4 ms·

Space missions are not worth their cost only if one thinks about them as tight closed black boxes that don't produce any advancements in their own and other fie

Space missions are not worth their cost only if one thinks about them as tight closed black boxes that don't produce any advancements in their own and other fields.

eesmith 4y ago
If I hear the spinoff argument one more time, I'm going to gag. That's all a Panglossian argument that there was no other better way to have spent the money. In any case, several of Etzioni's arguments were clearly NOT thinking about tight closed black boxes. Here are three: > It would not be in the national interest to exploit space science at the cost of weakening our efforts in other scientific endeavors. ... > We would fall behind in other sciences because of our dedication to putting men on the moon. ... > the space race is used as an escape, by focusing on the moon we delay facing ourselves The quote from the LA Sentinel flips your black box argument around, pointing out the benefits come with a people cost: > .. argued against Apollo in no uncertain terms, saying, "It would appear that the fathers of our nation would allow a few thousand hungry people to die for the lack of a few thousand dollars while they would contaminate the moon and its sterility for the sake of 'progress' and spend billions of dollars in the process, while people are hungry, ill-clothed, poorly educated (if at all)." The linked-to M.A. thesis has more direct quotes, like protestors who want some of the money diverted from the space program to feed some tens of thousands of people who don't have adequate food, nor comfortable homes from which to watch the Moon landing. These are issues we still delay facing.
philistine 4y ago
Having TV blasted from space, GPS to know to turn at this intersection, and pictures of every roof on the planet is useful. None of those technologies could have happened if we didn't send people in tin cans first. The moon is an interesting destination for its Helium-3. We will run out at some point on Earth (Helium literally floats away), and going to the Moon for this resource could very well be our first extra-terrestrial mining operation.
- bnralt 4y ago
  > Having TV blasted from space, GPS to know to turn at this intersection, and pictures of every roof on the planet is useful. None of those technologies could have happened if we didn't send people in tin cans first. The first geopositioning satellite[1], first satellite that broadcast of a human voice from space[2], and the first photos taken from orbit[3] all predate the first human in space[4]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_(satellite) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_(satellite) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCORE_(satellite) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCORE_(satellite) [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorer_6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorer_6 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostok_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostok_1
- eesmith 4y ago
  How do you make your conclusion? Telstar 1 started blasting TV from space in 1962. I don't know how that required Gargarin or Shepard to be in their tin cans first. Also, we sent up SCORE in 1958, and famously Arthur C. Clarke wrote about using satellites for telecommunications in 1945. TIROS, the US's first weather satellite, preceded Gargarin. KH-1, the US's first spy satellite, meant for photographic surveillance of the Soviet Union, was even earlier. These certainly didn't require humans in tin cans first.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Lunar mining of 3He is a huge canard. It likely requires more energy to extract it from regolith than it returns from fusion (10 ppb is not much!) 3He can be made by DD fusion (which either produces 3He, or produces T which can be allowed to decay to 3He; neutrons from DD fusion can also be used to make tritium which can also be allowed to decay to 3He.) This is Helion's plan, with the system operated in a mode that suppresses DT fusion.
  - Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
    See https://gundam.fandom.com/wiki/Jupiter_Energy_Fleet https://gundam.fandom.com/wiki/Jupiter_Energy_Fleet from the late 1970s; people have been thinking about this problem for a long time. This SF TV series cheated with a new physics which allowed compact nuclear fusion reactors minus the ability to do anything with neutrons. We still don't have a good path to them for basic electrical power generation, seeing as how much we're still struggling with theoretical break even DT fusion, with the LLNL experiment per something I just read not counting the power input into the lasers.

Space missions are not worth their cost only if one thinks about them as tight closed black boxes that don't produce any advancements in their own and other fields.

eesmith 4y ago

If I hear the spinoff argument one more time, I'm going to gag. That's all a Panglossian argument that there was no other better way to have spent the money. In any case, several of Etzioni's arguments were clearly NOT thinking about tight closed black boxes. Here are three: > It would not be in the national interest to exploit space science at the cost of weakening our efforts in other scientific endeavors. ... > We would fall behind in other sciences because of our dedication to putting men on the moon. ... > the space race is used as an escape, by focusing on the moon we delay facing ourselves The quote from the LA Sentinel flips your black box argument around, pointing out the benefits come with a people cost: > .. argued against Apollo in no uncertain terms, saying, "It would appear that the fathers of our nation would allow a few thousand hungry people to die for the lack of a few thousand dollars while they would contaminate the moon and its sterility for the sake of 'progress' and spend billions of dollars in the process, while people are hungry, ill-clothed, poorly educated (if at all)." The linked-to M.A. thesis has more direct quotes, like protestors who want some of the money diverted from the space program to feed some tens of thousands of people who don't have adequate food, nor comfortable homes from which to watch the Moon landing. These are issues we still delay facing.

philistine 4y ago

Having TV blasted from space, GPS to know to turn at this intersection, and pictures of every roof on the planet is useful. None of those technologies could have happened if we didn't send people in tin cans first. The moon is an interesting destination for its Helium-3. We will run out at some point on Earth (Helium literally floats away), and going to the Moon for this resource could very well be our first extra-terrestrial mining operation.

bnralt 4y ago
> Having TV blasted from space, GPS to know to turn at this intersection, and pictures of every roof on the planet is useful. None of those technologies could have happened if we didn't send people in tin cans first. The first geopositioning satellite[1], first satellite that broadcast of a human voice from space[2], and the first photos taken from orbit[3] all predate the first human in space[4]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_(satellite) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_(satellite) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCORE_(satellite) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCORE_(satellite) [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorer_6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorer_6 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostok_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostok_1
eesmith 4y ago
How do you make your conclusion? Telstar 1 started blasting TV from space in 1962. I don't know how that required Gargarin or Shepard to be in their tin cans first. Also, we sent up SCORE in 1958, and famously Arthur C. Clarke wrote about using satellites for telecommunications in 1945. TIROS, the US's first weather satellite, preceded Gargarin. KH-1, the US's first spy satellite, meant for photographic surveillance of the Soviet Union, was even earlier. These certainly didn't require humans in tin cans first.
pfdietz 4y ago
Lunar mining of 3He is a huge canard. It likely requires more energy to extract it from regolith than it returns from fusion (10 ppb is not much!) 3He can be made by DD fusion (which either produces 3He, or produces T which can be allowed to decay to 3He; neutrons from DD fusion can also be used to make tritium which can also be allowed to decay to 3He.) This is Helion's plan, with the system operated in a mode that suppresses DT fusion.
- Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
  See https://gundam.fandom.com/wiki/Jupiter_Energy_Fleet https://gundam.fandom.com/wiki/Jupiter_Energy_Fleet from the late 1970s; people have been thinking about this problem for a long time. This SF TV series cheated with a new physics which allowed compact nuclear fusion reactors minus the ability to do anything with neutrons. We still don't have a good path to them for basic electrical power generation, seeing as how much we're still struggling with theoretical break even DT fusion, with the LLNL experiment per something I just read not counting the power input into the lasers.