If you go to space you might not come back. That's why explorers rock and everyone else watches TV.
The article also misses an important variable. How much is discovery worth? Once that's added to the plus column, all of the other costs seem insignificant.
Does anyone know if the military applies the same kind of calculations? Seems hard to believe.
[1] http://www.uscgboating.org/statistics/accident_statistics.as...
Yes, you can die. Yes, it is dangerous. Yes, these brave men risked their lives and they lost. And if they had to do it all over again, they would risk their lives again.
Because if it wasn't for men like them, we would still be sitting in a cave poking a fire with a stick.
I honestly don't know how to incorporate that aspect into the dollar cost/benefit the article proposes.
The damage is in the response, not the event.
The problem here is that NASA is a political agency, not a scientific one. Each year, elected politicians sit down and decide how much they're going to get.
This means the number one rule is don't make us look bad. You can't waste too much money, you can't go making a bunch of controversial statements, and good grief, whatever you do don't have astronauts getting exploded on TV.
The analogy with the mission-centric military was a good one. Unfortunately, as we involve the U.S. military in more and more missions that look highly political, we're going to end up with a badly broken military, for exactly the same reasons.
NASA should have but one mission: lower cost to orbit. If they can reach a 1000-fold reduction in cost to low-earth orbit, a lot of scientific research, exploration, and commercialization can take place.
Bearing that in mind, the entire thing is showboating on TV, and it's pretty silly to angst if over this, that, or the other bit of it is compromised by politics.
Human space travel is a waste of money from a scientific standpoint. Why a libertarian magazine like reason.com supports human space travel at all is a mystery to me.
Similarly, NASA is geared up for yesterday's space race. We have to send a man to space! We have to send two men to space! We have to send a man to the moon! Uh, now what... We have to send a man to MARS!
Well, no, we really don't. Yes, we could. We know we could. We wouldn't learn anything significant by doing so that we couldn't learn for much cheaper here on Earth. It would be a massively expensive, complicated and dangerous tourist expedition-- a lot like sending soldiers to the Middle East, actually.
We all already live in space, on the largest, safest, most self-sustaining spaceship any of us can conceive of. The future of space exploration lies in the hands of semi- and fully-autonomous machines. There's no good reason for people to be in space, not for the foreseeable future at least.
Thereby creating a nation of people dependent on our aid, who, when we cease sending aid due to budget constraints, will likely decide to start a war anyway. coughNorth Koreacough
Not saying that line of reasoning is totally invalid, but it's definitely not so clear-cut that you can use it in an analogy.
From:
"When in the course of human events,"
"and that, government of the people,
by the people, for the people,
shall not perish from the earth,"
"We Will, In Fact, Be Greeted As Liberators"
"War is the continuation of politics by other means." - Carl von Clausewitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz)
The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are not particularly unusual, and I don’t think they represent a rising trend. That doesn’t mean they’re excusable or inevitable, and they may have important differences from past politicized wars. I’m not apologizing for them, I’m just saying they aren’t a new phenomenon.
<cough> Libya <cough> drones <cough>
Yep, the writing is already on the wall.
... well, except for air, and food. But there's water! Which we can detect with sensitive instruments!
This whole article has no point. As everyone in the military knows full well, if the benefit is great enough humans will happily risk other human lives, even expend lives, by the thousands and even millions.
The "problem" is that there's nothing for humans to do in space that is worth so much as a single human life. This isn't 1937 anymore; the transistor and the IC have been invented and we know how to build robots. These days even the military pilots on Earth spend more and more time in chairs on the ground, steering robots, often from halfway around the world.
Wrong. In the long run, even if we achieve some sort of utopia, all life will be destroyed by natural catastrophe. The only way to avoid this fate is to find other places to live. Mars is one of those places; so are the various exoplanets we are finding.
Indeed, this is humanities greatest challenge. Can we harness the incredible energy density of oil to get off planet and learn to live sustainably before the oil runs out?
