I'm in the camp that cheers on the rather remarkable advances of private spaceflight, where private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin both took on the full development cost of their launch system solutions, and both have now achieved booster reusability: SpaceX for the 600th time today, Blue for the 2nd. No other companies have, and most countries (including the Euro ESA) have not even tried. China is trying. As are some other American companies. Euro politicos went the opposite direction in 2016 with an Ariane 6 rocket explicitly designed for single-use; remarkably, after SpaceX had already demonstrated it was possible to land and recover a rocket. EuroSpace is not getting many launch contracts at their (even subsidized) high prices.
SpaceX alone reduced the cost of getting mass to space by >10x, and Starship looks poised to drop it another 10x.
Then, the answer to your naysayers Peter is: let those who pay and want to go to space go. Those who don't should definitely not go. But those who don't want won't warrant much say in the matter.
It's only when ppl think its all and only govSpace that can do space, that these debates get so fraught.
The problem is that even companies like Blue Origin and SpaceX receive public funds - and thus for now at least it is necessary to get the public onside even when supporting private launch companies.
They both developed their rockets with private capital. This is key.
Of course, once developed, they've received contracts from US DOD and NASA for launch services. So some USD have flowed; but it is necessary to keep the purpose clear.
And the US government, as usual, has paid for various things they wanted for their gvmt purposes: like part of the Dragon capsule development and testing for NASA astronaut specs.
This is not necessarily true. For example, SpaceX only exists because of massive public support through cash injections when they were near bankruptcy.
They once asked Hillary why he climbed Mount Everest, “because it is there.”
Space is quite similar; if humanity never had the urge to explore, we would have never evolved outside Africa and we likely would have gone extinct by not seeking new lands. When you hear foolish commentators using the “colonizer” term for landing and building a base on the moon and onto Mars, it is hard to even take them seriously because it shows how ignorant they are of history and human nature itself.
Humanity must evolve, and that definitely includes space exploration and it is much better for the world if the United States is the leader; you do not want China to lead the world in space; they don’t call space the final frontier for nothing. If you control space, you control a lot more; as former congressman Doc Long once said, “them that has the gold, makes the rules.” There is no greater example than dominance and control of space exploration which is why Artemis is essential and anyone with common sense should not oppose it.
Or as a future Martian once said about Earthers in the incredible show The Expanse, “all you care about is government handouts; free food, free water, free drugs, so you can forget the aimless, miserable lives you lead. You are short sighted and selfish. Earth is over, my only wish is that we can bring Mars to life before you destroy that too.”
I’d rather be believing in something greater than all of us instead of whining about “colonialism” and sticking my head in the sand waiting for the end. Space gives us that option, I suggest we take it.
I hear this a lot - but from men primarily. The gender divide on this subject is real. What is the case for women going into space, and starting families there?
Space should be open to all especially anyone with STEM passion and a passion to explore. In the early days even before Yuri Gagarin first flew both the US and Soviets did astronaut and zero g testing on women (Mercury 13) and some of the woman performed better than men.
For families, this has to be taken very seriously from the beginning. Before people can consider starting families either on a space colony, the moon, or mars, there has to be clear vetting and an understanding by the couple of the risks involved. The biggest enemies are going to be gravity and cosmic radiation. Any child born in lower gravity environments might not have the ability to ever return to earth due to their bodies not being able to handle 1 g instead of 0.3 g or less that they were born in; this has a lot of ethical concerns especially if there is an emergency on that colony that requires evacuation. Any parent will need to fully understand and comprehend that risk. There is also the risk of cosmic radiation especially solar radiation on the moon and Mars; what happens if you are pregnant and you are on the surface and there is a stellar event or solar flare? You may only have minutes to get underground in a lava tube or a regolith hardened shelter; if not, you run the risk of loss of the child or major birth defects. The first settlers and explorers will likely go through hell before a thriving colony can be established; people will likely be lost, and major ethical concerns will need to be addressed (reduced gravity, new cultures, genetic engineering and surgery to survive multiple gravity environments?). It’s not all glamour just like people found out when they crossed the oceans.
