can maintain control, but the main issue at present is finding that reason to go to space in the first place. If anyone knows of any academic journals or pieces with that sort of perspective of seeing if something is profitable in space that is within close proximity to earth, please do share.
Outer space treaty 1967, forbids states from claiming sovereignty. Non government actors must seek approval from their national government, and since the national government is already precluded from owning the moon, a private corporations likely couldn't either.
Again I just think this is an outdated and irrelevant law. Besides it just being dumb to not allow anyone to build or do anything anywhere in space, it would be impossible to enforce at this point in time. If we are going to play out that scenario then a governing body would eventually just have to claim ownership and responsibility. Say the UN. And then they would have to give or deny permission. I think even that system is dumb. But now that we have gotten into this discussion around the laws of space it seems as though the outdated and dumb laws could be a factor in the bigger problem. Perhaps corporations can't figure out a ROI from space exploration because current laws don't allow them the possibility.
EDIT: What I mean to say is that if in fact the law is the factor or a major factor in the halt of space exploration, which it seems to be. Then surely that law should be changed.
On September 26 2013 10:27 Elegy wrote: My guess would be that when the technology exists to make this profitable, people, states, and corporations will challenge the laws and come to some sort of new agreement.
Is that not part of the problem though? Isn't the fact that the laws are/could hamper space exploration reason enough to challenge and change them now?
Corporations can't make money from space exploration because there isn't anything worth taking on the moon, and everything else is too far away and too expensive to even get to, let alone use in practical terms when you compare the costs of doing the same thing on earth.
The talk of helium 3 and all that is decades in the making, and there literally is nothing else on the moon. It's useful as a launching pad and docking station for further exploration, that's it.
And laws aren't irrelevant. It's a passed and ratified international treaty.
My guess would be that when the technology exists to make this profitable, people, states, and corporations will challenge the laws and come to some sort of new agreement.
On September 26 2013 10:22 Kickstart wrote: Again I just think this is an outdated and irrelevant law. Besides it just being dumb to not allow anyone to build or do anything anywhere in space, it would be impossible to enforce at this point in time. If we are going to play out that scenario then a governing body would eventually just have to claim ownership and responsibility. Say the UN. And then they would have to give or deny permission. I think even that system is dumb. But now that we have gotten into this discussion around the laws of space it seems as though the outdated and dumb laws could be a factor in the bigger problem. Perhaps corporations can't figure out a ROI from space exploration because current laws don't allow them the possibility.
EDIT: What I mean to say is that if in fact the law is the factor or a major factor in the halt of space exploration, which it seems to be. Then surely that law should be changed.
They haven't agreed about Antarctica yet and you want them to give property rights on the moon ? lol
On September 26 2013 10:22 Kickstart wrote: Again I just think this is an outdated and irrelevant law. Besides it just being dumb to not allow anyone to build or do anything anywhere in space, it would be impossible to enforce at this point in time. If we are going to play out that scenario then a governing body would eventually just have to claim ownership and responsibility. Say the UN. And then they would have to give or deny permission. I think even that system is dumb. But now that we have gotten into this discussion around the laws of space it seems as though the outdated and dumb laws could be a factor in the bigger problem. Perhaps corporations can't figure out a ROI from space exploration because current laws don't allow them the possibility.
EDIT: What I mean to say is that if in fact the law is the factor or a major factor in the halt of space exploration, which it seems to be. Then surely that law should be changed.
They haven't agreed about Antarctica yet and you want them to give property rights on the moon ? lol
Well from what I gather, the current law and the reasoning behind it is something akin to 'If we cant have it and build on it and use it then no one can have it build on it or use it", causing the worst possible scenario to happen as far as advancement is concerned - nothing.
On September 26 2013 10:22 Kickstart wrote: Again I just think this is an outdated and irrelevant law. Besides it just being dumb to not allow anyone to build or do anything anywhere in space, it would be impossible to enforce at this point in time. If we are going to play out that scenario then a governing body would eventually just have to claim ownership and responsibility. Say the UN. And then they would have to give or deny permission. I think even that system is dumb. But now that we have gotten into this discussion around the laws of space it seems as though the outdated and dumb laws could be a factor in the bigger problem. Perhaps corporations can't figure out a ROI from space exploration because current laws don't allow them the possibility.
EDIT: What I mean to say is that if in fact the law is the factor or a major factor in the halt of space exploration, which it seems to be. Then surely that law should be changed.
On September 26 2013 10:27 Elegy wrote: My guess would be that when the technology exists to make this profitable, people, states, and corporations will challenge the laws and come to some sort of new agreement.
Is that not part of the problem though? Isn't the fact that the laws are/could hamper space exploration reason enough to challenge and change them now?
