Manned space exploration–the comments
I asked for some reasons why we might want to send men into space. I’ve read the comment section and am a bit disappointed. Surely there must be better arguments out there?
Even the most plausible argument was extremely dubious. Perhaps the strongest was the idea of catastrophe insurance. What if something horrible happened to Earth? But there’s a much cheaper way of providing insurance. Put a few dozen humans (who rotate to avoid boredom) into deep underground bunkers spaced far apart on Earth. That would insure that at least some humans survived even a massive asteroid strike. (Actually, even some humans on the surface would have survived the 65 million year BCE asteroid without bunkers, as some mammals, birds and reptiles did survive that dinosaur killer.) The cost of those bunkers would be trivial compared to the cost of a sustainable Moon base with an ability to bring enough men and women back to Earth to repopulate the planet after a catastrophe.
People spoke of “experiments” in space that only humans can do, without providing any plausible examples. And why haven’t they already been done?
People suggested that manned space flights are still inspiring in 2020, without explaining why.
Mars colonies were mentioned, even though the idea is a pipe dream. If you really want to go to Mars, then manned space flight is the very last thing you should be proposing. Rather you should encourage NASA to divert manned space flight funds to research on technologies that would make a Mars colony feasible. Until we have such technology there is no realistic prospect of a Mars colony. And that research must be done on Earth. Don’t confuse sci-fi with reality.
Perhaps the funniest is the fellow who compared manned space flight to the ocean explorers of the 1400s, as if Neil Armstrong had “discovered” the Moon. Voyager did “discover” some neat stuff, but of course it was unmanned.
The comment section was a master class in motivated reasoning. I suspect that some commenters were guys who like sci-fi movies and were desperately looking for any excuse, no matter how far-fetched, to justify sending people into space. I doubt whether manned space flight will play an important role in the 21st or 22nd centuries. There’s no point in mucking around in space until we invent propulsion systems that are orders of magnitude better than chemical rockets. There’s also no point in continually sending lots of people down 10,000 meters deep in the ocean, once we’ve shown it can be done.
I suspect that Elon Musk is just a rich guy playing with toys. (Nothing against Musk, I like Tesla cars and Paypal.)
PS. If you are a conservative that is generally opposed to big government, then you really should oppose manned space flight. If you make an exception for manned space flight because you find it “inspiring”, or that it promotes “national greatness”, then you need to look long and hard in the mirror. Why don’t you find progressive programs aimed at helping the poor to be inspiring? You don’t see any hard evidence that they are effective? Fine, but where’s your “hard evidence” that manned space flight is more effective than unmanned flights? Maybe you need to re-evaluate your values.
PS. Both Iceland and NZ are down to one active case. Predict who gets to zero first.
PPS. Please don’t bore me with your comments that there’s nothing surprising about the following data, because of blah blah blah. I know all of the reasons. But a nearly 200 to 1 ratio is still pretty mind-boggling:
Off topic (unrelated to the data above), both sides of the “Sweden debate” miss the point. Sweden blew it, but not because of its failure to institute lockdowns.
PPPS: New York was obviously hit extremely hard, but now they are doing much better:
What has caused the number of deaths to drop so significantly, according to physicians, health-care executives, epidemiologists and state officials, are two well-known measures: social-distancing and the use of face coverings.
I wonder if even a modest amount of herd immunity is also helping NYC. California is not seeing a drop in either new cases or deaths. We have almost no herd immunity.
PPPPS: The following is just part of the deep Chinese conspiracy. There are playing 4 dimensional chess:
Initially, authorities in Wuhan, China — where the first cases were reported— thought that jump happened at a local wet market.
Now, the Chinese CDC has ruled out the market as a possible origin site for the outbreak. Instead, it may have been the site of an early super-spreader event.
Update: I see that Trump caved into the CCP on Hong Kong in order to boost the US stock market. He should have punished the CCP by allowing free immigration from China to the US, thus stealing much of their intellectual talent.
Tags:
29. May 2020 at 11:54
Sumner trolling his audience with some funny, silly stuff. Well played!
“wonder if even a modest amount of herd immunity is also helping NYC” – SSumner. No professor, you can’t have herd immunity unless you get to about 60% infection, and both NYC (and London, another hot spot) only have 20% infection at best.
