SGC 2006 output
Hi Guys,
here is the abstract concluding last year's workshop on the same topic:
"Despite the 2004 U.S presidential vision for a human return to the moon and Mars, and the increase in development of spacecrafts dedicated to exploring the moon and Mars as precursors to human settlements, the arguments over why humanity should transition from a robotic to a human based exploration strategy remains poorly justified to the general public. Although recent intra-governmental efforts were recently presented, such as the Royal Astronomical study on Human Exploration, such studies are not global in scope. To address this issue, a dedicated session was held during the MoonMars workshop, run in collaboration with the Space Generation Congress, an international youth space congress organized by the Space Generation Advisory Council, a non-profit organization supporting the United Nations Programme on Space Applications. It was found that a human presence in space will have inspirational benefits that a robotic exploration-based strategy will never be able to provide. Such Inspiration will drive all sectors of our society, with the culmination of stronger international cooperation and understanding. In the long term, such inspiration could be the foundation for human unification."
******************************
Last year's forum:
Mainly for your information
http://forums.spacegeneration.org/viewtopic.php?id=675&p=1
******************************
Wiki Page:
Mainly to add material on the bibliography section
http://www.moonmarsworkshop.com/wiki/index.php?title=MMWProject7
******************************
File Upload:
We have the possibility to upload files. I have uploaded the summary document of last year (sadly not that impressive), which ideally would serve as a springboard for this year's discussion. You can find the page finding it from the menu on the left ("File Share") or going here: http://www.spacegeneration.org/index2.php?q=node/51
The diagram that is in that document is what i'd like to have feedback on. I'd be happy to elaborate if you have questions.
Thanks!
s.
Good to hear from you too Veren. Yeah let's try and build a critical mass, this has the potential of having quite a significant impact. I talked to Louis Friedman (President, Planetary Society) on the phone , and he is very excited about our work as well. Keep taking notes on the material that is posted, we'll touch base soon. Thanks again!
Ok fellas, so do you agree with the document that, fundamentally, inspiration is the one thing that humans can bring to the space program that robots simply will never be able to provide? Is this reason enough to pursue a manned space program?
No I generaly disagree. While it is inspirational to see humans out there we have seen a great deal of inspiration from the spirit and opportunity rovers as well. We will see that from both humans and robots to differing degrees. That alone is not reason enough to persue a manned space program at all.
ah yes, but don't you think that if, instead of two rovers, a manned team would be exploring Mars, it would have much more of an impact towards young children and high school students who are still wondering what to do with their lives?
Do you think there should be a manned exploration program in the first place? Why or why not?
Its not something that is only available through human exploration. In the case of the moon landing for instance we had a situation where it created one instant very strong impression on those who watched it. That is an excellent thing to have no question but as we only went back to the moon for a short while after its value began to fade away. Most people also believe they don't have much of a shot at going into space right now. You have a better chance of becoming a US National Senator than of becoming an Astronaut. Sure there are a huge number of support personnell from designers to nurses to engineers working there also to keep our people in space. But how many kids are dreaming of sitting at a desk watching someone else get the glory? I know thats not what I wanted. I can consign myself to reality that I probably wont get a shot at the deep black but its not what makes a great dream.
Robotic trips have not had the mundane interval that has so choked manned missions of late (The whole point of this debate naturally) and continue to explore all over the solar system. They have provided boosts to interest in space as great as any manned mission. Sputnik launched the space race and drew a huge interest in space science. A robotic satellite touched off the greatest boom in space science to date. What we saw with the Moon was the culmination of a spark caused by an automated satellite. Of late we have had long term satellites and robotic landers making news far more often than anything being done by humans in space. While manned missions bring interest in fits and spurts it seems to be the machines that keep up a small and steady fire.
Yes despite what I said above I do believe we should send manned missions. The reason of inspiration is nowhere near sufficient but other reasons exist. For one thing there are still things humans can do in space that we haven't built machines for yet. In the future we might build machines that could do these things but for now direct human input is necessary. Take for instance the ISS. We keep sending humans up to put it together and make repairs. Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to send up fewer people and build robots to simply flit around the outer hull and take care of all the mundane construction and maintainence tasks? If so why haven't we done it already? To be sure robotic arms are employed to take care of a few of these tasks but sometimes a human has to go out and fix the arm too as it is not yet all that versatile.
Human adaptability is another important factor that we haven't put in our robots yet. Certainly many of them have some sort of backup in case of failure but as we have seen minor miscalculations have completely wasted missions that, if manned, may have been salvageable.
To learn to colonize. If I recall rightly there is a quote by a NASA director that was something to effect of "Human colonization of space is the ultimate goal of the space program. No greater goal is possible and no lesser goal is sufficient to justify the effort". Unless we for some strange reason feel like trying to create a race of sentient robots to take over the rest of the universe there is every reason for us to learn to send people up to learn how to colonize. We can't do that with robots. Rats would be a better tool in some ways than our current machines for the task. Without humans up there to test new ideas and discover what does and does not work we cannot hope to grow outward from our home planet here.
