The New Space Race

[Sheogorath]

Hello all, I'm doing a term paper for my Astronomy class on the Space Race, and including a large chunk on the 'New Space Race'.

For those who don't know, basically this term arose around the point China declared that it was going to the moon, and everybody concluded that they were going to start mining up there. At that point the US said, "Crap, we've got to get there before the Reds!" And Bush authorized the Constellation program...
I'll leave my own personal feelings about that program out for now, since I'm interested in other peoples opinions on the New Space Race and don't want to taint them with my own.
Anyway, the 'New Space Race' probably started a bit before that, but was simply 'undeclared', IE: The major news outlets hadn't tested it out for buzzword effectiveness yet.
So, feel free to voice how you feel about the US/China race, or the developing countries now entering space. I understand Iran recently launched their own satellite on a rocket they built themselves, from their own facility, and North Korea's trundling along quite nicely as well.

[Che Roriniho]

I just hope we get back into space in a big way. There's so much we can learn, we just need the technology. Here's hoping for fusion reactors that can be power a spacecraft!

[ICantSpellDawg]

I can't wait to start mining the moon.

[lenin96]

I agree, although I support China I support anyone discovering things for Science and humanity.

[KukriKhan]

For those who want to catch up on past and current thinking on the subject: spacereview.com is a good start point.

Excerpt from a 2004 article, by Dwayne A. Day, a Washington, DC based space policy analyst.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

When President Bush unveiled his new space vision in January he was careful to note that this is a “journey, not a race” to the Moon and elsewhere. But it may actually be in America’s interest to encourage the Chinese to think they are in a race to the Moon—and to spend accordingly. So far most of China’s human spaceflight ambitions are focused on developing low earth orbit capabilities such as rendezvous. They achieved the Shenzhou feat through incremental advances in existing technology. But the next step, to a manned lunar flyby or orbit, is a much bigger leap than China has taken before. The Chinese will have to build a new large rocket in the Ariane 5 class, and the extensive ground infrastructure to support it and further manned spacecraft ambitions. All of this requires large amounts of money and will not be easy. If the United States can encourage China to spend this money on peaceful competition rather than sabers to rattle at Taiwan and Los Angeles, then a new space race could have positive results for world stability and American self-interest.

Heh, obviously written before the global financial meltdown.

[Kadagar_AV]

Humanitys destiny is among the stars, otherwise there would be no need for a cancer such as humanity on the planet earth.

Speaking from a Gaia-perspective.








One day I will walk on the moon... I'm 28 now, at least 50 more years to go with modern medicine.




Only part I find tragic in the OP's post is the political view... C'mon, we are all human. I long for the day when humaity matters more than races/nationalities and so on.

Why can't we just celebrate China wants to take humanity further, without a "race" or political ambushes.

[Sheogorath]

Only part I find tragic in the OP's post is the political view... C'mon, we are all human. I long for the day when humaity matters more than races/nationalities and so on.

Why can't we just celebrate China wants to take humanity further, without a "race" or political ambushes.

I don't mind the 'race', competition drives us harder and gives us a reason for advancing. After all, technology always advances fastest during wars. It's a discussion for another topic, but I personally think humans need competition on some level to really thrive.

What I think is really tragic is that, for some reason, it's necessary to build an entirely new set of systems, no doubt handing out tons of cash to contractors, non-government agencies, and various deserving individuals, when we've had the technology since the freakin' 60's.

You know we have three fully functional Saturn V rockets just sitting around, right? We could easily just rebuild the old moon lander module with modern technology. There's nothing wrong with the design. With all the space we save with modern technology we might even be able to include a decent bathroom.

The Ruskies are still using the Soyuz design, and there's nothing critically wrong with the Apollo design.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Carl Sagan explains the need to fund exploration the best:

"Since, in the long run, every planetary society will be endangered by impacts from space, every surviving civilization is obliged to become spacefaring — not because of exploratory or romantic zeal, but for the most practical reason imaginable: staying alive."

[rasoforos]

What I think is really tragic is that, for some reason, it's necessary to build an entirely new set of systems, no doubt handing out tons of cash to contractors, non-government agencies, and various deserving individuals, when we've had the technology since the freakin' 60's.

You know we have three fully functional Saturn V rockets just sitting around, right? We could easily just rebuild the old moon lander module with modern technology. There's nothing wrong with the design. With all the space we save with modern technology we might even be able to include a decent bathroom.

The Ruskies are still using the Soyuz design, and there's nothing critically wrong with the Apollo design.

Money rules the world...

...Chances are that if we were to make quick money by going to the moon then we d be there in 6 months.

By not using old technology you encourage spillovers into the military and commercial sectors that reduce the real costs of just going really far to see a huge rock.

Just going back to the moon is not a big deal in itself. It was done 40 years ago. It would be like watching a re-made version of an old classic (I.E. Casablanca) and rather boring. If you are going to achieve economic benefits then you need to 'sell' a new product.

