Thinking Too Long-term?

April 18th, 02010 by Alexander Rose - Twitter: @zander

President Barack Obama attends the opening session of the Space Conference at NASA Operations and Checkout Building in Cape Canaveral, Florida, April 15, 2010.

President Barack Obama attends the opening session of the Space Conference at NASA Operations and Checkout Building in Cape Canaveral, Florida, April 15, 2010.

This week President Obama laid out his plan for the future of NASA.  It includes a large budget increase, a push to hand off orbital space flight to private companies, the design of new propulsion systems, and included the long-term goals of landing on an asteroid, going to Mars, and even pushing beyond that.  The national press and political reaction has been interesting to watch from a perspective of long-term thinking.  While there has always been a general agreement that we want to achieve these goals, the administration is taking heat from the press and both sides of the isle for looking “too far out.”

Reaction to President Obama’s plan to kill the space shuttle, scrap moon missions in favor of deep-space travel, and outsource launches to private contractors is falling mostly along partisan lines—but even some Democrats said the proposals could hurt U.S. space interests in the short term. (information week)

See more press through this Google News Search

It was predictable that representatives of all the “space states” like Florida and Texas might get upset. It was a little less predictable to see the right opposing privatization of orbital flight however. But even beyond that, I think this is one of the first cases I have seen a political figure chastised explicitly for thinking too long-term.

The best bit of long-term thinking was actually glossed over in the announcement of an asteroid mission.  An asteroid or comet impact on earth is the only serious threat to human (and nearly all lifes) existence, yet we spend basically no part of NASA’s budget trying figure out how we might avert such a disaster (the little bit of funding for Rusty Schweickart’s program is an exception, but a small one).

Aside from the very important asteroid mission, is the audacious goal of not only going to Mars, but landing humans on it.  This has been talked about for years, and I think that the average person thinks of this as a simple step forward from landing on the moon.  I used to think that.  But in the last year I have had dinner with the director at NASA Ames, given a talk at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and watched a shuttle launch from about as close as humans are allowed to get.  I have learned that going to space is dangerous and difficult.  It also requires a fantastic amount of infrastructure.  Look at the picture below of Kennedy Space Center:

KSC

It goes on for miles and miles of some of the largest and most specialized buildings and facilities in the world.  And Kennedy is just the prep and launch facility, the spacecraft and payloads are almost all built with private contractors or at the other 13 huge NASA facilities around the country.  When I had dinner with several NASA scientists at JPL I remember them telling me that with existing technology we might be able to get humans to Mars… and keep them alive for about 45 minutes. Getting Home? forget about getting home…

In order to get to and come back from another planet with gravity like Mars, (unlike the moon and asteroids with little gravity) we will have to package up at least the minimal functionality of Kennedy Space Center, and all the fuel needed for all legs of the trip.  We will have to take that package, launch it into space (now is a good time to remember that for every pound of payload we launch, we use about 95 pounds of fuel), then fly it 300 million miles, land it with little or no recovery infrastructure, unpack it all, re-assemble it, refuel and launch.  Even if some of the plans for making our own fuel, water and oxygen play out, the bare bones infrastructure and ability to prep a spacecraft for flight on another planet is astoundingly difficult.  This is, by definition a long-term plan, and continuing to spend money on the same technology that barely gets us to orbit will not get us there.  If we truly want to send humans beyond the moon, we are going to have to invent a lot of new technology, and invest heavily in education.  Now seems like as good a time as any to get started…

This entry was posted on Sunday, April 18th, 02010 at 11:46 am and is filed under Long Term Science.

  • http://michaelnielsen.org Michael Nielsen

    Agreed. On the asteroid threat, a minor quibble: the fact that life has apparently existed continuously on Earth for 4 billion years suggests that the frequency of biosphere-threatening impacts is pretty low.

    In a much reduced form, the same is true of human existence on Earth. Maybe we’ve just been lucky, but I think it’s more likely that asteroids sufficient to bring our species to the brink of extinction are events that occur no more frequently than every hundred thousand years or so, and perhaps significantly less often. That’s a Very Long Now.

  • http://nnutter.com Nathan Nutter

    Michael, the universe is ~13.5 billion years old. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Multi-cellular life is about a billion years old. Intelligent life is about 0.5 a billion years old and human life is about 0.03 billion years old. We have at least one example of mass extinction (dinosaurs).

    The frequency of biosphere-threatening asteroid impacts may be small but it certainly appears the frequency of intelligent life is minuscule in comparison.

    I’ve also seen the point made here that while life may be extremely resilient, civilization is not. I personally view civilization as “multi-organism intelligence” and the higher up the complexity chain you get the less resilient it is.

  • Buck Smiht

    Why should we have to invest heavily in education? The cost of education should be going down, driven by IT technology and Internet. Just from a purely economic standpoint we should be able to get more education for less money. The constant increases in college tuition look pretty suspicious when you take this into account.

  • Peter Yard

    @Nathan: minor quibble, you forgot a zero in the time intelligent life has been here. Should be 0.003 billion years, or maybe less. :)

    Agree about civilization. The world is littered with the ruins of failed civilizations. These days we have much higher demands on resources and therefore we have more vulnerabilities. An impact of a 1 km diameter asteroid is considered a global civilization killer, but human beings would be at no risk of going extinct. There are a lot of 1 km wide asteroids, and I’m sure we have been hit by a few of them during the period of homo sapiens existence. It is an unlikely event, but it is inevitable.

  • http://www.longnow.org Alexander Rose – Twitter: @zander

    Life in *some* form has in fact survived survived many major impact events. However major impacts like those that caused the Permian Extinction which killed 95% of all species, including almost all but the deepest living land and ocean species, would certainly extinguish humanity. By many accounts we are passed due for a fairly large scale impact event…

  • http://www.longnow.org Alexander Rose – Twitter: @zander

    “The cost of education should be going down, driven by IT technology and Internet.”

    Good point. Investing does not have to mean investing in the same old system. It could mean as much of a redesign of the educational system as it does rocket drives, which I would encourage.

  • Lee Flier

    @Buck Smith – you’re implying that the Internet is a substitute for good teachers and “real” resources (as in scientific equipment, etc). It isn’t.

  • Buck Smiht

    I don’t mean to imply that the Internet is a substitute for good teachers. But for many highly motivated students internet may be substitute for teachers.

    I think it very likely Internet and IT tech can be a substitute for “real” resources (and also enable more sharing of resources) A virtual lab could be used by students in several time zones, for example.

  • Josef Karthauser

    The cost of going to mars with rockets is clearly as the author notes. I recently came across the idea of doing it with steam rockets, which on the other hand is extremely cheap! I would very much recommend checking out the ‘NeoFuel’ programme for anyone interested in doing this for real: http://www.neofuel.com/.

Some Rights Reserved (CC)

The Long Now Foundation
Fostering Long-term Responsibility
est. 01996.