Because we can. Some say this is not reason enough to do anything. I would have you remember though, that there really was no good reason climb mount everest without oxygen, there was no practical purpose in swimming the English Channel, No lives were saved by the painting of the Mona Lisa. Human beings are always looking to achieve something great. If there is a hill somebody will always want to climb it even if it doesn't seem like a good idea or even a sane one. When we first sent men out in spacecraft their safety was anything but assured. We did it anyway because we could. Nobody was looking for useful applications at that time. That wasn't the concern despite the fact that much was gained on the side. There are just those who want to get somewhere whatever the price, even death. People have died trying to scale everest, Sunk in the Channel, Froze in the Antartic wastes, Cannibalized in the Phillipines, all in the name of new horizons. Just to see what was over that next hill. Just because they could.
Here are some to get started with. Its not an exhaustive list but such a list would take many more hours to write. I think this is sufficient to make my point.
Hi guys,
I've only just registered and see this topic as being very fundamental so I hope you don't mind me adding a few comments.
Veren, you've raised some very good points and I particularly like the way you've shown that human presence in space is fundamental to the Nasa director's vision for his space program. And I think we can use these points in conjunction with the inspirational benefits of manned spaceflight because I still believe that is the most important point behind the case for human exploration.
Colonizing space is important. I believe that more pressing on people's agendas is world peace and stability. Yes, a self-sufficient colony on Mars would ensure the survival of humanity in case of, say, an unavoidable environmental disaster. However, many people would argue that in reality, a much more imminent threat is war. Especially today, there seems to be an general underlying feeling of insecurity, mainly thanks to Bush's well thought out foreign policies. Therefore, the idea of world peace enabled by the collaboration of different nations behind a unified vision of human space exploration and settlement will be music to everyone's ears.
Robotic exploration is inspirational, but just think of the stir a human landing on Mars would cause compared to the huge ones the robotic landings caused. So Sanjoy, I agree that the inspirational benefits of human exploration should be key to our argument and I also think it would be wise to emphasize the other points.
Max
Sorry for replying so late. Following LPSC, I went hiking for a week in the national parks of Utah.
Another (what’s your real name?) thank you very much for your inputs. All of them are very interesting and most welcomed. About your points:
1/ Short lived enthusiasm for Apollo program.
I do indeed agree. Apollo 13 launch definitely did not make the headlines. The goal of Apollo was to beat the Soviets to the moon. No major effort was done to promote space exploration endeavors to the public since it was essentially a military operation. Indeed, Harrison Schmitt was the only scientists to ever walk on the moon. Although its true that being selected Astronaut by Space Agencies is extremely competitive, the market is opening up for other individuals: Virgin Galactic is the perfect example. For a “mere” $200’000, one can buy a ticket into space. The number of companies offering commercial space flight is increasing and the cost will keep dropping. Our generation will have the opportunity to travel into space.
You bring up a very important point though. A major goal of human based exploration is to “bring it to the people” in order to keep their support. How to do so is definitely something we need to think about carefully.
2/ Robots are enough to spur enthusiasm
Yes and no. Although its true that only robots will in the near future be able to explore the outer solar system (Jupiter and beyond), setting up human Lunar and Martian colonies will be FAR more exciting than having rovers driving around. The science return is also different. Although robots are best for reconnaissance (due to inherent risks of new environments), humans are best for exploration.
Steve Squyres, PI of the Martian rovers, said “I’m a big fan of robots, and humans are not a viable substitute for robots when money is tight. But one thing you learn when you work with robots a lot is how dreadfully limited they are in their capabilities relative to what a human could do in the same environment. For in-depth exploration, there’s just no substitute for humans, nor (I think) will there be one in the foreseeable future. So clearly the right approach is to lead with robots that are helped by humans, and follow later with humans that are helped by robots.” (http://www.newmars.com/archives/000065.shtml)”
But to return about enthusiasm, robots definitely do not have the same charisma as humans.
3/ Enthusiasm in not enough of a reason to justify a human space program
Agreed!! I have thought long and hard about this and my best result is what is in the document in the file share. You propose:
• “To learn to colonize” I agree. But I can already see a journalist asking you: “Why bother learning to colonize, what a waste of time and resources! What are the benefits for me?”
• “Because we can”. I agree. But again, I can see a journalist asking you “Spending billions of dollars “just because we can” is waste of money and resources!”. The examples you describe: climbing everest, swimming across the channel, are tiny endeavors with budgets that cannot compare. Sure, humans are by nature explorers, but does that fundamentally justify spending billions to settle the moon and Mars?
In summary
You bring up excellent points, thanks! Things we need to think about:
• What can be done to keep fueling the interest of the general public to a human space program
• What other arguments than the ones I present in the file-share document can be put on the table to viably justify a human presence on the moon and mars?
