Space, the lost frontier

[JonS]

I was born long enough ago to have been alive when men were landing on the Moon, but not so long ago that I actually remember it. I do sort-of remember Skylab, though, and I defintely remember being excited about the Space Shuttle. It seemed to me, even as a kid, that with travel into space becoming a logistics problem, rather than an engineering problem, then I must be living on the cusp of a wonderous time.

It hasn't quite worked out that way. I came across this cartoon today http://xkcd.com/893/ (don't miss the roll-over text), and it made me sad.

I've had a project bubbling away in the back of my mind to put together a graph of < man-days in space > by < year >, from Yuri Gagarin up till now. I suspect that would cheer me up. We (the collective 'we') aren't going to other worlds any more, but I sense that the number of mandays is still on a growth curve. With China, India, the Danes(!), and Virgin(!) all getting into manned spaceflight alongside the US and Russia, maybe we will slip the surly bonds of Earth again, and start sending people back out into the solar system.

I hope so.

[costard]

Broken link, Jon.

[Magpie_Oz]

here you go, not a real good graph but it is a start

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_spaceflights

I am with you again (shudder A Kiwi and all !) so much better if we were looking above and beyond

[JonS]

Thanks for the link Oz. I'd intended to use Wiki as my source, since this is the kind of thing Wiki is very reliable for. I probably don't need to, though. The graphs there are righteous enough just as they are - but look at that growth curve in the early '80's! Wow. I'm also vaguely surprised there hasn't been a single year since Gagarin that no one has been into space. I'd assumed (ha!) there'd be at least a couple of dry years in the mid-'60's.

[Affentitten]

From my point of view it just seems to be such a colossal waste of money. Yet another one of those things that are hard to justify when there are so many more pressing needs amongst humanity down here.

[gunnergoz]

War is the biggest waste of money of all, but we almost never reduce our appetite for it. The space race did a lot more for peace and progress than any recent war I can think of, WW2 excepted. I'd rather see my tax $$ spent on space than upon discretionary wars. But then, we'd have to have a functional foreign policy that could see beyond a 2 to 4-year cycle, so I'm probably just an idealist.

[Magpie_Oz]

Thanks for the link Oz. I'd intended to use Wiki as my source, sicne this is the kind of thing Wiki is very reliable for. I probably don't need to, though. The graphs there are righteous enough just as they are - but look at that growth curve in the early '80's! Wow. I'm also vaguely surprised there hasn't been a single year since Gagarin that noone has been into space. I'd assumed (ha!) there'd be at least a couple of dry years in the mid-'60's.

Yes it is busy up there.

Pity our Andy didn't rate a mention. I note that a Kiwi is one of the first on V Galactic.

[costard]

Aff, most scientific research ends up as wasted money but we need to keep funding it or limit our objectives to building a society where each of us has a bucket of seaweed carried on our head and a square metre of land to stand in. The risk/reward equation is somewhat skewed by the (nearly) infinite reward offered by movement between solar systems: the limiting variable becomes the likelihood of the race surviving long enough to generate the results from research that allow us to exploit that reward.

[Magpie_Oz]

War is the biggest waste of money of all, but we almost never reduce our appetite for it. The space race did a lot more for peace and progress than any recent war I can think of, WW2 excepted. I'd rather see my tax $$ spent on space than upon discretionary wars. But then, we'd have to have a functional foreign policy that could see beyond a 2 to 4-year cycle, so I'm probably just an idealist.

+1

I am old enough (just) to remember very dimly the Apollo missions. Funny thing is as a tiny child I didn't really know too much about what was going on but I do remember this profound sense of joy and hope for everyone in the world not just the USA.

[Affentitten]

Aff, most scientific research ends up as wasted money but we need to keep funding it or limit our objectives to building a society where each of us has a bucket of seaweed carried on our head and a square metre of land to stand in. The risk/reward equation is somewhat skewed by the (nearly) infinite reward offered by movement between solar systems: the limiting variable becomes the likelihood of the race surviving long enough to generate the results from research that allow us to exploit that reward.