There is no doubt that it will be difficult. Humans are so fragile, and the universe is extraordinarily harsh. It's a problem that will demand careful study, creativity, and great personal risk.
And I think we can do it.
You're born, you live, you die. A species arises, it has its time on Earth, then it's extinct. Why are humans so special that we should bother about eventually going extinct in hundreds of thousands of years?
IMHO, humanity's goal for the next hundred years is to enhance our energy and medical technologies as quickly as possible. (space takes a distant third).
We are essentially in a race against time: if we are too slow, we will deplete our resources and wipe ourselves out.
There are lots and lots of things that are worth a single human's life (or tens, hundreds of lives). Research is one of them. For instance, if we could magically trade a random 100 lives for knowing if there is extraterrestrial life, I believe that it's a worthy trade. That's just one example.
A human is born in need of air, water, food, and pastime, and the best we can do is satisfy these needs only partially. There is no reason to create these needs (other than to partially satisfy existing needs that didn't need to be created), but there are many reasons not to create these needs.
You correctly note that the universe is extraordinarily harsh. I see no rational reason to continue fighting it. There are only superstitious reasons, like pride, sunk costs, think of the children, equivocating humanity the race with human the individual, identifying with your genetic material, assigning intrinsic value to life, etc.
I'm going to disagree with you there.[1]
A bit tongue in cheek, but regarding your larger point, I think that thinking about preserving life in our corner of the universe solely in terms of keeping meat puppets alive in interstellar space is a rather parochial way to think. We already know of two forms of life that are far better suited to the void, autonomous robots and bacterial spores, why not get them out first?
[1]: http://worldcat.org/title/impossible-extinction-natural-cata...
Based on a bit of Googling, the answer seems to be on the order of "ten", as a minimum. Numbers of $20 billion or so were being thrown around for a manned mission, and the currently-in-transit Mars Science Lab is up past $1.5 billion after a 30% cost overrun:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/Bal...
Given that the $20 billion is a pie-in-the-sky planning number and has yet to experience overruns of its own...
Meanwhile, what's the rush? Mars is not going anywhere.
And meanwhile too, is your human really going to cover 40km in a week after a ten month trip in free fall? Not at the present state of the art:
http://www.space.com/8978-trip-mars-turn-astronauts-weakling...
Or are we shipping an SUV to Mars along with the human and all of her groceries? The Spirit-probe-to-human ratio continues to grow.
If not, that would also seem to imply that a life's value is significantly less than $3MM. The author does specify that that figure is an upper limit.
No, it would just imply that we value other things. Also, it's crazy to think we can infer a consistent set of societal preferences from government actions. Individual humans aren't even consistent, much less when they get into groups.
Various policy setters have to make these difficult decisions.
A decade or so ago Australia had a tightly regulated domestic air travel industry. Lobbyists successfully argued for deregulation so that air travel prices would come down, enabling more people to travel by the much-safer aeroplane than by risky road travel. It worked too.
For example, a Space Shuttle launch costs on average $450 million, kills on average 0.1 astronauts and destroys 0.015 shuttles (worth $3 billion). If the Space Shuttle could be redesigned so that on average it cost $300 million to launch but killed two astronauts every time, predictably, would that be morally right?
I would say no. But I agree that contradicts logic. I draw the conclusion that logic is for deciding some things and feelings are for deciding others.
It's an interesting thought experiment, but of course that's not really relevant to the example at hand. If NASA insisted on 1e-10 astronaut risk, it would not divert any money from other programs that protect human life, because the NASA appropriations are not for that purpose. It would just mean that NASA got nothing done, and maybe eventually it would be shut down. But assuming that there's a rational and efficient allocation of resources for a clear goal seems just as much a fiction as other economic concepts like "efficient markets".
Yet despite vastly superior technology and hundreds of billions of dollars in subsequent spending, the agency has been unable to send anyone else farther than low Earth orbit ever since.
Why? Because we insist that our astronauts be as safe as possible.