• Max Beaumont, you have part of the answer here: “the idea of world peace enabled by the collaboration of different nations behind a unified vision of human space exploration and settlement will be music to everyone's ears.”: A worldwide effort of space colonization can spur many domains of the economy and culture exchange, promoting international exchange and understanding. This is the basis of the triangle I have in the file-share document.
• How to bring this to the less developed nation? (A huge challenge, they care more about food on their plate than anything else)
Nicely done fellas, your feedback to the above comments is awaited in anticipation.
Hi guys,
I've just registered, and already did some thinking about this topic, so I hope you don't mind I throw here some thoughts.
The idea of more world peace is a very idealistic prospective, but I think that it puts us before a bigger problem. As soon as we can give the public opinion enough material to believe in Space colonization, that there are benefits (and I fear that they will have to be economical before there will be widespread interest; but lets stay optimistic); as soon as that happens, there will probably start another space race; in wich the big and whealthy countries shall have a huge monopolie, especially the United States.
My point is actually that world peace could become an outstanding side effect of SPace Colonization, but it will ask a lot of effort.
The thing I was referring to was in fact the colonization of America, in the 16e centurie. There was a huge compitition between European countries, because of the whealth and the gold. Tragedies have happened about it.
I hope we can also keep this in mind before we become too idealistic. Even as the mistakes that were made in the space race in the sixties.
Pfew, I think this is becoming very pessimistic.
Something more joyfull: I am convinced that exploration is in the human nature. We are all people on our way to something we don't know. During history, menkind has always wanted to explore their boundaries. Maybe we should accept this fate; with a certain 'amor fati' as the philosopher Nietzsche would put it: we should love our fate, our destiny of exploring.
And maybe something else; if you look at the number of inhabitants of this planet: the last fifty years it has grown exponentially. Earth is becoming too small! We need to create more space, and we shall find it in space! I hope this could be one of the major issues that could convince even the poor countries to invest in Space Exploration.
These are just a few of the thoughts I had. I hope they can be usefull.
Pieter (a Belgian name, it sounds like 'Peter' in English)
Hi Pieter,
Thanks for your comments. Its true that "world peace" is probably the wrong choice of words. How about "worldwide collaboration promoting scientific and cultural exchanges", which can lead to a decrease in conflicts over generations since our youth is already a lot more "international" than our parents and grandparents.
The US, Russia, China and Europe will of course lead the enterprise, since they have the most experience with space travel. I don't think that's a bad thing.. You mention "space race". I see that as healthy competition, to keep the prices low, and allow different methodologies of space exploration to flourish.
About your second paragraph. Yes, it is indeed mankind's nature to explore. The difficulty is that this argument fundamentally does not justify the expense of space exploration. Earth becoming too small to house all our people is a long term argument and definitely should be included. I agree. Unfortunately, people in charge of the money still have "short term" goals since they want to see a return on their investment.
Thanks again for your thoughts Pieter, What do you other guys think?
Hi, I am a newly registered user, and new to this website. I have a few ideas about the topic after reading all of your posts.
Firstly, financing. This mission will be very expensive, and lot of people will ask for justification for the amount of money spent, when the money could be 'better spent' on earth. If we are going to spend so many billions of dollars creating this mission, can we really justify the risk of sending robots into space? What if, due to unforseen circumstances, something happens and they break? This is a very real possibility to even the most advanced robots. So then, at the end of it all, so much money has been spent on sending a spacecraft to Mars, which is something great, but not enough.
Secondly, I really like the idea of nations binding together to do something very inspirational. The problem is, as you say Sanjoy, creating something for ALL of the nations. Should they be excluded, there will be a much bigger divide between developed and non-developed countries. Perhaps there could be some type of committee where all of the nations can have a representative, and therefore at least there can be a little input from everybody. (I am not sure if such a committee already exists). At these dicussions, the representative can decide on the best method of input into the actual challenge- whether it be financial input, or a services input.
Perhaps the goals for short-term investment could be along the lines of the technological advancements that will be made, and therefore, by selling these advancements, not only will financial profit be made, but it will benefit society whether it is used for medical reasons or otherwise.
Just a few ideas on the topic, I hope they were of some help!
By the way, my name is sinead, but since it's a difficult Irish name, I also go by the easier name of Shay! :)
Thanks Shay,
And nice to meet you :) Your financial concerns are important, but the amount of money needed to develop a robot mission is tiny compared to developing a human rated mission. What you ask is what is going to be asked by journalists worldwide: "Wouldn't the money be better spent elsewhere?". The answer is No, if we have clearly stated reasons. This is the purpose of this workgroup, ie to come up with these reasons.
Your second point is extremely important. How do we involve the whole world? Obviously some countries will be a lot more involved than others because of their economic strength, labor, industries, educational institutions etc.. but what will have to be clear is that the *returns* from these investments of those "rich" countries will have to be distributed globally, and not solely to where the investment initiated. This is a huge hurdle to get across. This global return in the long run will stimulate the economy of less favored countries so yes, an overseeing organization ("Starfleet" hehe) should not be scrapped. Such an organization "exists". Its the UNOOSA (United Nations Office of Outer Space Affairs).