The Ruskies are using the Soyuz because they make good money out of it since it is the safest way to get up there and return without any bits and pieces missing. Good old Soviet tech :)

[Marshal Murat]

Lenin - Sigged

[Kralizec]

and North Korea's trundling along quite nicely as well.

Uhm....

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Carl Sagan explains the need to fund exploration the best:

"Since, in the long run, every planetary society will be endangered by impacts from space, every surviving civilization is obliged to become spacefaring — not because of exploratory or romantic zeal, but for the most practical reason imaginable: staying alive."

The time frame indicated here is too vague to be useful here. When are we obliged to?

I don't think mining on the moon is going to be big. You could use He3 for fusion reactors but there are other ways to do it--I think the He3 way is just promoted by people who want to go to the moon.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The time frame indicated here is too vague to be useful here. When are we obliged to?

I don't think mining on the moon is going to be big. You could use He3 for fusion reactors but there are other ways to do it--I think the He3 way is just promoted by people who want to go to the moon.

From what I took from the quote, we must push exploration now and as long as possible until a fully sustainable colony of humans is created on another terrestrial body. Astronomers any day could find a large asteroid on a direct path with Earth and our options at stopping it are very limited. If Earth is 100% doomed to be destroyed (which over the long run it is) then humanity needs to spread elsewhere and we might as do it now before it is too late.

[lenin96]

Lenin - Sigged

Seeing that I'm as insane to care about humans in billions of years (if we still hopefully are around), we need to get off this planet, Earth won't be around forever and neither will the Universe, according to Wikipedia some physicist suggested that we could escape to other universes. Wikipedia article: 11th Millenium and beyond.

[rory_20_uk]

The other solar planets have few even theoretical benefits upon reaching them: The moon has He3, which could be used in nuclear fusion reactors...erm if we had any; Mars has uh, some water and probably some iron...

Billions are spent and we end up with precious little.

Far more important discoveries are beneath the sea. To get there there would also have to be technological breakthroughs, new equipment. Except that when something has been found it would be (comparatively) easy to utilise it.

If China wants a peak in the sky then great. If there's anything that's found which is of extreme use then the financial impetus is there to get back.
Else why not explore elsewhere rather than pincusion flags into anything that stays till long enough.

[lenin96]

If we want humanity to survive for longer then we need to escape off this planet.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

From what I took from the quote, we must push exploration now and as long as possible until a fully sustainable colony of humans is created on another terrestrial body. Astronomers any day could find a large asteroid on a direct path with Earth and our options at stopping it are very limited. If Earth is 100% doomed to be destroyed (which over the long run it is) then humanity needs to spread elsewhere and we might as do it now before it is too late.

But that isn't the reasoning he uses. He says "in the long run" we'll have an asteroid strike. What are the odds of an asteroid hitting us in the next 50 years?

[Gregoshi]

An asteroid strike in the next 50 years is not very likely Sasaki but we've got a lot of unknown technology to develop and who knows how long it will take to develop it, especially if we want to leave our solar system. If not now, when do we start? We are gambling with our very existence if we do nothing.

I agree that the seas should be explored but it seems a short term view. When the sun goes nova or a nearby star goes supernova, ducking our heads under the water while the flames pass by will not save us.

[KukriKhan]

An asteroid strike in the next 50 years is not very likely Sasaki but we've got a lot of unknown technology to develop and who knows how long it will take to develop it, especially if we want to leave our solar system. If not now, when do we start? We are gambling with our very existence if we do nothing.

I agree that the seas should be explored but it seems a short term view. When the sun goes nova or a nearby star goes supernova, ducking our heads under the water while the flames pass by will not save us.

Good point. Step number 1 when apprehending a new environment (whether new geography, or new situation/disaster):

Locate the exit.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

An asteroid strike in the next 50 years is not very likely Sasaki but we've got a lot of unknown technology to develop and who knows how long it will take to develop it, especially if we want to leave our solar system. If not now, when do we start? We are gambling with our very existence if we do nothing.

I agree that the seas should be explored but it seems a short term view. When the sun goes nova or a nearby star goes supernova, ducking our heads under the water while the flames pass by will not save us.

How is it more of a priority than solar power? Or other technology to reduce pollution? Or medical technology.

We don't have to worry about the sun for billions of years.

[rory_20_uk]

There is much we can do to further space plans from the ground. Going out into space with current technology and no real fixed ideas is just wasting resources.

1. A "space elevator". 50 years ago a sci-fi joke. True, still doesn't work, but Japan believes it can - and is putting its money where its mouth is.
2. Novel materials. No need to go to the moon for these. They can be created and developed here.
3. Laser technology. Might be useful for propulsion at a distance.
4. Computer development
5. Medical development

Delving into the sea is a short term project. But one we've not bothered with although we've managed to leave some junk on the Moon to vacuum evaporate.