Safety concerns undoubtedly carry a cost at NASA, but they are hardly the central reason there have been no manned missions beyond Earth orbit. During Apollo, when presumably the agency wasn't so safety conscious, NASA's budget (adjusted for inflation) was twice what it is today, and as a percentage of the Federal budget it was over 5x today's level.
This is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the absolute budget, adjusted for inflation. In addition, given the greatly improved technology, we should be able to get to the moon for far cheaper. In fact, all the R&D has already been done. It should be a cake walk on half the budget.
If going to the moon is 75% less than it was in the Apollo days, that is cool, but what do we accomplish by going there?
Still doesn't explain why no other country has done it, though. Well, except for the boring explanations about high costs and no immediate benefits besides bragging rights...
“The dust was so abrasive that it actually wore through three layers of Kevlar-like material on [Apollo 17 astronaut] Jack [Schmitt]’s boot,” Taylor says.
That abrasion happened over 3 moonwalks (each lasting a bit over 7 hours).
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080924191552.ht...
Which is not exactly right. It's correct if you're looking at random, uncorrelated factors. However, two rovers from the same program are not going to be uncorrelated. If one rover is hit by a software blunder, it's likely the other one will have the same problem. (e.g. using mks instead of english units in the flight computer, using a 16 bit counter that overflows to name two)
Actually, this is something they plan for. It is not unheard of to have the software for two different devices developed by two different teams who are not allowed to talk to each other, precisely to avoid this scenario.
In fact, there are Common Cause Analysis people whose whole job is to think of this sort of thing and recommend ways to avert it.
Seriously? Does anyone have more information on this? I like Reason but sometimes they can be a little biased. If there's no missing context and we're literally killing astronauts in safety training then there is no excuse not to just get them in space already.
His point is exactly that, get them into space already. Or rather, give them a mission that is worth risking their life.
We didn't go to the moon in the first place.
They jumped the shark when they showed people on dune buggies on the moon.
They won't go back because when people see how hard it is to land and relaunch with human life in tow, the world will know we didn't go in the first place.
Nobody will be going to the moon until it doesn't matter that the world finds out we didn't go in the first place.
Ask yourself. What is easier: scamming a trusting, patriotic 60's public on TV or landing a human being on a foreign planet.., whats harder? Having people drive a dune buggie, then relaunching and landing safely back on earth or setting up a desert set piece to look like the moon. Or maybe a Hollywood studio to look like the moon. I've seen the video. It's a joke.
And you're shocked we never went back to the moon? Please! How gullible can you be?
Not only 60's public but also the public of every subsequent year (and by "public" you have to include scientists, engineers and otherwise intelligent men and women from all walks of life). Given all that I'd say the former is much harder (downright impossible) to accomplish.
It would be much harder for thousands of people to keep such a secret, than it would to just go to the moon.
Fixing Hubble was really important. I'm not sure how much the shuttle's work was of the same magnitude, or couldn't have been done with automated gear.
BUT bureaucratic and political imperatives called for continuation of the space program, at scale, and that called for justification of the costs. The money is no big deal, but if those justifications aren't that good, the collision of those weaknesses with the human risks will cause cognitive dissonance. If the people concerned haven't the will to rethink the whole thing -- and there are many examples of much, much larger failures -- you're going to see some strange behavior along the way. Shuttles failed twice in 100 missions, is the milestone of first senator in orbit really worth a 2% fatality risk? No, but rather than admit that and cancel the mission the response is to imagine that risk can be driven down to negligible. And if that isn't possible, the standard is going to shift from "known but justifiable risk" to "we're doing the best we can / no expense has been spared".
Of course it doesn't make sense. But if they recognized that, they wouldn't have flown such missions in the first place.
Although a staunch supporter of Zubrin and his Mars strategy, as well as a supporter of the HST maintenance effort, I think he shot down his own proposition in this particular article. He points out that Hubble cost $5 billion, while elsewhere, he casually mentions that each of the 125 Space Shuttle launches cost $3 billion.
So for the price of just one additional Shuttle launch, we could've simply launched a new (and potentially improved) copy of Hubble instead of risking anything at all to fix the old one. That's what I call a no-brainer.