Keep brainstorming guys, this is good! :)
Ooh thats bad economics though. Our debating position for reaons to go into space is severely curtailed with those countries that have the resources to put toward such endeavors if we insist that viable returns be distributed all over the place. We need to make sure that strong economic and technological incentives are obvious and accessible before we are going to convince anyone but ourselves. These will in the end keep space going. The same incentives that have driven everything humanity has done in large numbers. Columbus' primary goal wasn't to discover America. It was to open a new trade route to the east. We often forget that he actually failed. Discovering America is arguably the most valuable spinoff of a failed expedition ever of course but that was only because people believed there was a great deal to gain by moving to the newly discovered continents. They came searching for better lifestyle and riches. Most didn't find it but that didn't stop their descendents from heading off westward to California and Alaska in gold rushes. If we can once convince enough people that space is the next boomtown we need do no more.
So we need to be extremely cautious about parcelling out anybodys gains against their will. If nobody can make money in the long run we've alreay lost.
As another says, and I agree, it is most important that we show clearly that the profit of space exploration, is a profit for all of humanity.
But, here occurs a problem. In short time it isn't in anybody's profit. The capitalistic market is a fact is the wealthy countries, so the money is with whom the money makes: industry. There is no council that acts for the benefit of all mankind, just people acting for there own benefit. Sad, a philosophical impasse, but a fact. I know the NATO & UNO and others try to keep everybody together behind the same pricipals, but humans are humans.
Fact is that we must convince the industry to keep investigating.
In fact: we need two arguments: we need short term economic benefits, and long term humanistic reasons.
1) Arguments of short term, that offer money-having cooperations quick, and semi-quick benefits for money making.
2) Benefits that keep the public from protest; benefits that keeps politicians see the need. Bush with all his wild plans for space exploration just cut out the funds for NASA last year; and influenzing the public opinion is a work of long breath. It is not a matter of giving answers on questions, but of continuously shouting in the media. To bring the whole topic in the discussion of the everyday life. If people talk a lot about it, industrials will follow; and by that the topic comes more in the news, people will talk more about it, industrials will come: we should create a positive spiral about it.
I can feel that discussion is slumbering in people's minds, if we open the discussion, if we shout loud and control the general opinion, we could do a lot!
Keep up the good work: this is maybe the topic that will (have to) make all the other topics on SGC possible!
Team,
Thanks for those inputs. I will address those economics hopefully soon (so bogged down with work..ugh).
The planetary society wants us to specifically address the following:
(1) what can be done on the Moon to really help prepare for going to Mars -- focusing on MINIMUM steps at the Moon instead of Maximum as NASA and industry like to do; and
(2) how can meaningful international roles be assigned and help enable accomplishment of national interests at lower costs and higher public support.
I'll have to contact them about no. 1, as I'm not convinced that it belongs to our group. No. 2 is related to your economics argument.
I look forward to your inputs.
Could you (or anyone else) specify a little bit more that first statement in the post above? In what way do you mean 'what can be done on the moon" ? Is it a scientific aproach, or more a human-related one? And what is meant by minimum steps: as cheap as possible, as quick as possible,...?
I'm sorry for this question, but because I have the impression that that question from the Planetary Society is related to almost all topics, I do not quite understand its meaning in this context.
or maybe it is that which must be searched for in this forum?
These are all really interesting points! And dare I say it, something that I had never thought about in such depth before.
Please excuse my ignorance, but Pieter said about the constant media attention and how it would benefit our cause greatly- is this something that us as a team are required to act upon, or are we just brainstorming at the minute?
I know very little about economics of business and industry, and therefore will contribute some more ideas when I have had the time to research it a little more!
Shay
Hi there,
I am a newly registered person. I work for Lockheed Martin on the CEV Program. I just want to add to the points above in most of the posts regarding the Humanistic goals and World collaboration in exploring Space. I would like to provide the example of the International Space Station which is a joint effort of 16 countries, one of the most widely participated programs in the whole of Space programs so far. The kinds of things done on the ISS- like the research on cure for Cancer, microgravity effects on Human long term stay in space, etc are some of the most useful scientific accomplishments that are being achieved for the betterment of mankind. Although we argue that only wealthy countries are involved in the program, the post research results would definitely support and provide help to the other nations as well. Apart from just Space colonization and exploration of Space, being the inevitable curiosity of mankind, the use of space for the betterment of our society and protection of human kind have been realized while the progress of this ISS program.
Similar realization and establishment of goals for the elevation of technology, resources and answers to many things through exploring Space which cannot be done on earth should be identified and put forth for a better justification of Space Exploration.