Sumner muses about deep Earth bunkers in a Noah’s Ark. I wonder if he will put a beaver in said bunker? Bunk’em!
PS–China planning a manned moon flight; I guess they don’t have good reasons either? Ever heard of the Cold War?
PPS–on Sumner’s troll: China slowly zigging where the rest of the world is zagging, admitting bits and pieces to soften the truth bomb that will eventually explode, that the C-19 virus is made in a lab. All evidence points to this, yet ‘experts’ keep saying the C19 DNA ‘looks natural’ when in fact there’s no such thing as ‘looks natural’ anymore than an expert dermatologist can say a skin anomaly “looks like cancer”. Run away from such an expert btw if you ever come across one. You can’t tell if it’s cancer without a biopsy and analogously you can’t tell if DNA is recombinant DNA in a test tube or formed naturally in recombination during meiosis just by ‘looking at it’, which unfortunately is how all the current ‘experts’ are reporting on the C-19 virus (e.g. they are eyeballing it, like an incompetent dermatologist, and saying ‘it looks natural’, which is bunk but the unthinking public, including our host, loves these mental shortcuts and seizes on them so they don’t have to learn biology).
29. May 2020 at 12:27
The ISS is basically a very expensive lab facility, like the Large Hadron Collider. It enables studies to be performed which require long-term exposure to microgravity, vacuum, or extreme cold. I’m confused about your question “why haven’t they already been done?” as if all worthwhile scientific questions must already have been answered? If you want to see the papers which have been published based on experiments done on the ISS it is easy to find them. Maybe you think the cost isn’t worth the results but that’s a different question than whether there’s any point to it at all.
I agree with you that there’s little point in sending humans into deep space but I think you are just missing what goes on in low earth orbit.
29. May 2020 at 12:44
They have done some of them on the Space Shuttle and ISS (see NanoRacks). The problem is that the bureaucratic hoops for research on ISS are pretty bad, and because the real reasons for ISS (space pork on Earth, international cooperation with Russia) don’t really require that they be better at doing the research.
Back on Earth, what I want to know is what happened with Brazil and Canada. Canada seemed like they caught it earlier and bottled it up really good – their death rate was super-low for weeks. Brazil seemed like it wasn’t going to get out of hand there, and I figured it was some combination of a younger population, good timing, and the weather.
29. May 2020 at 13:02
Immunity is concentrated in certain communities. For instance, the Bronx has an immunity rate of 34% compared to 19% for the city overall. I can see a scenario where there is some level of herd immunity for the most vulnerable communities. I can see a scenario in which essential workers have some level of herd immunity as long as everyone else is isolating and wearing masks. Doesn’t seem like a crazy idea to me.
I’m starting to place more faith in masks. I still haven’t seen an explanation that full explains the success in Asia over Europe and US.
29. May 2020 at 13:09
Scott,
let me think about it, who should I trust on this one? A non-expert who sits at his desk and philosophises about manned space flight for an hour — or Elon Musk, an expert in the field who has founded two successful space companies, who is currently sending two people into space, and who seems to believe that manned space travel is needed. –> what an idiot!
Brett,
that’s exactly what Scott said. You don’t name one specific experiment that’s supposed to be important. I’ve heard about quite some specific experiments, but always only from the critics, who give a good account of how ridiculous the experiments are on this station. Just name one specific experiment, alright? It can’t be that hard. Then we can evaluate how important it is. Stop beating around the bush.
29. May 2020 at 13:10
I think solid hypothesis can be made NYC is much closer to herd immunity.
Exposure does not equal infection. If theirs variability in the rate of infections occuring from exposure in people then those who haven’t been infected yet could be much less likely to get infected.
Swine flu was modeled for 40%. Achieved 18%. I think theirs a solid hypothesis that herd immunity could be much lower.
29. May 2020 at 14:06
Scott,
What’s with the quote marks on “discover.” I never said anything about discovery.
(Caution – The following material may cause utilitarians to suffer neural overload.)
People like sending astronauts into space because it’s fascinating and exciting and cool. Same reason the NFL and F1 don’t use robots, and probably the same reason we no longer live in caves.
