Why Explore Space (1970) | Hacker News Reader

Why Explore Space (1970)

lettersofnote.com

44 pointsff_26 comments

A colleague of mine asked me why India was now spending billions as well on space probes when they have so many starving.

There are many others as well, who are starving in other ways. Once the immediate need of food and water are met, what do people strive for then? Safety, a place to live? We watch thousands drown in boats trying to cross the ocean to richer lands, even though there was food back home.

If food were the only thing a person wanted in life, we'd have focused on and solved it centuries ago, if it had ever become a problem to begin with.

There must be goals, dreams, things to yearn for once those basic needs are met. The thousands of children the nun cared for will not be content to simply be fed for the rest of their lives. Their lives must mean something, there must be things to strive for.

It's not a question of whether or not we should explore space, it will happen regardless. Societies fed, nurtured, and taught their children, and those children will put their gifts to reach every higher. The child eating porridge out of a dusty bowl today may be building bridges tomorrow, or curing disease, or viewing the distant stars.

Space exploration is towards the apex of our technological achievement, and so it must seem far removed to those addressing more earthly concerns. But it's built on the those foundations.

We'll explore space so long as there are mouths to feed and minds to grow.

Another way to think about it is that India is investing in an industry that creates profitable inter-industry linkages. By creating a space program you are creating high paying jobs for educated workers who educate their children and eventually move to other high skilled positions taking their human capital with them. The space program also creates a circus of supporting businesses and industries, which are also "high value added" endeavors. So while being able to produce a spacecraft might not have a direct impact on the well being of the millions of Indians, you now have workers with in demand skills who can use those skills in other jobs, you have the ability to produce high precision machinery that can be used in other high value added applications. (See the 19th century cheese industry in Denmark if you are interested in a historical example.) You are brining money into the economy, which in turn goes back into things like schools and business investments.

Look up Rasumssen and Hirschman for academic literature on this subject.

Space exploration is towards the apex of our technological achievement

really? says who? humans have evolved to be on Earth for 100,000 years .. we're not going to colonize Mars or interstellar space. perhaps cyborgs, robots, single-cell life .. but not humans.

once you accept that, it opens an enormous set of questions. like .. is a world full of post-humans something we should be striving for? (seeing ppl's faces glued to smartphones is only the beginning, and that is sad enough).

i'm sorry, but you're talking out of your ass .. and imho, you have watched too much star trek and have become enamored with sci-fi garbage.

So the basic argument goes: "Doing space research/exploration will yield scientific and technological breakthroughs to help our problems here on Earth."

Ok I buy that. I agree we need to spend some % of our societal resources on basic research.

The real question is - what is best bang for the buck when doing basic research? Opponents would argue that space research (specifically exploring other planets) is a very expensive way to do basic research.

I'm all for exploring space because I think humanity needs to, but does the basic research argument really hold?

You're leaving out part of his argument which justifies space exploration as inherently valuable beyond its technical and scientific contributions: a paradigm shift of the human condition, brought on by our increased awareness of our place in the universe.

"Although our space program seems to lead us away from our Earth and out toward the moon, the sun, the planets, and the stars, I believe that none of these celestial objects will find as much attention and study by space scientists as our Earth. It will become a better Earth, not only because of all the new technological and scientific knowledge which we will apply to the betterment of life, but also because we are developing a far deeper appreciation of our Earth, of life, and of man."

Imagine if we found evidence of past life on Mars or Europa. It would change our understanding of life on Earth. You can't make that discovery in a lab.

"Imagine if we found evidence of past life on Mars or Europa."

In the past, one could imagine. But there are Mars orbiters returning Google Earth quality images of the entire planet. Here's the Curiosity rover seen from Mars orbit.[1] If there was anything living on Mars as big as a patch of lichen, it would have been found by now.

[1] http://mars.nasa.gov/mro/multimedia/images/?ImageID=7131

This statement is ridiculous. Evidence of life on Earth millions of years ago is buried deep in the Earth soil. Mars exploration has literally only scratched the surface of the planet, a few inches deep.

It's certainly enormously expensive. But... most things are. Waste is an extremely relative thing, even when it seems obvious. Basic research discovers things that normal iterative research never does. And space tech discovers things through scale, overcoming myopic outlooks in the way an Access database doesn't illuminate how distributed multi-region databases scale.

For example, what do you do with all that captured coal dust and slag we get from power plants scrubbing their exhaust? We could throw it away, but it turns out there are industries that would love to pay to take that garbage away and use it as a filler their process. We could have stuck with the argument that scrubbing is too expensive to be worth the trouble, and that it would never be practical. Or we can just do the engineering and try it out, and maybe new markets open up. Or not; at least we got some cleaner air.

There's a lot of risk, like any venture. Possibly garbage is just garbage. Possibly there's no reasonable return on investment. Possibly entire industrial supply chains shift to a new technology for the marginal improvement. Possibly a new process for extracting carbon nanotubes is discovered. Or we simply find a cool new color of black for our sports cars.

Maybe the data collected from the moon tells us that it's really just some fairly boring rock not worth our time. Maybe we learn that crystals grown in space can have a perfect crystal structure useful in manufacturing stable q-bits. Maybe we find an asteroid made of platinum and all energy markets brace for a massive tech change, or parhaps it's made of iron and we move on. Or... not; at least we got some pictures for the philosophers and the next generation is inspired to try harder.