There was an excellent TV movie on ABC back in 1991 called “Plymouth” where a town was relocated to the moon to run a mining operation and they had an unplanned pregnancy and these questions were asked about ethics and morality with a child; this film was actually ahead of its time in many ways.
Of course you should also watch the outstanding show “The Expanse” on Amazon where it really shows the different cultures on different solar system worlds as well as the gravity having major health affects.
Families probably won’t be welcome for a long time until established bases can be set up which also includes self-sustaining environments where they don’t have to rely on earth; that is decades away at a minimum, if not a century or two.
“The largest gap in opinion is between men and women though. The first question about interest in space is perfectly reversed; for men 62% interested versus 37% uninterested, and for women 37% interested versus 62% uninterested. The pattern repeats throughout the survey. This is something that the space colonisation movement has to address - a colony without women is by definition not able to sustain itself.”
I wouldn’t worry about that. The girls are camp followers by nature. When they see the guys getting excited and having fun and becoming successful, they’ll be intrigued because their lives are generally a boring routine of Starbuck coffee and gossip. Then they’ll join in. This happened with the surfing, camping, anything. Even starting a business seems like fun once they see the entrepreneur bragging about the hard road to success in a magazine interview. They’ll look at his picture on the cover and think, oh, how exciting it must be! I wanna in. What most don’t like is dirt or bugs or messy work, but if they’re convinced that it will translated into a real adventure and a cleaner and more comfortable world one day for their children, they’ll sign up. This is why I think building an orbital colony with material from a captured asteroid will do more to get both sexes off the planet sooner.
> Who actually opposes space exploration and colonisation, and is it really a popular position?
I am insanely in favor of space exploration and colinisation, but I oppose Artemis because it is an absolutely useless program that does nothing but burn my American taxpayer dollars to create make-work jobs for third rate engineers and DEI consultants at the legacy Old Space firms.
Without going back to re-read your comments, I remember duplicated words and grammar issues. In general, true also of other essays by you, not just of this one. Best I can do now, but meant to be helpful.
I'm in the camp that cheers on the rather remarkable advances of private spaceflight, where private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin both took on the full development cost of their launch system solutions, and both have now achieved booster reusability: SpaceX for the 600th time today, Blue for the 2nd. No other companies have, and most countries (including the Euro ESA) have not even tried. China is trying. As are some other American companies. Euro politicos went the opposite direction in 2016 with an Ariane 6 rocket explicitly designed for single-use; remarkably, after SpaceX had already demonstrated it was possible to land and recover a rocket. EuroSpace is not getting many launch contracts at their (even subsidized) high prices.
SpaceX alone reduced the cost of getting mass to space by >10x, and Starship looks poised to drop it another 10x.
Then, the answer to your naysayers Peter is: let those who pay and want to go to space go. Those who don't should definitely not go. But those who don't want won't warrant much say in the matter.
It's only when ppl think its all and only govSpace that can do space, that these debates get so fraught.
The problem is that even companies like Blue Origin and SpaceX receive public funds - and thus for now at least it is necessary to get the public onside even when supporting private launch companies.
They both developed their rockets with private capital. This is key.
Of course, once developed, they've received contracts from US DOD and NASA for launch services. So some USD have flowed; but it is necessary to keep the purpose clear.
And the US government, as usual, has paid for various things they wanted for their gvmt purposes: like part of the Dragon capsule development and testing for NASA astronaut specs.
This is not necessarily true. For example, SpaceX only exists because of massive public support through cash injections when they were near bankruptcy.
Typo: "this was a British mission" should read "this was *not* a British mission" :-)
Ooops! I will correct that, thanks!
They once asked Hillary why he climbed Mount Everest, “because it is there.”
Space is quite similar; if humanity never had the urge to explore, we would have never evolved outside Africa and we likely would have gone extinct by not seeking new lands. When you hear foolish commentators using the “colonizer” term for landing and building a base on the moon and onto Mars, it is hard to even take them seriously because it shows how ignorant they are of history and human nature itself.
Humanity must evolve, and that definitely includes space exploration and it is much better for the world if the United States is the leader; you do not want China to lead the world in space; they don’t call space the final frontier for nothing. If you control space, you control a lot more; as former congressman Doc Long once said, “them that has the gold, makes the rules.” There is no greater example than dominance and control of space exploration which is why Artemis is essential and anyone with common sense should not oppose it.