29. May 2020 at 14:32
@dtoh:
You nailed it. There’s a type of hyperutilitarian/aspie/anarcho-libertarian mindset that doesn’t understand the point of anything that differentiates us from utility-maximizing robots.
Why go to concerts, you can hear all the music you want for free at home? Why give gifts, why not just give money? Why should anyone ever leave home when you can work and order everything you need to live from your couch? Why explore space? Why are hard drugs and prostitution and military grade assault weapons illegal? Why read books, when you have a Kindle? Why have children?
These are a few of the questions that type of person has trouble reconciling with most of humanity.
29. May 2020 at 15:37
Because it’s there.
That said, I agree that it shouldn’t be done with public money.
29. May 2020 at 15:44
Ray, Your view on herd immunity has already been debunked.
Please try to keep up with the debate, so you don’t look foolish.
Matthew, OK, that’s a better answer. And what did they discover?
Brett, Be more specific.
Christian. Yeah, Musk knows much more than me. So what’s his argument? And why didn’t anyone post it in the comment section? I expected better from you guys.
dtoh, If it’s “cool”, then do it with your own money, not mine.
And maybe it was cool in 1961 when Alan Shepard went up, but it sure ain’t cool today.
Msgkings, There’s a certain type of conservative that just can’t stand spending public money trying to help the poor, but has no problem spending it on teenage boyish fantasies.
I don’t need to see men in space. I actually have enough imagination to get great joy out of the Voyager discoveries. Many people do not.
“Why go to concerts, you can hear all the music you want for free at home?”
And we go to concerts because it’s more enjoyable. If you plan to attack utilitarianism, at least use arguments that suggest you know what utilitarianism is.
29. May 2020 at 15:45
The Sweden-Singapore contrast— I assume that is because young immigrants, bunking 20 to a room, are infected in Singapore versus old residents in Sweden.
We know young people rarely die from c-19. There was not a single death among the 1100 crew members of The Diamond Princess, who lived, ate and bunked in common quarters and probably had infection rates near 100%.
Regarding the origins of c-19, I would place little faith in any direction or misdirections of the CCP. The CCP and their mouthpieces seem to be angling for “mysterious origins in Southeast Asia” as the source of c-19.
Dr. Ray Lopez: It is curious that the Wuhan c-19 virus is perfectly adapted to infect human cells.
https://youtu.be/-SXenxHRHfs
When does a “conspiracy theory” become a “government cover-up” and vice-versa? When needed.
29. May 2020 at 15:45
Carl, Yes, but how many times do you return “because it’s there”? (I agree on the public money.)
29. May 2020 at 15:52
@ssumner: I hope you don’t think I’m a conservative (implied in your answer). Helping the poor is more important than space exploration, especially when it comes to government.
Perhaps Elon and the astronauts derive great utility from going into space. We agree that it should be private money for the most part on that basis.
However, considering the tiny cost of NASA vs other government waste, I guess I just prefer that waste to other kinds.
29. May 2020 at 15:58
Scott,
Putting people in space seems pretty cool to the average voter(especially to me!), though I rather we invest heavily in telescopes, man in space seems pretty wasteful to me nowadays. With respect to your imagination point, I agree. Stanley Kubrick made a more entertaining moon their our real one. I think what drives people is not the destination, but the means. The concept of spending on space makes America seem really cool and on a mission.
With COVID, I think the absolutely biggest think that determines a country’s response to COVID is more the willingness of the people to avoid deaths of others. In the West, there is a massive amount already spent on trying to keep the extremely elderly alive, and I suspect that most people didn’t want to curtail their day-to-day lifestyles till the disease grew to a point of danger for them. States like Brazil are very stratified by class and race, so there probably was not a lot of care from different groups if the other died. I know Bolsanario and his supporters don’t really care if mulattoes die.
Also, one question. Why has the dollar stayed so powerful during this crisis? It has appreciated relative to the Yen, Yuan, Won, and the NZ dollar, all of which have done well with COVID. Is the market seeing something that we are not?
29. May 2020 at 16:01
Re space: there isn’t a good reason. It serves no purpose. It’s an indulgence that triggers people’s patriotism. Like Memorial Day parades or fireworks on the 4th. As a libertarian it’s something I don’t like being forced to pay for but it’s something I would probably donate to if it was supported that way because I think it’s cool. Most people don’t differentiate though – if they find something worthwhile personally they have no problem with the government forcing everyone to pay for it.