No, because no one fucking wants to do anything on the moon for decades because it's fucking useless for decades to come at the earliest. It gives us tides, that's it. Anything else is a pipe dream.
The laws don't matter because if someone cared enough to do something on the moon, they'd already be working with their national governments and the UN to figure out how it works.
I'm sick of this debate without even having to hear it, but anybody interested in private development of space should look into Wasser and Jobes article here. It makes a great argument for it.
On September 26 2013 10:22 Kickstart wrote: Again I just think this is an outdated and irrelevant law. Besides it just being dumb to not allow anyone to build or do anything anywhere in space, it would be impossible to enforce at this point in time. If we are going to play out that scenario then a governing body would eventually just have to claim ownership and responsibility. Say the UN. And then they would have to give or deny permission. I think even that system is dumb. But now that we have gotten into this discussion around the laws of space it seems as though the outdated and dumb laws could be a factor in the bigger problem. Perhaps corporations can't figure out a ROI from space exploration because current laws don't allow them the possibility.
EDIT: What I mean to say is that if in fact the law is the factor or a major factor in the halt of space exploration, which it seems to be. Then surely that law should be changed.
They haven't agreed about Antarctica yet and you want them to give property rights on the moon ? lol
Well from what I gather, the current law and the reasoning behind it is something akin to 'If we cant have it and build on it and use it then no one can have it build on it or use it", causing the worst possible scenario to happen as far as advancement is concerned - nothing.
It is not like that (for both space and Antarctica). You can do pretty much whatever you want/can as long as it is related to Science (except militarization/nuclearization) but you can't claim property. There is also a moratorium about commercial mining in Antarctica (gonna be fun in 2041 with the re-negociations :p).
And since it is just too expensive on the moon they didn't even bother to ban it (+ there are no seals cubs to protect from evil oil tankers ).
From reading the article that packrat386 linked it seems that the general legal consensus is that a private company could colonize space and claim the land around that settlement. Very interesting article so far.
EDIT Finished that article packrat, thanks for linking it. They basically come to the same conclusion that I have - that the only profitable way to colonize space is to allow the colonizers ownership of the land they occupy and use, and that the current laws do in fact seem to be stalling space exploration. So now I guess the question is how does one go about getting the UN to pass new laws on the matter.
On September 26 2013 10:54 Kickstart wrote: From reading the article that packrat386 linked it seems that the general legal consensus is that a private company could colonize space and claim the land around that settlement. Very interesting article so far.
Well there are many countries with claims on Antarctica too. Too bad they don't agree with each other
As always we need a soical change first. If most of our endeavors are judged by profit margins then regular low orbits flight as some kind of travel/event are probably the only thing in manned space flights for the next 50 years (maybe a mars mission). Regarding space laws i like to add that im keen on the idea of not owning a object in space (including Earth) .Establish a right to use the resources as long as you do so for the benefit of human society . This needs to be easily revoked . This should also apply to the current corporations if i remember correctly this once was the case it the usa but a quick google result yielded no relevant results and its 4 am and i have to sleep at some point
On September 26 2013 10:54 Kickstart wrote: From reading the article that packrat386 linked it seems that the general legal consensus is that a private company could colonize space and claim the land around that settlement. Very interesting article so far.
Well there are many countries with claims on Antarctica too. Too bad they don't agree with each other
yeah boblion, the thing that wasser and jobes would say is that you basically have to repeal the OST, and that it would be adopted by other countries if the US went first because every country that has a space program has an interest in private development. The countries that are interested in keeping space as a so called "common heritage" are those that can't get there themselves (obviously zimbabwe wants a share of the loot since they won't have to pay for the development).
If you want a corrolary on earth you should look at the US refusal to sign UNCLOS because it would mean that they would have to share profits from their sea mining operations with countries that couldn't possibly make use of the resource themselves.
edit: this is not to say that this is obviously the right choice. I just want to clarify jobes argument in the context of modern I-Law
A key note on the blog, e.g., how do we fund space exploration, is that it is extremely hard to justify getting an asteroid for its raw materials. This isn't because those raw materials aren't extremely valuable, but rather that you would be reducing the market price of whatever commodities you brought back to the planet by the very act of making those resources available.
Therefor the cost cannot be justified by corporations, unless a group of the global super rich decided to fund the recovery understanding that it would be a very long term loss, but increase the standard of living for many people around the world. This is actually why a government is in a better position to fund this specific type of exploration.
There would be many difficulties in recovering the materials once an asteroid was held in Near Earth Orbit anyways, so maybe the market price wouldn't be immediately flooded, but long term investors would clearly understand what several billion tons of materials in NEO means for the future prices of those commodities (for a single ~1km diameter asteroid, which is smallish).
