3 ms·

(Only tangentially related) If you're a space exploration nerd working in the space industry you'll realize one day that your salary and benefits are space expl

by avz 12y ago

(Only tangentially related) If you're a space exploration nerd working in the space industry you'll realize one day that your salary and benefits are space exploration costs. This produces the following dilemma: Accept a small pay and benefits. Space exploration costs go down. More space exploration is done per dollar. Demand a good salary and benefits. Space exploration costs go up. Less space exploration gets done per dollar. Damn it.

AndrewKemendo 12y ago
The ROI on space exploration (currently) is terrible and the only tangible near term solution to that dilemma is asteroid harvesting. That is why SpaceX is predominantly about getting government contracts - outside of satellites (GEO and down) there isn't much economic incentive for humanity. Look, manned spaceflight is cool and there are some really bad ass ideas about space exploration, but the reality is that there really isn't that much in it for us. Our bodies are fundamentally not suited for space travel - so much so that the bulk of on-board systems are life support, making anything else a small portion. What are the goals anyway? I have heard many things like: having a second habitable home for humanity in case (X) happens, or exploration for its own sake. None of these are particularly compelling given the economics behind them. I certainly wouldn't pass up the chance to go to space, but I think it is not where humanity should be putting its energy.
- hga 12y ago
  "SpaceX is predominantly about getting government contracts" Doesn't sound like they're very successful, then, per Wikipedia, "As of December 2013, SpaceX has a total of 50 future launches under contract, two-thirds of them are for commercial customers." Now, the article goes on to talk about their efforts to get validated for military launches, and in the relevant article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_Expendable_Launch_Vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_Expendable_Launch_Vehi...) it says "On July 11, 2014, the DoD certified the Falcon 9 rocket as an EELV launch vehicle.", so we can expect as of late 2016 for them to have more government launches. While NASA et. al. get most of the publicity, the numbers show a significant market for commercial launches. Especially, I would imagine, if SpaceX ends up being both cheaper and more reliable, as they have promise to be.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  'Asteroid harvesting' is an unsolved problem, and a pipe dream. Mining is very expensive and requires megawatts; asteroid mineral yields are not likely to be better than on Earth; the distances involved are vast.
  - zacharycohn 12y ago
    "asteroid mineral yields are not likely to be better than on Earth." False. See: Planetary Resources. Rare earth metals are much more common on many asteroids than on the surface of the earth. During the formation of the planet, they tended to sink to the center, where it's very hard to get to. A single asteroid Planetary Resources is targeting has more than all the rare earth metals ever mined in history.
- avz 12y ago
  > ...second habitable home for humanity [...] or exploration for its own sake. None of these are particularly compelling given the economics behind them. So this is what economics has done to "going boldly"? No wonder it's called dismal science ;-) But seriously, diversification of our real estate beyond a single small planet seems like a necessity given the scale of the potential losses in case (X) happens. Exploration for its own sake seems like a perfectly valid reason too whether done for touristic or scientific purposes. As for ROI on space exploration, I wouldn't say it's terrible. It's just that we're short lived creatures and we like our returns fast. Space exploration is a very long term investment with potentially huge returns in far future.
  - AndrewKemendo 12y ago
    >So this is what economics has done to "going boldly"? No wonder it's called dismal science ;-) Yes the economist is typically the buzzkill. To your other point, I think it is silly to think that it would take fewer resources and time to terraform another planet^, than it would be to harden ourselves from disaster. Strike that it's not silly, it's wasteful. ^there are no known planets that are habitable to humans and getting out of our solar system is not feasible for humans given that it is 27,000 ly across
    - eloff 12y ago
      Not sure where you get that figure, the nearest star is only 4.24 light years away.
    - avz 12y ago
      You don't need to terraform a planet in order to inhabit it. Also, not all disasters are easily managed or predicted. Hypothetical virus with long incubation period that spreads quietly to almost every human on Earth before giving any symptoms could pose a huge danger. There are other scenarios where survival of civilization is doubtful or reconstruction is very difficult without off-world help. Given high stakes directing 1% of human energy into the long term goal of expanding our habitat beyond a single planet seems like a reasonable hedge. Not sure where the figure of 27kly comes from. Depending on how you measure it our solar system is ~200 AU or ~28 light hours across (for comparison 1 ly is ~63241 AU). Our galaxy is ~100kly across and it contains hundreds of billions of stars.