(In the above sentence where I mentions things that cannot be achieved on Earth-for example the crystals being cultured on the ISS have a bigger size and clarity than on Earth and this can be only achieved in Microgravity)
I have presented some things I thought could support our effort in explaining why Space Exploration and why only Space? - Because a lot of things for human development can be resolved only in Space, that which cannot be possible on earth.
I’m surely looking forward for comments and feedback.
Thank You,
Kavya.
~!I Don't Want to be one in the crowd; I want to be One Above the crowd!~
This discussion has been idle for more than a week. We can't have that. We only have till september after all. I suppose I really should have answered these a while back but I've been a bit distracted with school.
(1) what can be done on the Moon to really help prepare for going to Mars -- focusing on MINIMUM steps at the Moon instead of Maximum as NASA and industry like to do; and
I wish I knew more of the technical details but It would be my guess that if we really want absolute minimum steps then we bypass it altogether. I don't think thats what they were looking for however so probably the minimum steps would be to put an unmanned resupply base up - possibly in an orbit - for a mars mission to refuel and get underway on the long haul. That is of course if we don't just construct the whole thing in orbit around earth in the first place. Certainly the moon is a great testbed and that is most likely what this question is driving at. At the least it should be used for low gravity training and emergency scenarios. To test both people and equipment over the long term in such high dust environments. That sort of thing.
(2) how can meaningful international roles be assigned and help enable accomplishment of national interests at lower costs and higher public support.
Why do we want to assign international roles again? Im more in line with a free enterprise version of this. If a country wants in they can get in touch with the other countries and work it out. Assigning roles sounds a bit too forced. If we allow each country to get involved to whatever extent it chooses and can support then the other two aspects will more easily fall into place.
Hi,
I have read through the interesting discussion and here are my thoughts for some of the issues raised earlier in this forum.
Humans Vs Robotic explorations –
Many members have expressed their opinion on this issue. As has been brought out - each exploratory effort has it own merits and limitations. Robotic exploration of the Mars cannot and will never be the same as human exploration of Mars. Robotic exploration can and should be used to complement human exploration.
BUT exploration by humans is probably the most natural way to go! (Plenty of historical evidence to justify that ) And the sense of achievement that comes with human exploration is unparalleled and above any other modes of exploration.
Inspiration as cornerstone for justifying Human exploration -
Inspiration is a great idea but inspiration alone is not enough justification as some members have already pointed out.
I think that the driving force should be the “human spirit of exploration” not just of the geographical/ physical boundaries, but also exploration of science and technology, exploration of our performance and capabilities, explorations of the frontiers, exploration to seek new knowledge and so on …
What can be done to keep fueling the interest of the general public to a human space program?
While we continue to inspire ( 1 % inspiration), we also publicize /showcase/ market the benefits thus far gained from the “space exploration”(both tangible and intangible benefits) – (99% perspiration). Here are a few points:
1. Publicize tangible benefits of space programs( in general)–spin offs that have created an impact on life on Earth, impacts on science and technology, communications, telemedicine , disaster prediction and management, remote sensing .
2. Publicise tangible and intangible benefits of HUMAN space program – Inspiration, stretching human exploratory limits and the need to find an alternate habitat for humanity, extension of species to another planet.
3. Tangible commercial benefits for human presence in space for harnessing space energy and space resources (asteroid mining) and for development of new materials or drugs.
4. Make access to space easier for the common man and therefore keep the public involved and interested.
How to bring this to the less developed nation?
By making it relevant to the needs of the developing countries. There are quite a number of developing countries that invest in space science and technology – obviously they do see the benefits of space technology in terms of addressing the needs of communication, remote sensing, weather forecasting, disaster management etc.
Search for alternative energy sources could be an important point of relevance to entice the developing countries (besides the inspiration and exploration theme)
These are just a few thought .
Will post more ideas soon .
Thanks
Back to the conversation about the benefits (particularly short-term) of human space exploration, i've listed some in what i believe is the order of long to short-term:
1.Survival of Mankind
2.A new taxable economy
3.Exploitation of resources incl. energy
4.Scientific and technological development
5.National pride
6.Inspiration of a new generation of scientists and engineers
Only points 2,3 and 5 would specifically benefit the countries involved while the rest would benefit all of humanity (incl. developing nations).
For points 2 and 3, a council like UNOOSA could oversee the distribution of profit amoung the counties involved. These points are of course still fairly long-term but the best I could come up with. If the tremendous money-making potential of point 3 can be shown (eg.SPS satellites?) then this might be enough.
Max
ps: I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't bother with the Moon before Mars, but if TPS is asking us...
last year i came up with the idea of making a movie in space
if we did this it could be funded by hollywood
then it would make it more tangible
for the average person
at least a step
ideas?
--------------------------------------
one kind word can warm 3 winter months
japanese proverb
First of all: I think Kavyakamal touched a very important point! What are better arguments for convincing people than those facts that already have had important contributes in our daily live. To many people aren’t aware of all the benefits they are already enjoying every day. How many people know that the research that is done has direct influence in their lives? Certainly medical progress as cancer research is very sensitive in the public. Maybe we should point out the existing benefits first, before the ones yet to come.