Yes but given a finite bucket of money for scientific research, I am looking at the potential reward for spending say $X billion on:

1) A cure for malaria / cancer / crack addiction

2) Bringing greater equality to education / healthcare / justice

3) Finding out what sort of gases might be present in the rings of Saturn

[Stalins Organ]

I remember Armstrong's walk being shown live, and very grainy, on B&W TV...at least I think I do It was possibly the 1st live networked broadcast in NZ from outside the country??

My dad got a moon-globe and a thin vinyl record of the radio coms as they descended in Nat Geographic.

[Magpie_Oz]

Yes but given a finite bucket of money for scientific research, I am looking at the potential reward for spending say $X billion on:

1) A cure for malaria / cancer / crack addiction

2) Bringing greater equality to education / healthcare / justice

3) Finding out what sort of gases might be present in the rings of Saturn

1/ Cancer is being cured, an Aussie/Scot came up with a vaccination for cervical cancer a few years ago. Crack addiction is a personal choice like smoking an there is no "cure" as such. There are extensive programs working on Malaria.

2/ Social issues not really solved by research as such.

3/ We already know and they are actually made of rocks/dust not gas.

[JonS]

I remember Armstrong's walk being shown live' date=' and very grainy, on B&W TV...at least I think I do It was possibly the 1st live networked broadcast in NZ from outside the country?[/quote']

ISTR reading somewhere that we didn't have the infrastructure to support live foreign broadcasts at the time. IIRC, the footage was recorded in Aust, then zipped across the Tasman in an Airforce Mosquito. Yay the Wooden Wonder!

Edit: a Canberra, not a Mosquito.

Edit2: lol - snap!

[Magpie_Oz]

http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/New_Zealand_TV.html

Canberra Bomber, bit faster

[Kanonier Reichmann]

What... all the kerfuffle to fly the tape to NZ in their state of the art 1950's RNZAF jet just so that the 3 people in Kiwiland who had televisions at the time could view the moon landing? Amazing!

Regards

KR

[Affentitten]

What... all the kerfuffle to fly the tape to NZ in their state of the art 1950's RNZAF jet just so that the 3 people in Kiwiland who had televisions at the time could view the moon landing? Amazing!

Regards

KR

Well there was great interest given the similarities between the culture in NZ and the surface of the moon.

[dieseltaylor]

I am with you on this Affy.

The chances of getting anywhere useful in the next thirty years are skinny, And I do mean useful as opposed to the Mount Everest effect so beloved by mankind. Womenkind being more sensible.

The way research is going on new construction materials etc will be helpful in the future but now one might really really think mankind has more pressing but unexciting problems.

Given that most of planet Earth remains uncolonised you might think perhaps we are missing a trick.

[Calibration]

As a proportion of our GNP the West spends very little on space research. The last time I checked NASA's budget (proportionally one of the highest) was less than 1% of US Federal spending. Much of that money of course gets funnelled back into their high tech companies and University technology research programmes. They also spend a fair amount on public outreach programmes.

I am involved in a European space-based astronomical telescope that has cost the participating member states about 2 Billion Euros in construction and running costs over the last 20 years. Sounds a lot until you consider that over the same period you could have built several of them on the money our youth has spent on mobile phone ring tones.

The bottom line is that the money spent on space research is what the politicians and treasury officials feel the respective nations can afford. They only do this because of the tangible benefits gained from what is effectively a subsidy of high technology research.

It is also a fact that in the UK space science in general and astronomy in particular are very popular options for students taking physics degrees. These are inspirational topics for getting young people to do science in the first place even if the vast majority do not go on to a career in these specific fields.