The argument that the money could be spent elsewhere has been around since the beginning of the space program, I think. Do the people making this argument know that NASA's current yearly budget is around 0.6% of the entire budget (and only ever as high as 4.41%[1])? So really, the question should be flipped around. Think of what we could accomplish if all the money spent inefficiently elsewhere were instead given to a space program (not necessarily NASA, because I won't deny it has its problems)
It also seems silly to me to use large-number probability analysis on what are usually one-time occurrences. If a $2 billion mission fails immediately after launch, and it could have been prevented by $0.5 billion in more testing, then spending the extra money does make sense, especially if the failure would also cause public outcry. And it would not mean that an identical mission would also have the same risk. If the failure was due to bad design or a systemic error in a part (the more likely scenarios than a random failure[2]), then that failure would also happen in the next mission.
So yes, I agree that NASA needs to have a focused goal and shorter timelines, but I think this article might have been better directed at the public, then scapegoating NASA administrators.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
[2] Source: a talk by the founder of AeroAstro, sorry it's not online
The change in attitude is almost certainly generational. The Apollo era presidents (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford) were all World War II veterans. So were most decision makers within the space program.
By the time of the Challenger explosion, American attitudes had changed to the point where 241 combat deaths in Beirut saw America remove its boots on the ground - a reaction to troop casualties unlikely during the island hopping campaigns forty years earlier.
This is not to say that Americans are necessarily placing too much value on life. Space Shuttle flights - like Beirut - lacked a compelling vision to underscore the mission; servicing the Hubble is not a giant leap for mankind.
I couldn't agree more. I'm continually saddened that the traditional salutation to a guest leaving your home, for example, is "have a safe trip". In my dream world, people would wish each other a "a rich life of fulfilling experiences".
We shouldn't be trying to wrap ourselves into cocoons, setting a goal of simply surviving for the longest possible time. The length of the life shouldn't be paramount: it should be the area under the curve: how much did we experience, to what extent were we able to pursue our dreams?
Even though I think the author makes a point worth considering, I found that a really sloppy justification.
The value of the article lies in showing that if agencies pretend to assign a certain value to a human life then they can become less inconsistent. (And if in this case it serves Zubrin's laudable aim of getting to Mars now, so much the better.)
For Zubrin himself to be consistent, OFC, he should have tried to assign a value to, say, another decade of Hubble data. Omitting that was, as you say, sloppy.
BTW I find it quite shocking that neither the article nor the other comments so far consider the relevancy of the astronaut's opinion of what is an acceptable risk for him. It is, after all, his life, and he remains a taxpayer like everyone else.
I guess in the future where things like life extension and legal suicide are commonplace it will be considered strange to ignore a person's wishes in this way
Additionally, I would not be surprised at all if the average astronaut is willing to put up with much more risk than the government or general public is willing to put him or her in.
It seems like most of the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo era astronauts felt like their lives came second to mission success. I'm sure there are plenty of astronauts that feel the same way today.
With a pool of astronauts willing to take reasonable risks to advance space exploration, it's the NASA management that has been responsible for disallowing the more dangerous missions. On the one hand that's tragic, but on the other it makes sense from a PR perspective. With each spaceflight tragedy there has been a backlash from taxpayers and Congress. Politicians will use spaceflight accidents to push agendas that cut funding, etc.
NASA has to walk a fine line between keeping the program safe enough to maintain funding and adventurous enough to make gains in space exploration. I think in early NASA it was easier to justify the human cost of accidents because of Cold War pressure, but now there is a harder time with this justification and thus the huge emphasis on safety.
Besides, the fact that there is a difference between risk to human life and risk of mission success is only relevant if there is a significant probability of mission success. You can only play the game with multiple missions for redundancy if an individual mission has a probability of success reasonably close to 1, otherwise it doesn't buy you much.