Re NYC: if 20% have been infected then they have reached herd immunity for an R of 1.25. I think it’s essentially guaranteed that the R is below that given social distancing. Of course if people went back to the way they behaved in January, R would be well above that and it would spread exponentially.
Re Sweden: this is why I hate people talking about “the” fatality rate. The number of deaths is so highly correlated with how many old people get infected that at a minimum we need to be looking at things by age bracket. Doing anything less makes any discussion of deaths totally meaningless.
29. May 2020 at 16:03
Scott,
I told you the argument. He wants to colonize Mars. Why he wants to colonize Mars with humans, you ask? That’s like asking George Mallory and Edmund Hillary why they want to go to Mount Everest. Because it’s there, Scott, because it’s there. Why is this not enough for you? THIS is the Human Condition in its essence. And Mars actually makes a lot more sense than Mount Everest or the Moon.
Everything is a pipedream until someone does it.
When you think about it, it is more difficult to explain why there is no Mars mission with humans yet. The technology for it should be around. It’s probably (uber-rational) cost-benefit analysis that’s holding us back at this point.
Save the money for 20 different vaccine productions without first testing them and rather put the billions into a mission to Mars, devised by private companies.
Combined with a takeover of near-earth space by the US, with laser weapons and complete satellite control in case of war, the US needs new weapon systems to counter the new developments of the Russians and Chinese, for example in the field of hypersonic weapons.
dtoh,
msgkings,
One can also combine both thoughts. I still think Musk wants to send people to Mars because it is the most efficient machine over there right now. No robot can build a real colony on Mars without direct human intervention.
29. May 2020 at 19:43
Context: the vast majority of space missions past, present and planned future are unmanned. So this is not a question of whether humans missions are more generally useful than unmanned. It is whether humans have any use at all. All of the post Apollo missions have been focused on low orbit laboratory research which humans are clearly better at.
The cost is very high and some may argue as to whether this passes a costs benefits test. I wouldn’t know enough about the specific research and the practical value obtained to show my work, but it seems unlikely to me that the optimal percentage of laboratory research performed in space is 0% (sorry if this not a great response to a “bleg”)
But perhaps more valuable to you then a list of the various experiments performed, as an outsider to the field, consider this: across different space programs, SkyLab, Space Shuttle, ISS, the focus really has consistently been low orbit laboratory research. It does not seem to me like they are just searching for something humans can do, there is a pretty clear plan consistently followed.
Forward looking: a significantly expanded unmanned space exploration program is very likely to involve more orbital infrastructure that will in part be operated and maintained by humans, so the ancillary research of the effects of space on humans, that they basically get for free while doing the other tasks is also valuable.
It is also the case that aside from Apollo and the initial manned flights, international cooperation was a major focus of manned programs but not so much unmanned programs. And this started in the 1970s not just with ISS. Normalizing human activity in space as an internationally cooperative scientific effort was intended to reduce the militarization of space. A similar effect may have happened in Antarctica by the way.
Again apologies if you need a concrete list of scientific discoveries to pass your test, but I think I offered at least a framework for thinking about how it isn’t a series of photo shoots looking for an excuse to exist.
29. May 2020 at 20:13
Scott, I find space exploration inspiring, but I agree with you that government shouldn’t be involved (or at least not much).
There’s no reason to make other tax payers pay for my fascination.
29. May 2020 at 20:24
I think the case for government spending money getting humans into space is getting weaker by the year. Let companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin colonize space with humans, if they want. Private companies have the discipline to seek profit and are much more likely to find useful things for humans to do in space, if there are any to be found.
Exploring by robots is orders of magnitude by orders of magnitude more efficient than human exploration. Even the most informed people, like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who is passionate about space exploration, admit they cannot make the kind of case for humans in space that Scott is talking about.
29. May 2020 at 20:27
Whatever happened to “not because it is easy, but because it is hard?” Was that just empty air? What happened to doing amazing things for the sake of it?