Before pointing out the possible benefits in the future, we should bring those in the spotlights, that already are now.
Space research does not sound as something everybody has interest in: but it is, it has and it will be. And I think all three of those aspects must be focussed on.
In order to bring all of mankind in space we probably should bring space to earth first.
I think that this is also what Sarita has said(and I want to accentuate her 4 points which I find very summarizing): for the less-developed nations those points must be focussed: health, wheater forcasting, research in agriculturing techniques, disaster prediction,...
About a Holywood film, I am afraid that it is a legend in Holywood that space-films traditionally don't have big stars in them; except just one with Tom Hanks and Kevin Bacon(Apollo 13). It is a good idea, but to bring it to work it will ask a lot of energy, and the success isn't even garanteed.
But it can work if you have the right people behind it. Look f.i. at the oscarwinning "An Inconvenient Truth" of Al Gore: a (major) success I believe (or so it is in USA & western Europe): it has taken its place in the public debate and politic opinion: that is what we want too!
Don't lose the idea; maybe we can make the oppotunity to convince an already famous(but still serious enough) person to his very core about the need for space exploration. Some kind of Al Gore or George Clooney (Sudan) or Angelina Jolie (child adoption); but without exagerating, in the proper tone, and without starting a compition with other big earthchanging project.
What conciders those minimum steps for NASA to do: the idea of the film is maybe one of those. To bring the issue in the debate we have to bring it first to the people on the street, and they will bring it into politics.
Those steps can be made minimum, but they sure will have to be huge to have any effects.
I think we should keep looking at those ideas of reaching the very big public!
Hello I am new but would like to help in any way possible.
To add to what has been said about space exploration and improving life on earth I feel that more connections should be made between space exploration and environmentalism/sustainable development. Many of the ideas of sustainable development are necessary for human space exploration. As seen in the recent book by Charles Cockell, "Space on Earth: Saving Our World by Seeking Others" there are many common goals between the environmental movement and space exploration. Just think if environmentalists like Al Gore were convinced that human space exploration could also help their cause...
Thank you all, what great thread this is!
I would first like to apologize for not having contributed lately; having said that, here are a few thoughts on what has been discussed. First off, Another, you quite correctly point out:
"So we need to be extremely cautious about parcelling out anybodys gains against their will. If nobody can make money in the long run we've alreay lost."
Yes. As a refresher, the reason he mentioned this is that i had written that although only a few countries have the technological know-how of manned space exploration, the benefits of such exploration will have to be shared among all nations. This is of course highly idealistic, but in some sense, I believe this is ethically the thing to do as members of this world. They have a moral duty to do this for the sake of mankind. Again, this is quite idealistic, but I firmly believe this is a valid argument. Now, like pieter mentioned, its indeed, saddly, about money
So it seems we agree on a point here: there needs to be some clear short term goals, and a more humanistic long term vision. Like Sarita mentioned, it is soo important to solidly lay down what has already been done. Clearly identify spinoffs. This is soo important, but no one talks about them! Here is NASA's spinoff website: http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/. We need to go through it and filter the information to the most dramatic (people listen when there is drama).
I also agree with sarita and kavyakamal in terms of space commercialization/development. We need to have a clear idea of what has been done on ISS through internal collaboration.
Max, I really like your ability to summarize;
1.Survival of Mankind
2.A new taxable economy
3.Exploitation of resources incl. energy
4.Scientific and technological development
5.National pride
6.Inspiration of a new generation of scientists and engineers
While 2-3 are true, they are still in the realm of sci-fi. I think 1,4,6 are important. I would try and stay away from national pride, but promote "earth pride". Remember, as much as we can, we should try hard to break political boundaries.
I also want to write a few sentences amount my inspiration argument. It is more than just inspiration define by looking at the sky and going oooooh, aaaaahhhh and this justifies going to space. No. By inspiration I mean that this global enterprise will inspire companies to develop new products, will inspire nations who are not space-fairing to become involved in ways that they can contribute (hence why clearly defining the universal return of the human program to the moon and mars is important), inspire individuals to seek out education to become part of this exciting movement, inspire politicians to seek international cooperation, the list goes on... While inspiration is the over-arching theme, the real "machinery" will happen between economy/politics, science/technology and people.
So to be clear. I think we agreed that we need:
Short term goals that can attract investors/political support
-------------------------------------------------------------
*clearly identify relevant technological spinoffs of the human space program
*Benefits of science done in space
*short term *return* on investments
*political partnership in technology development (ISS)
*cheap access to space (space-x)
*....
(shay, i agree with you regarding the improvement of environmental awareness offered by remote sensing of earth, if fact, i have a very strong feeling about this, but how does that justify human presence is space? i perhaps missed your point..)