Of course, this whole affair assumes that we actually have some hope of a priori estimating the risk of failure of complex systems. I doubt it's possible, and I think that's confirmed by the observed 2% shuttle failure rate compared to what the "acceptable risk" of the mission was supposed to be.
Simply put, government funded programs receive more scrutiny than commercial ventures. If a private inventor dies while experimenting with their own invention, there isn't the massive, longtime affecting fallout similar to a government disaster.
Now, sure, I am a proponent of space exploration and its advancement. But, having worked with the government in the past, I kind of understand why their risk management is so heavy handed. Few government leaders will take on that much risk themselves.
Few government leaders will take on that much risk themselves
This is why I support NASA's initiatives to privatise the risk (and responsibility) of certain missions.
That being said, we accept risk in the military. The solution is to create an institution that is protected from political whims so it can take the long-run risks it needs to.
Of course the market (doctors and healthcare customers) would have to determine the effectiveness of the new drugs. So the cost is not eliminated, just shifted to the more efficient and moral option.
I think this underestimates the complexity of the problem. Two thirds of automated mars missions have failed, with an especially dark period around the time of the 1980s, when we were to have sent out the first Astronauts.
I think that there is also an issue with the military/contest aspect. The moon mission had a cold war battle feeling which would be hard to ignite now -- deaths in space just seem tragic and expensive in a way that they did not before (his description of the finger paints being a good example). Would people have the stomach to spend billions to kill 5 people on their way to Mars? How many times before they lose interest?
He doesn't assume that at all. That was just a hypothetical situation, he never implied that those were actual figures.
Another question is what is the worth of revisiting the moon to set up a hyper expensive tourist camp there? Should it not be NASA's job to focus on research that lays the groundwork for entrepreneurs like Elon Musk to expand human presence beyond Earth?
"It's a very sobering feeling to be up in space and
realize that one's safety factor was determined by the
lowest bidder on a government contract." --Alan ShepardState of the Art, 1945: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F8F_Bearcat_%28flying%29.j...
State of the Art, 1965: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird.j...
State of the Art, 1971: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit.jpg
After that, I think we hit a technological wall, you can almost see the asymptote after the mid 70's. Though I think Space X is poised to knock some things over again if they succeed in their "cheap but reliable" approach, which basically amounts to attacking the problem as if it were a commercial airline engine as opposed to a rocket engine, and subjecting it to those standards of rigor. But that's a different kind of progress.
More on topic, this article completely fails to support it's hyperbolic "costs thousands of lives" subtitle.
The problem is outlined in the article, but not expanded. Every year politicians change NASA's goals. If the project you're working on keeps changing spec it's going to expand the timeline. Didn't Bushes plan call for us to be on the moon by 2015?
Another problem is the way NASA makes their vehicles. Private companies make products with the goal of making a profit. NASA's goal is to get people into space. The space shuttle is an example of this failure: it was overpriced, so dangerous cutbacks were made which ruined two of the vehicles. In an ironic twist, the soviet Buran suffered from none of these issues.
The whole premise of this article, that we can't send people beyond LEO any more because of risk aversion, is based on this line and it is wrong. There are several differences between today and the 1960s that make manned space flight less feasible. This can be summarised as political and manufacturing, with the former driving the latter.
Politically the world and the US are different places, the cold war is over so the need for grand gestures for moral building and propaganda has gone.
However the OP's line of near zero space capability is wrong, ICBMs were being designed and tested at a furious rate throughout the 1950s. This created a massive pool of people with first hand knowledge, and a massive manufacturing base from which to draw upon.
=== To avoid such deadly waste, the Department of Transportation has a policy of rejecting any proposed safety expenditure that costs more than $3 million per life saved. ===
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_to_Stay
Btw, -many- people died during early space travel.
Infinite human safety and the costs of having a horizontal system of sub contractors building the shuttle system instead of a vertical approach.
But, conversely while close to infinite safety costs can reach military objectives, for example using tracked-light heavy armor in places of urban combat(less civilian casualties thus locals want to work with our forces), the same cannot be made for civilian space agency in terms a full benefits.