We do it because we can. And the significance of this event is that, if private companies are capable of this, it wouldn’t even cost government money. Even tomorrows flight is significantly cheaper than it would otherwise be.
If you want us to admit that there is little point besides that … fine. Why is that a bad thing? Its the one thing in a country trying to tear itself apart that we can all look to. Call it patriotism or whatever you want … but isn’t a conservstive argument that we need more patriotism? It opens up the possibilities for others.
And you can’t exactly run studies that show what is the effect of space on humans without humans in space. That research lays the foundation for private individuals to consider doing projects. And you overestimate the possibilities of robotics.
Company wants to take Tom Cruise to space. There might be market value to that. Maybe. And its private money, so I dont care. But basic research must create a foundation.
You seem to be preaching a modern version of “whitey on the moon”, making it a class issue instead of a racial one, without a hint of irony. The same argument applies then as now. If you dont believe going to the moon was worth it outside a purely cynical cold war edge over Soviets perspective, nothing I can say will change your views now. If you do believe it was, so is this.
29. May 2020 at 20:40
Did a big case study on the Columbia disaster in business school. Retraced all the steps in the planning and engineering phases and read up on all the senior leadership team members involved. Everyone in the class and the professor had different theories to explain what exactly went wrong and why. I just figured that if you keep putting people inside a rocket and shooting them into space, things will go catastrophically bad a certain percentage of the time. If we can’t accept the risk of failure than we should stop doing them, which is what we’ve settled on and it makes sense to me.
There is plenty for NASA to do without resorting to manned space missions. To take a dim and cynical view of them, I’d call them vestiges of boomer nostalgia that will soon be distinguished. We will never run out of new and cool ways to deploy resources. Time to move on to the next idea.
29. May 2020 at 22:42
@ssumner – “Ray, Your view on herd immunity has already been debunked. [that herd immunity requires 60% population infection–RL]” – cite please? Even the lower bound of R0=1.4 for C19 gives a herd immunity of 1-1/1.4 = 29%
@msgkings – you a liberal? Thought so. OT, what are your views now that the autopsy on George Floyd shows asphyxiation was not the cause of death? Disappointed huh? As I said before the news, the MN DA overreacted by charging the cop with murder (the involuntary manslaughter charge was OK however).
29. May 2020 at 23:20
Scott,
You said, “If it’s “cool”, then do it with your own money, not mine.”
I think your understanding of how a republican form of government works is deficient. Different groups get to spend money on different things. My group let’s your group spend money on the stuff you want, and your group lets my group spend money on what we want. Anything less is tyranny of the majority (as no less a utilitarian than Mill reflexively understood.) Virtually nothing would get none if we only did things favored by a majority of people to say nothing of requiring total unanimity.
30. May 2020 at 01:06
Scott wrote:
“That would insure that at least some humans survived even a massive asteroid strike.”
It’s been shown that a _massive_ asteroid hit can’t happen over the next few hundred thousand years.
I don’t see how Sweden “blew it” when so many countries in the West have had similar per capita death rates. The Norwegian government recently announced that its lockdown wasn’t effective and would have been better off responding as Sweden did in terms of social distancing. Sweden didn’t protect the elderly but almost no country did.
30. May 2020 at 01:52
@ Professor Sumner: I’m 100% with you that the US and UK and everyone in ‘the West’ should encourage immigration from Hong Kong. Give every and all residents asylum status or whatever. Drain all that human and financial capital.
Regarding space: We need to go there at some point, one assumes. We might as well make some small steps in that direction now.
@ Todd Kreider, Uh, it has not at all been shown that a massive asteroid strike can’t happen over the next few hundred thousand years. Where have you gotten that notion?
30. May 2020 at 02:17
Pew: “Majorities say monitoring climate or tracking asteroids should be a top NASA priority; only 13% say the same of putting astronauts on the moon”
Probably seeing the different options on the survey causes people to re-evaluate their priorities.
30. May 2020 at 04:14
Re:comments on manned space flight. Speaking for myself, I was just attempting to give reasons why we do manned space flights——did not say anything about whether we SHOULD do manned space flights. Maybe your reflection on the reasons being lame is because most readers think the reasons are lame. I was guessing—-not doing a research report. I do believe in unmanned space flights and said so re: Re: Hubble, the 7 or 8 ones we sent to asteroids and Voyager to Jupiter/Saturn. I also think we SHOULD do anything that helps in research on asteroid deflection.