The pursuit of scientific knowledge for it's own sake is a worthy goal in it's own right and there are numerous examples of areas of research which would have appeared "worthless" at the time to some people that later produced so-called tangible benefits. Practically of course research operates under many financial and societal constraints but if you attempt to be too constraining you will miss many potential opportunities. Here endeth the lesson

[dieseltaylor]

I am pleased that the UK does pure research and do feel a little gutted when it becomes a commercial proposition we fail [sometimes] to make the most of it.

What about the oceans of earth? Admittedly there on our doorstep and therefore not quite so blue-sky thinking : ) There are very practical reasons for looking at the sea bed as a logical place to start thinking of maximising what is achievable in the next two decades. And in some ways I would think colonising the sea might actually have some useful similarities with space exploration and colonisation.

The UK with its inventiveness and plenty of shallow sea would seem to be at a considerable advantage in this regard.

Unfortunately there is no lobby for this sort of thing despite the sea providing splendid insulation from tornadoes and extremes of heat. And with sea based wind turbines and bags for storing energy they could well be self-supporting for energy. But I am merely scratching the surface of what technologies and uses that might be possible.

BTW I trust you got the e-mail re books.

[Calibration]

I am pleased that the UK does pure research and do feel a little gutted when it becomes a commercial proposition we fail [sometimes] to make the most of it.

What about the oceans of earth? Admittedly there on our doorstep and therefore not quite so blue-sky thinking : ) There are very practical reasons for looking at the sea bed as a logical place to start thinking of maximising what is achievable in the next two decades. And in some ways I would think colonising the sea might actually have some useful similarities with space exploration and colonisation.

The UK with its inventiveness and plenty of shallow sea would seem to be at a considerable advantage in this regard.

Unfortunately there is no lobby for this sort of thing despite the sea providing splendid insulation from tornadoes and extremes of heat. And with sea based wind turbines and bags for storing energy they could well be self-supporting for energy. But I am merely scratching the surface of what technologies and uses that might be possible.

I'm not sure how much we spend on oceanographic research, but last year whilst I was swanning about at the taxpayers expensive at a conference on the East Coast of the US (and stuck there because of the volcano) I visited this place and did a tour.

http://www.whoi.edu/

They do a lot of cool stuff there...btw, talking of the taxpayers expense, I'm off work at moment hence my posting here, just in case someone was wondering

BTW I trust you got the e-mail re books.

Well spotted sir! Decent prices. Going to order them both. Thanks for the link.

[dieseltaylor]

And just to show that coincidences do happen:

Analysis released today by the Carbon Trust shows that the UK could capture slightly less than a quarter of the global marine-energy market.

Equivalent to up to £76bn of the UK economy by 2050, this sector could also generate more than 68,000 UK jobs if the technology is successfully developed and deployed internationally, and the UK builds on its existing lead.

The majority of these jobs would develop thanks to growing export markets in countries such as Chile, Korea and the US, as well as Atlantic-facing European states.

The analysis found that total marine-energy capacity could be 27.5GW in the UK by 2050, which would be capable of supplying to the grid the equivalent of more than a fifth of current UK electricity demand.

‘Marine energy could be a major “made in Britain” success,’ said Benj Sykes, director of innovations at the Carbon Trust. ‘By cementing our early-mover advantage, the UK could develop a significant export market, generate thousands of jobs and meet our own demand for clean, home-grown electricity.

‘To maintain our world-leading position, we must continue to drive innovation within the industry and turn our competitive advantage in constructing and operating marine technology into sustained green growth.’

The analysis highlighted technology verification, costs and wider support as three areas of challenge for the industry.

According to the Carbon Trust, wave and tidal technologies are moving into full-scale demonstration, but this will need to be followed by deployment of the first multiple-megawatt arrays.

Similarly, costs need to be reduced so that marine energy can compete with other low-carbon technologies — and targeted R&D will be required for this to happen.

Issues such as public approval, grid upgrades to transfer electricity to areas of demand and the development of a manufacturing supply chain will also be critical.