by avz 12y ago

AndrewKemendo 12y ago

The ROI on space exploration (currently) is terrible and the only tangible near term solution to that dilemma is asteroid harvesting. That is why SpaceX is predominantly about getting government contracts - outside of satellites (GEO and down) there isn't much economic incentive for humanity. Look, manned spaceflight is cool and there are some really bad ass ideas about space exploration, but the reality is that there really isn't that much in it for us. Our bodies are fundamentally not suited for space travel - so much so that the bulk of on-board systems are life support, making anything else a small portion. What are the goals anyway? I have heard many things like: having a second habitable home for humanity in case (X) happens, or exploration for its own sake. None of these are particularly compelling given the economics behind them. I certainly wouldn't pass up the chance to go to space, but I think it is not where humanity should be putting its energy.

hga 12y ago
"SpaceX is predominantly about getting government contracts" Doesn't sound like they're very successful, then, per Wikipedia, "As of December 2013, SpaceX has a total of 50 future launches under contract, two-thirds of them are for commercial customers." Now, the article goes on to talk about their efforts to get validated for military launches, and in the relevant article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_Expendable_Launch_Vehicle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_Expendable_Launch_Vehi...) it says "On July 11, 2014, the DoD certified the Falcon 9 rocket as an EELV launch vehicle.", so we can expect as of late 2016 for them to have more government launches. While NASA et. al. get most of the publicity, the numbers show a significant market for commercial launches. Especially, I would imagine, if SpaceX ends up being both cheaper and more reliable, as they have promise to be.
JoeAltmaier 12y ago
'Asteroid harvesting' is an unsolved problem, and a pipe dream. Mining is very expensive and requires megawatts; asteroid mineral yields are not likely to be better than on Earth; the distances involved are vast.
- zacharycohn 12y ago
  "asteroid mineral yields are not likely to be better than on Earth." False. See: Planetary Resources. Rare earth metals are much more common on many asteroids than on the surface of the earth. During the formation of the planet, they tended to sink to the center, where it's very hard to get to. A single asteroid Planetary Resources is targeting has more than all the rare earth metals ever mined in history.
avz 12y ago
> ...second habitable home for humanity [...] or exploration for its own sake. None of these are particularly compelling given the economics behind them. So this is what economics has done to "going boldly"? No wonder it's called dismal science ;-) But seriously, diversification of our real estate beyond a single small planet seems like a necessity given the scale of the potential losses in case (X) happens. Exploration for its own sake seems like a perfectly valid reason too whether done for touristic or scientific purposes. As for ROI on space exploration, I wouldn't say it's terrible. It's just that we're short lived creatures and we like our returns fast. Space exploration is a very long term investment with potentially huge returns in far future.
- AndrewKemendo 12y ago
  >So this is what economics has done to "going boldly"? No wonder it's called dismal science ;-) Yes the economist is typically the buzzkill. To your other point, I think it is silly to think that it would take fewer resources and time to terraform another planet^, than it would be to harden ourselves from disaster. Strike that it's not silly, it's wasteful. ^there are no known planets that are habitable to humans and getting out of our solar system is not feasible for humans given that it is 27,000 ly across
  - eloff 12y ago
    Not sure where you get that figure, the nearest star is only 4.24 light years away.
  - avz 12y ago
    You don't need to terraform a planet in order to inhabit it. Also, not all disasters are easily managed or predicted. Hypothetical virus with long incubation period that spreads quietly to almost every human on Earth before giving any symptoms could pose a huge danger. There are other scenarios where survival of civilization is doubtful or reconstruction is very difficult without off-world help. Given high stakes directing 1% of human energy into the long term goal of expanding our habitat beyond a single planet seems like a reasonable hedge. Not sure where the figure of 27kly comes from. Depending on how you measure it our solar system is ~200 AU or ~28 light hours across (for comparison 1 ly is ~63241 AU). Our galaxy is ~100kly across and it contains hundreds of billions of stars.