Next time ask us why we have “manned” economic’s courses :-). Frankly, you may be as disappointed with our lack of imaginations.
30. May 2020 at 04:26
PS Manned Space flight——-I forgot to mention “military reasons” as one reason why we should be in space—-manned or unmanned don’t know——We won’t have tanks or soldiers I presume——but we could have a Space Force—and No, I don’t yet know what that will be.
30. May 2020 at 04:55
PPS——having seen dtoh’s response, I like that one too. Meaning, that is one reason we do go to the moon etc—-certainly it was in 1969 and I liked it back then and still do-plus any critique of utilitarianism is funny.
@mskings nails it also.
30. May 2020 at 05:26
@Tacticus
It doesn’t take long to look up with Google. People usually don’t do that because they like to use the asteroid hit as an existentialist threat example and facts would just get in the way.
30. May 2020 at 05:37
@ Jaroslav Hasek
NASA originally thought the odds of losing a shuttle was less than 1 in 1,000 but the Army Corps of Engineers had estimated 1 in 25. Years later, NASA’s estimates were closer to 1 in 100 and that changed over time as more information was learned. By the end of the program 1 in 57 shuttles were lost but of course that doesn’t mean the odds were 1 in 57.
30. May 2020 at 05:38
While we are all aware, as you say, of Sweden versus Singapore I do not believe you know why they are so different. All we do know is Asian numbers are extraordinarily low and Europe and US is high with large pockets of extraordinarily high numbers.
No one knows why (unless our 4d chess playing super spreader is holding out on us). I believe a high viral load willfully placed somewhere and not elsewhere, was consistent with outcomes we have seen——which is not the same thing as saying that happened—-I assume that is obvious.
Yeah, let’s make the “lede” that Trump, not Xi, is the super jerk. The HK Chinese are really screwed. Maybe we should do what we used to do for Cuba. Trump’s move is not much different than how we officially view the Iranians—-I.e., they are being ruled by a ideological or power oriented dictator who cannot be unseated. So, on the one hand it makes sense. We are anti-XI and pro-people.
Pragmatically, don’t know where it gets us. We are not going to war. I wonder what Taiwan is thinking? I almost prefer a straight out Cold War. Let’s say we had some President who most people think was “normal”. Who would that be? Let’s pretend for argument’s sake it is Obama. What would he do? I really don’t know. Maybe never would have had trade war—-that seems likely. How would the virus issue unfolded? I cannot guess.
But China’s ambitions would be the same. HK would have done the same. We would do nothing except say nice words. Like Trump. Is that okay?
China does not care who is our President. Add on to that the absolute shocking behavior of the Seattle police——and Bizarre national riots which may or may not be spontaneous—-combined with Trumps remarkably inept response—-things are not,looking so hot.
30. May 2020 at 07:34
@ Todd Kreider: My apologies, I didn’t realise I was talking to another asteroid-phile. What is your groundbreaking research that shows there is no risk of dark asteroids not visible from earth hitting us? Google and my circle of astronomy-expert acquaintances fails to alert me to your working paper.
30. May 2020 at 07:42
“Rather you should encourage NASA to divert manned space flight funds to research on technologies that would make a Mars colony feasible. Until we have such technology there is no realistic prospect of a Mars colony.”
I want to touch on this – there’s no such thing as a clean split between a research phase and an execution phase. If you want to do something novel, you need to run research and execution in parallel, because you don’t know what you need to invent until you find a hole. This is why it was the 11th Apollo that was the first to land on the moon. (and the third to orbit it) They didn’t research moon landings for 20 years and then execute on the first shot – there was a Design Loop.
To my eyes, many of the feeder technologies to enable long duration stations on e.g. the moon exist, but they have not been pulled together into a functional design. What don’t we know? We’ll only find out once a program is running.
Should we debate how much money NASA (a rounding error on the federal budget) spends? Should we debate if they should design their own systems, go private/public partnership, or just pay ULA? Sure. But “we should wait until we have the technology” isn’t a very strong position.
30. May 2020 at 10:49
msgkings, You said:
“I hope you don’t think I’m a conservative (implied in your answer).”