Long term goals
---------------
*make the project bigger and bigger, involve more and more countries/people
*improve cultural exchanges, cultural understandings
*this will drive the machinery described above
*improve worldwide collaboration promoting scientific exchanges,
*stress that the goal is for humanity
*might save humanity
*....
Did I mess anything up? The wording likely needs some work. Please feel free to edit/change/add/remove to the above list.
Hi All,
As you know by now, delegates to the 2007 Space Generation Congress have been selected, I hope to meet many of you in India. In the next few weeks, we will be transitioning from brainstorming to actually getting research done and building a report. Our task at SGC will be "simply" to polish the report. I will keep you posted on the methods. Essentially, it will be a report that we will all be able to write to / edit on-line.
Keep the ideas coming, I hope you have realized the extreme importance of this project.
Best,
Sanjoy
I agree as well that presenting past spin-offs of space developement to the public to show how important it is could be a vital method in convincing them. Also, obtaining some celebrity advocates might work really well, especially if our case can be connected with environmentilism as that is quite trendy at the moment.
Sanjoy, how central will TPS's questions be to the report? Well, I have few thoughts on (2) how can meaningful international roles be assigned and help enable accomplishment of national interests at lower costs and higher public support.
-National interests: This is a particularly difficult question because it deals with national interests (eg. national pride). It is clear that the international interests stated already could also be considered national interests. But I can't think of any explicit national interests that could be satisfied with international collaboration and the sharing of all knowledge for the good of humanity. I think what we would need to concentrate on how the benefits listed already already coincide with the accomplishment of national interests.
-Assignment of roles: Also difficult. The ISS and Airbus have been financial disasters largely due to the red-tape and inefficiency caused by this. Perhaps it would be a good idea to have an organization that appoints roles with no regard to nationality. It decides which private company would be best at what, bypassing governments entirely and acting almost as an independent, private space agency. How to get governments to agree with giving away their money with no guarantee that it will be reinvested in their country? Maybe if all the counties involved agree that all their space knowledge be shared with everyone (apart from that applicable to weaponary), and therefore, by contributing, there would be a wealth of knowledge open to them. Or perhaps (dare I be idealistic?) they could be convinced by the greater good they would be contributing towards?
-Lower costs: The above setup would hopefully achieve this.
Something to think about anyway. It's a tough question.
Max
Hi Max,
TPS's questions is something we need to keep in mind, but not necessarily prioritize in our report. The reason i'm saying this is that we have already made some great progress and I feel it would be counterproductive to go out of our way to address them specifically, but include their message.
I think you again hit the key question: How to get governments to agree with giving away their money with no guarantee that it will be reinvested in their country?
I think that is a major question that will have to be addressed in detail. One way perhaps is to emphasize the indirect returns such countries will receive (other ideas?). Here is a brainlist; some of those ideas are perhaps cheasy at this point, some others are more concrete. Please add to the list
Indirect returns:
*contribute to their duty as space leaders for the benefit of humanity
*drive their economy with the increase in jobs such an endeavor will create
*attract engineers,scientists,managers from all over (which also drives economic engine)
*promote cultural exchanges
*promote education
*technological spinoffs
*increase national pride
*...
To lower costs, one must drive competition, which is happening in the US with the different space venture firms (space-x etc...)
It's an enormous pleasure to talk to you again. in this forum.
It's been almost a year since I first became aware of the existance of SGC and SGAC. Since then, my astonishment has been growing up.
Every time I read SG emails and realize how big and extended is this organization I realize how lucky am I for being a participant in such great initiative.
Congratulation to all organizers for the work you are doing for setting up SGC 2007 and to those who are working on the projects, like you Sanjoy. It will glad me to see you again in India (if I'm able to get enought money, but hey! that's another think) and maybe, go for a pub crawling! (Absent!, Absent!, Absent!).
Anyway, there is another purpose for writting this comment on this forum, it is to ask you for permision to join you in this project. How to encourage people to support human space exploration instead of a robotic spread around the solar system is, from my point of view, nothing but an intriguing insight on motivational forces behind human behaviour and wills of expansion. As a young graduated medical doctor it will be a honour for me to give my tribute to your initiative. I would be pleased to work with you as much as my knowledge can be useful. In addition, I'am an inconditional fan of Isaac Asimov whose robot stories and analysis of different possible human colonization efforts could be taken as a model. In his books I.A. gives strong arguments for human colonization instead of robotic or human-robotic colonization of new worlds that could be a good start point to develop our own arguments.
Thank you again for the friendship you demonstrated last year and congratulations on your current work.
Sergi Vaquer
Barcelona (Spain)
Hi,
Max and Sanjoy: I think you have made very precise points clear. You are indeed pressing your fingers on the wound of Space exploration in the future.
My only comment would be that (most of) those arguments are also valuable for Space Exploration with robots only. But as Sergi has reminded us: we should indeed look for those persuasive arguments for Human action in Space.