Or as a future Martian once said about Earthers in the incredible show The Expanse, “all you care about is government handouts; free food, free water, free drugs, so you can forget the aimless, miserable lives you lead. You are short sighted and selfish. Earth is over, my only wish is that we can bring Mars to life before you destroy that too.”
I’d rather be believing in something greater than all of us instead of whining about “colonialism” and sticking my head in the sand waiting for the end. Space gives us that option, I suggest we take it.
I hear this a lot - but from men primarily. The gender divide on this subject is real. What is the case for women going into space, and starting families there?
Space should be open to all especially anyone with STEM passion and a passion to explore. In the early days even before Yuri Gagarin first flew both the US and Soviets did astronaut and zero g testing on women (Mercury 13) and some of the woman performed better than men.
For families, this has to be taken very seriously from the beginning. Before people can consider starting families either on a space colony, the moon, or mars, there has to be clear vetting and an understanding by the couple of the risks involved. The biggest enemies are going to be gravity and cosmic radiation. Any child born in lower gravity environments might not have the ability to ever return to earth due to their bodies not being able to handle 1 g instead of 0.3 g or less that they were born in; this has a lot of ethical concerns especially if there is an emergency on that colony that requires evacuation. Any parent will need to fully understand and comprehend that risk. There is also the risk of cosmic radiation especially solar radiation on the moon and Mars; what happens if you are pregnant and you are on the surface and there is a stellar event or solar flare? You may only have minutes to get underground in a lava tube or a regolith hardened shelter; if not, you run the risk of loss of the child or major birth defects. The first settlers and explorers will likely go through hell before a thriving colony can be established; people will likely be lost, and major ethical concerns will need to be addressed (reduced gravity, new cultures, genetic engineering and surgery to survive multiple gravity environments?). It’s not all glamour just like people found out when they crossed the oceans.
There was an excellent TV movie on ABC back in 1991 called “Plymouth” where a town was relocated to the moon to run a mining operation and they had an unplanned pregnancy and these questions were asked about ethics and morality with a child; this film was actually ahead of its time in many ways.
Of course you should also watch the outstanding show “The Expanse” on Amazon where it really shows the different cultures on different solar system worlds as well as the gravity having major health affects.
Families probably won’t be welcome for a long time until established bases can be set up which also includes self-sustaining environments where they don’t have to rely on earth; that is decades away at a minimum, if not a century or two.
“The largest gap in opinion is between men and women though. The first question about interest in space is perfectly reversed; for men 62% interested versus 37% uninterested, and for women 37% interested versus 62% uninterested. The pattern repeats throughout the survey. This is something that the space colonisation movement has to address - a colony without women is by definition not able to sustain itself.”
I wouldn’t worry about that. The girls are camp followers by nature. When they see the guys getting excited and having fun and becoming successful, they’ll be intrigued because their lives are generally a boring routine of Starbuck coffee and gossip. Then they’ll join in. This happened with the surfing, camping, anything. Even starting a business seems like fun once they see the entrepreneur bragging about the hard road to success in a magazine interview. They’ll look at his picture on the cover and think, oh, how exciting it must be! I wanna in. What most don’t like is dirt or bugs or messy work, but if they’re convinced that it will translated into a real adventure and a cleaner and more comfortable world one day for their children, they’ll sign up. This is why I think building an orbital colony with material from a captured asteroid will do more to get both sexes off the planet sooner.
> Who actually opposes space exploration and colonisation, and is it really a popular position?
I am insanely in favor of space exploration and colinisation, but I oppose Artemis because it is an absolutely useless program that does nothing but burn my American taxpayer dollars to create make-work jobs for third rate engineers and DEI consultants at the legacy Old Space firms.
That falls under technical criticism. I take it you don’t oppose sending humans to the Moon!
I'm in general agreement with you. But could you please proofread your comments more thoroughly?
What did I miss?
Without going back to re-read your comments, I remember duplicated words and grammar issues. In general, true also of other essays by you, not just of this one. Best I can do now, but meant to be helpful.