LOL. I hope you don’t think I’m an “aspie, anarcho-libertarian” (implied in your answer).
Stranger, I’m not sure, but keep in mind that the eurozone has huge problems, and the US dominates high tech (the sector helped by the crisis.)
Christian, You obviously don’t know much about space travel. Humans aren’t going to Mars to set up a colony using chemical rockets. At least not this century.
Andrew, Thoughtful response, but I’m still skeptical. With progress in AI and robotics the case for men in space will be gone by the time we are capable of going to some place like Mars. But perhaps the space station has some value.
Akash, You said:
“Whatever happened to “not because it is easy, but because it is hard?””
It was hard to send men into space in 1961. It’s not hard today. Kennedy may have been right, but his argument obviously doesn’t apply to going back again in 2020.
dtoh, So your argument for the wisdom of spending money on a program is that the republican form of government relies on majority rule? That’s an argument? I get that if I lose in Congress then I lose in Congress. That was never in doubt. I’m saying it’s not wise.
Todd, I don’t think Norway ever said they would have been better off doing what Sweden did, except in a few minor areas. And better off in what sense?
And Sweden’s death rate is far higher than what it would have been with more sensible policies, at least 3 times higher. Pointing to other stupid governments like the UK doesn’t help the case for Sweden—they also blew it.
Again, this is not about lockdowns. It’s about stupidity.
Tacitus, I don’t see why we ever have to go into space. For what purpose?
Michael. There’s no military advantage of men in space. Good point, however, about unmanned econ courses.
Bluesilverwave. By your logic sending men into space also gets us to distant galaxies more quickly. Is that your view? I think we need something better than chemical rockets, and that something better will be discovered on Earth, if at all.
30. May 2020 at 11:10
I think it was Tyler Cowan who provided the best explanition of why we won’t colonize Mars. To paraphrase, because we haven’t colonized Antarctica, which is a much nicer place than mars.
BTW: Elon Musk benefits from a lot of tax payer money for Tesla and SpaceX. Interesting trivia is that Tesla received roughly the same $500,000,000 deal that Solyndra defaulted on. Telsa probably would have gone under without it.
30. May 2020 at 12:21
While I haven’t looked through all the comments themselves and I’m sure this has been mentioned before, one of the experiments that’s both quite important for the future of spaceflight and can’t be done by a unmanned mission is just measuring the effects of space living over long periods of time and with as wide a sample size as possible, to figure out what all of the problems that need to be solved there are. Additionally, a lot of other tests being done in there could theoretically be done remotely (they even have a remotely operated robo-naut torso for doing things remotely like this) but would be very difficult or inefficient to do remotely, such as growing zucchinis for the purpose of testing viability of oxygen and crop generation. A purpose built robot could probably do that in theory, but it’d be a lot easier for a human to do that, and they’d probably be better at doing things like looking at the zucchini (or whatever other subject is being experimented on) from various angles, poking at it, taking notes, smelling it, etc. while also being able to do a bunch of other experiments that a purpose built robot would probably have a lot of trouble doing. Humans are very multipurpose.
30. May 2020 at 15:27
@Ray Lopez,
Glad we’re on speaking terms again. No I’m not a liberal. I’m a radical centrist. And yes the cop will go to jail for manslaughter as he should be. He’s now unemployable and a felon and his wife divorced him. His life is ruined, as it should be.
30. May 2020 at 19:12
If I am against big government, how does it follow that I’d be against manned space flight? It doesn’t make sense. One can be against big government and big government taxing single moms and waitresses to pay for manned space flight while cheering on private manned space flight.
30. May 2020 at 21:47
Have you considered the role of outlet for manned space flight? Basically, the idea is that powers compete somewhere. Generally it is militarily, like the US and China competing about who can put the most assets in or near the South China Sea. But manned flight provides another realm of competition and one that is more likely to have positive outcomes than military asset competition.
31. May 2020 at 03:48
Yeah but the view from up there is incredible. And then there’s the bragging rights. Maybe in 50 years some billionaires will be bidding for real estate in the Earth’s magnetic field. How many likes do you reckon you could get from a selfie with the entire Earth in the background? I can already see celebrities taking photos with the optical illusion that they are holding the earth between two fingers.