An asteroid is a possibility. I fail to see how a colony on Mars helps this. Increasing surveillance around the earth or indeed on the earth helps here. And creating missiles to combat this threat is rather difficult to what space craft would require.

As has been said the sun going out gives us a few BILLION years to play around with. By then we'll have been extinct or long gone.

A nearby star that can sterilise the earth means we need to get far enough away to avoid that. The nearest star is a few light years off (excluding the sun, obviously). Assuming shielding here would be insufficient we'd need to be a long, long way away. Again, expending money on maths / physics is what is required as boosters / ion engines / solar sails wouldn't cut it - even an ark would be sterilised if it can do that to earth.

[Samurai Waki]

Rory's pretty much right in the short term, going down would be better and perhaps less expensive than going up. Plus in theory if underwater colonisation becomes feasible, then that too would also be a relatively safe place in the event of an asteroid impact, assuming that a colony could produce enough food to sustain itself for a long period of time. Thirty or so years minimum

[a completely inoffensive name]

But that isn't the reasoning he uses. He says "in the long run" we'll have an asteroid strike. What are the odds of an asteroid hitting us in the next 50 years?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis

Neil DeGrasse Tyson talking about it:
http://fora.tv/2008/02/19/Neil_DeGra...ole#chapter_03

Who is Neil DeGrasse Tyson?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_degrasse_tyson

[Sasaki Kojiro]

1 in 45,000? Or did I read that wrong.

[a completely inoffensive name]

1 in 45,000? Or did I read that wrong.

Getting hit by lightning? 1 in 244,000? (5.4 times less likely to happen)
Having your plane crash? 1 in 11 million? (244.4 times less likely to happen)
Whats the odds of winning the lottery? 1 in 18 million? (400 times less likely to happen)

Are you trying to say that 1 in 45,000 is high enough to just write off as "not gonna happen"?

[CBR]

We don't need to colonize space to stop asteroids. A good early warning system in the form of telescopes dedicated to searching the sky for such objects will give us lots of time to deal with it.

AFAIK such telescopes are coming on line within a few years and are expected to pick up a few 100K asteroids we haven't picked up yet.

With several years warning time it only takes a small push to change the orbit enough to prevent a hit. A large mirror to melt a small part of a comet or perhaps an ion engine on an asteroid should be enough.

As for now there are no resources to get from space so that is not the point of going there. The point would be to set ambitious goals so new technologies are developed in the process. IMO we get more out of a billion spent on a new probe than a billion spent maintaining expensive Space Shuttles. That doesn't mean that manned spaceflight shouldn't be done of course.


CBR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Getting hit by lightning? 1 in 244,000? (5.4 times less likely to happen)
Having your plane crash? 1 in 11 million? (244.4 times less likely to happen)
Whats the odds of winning the lottery? 1 in 18 million? (400 times less likely to happen)

Are you trying to say that 1 in 45,000 is high enough to just write off as "not gonna happen"?

Yes. I'm not concerned about getting struck by lightning, having my plane crash, or winning the lottery either.

[Sheogorath]

We don't need to colonize space to stop asteroids. A good early warning system in the form of telescopes dedicated to searching the sky for such objects will give us lots of time to deal with it.

AFAIK such telescopes are coming on line within a few years and are expected to pick up a few 100K asteroids we haven't picked up yet.

With several years warning time it only takes a small push to change the orbit enough to prevent a hit. A large mirror to melt a small part of a comet or perhaps an ion engine on an asteroid should be enough.

As for now there are no resources to get from space so that is not the point of going there. The point would be to set ambitious goals so new technologies are developed in the process. IMO we get more out of a billion spent on a new probe than a billion spent maintaining expensive Space Shuttles. That doesn't mean that manned spaceflight shouldn't be done of course.


CBR

The problem is the 'several years warning' bit. Space is a big place and we don't catch everything in it. Remember a few years ago, that asteroid that passed within, like 40,000 miles of us and nobody noticed until it was a week away or so?

[CBR]

The problem is the 'several years warning' bit. Space is a big place and we don't catch everything in it. Remember a few years ago, that asteroid that passed within, like 40,000 miles of us and nobody noticed until it was a week away or so?

That is because we have used very few resources looking for them. So right now we basically don't have any early warning coverage.

If something is dangerous then it is also big and therefore pretty easy to detect. It just requires enough hardware to look for it.


CBR

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yes. I'm not concerned about getting struck by lightning, having my plane crash, or winning the lottery either.

Well I guess we will just have to disagree then. An asteroid will be coming for us someday and one will cause massive damage and I don't want to be in the situation where we need to scramble for solutions because we assume that with a such a small probability it will never happen. Deadly impacts are not uncommon for the Earth, everyone might know about the one that killed the dinosaurs but for some reason people don't recall the Tunguska Event.

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

Section from wiki.
"Although the Tunguska event is believed to be the largest impact event on land in Earth's recent history,[8] impacts of similar size in remote ocean areas would have gone unnoticed before the advent of global satellite monitoring in the 1960s and 1970s."