Read more: http://www.theengineer.co.uk/sectors/energy-and-environment/uk-could-win-almost-a-quarter-of-marine-energy-market/1008476.article?cmpid=TE01&cmptype=newsletter&cmpdate=040511&email=true#ixzz1LOQdbAiZ

SO if I were seeding an economic/research area the sea looks pretty useful. This article only looks at power generation but in the event of a rising sea level actually sorting out under water use might be better than just power. And given there is water adjacent to a lot of countries the expertise could be useful.

[Michael Emrys]

I was 25 when Aldridge and Alden landed on the moon, so remember it quite well. For at least ten years previously, I had read all the science fiction I could get my hands on, and for another ten years previous to that had been enthralled by a vision of space flight. I recall this from those times:

From Wiki:

When Wernher von Braun organized a space flight symposium for Collier's, he invited [Chesley] Bonestell to illustrate his concepts for the future of spaceflight. For the first time, spaceflight was shown to be a matter of the near future. Von Braun and Bonestell showed that it could be accomplished with the technology then existing in the mid-1950s, and that the question was that of money and will. Coming as they did at the beginning of the Cold War and just before the sobering shock of the launch of Sputnik, the 1952–54 Collier's series, "Man Will Conquer Space Soon!", was instrumental in kick-starting America's space program.

Advances in aeronautical engineering seemed to come in quantum leaps in the decade and a half following WW II. It was a very exciting period, and the excitement carried over into our first tentative steps into space.

Then something happened. After the moon landings, it seemed that the excitement began to evaporate...at least for most people. We seemed to lose our sense of direction and purpose in many areas, and space exploration was one of them.

Michael

[dieseltaylor]

I think possibly everyone realised that getting to the Moon was one thing but anything more substantial was way way beyond the technology of the day... and now.

BTW do you know every one who has walked on the Moon was a first-born. Well so says the BBC Radio Four play today : )

[Calibration]

I've actually seen two Apollo astronauts give talks in recent years. Buzz Aldrin himself and Charlie Duke from Apollo 16. After I saw Buzz talk I was at the reception afterwards, but I didn't have the guts to go up and talk to him. Both were looking very sprightly for their ages.

Who knows where manned exploration beyond near earth orbit is going. The current US space policy is to do an asteroid mission by 2025 prior to an orbital only Mars mission. Such long term planning is unlikely to survive many administration changes. Lot's of reports suggest the Chinese are planning a manned lunar mission by 2025. I can see them doing it and good luck to them.

[Sgt Schultz]

I still have an Encyclopeadia Britannica "Science and the Future" 1976 add-on that had a section on colonies in space.

10,000 people in orbit, sustainable ... with 80's tech.

---------------

My personal opinion on needed space tech is more or less divided into short-term, mid and long-term ideas.

Short-term, we need to get a vehicle.. now. Retiring the Shuttle with no replacement shows the kind of blatant short-sightedness only seen in US Congressmen.

Mid-term... just because Hollywood makes movies about things doesn't mean they cannot happen. The rocks are out there and NEED finding. We have the nukes left over from when we were thinking of ending civilization back in my youth.

Long-term... The Space Elevator, or Orbital Tower if you will.

Reason A. Too many of us now. Getting worse. Only ONE cheap way off.

Reason B. See mid-term. If a rock or comet happens upon us, it may help if all our genetic eggs weren't in this one tiny basket. 20K self-sustainable population on the Moon or Mars or one the large asteroids, and humanity survives. EDIT addition - Almost forgot about Yellowstone, combined with other environmental factors here. May not need a rock to need a reason to get out of the pool.

Reason C. The industry needed to construct would drive almost all industry off-planet. Once you have zero-gee factories turning out solar panels one micron thick, may as well keep turning them out. One medium-small asteroid could both anchor the structure and provide materiels for both construction and sale.

-----

No Tower ... population numbers will self-adjust. I have no idea how that will happen, but am fairly certain I wouldn't want to be around when it does.

----