In space, a single platinum-rich 500 meter wide asteroid contains about 174 times the yearly world output of platinum, and 1.5 times the known world-reserves of platinum group metals (ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, osmium, iridium, and platinum). This amount is enough to fill a basketball court to four times the height of the rim. By contrast, all of the platinum group metals mined to date in history would not reach waist-high on that same basketball court.
I think a governmental funding approach is even more important if the goal is to retrieve water from asteroids, as opposed to minerals. Simply because governments can take on serious debt for the improvement of society, while corporations generally can't.
On September 26 2013 11:53 sabreace wrote: A key note on the blog, e.g., how do we fund space exploration, is that it is extremely hard to justify getting an asteroid for its raw materials. This isn't because those raw materials aren't extremely valuable, but rather that you would be reducing the market price of whatever commodities you brought back to the planet by the very act of making those resources available.
Therefor the cost cannot be justified by corporations, unless a group of the global super rich decided to fund the recovery understanding that it would be a very long term loss, but increase the standard of living for many people around the world. This is actually why a government is in a better position to fund this specific type of exploration.
There would be many difficulties in recovering the materials once an asteroid was held in Near Earth Orbit anyways, so maybe the market price wouldn't be immediately flooded, but long term investors would clearly understand what several billion tons of materials in NEO means for the future prices of those commodities (for a single ~1km diameter asteroid, which is smallish).
In space, a single platinum-rich 500 meter wide asteroid contains about 174 times the yearly world output of platinum, and 1.5 times the known world-reserves of platinum group metals (ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, osmium, iridium, and platinum). This amount is enough to fill a basketball court to four times the height of the rim. By contrast, all of the platinum group metals mined to date in history would not reach waist-high on that same basketball court.
I think a governmental funding approach is even more important if the goal is to retrieve water from asteroids, as opposed to minerals. Simply because governments can take on serious debt for the improvement of society, while corporations generally can't.
Well I understand you don't think it's possible or reasonnable for companies to go around digging asteroids. How do you explain planetary resources then? Do you think it won't work at all?
To add to this discussion; I'd like to mention current assumed maximum normal fecal discharge in a single event is .5L vs 1.5L for max diarrheal discharge. Bonus being after a diarrheal event, there is 2 day period of reduced feces production. Per NASA design requirements.
ps - this is american astronaut requirements, other nationalities may be less full of shit.
As human beings we should colonize space to ensure the survival of our species in case of a large collision or other great extinction event.
We should colonize space because it's fucking awesome.
I'm with you there too. That is what inspired me to write the OP in the first place, just thinking about how awesome it is and then being like wait.... why aren't we doing ANYTHING to get there. I am trying to look at it practically and come up with what would be the best steps that society as a whole could take to achieve space exploration/colonization. Over the course of discussing the idea and then reading up on it (shoutout to packrat again, that article was really interesting+ Show Spoiler +
On September 26 2013 10:41 packrat386 wrote: I'm sick of this debate without even having to hear it, but anybody interested in private development of space should look into Wasser and Jobes article here. It makes a great argument for it.
) it seems the first logical step is to get the law changed so that a corporation could own and sell the land that it colonizes and uses. This seems to be the biggest thing that could be done right now that would make strides towards space exploration/colonization.
I don't know if anyone mentioned this yet but, there are plenty of corporate space related programs. The red bull sponsored team got that Felix Baumgartner to break a bunch of space freefall records for example. There are other companies that offer short space flights for rich travelers, there is currently a bunch of people applying for the suicide mission to mars, etc. I honestly think this could become a huge problem when the technology becomes cheaper and easier to make. Probably one of the reasons the NSA has been spying on everyone.
Just think of the issues that arise when private organizations start blasting off rockets all over the place and trying to do things in space and even bringing stuff back to earth. It would definitely create new jurisdictions and trying to get materials to somewhere to own or build somewhere in space would just be controlled from earth directly by not allowing people to take off in the first place. ie; no colonizations unless govt says so, and since they all agree, no one is going to let you do this unless you bribe A LOT of people.
PS- like the video and other people have mentioned already, Antarctica is still not even figured out yet, how can we decide on moons, planets, and asteroids?
the law follows the changing reality not the other way round! Otherwise there would be no progress at all. reality changes, the law adapts. The things preventing mankind from going full out space travel are: cost physics
Both points have already been addressed here, I just want to add something:
There basically are no companies beyond the scope of governemnts when it comes to funding. Yes, the crisis has taken it s toll on government funded programms yet nasa's budget is still around 18 billion dollars which is solely focused on space exploration. there are no private companies that can afford to invest such a sum solely on space travel each year. It's the same issue as with fundamental research: Companies cannot invest a major part of their liquid assests in something that is not making profits in at least the medium term or they will run out of money rather sooner than later.
EPT
).