31. May 2020 at 05:54
Scott wrote:
“Todd, I don’t think Norway ever said they would have been better off doing what Sweden did, except in a few minor areas. And better off in what sense? And Sweden’s death rate is far higher than what it would have been with more sensible policies, at least 3 times higher. Pointing to other stupid governments like the UK doesn’t help the case for Sweden—they also blew it.”
Obviously, if a country can get the same result without a lockdown as with a lockdown, then not forcing people to stay indoors for 2 months is the better policy right?
You don’t know that Sweden would have had three times fewer deaths with some policy that you didn’t mention. Sweden didn’t protect its elderly welll enough and so in that sense blew it but Norway’s elderly care was much better to begin with and that is critical. Many repeatedly make judgments about a government’s response assuming initial conditions were equal across the world when not close.
Imperial College London warned Sweden in March that without a lockdown there would be 1,000,000 Covid 19 deaths by July. In early April, they said much of that could be avoided if Sweden locked down by mid April, resulting in “only” 30,000 to 90,000 deaths. What a relief! Instead, there was no lockdown and Sweden will have around 6,000 deaths by July.
31. May 2020 at 05:57
Tacitus: wrote:
“@ Todd Kreider: My apologies, I didn’t realise I was talking to another asteroid-phile. What is your groundbreaking research that shows there is no risk of dark asteroids not visible from earth hitting us? Google and my circle of astronomy-expert acquaintances fails to alert me to your working paper.”
Hey, no need to apologize! I’m happy you decided to look this up on your own. Shows both curiosity and resourcefulness.
31. May 2020 at 13:22
So is that a no on releasing your cutting-edge working paper on extreme albedo comets? Shame, I was really looking forward to it, as were the professional astronomers I know who study asteroids for a living. We tried the use of Google, as you suggested, but can’t seem to find it as easily as you implied one would.
31. May 2020 at 13:53
Scott,
well, maybe you don’t. The calculations for this are already available. I don’t know why you’re so fixated on “chemical rockets”. They’re really not the problem. Mars is not the problem either. The problem is mainly the gravity of Earth. But once you leave this gravitational pull, it doesn’t really matter if you fly to the Moon or to Mars. Again, I trust an expert like Elon Musk on this one, who even puts millions of his own money in this enterprise.
Sure, the rockets/ships have to be reused to a large extent (SpaceX has made great progress in this area), and there will only be one-way trips for the time being, but this plan is surprisingly realistic.
Todd,
to complete your bull, you’ve forgotten to advertise your ludicrous dietary supplement miracle products for once. What happened? Did you choke on them or did you take too many?
31. May 2020 at 16:21
Christian,
Agree 100% about the gravity. Energy use plummets once you get outside the Earth’s pull.
My bet is with Elon, too. I think he knows more about space than Scott given he solved the intractable recycling of boosters problem, and beat Boeing in the race back to space, all as a hobby while being CEO of his other companies.
1. June 2020 at 17:27
Scott,
You said; “So your argument for the wisdom of spending money on a program is that the republican form of government relies on majority rule? That’s an argument? I get that if I lose in Congress then I lose in Congress. That was never in doubt. I’m saying it’s not wise.”
You totally misread what I said.
I said republican form of government does NOT rely on the tyranny of the majority. It relies on horse trading so different groups get to compromise and each get what they want.
And it means that just because you don’t agree that manned space flight is cool, you may have to compromise and allow public funds to be spent on it, because if you don’t then other people won’t agree to subsidies for the NBA, movies, college education and the other things that you personally like or are economically dependent on.
3. June 2020 at 13:12
Scott,
I’m sorry this looks more like a rhetorical trick on your part to me. A little doublespeak here, a little Hegelian dialectic there.
Most “conspiracy theorists” have been saying since January that the market isn’t the origin site for the outbreak. I assume they got this idea, in part, from a Lancet article from January, written before the CCP tightened its censorship.
And now the CCP has admitted, at the end of May, that the “conspiracy theorists” were right in their assumption all along, and this is supposed to be your proof for what? That “conspiracy theorists” are so silly and that the CCP is so transparent and so honest? What are you playing again? 8-D chess?