I am sure all of the points you have mentioned will be of big use! But I think that we must go further with this: not only give nations and companies reasons to participate and invest, but also to educate and train people: living human beings(!) to be our scouts, and later to be are representatives on places other than earth. To create strategies and protocols, correct environments, psychological security,… It goes so much further than robots.
But I am sure that once we are able to convince parties of going into space, it will only be a small step to bring thém to human exploration. They won’t be the problem; it will be more the human right activists or public opinion or moral comities that will launch possible contra’s in the media that might damage us real bad. We must also be prepared for this.
Maybe I am to soon with these comments, and should we first focus on the persuading parties to want to go to space. But I just wanted us to keep these things in the back of our heads.
Hi again guys,
I just want to post here one basic question which was asked to me by my english teacher during my last english lesson. She came up with a really basic inquiry but the most esential one: why should mankind enroll in a search of other planets even when we can't haldle with our current one?.
I do know that you have already thought about this question but since, as you said Pieter, the forum has lost its primordial objective let us start again from the beginning.
Can you mention all reasons you can come up with that can be used to encourage and excite general public (my english teacher for instance) to decide supporting such initiative?
Here are my two:
Because an sleeping specie, not influenced by evolution and change, or a stationary society, are doomed to a slow extinction, taken over by environmental change, which is always present, or maybe by a more adaptable life form.
Because the effort to succeed in such challenge will give the knowledge and strength to confront even harder challenges. Even if we fail, we should learn many things on our way and be able to use them in the future.
Hi Guys,
I disagree that "forum has lost its primordial objective". It remains very clear what are goals are; and some arguments that are important to make the case for humans in space are also valid for exploration in space in general, so there will naturally be some overlap.
As for your science teacher's question, I am unsure what she asks, since humans searching for other planets and humans "cannot handling our own" are not really comparable. To be very honest, I think the argument of us mistreating our planet, while true, is often miss-used. What she is likely referring to is the abuse of resources. With the current population of the planet, and the lack of education of many of its citizens regarding planetary harm due to our doings, resource abuse is, I want to say, practically unavoidable. Emissions of CO2 and global warming are a direct consequence of industrialization. A lot is being done across the world to try and lessen our impact on the environment (Kyoto etc..), so I disagree with the statement that we "cannot handle our own". Its just the way the Earth/human system has evolved to and slow realizations are being made regarding our impact.
Such a statement in fact helps our cause, since lessening the human burden on Earth by colonizing another planet will lessen the strain on the natural resources our planet has to offer.
Now: "Can you mention all reasons you can come up with that can be used to encourage and excite general public"
That's what has been discussed in the above 41 posts. I will start compiling everything soon now that the Uni term is over.
Your two statements are echoed in what has been discussed up to this point. I encourage you to re-read the posts.
Thank you for your comments! It keeps us on our toes.
cheers
Hey guys,
I think it is important the we remember that this is an argument for the case of ´human´ space exploration but I agree that the case for space exploration in general stongly overlaps. I mean, would effective space exploration be possible without the involvement of humans?
Sergi, the avoidence of stagnation as a species is an important argument for human exploration (and colonization) of space.
I also mentioned before as others have agreed with, that bringing humanity together under the unified aim of space exploration is an important point. Incidently evidence of this that we should consider is the ´Global Exploration Treaty´ recently signed by 14 national space agencies.
Hello, I'm new to the forum as
I'm currently traveling through Africa.
Due to this, I'm having a hard time being convinced that such money should be spent on Space exploration when poverty is so rife is many parts of the world. I was staying with a pygmy tribe in the Congo who are barely surviving, ridden with malaria and starvation while billions of dollars are being pumped into Space.
Is this justified? Can Space exploration stimulate world GDP in the future? Lunar colonization might, but is Martian exploration economically viable!?
These are the questions of the common man and need to be addressed...
Can anyone help me with this?
I agree to Mark's comment and infact although I am working for a space company on the mission to Lunar and mars, I still am not convinced by the vision fo exploration in a way it would help mankind in the near future. I can take both stand for wether is is a good thing to have spending so much towards Space exploration and also if it is bad thing-in the sense that no help towards human sufferings due to poverty
-Yes I do agree the inquisite nature of humans to explore beyond and above Earth but how would this help the down trodden nations and upliftment of poverty
--The development of technology to provide necessary equipment, aids and help to these nations will only come by having nations with higher stading in terms of money and power involve and spend towards these technologies and later help the poor nations with supply of water, purification of water/environment etc...
and therefore nations with such superiorty it makes sense for them to take on projects as such that would later benefit their ppl and ofcourse internationally (this applies though as long as the nations are not doing this for selfish purposes ;) like the Sapce race during the 50s and 60s
I misght have given a very rough outline of what I think without pinpoint arguments but I guess if we start thinking in this direction we might be able to better argue our standing!
~!I Don't Want to be one in the crowd; I want to be One Above the crowd!~
Receive the lastest announcements, discuss space-related topics with other members.
Joined: 2007-01-16