The wins from basic research come from the unknown unknowns, and as such can be disruptive like an outside-context-problem [0]. Or are trivial duds; you can't tell at the start, but you can hope. Transistors and lasers are pretty useful! They alone are likely worth all the money we've ever thrown (or ever will) at basic research. Likewise satellites also changed the world, allowing us to do things that likely make all the money we spend on space easily worth it.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excession#Outside_Context_Prob...

I think I phrased my statement wrong. I totally understand the benefit of basic research. We should do more agreed.

My question is, is space exploration the most cost effective form of basic research?

We could be doing basic research in any number of areas. Is it just because space captures our imagination that we choose to spend $ there, or is there something fundamentally better about the basic research in space as opposed to, say, the bottom of the ocean.

Oh, I see. In that case then, that's a very good question.

To me, the goal is exposure to brutal constraints. There are very few environments as demanding as space, and as such it's a fantastic crucible of learning. Really, the bottom of the ocean is likely the only other environment that is comparable to it. And also a fantastic alternative. Perhaps ironically, I think deep ocean research is actually far harder and riskier than space, and so space may be the easier alternative. But I certainly am no expert on it, and I would love a few billion dollars in research thrown at the ocean that wasn't myopically limited commercial interests. We could find some truly unbelievable things down there, stuff we could never hope to find on the surface of a planet.

So I guess my response is who knows? We should try them both and find out! There's plenty of people, resources, and time enough to try!

It really shouldn't be considered as a zero-sum proposition. Once we start expanding out into space, it'll become more cost-effective as we bootstrap ourselves out of the gravity well. Eventually, assuming private parties are willing to push us to break out of the lull in LEO we've been in for decades when it comes to manned spaceflight.

The important thing to remember is that space exploration will eventually be able to pay for itself countless times once we start seeing mining operations. There's an incredible amount of mineral wealth out there in the solar system that makes what we have here on Earth look paltry by comparison. The economic incentives will eventually start to shift, and from there, it'll be a lot easier to fund basic research in space.

You are talking is generalizations. We do spend money on basic research. We should probably spend more. If you took the money away from space, it wouldn't necessarily be spent on other science research. People understand that satellites, etc make our lives better. The stuff that NASA does is useful. It can be sold to taxpayers.

You're just having some pointless debate with yourself.

IN FACT, I'D SAY YOU ARE CLUELESS about how the world works.

Listen to this Congressman canceling the United States Supercollider project:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4499048/joel-hefley-kill-ssc

There just wasn't enough excitement.

The author mentioned that performing basic research indirectly has benefits. People can be inspired and motivated by the idea of photographing Pluto or colonizing Mars and develop the incremental technologies needed to get there with a determination that they might not have if they had been hired to perform more mundane basic research.

>Opponents would argue that space research (specifically exploring other planets) is a very expensive way to do basic research

I'd agree with that. Generally, it would seem that the most efficient way to research something is to research it, not to pursue some other scientific endeavor and hope that it throws off some ancillary benefit.

So, I actually think that argument for space exploration is sometimes a bit of a short-sighted ruse to sell space exploration. It should instead be sold on its merits and a broader vision.

So you claim that a many-stranded argument can be reduced only to its "basic argument" and argue against that. The letter SPECIFICALLY states two cases that don't fall within your "basic argument", viz:

- Technological breakthroughs that specifically pertain to space, i.e. survey satellites.

- Breakthroughs in international co-operation driven by space travel bringing a scope to the world far beyond national boundaries.

I believe one of the biggest advantages of space exploration, if done seriously, is that keeps us from stagnating on and inevitably overblowing the various quibbles we have today. I think it's clear that either space exploration or the technology borne of it will have enormous implications for our society; it's simply a matter of time. With that being the case, what good reason could we possibly have to strangle it and push off meaningful progress for another 50, 100, or 200 years? The sooner the better.

As far as the cash needed goes, it's really nothing compared to military expenditures. If NASA had even a fifth of what we spend on our military it would do wonders.

This question remains relevant today. Perhaps the best answer to this question is that having a space program is actually a cheap insurance policy against a civilization ending asteroid killing more than 99% of the world's population.

Except that precious little funding is actually aimed at this problem.

And to anyone else who recognizes this as a problem, please consider donating to the B612 foundation:

http://sentinelmission.org/

Thanks for providing the link.

But, don't you think it's a little odd that we have multiple national space agencies plus international cooperation that spends billions on exploration projects; while we rely largely on private organizations and donations to fund this important research?

Thanks for providing the link.

Is it ? or is it only a way to know we're all gonna die, earlier.

Protecting the Earth from a large asteroid headed our way is trivially easy to do, if you have a space program and enough advanced warning.

We've explored the solar system. We now know what all the planets look like in some detail. There's no life anywhere off Earth. Not even bacteria. Venus is too hot, Mars is too airless, and everything else is worse. The most worthless real estate on Earth is more habitable than the best real estate off-planet.

As the Economist points out, the final frontier, Pluto, was reached this week.

The solar system is to the universe what a grain of sand is to the solar system.

"It would be inexcusably egocentric to suggest that we are alone in the cosmos." [1]

[1] Neil DeGrasse Tyson: https://youtu.be/JQMuNImYzjc?t=4m21s

Even if we are alone, so what? All the more reason to expand life outward.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com