|
Author
|
Topic: The Economist: "The end of the Space Age"
|
arjuna
unregistered
|
posted 06-30-2011 04:55 PM
 
The issue of The Economist appearing on newsstands tomorrow (already available on the iPad and their website) covers not only the end of the Shuttle program, but suggests that "it is likely that the Space Age is over" and that future human activities in space won't go beyond satellites in geostationary orbit. And the reasons they give for this, it should be noted, transcend immediate politics: lack of support domestically (in whichever country) as well as the high cost relative to other pressing issues.I find their analysis too pessimistic, but they represent what is probably the predominant view among those who actually make decisions. My suggestion for spaceflight enthusiasts is to take this piece as a challenge, not simply as a threat. We're going to have to articulate a compelling reason for going into space other than simply "because it's a cool thing to do". |
Colin E. Anderton
Member Posts: 63
From: Newmarket, Suffolk, England
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 06-30-2011 04:55 PM
 
I have been predicting what amounts to an end to manned spaceflight in various postings for some time now, but - and I don't mean this offensively to any members - nobody seems to want to see what is staring us right in the face.Once the manned programmes have ceased, it will be virtually impossible to kick-start the momentum needed for a new programme. Sorry, but I think manned spaceflight is doomed. Within a few years nobody - with the possible exception of the Chinese - will be travelling into space. That's my prediction, unfortunately - and I'm sticking with it! |
arjuna
unregistered
|
posted 06-30-2011 05:08 PM
Colin, I agree. But as the Economist editorial points out, even the Chinese are likely to find that a manned lunar landing - in and of itself - is a dead end. It's a stunt. (A fantastic, brilliant, inspiring one, but a stunt with no direct follow-on benefits nonetheless.)When you take a hard look at the world today, economic return (or, if you prefer, money/profits) is what drives everything. Knowledge for knowledge's sake, or exploration for exploration's sake works for me, but not for most people. The national security reason for human spaceflight that underpinned Apollo is gone and not coming back (i.e. there is no "moonbase" national security threat). I think for spaceflight to continue, it will have to bring tangible economic returns (i.e. profits), otherwise it won't happen. |
wickball
Member Posts: 107
From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 06-30-2011 07:48 PM
I cry for my young granddaughter's generation that will not be able to experience the thrill I did growing up back in the '60's. |
GoesTo11
Member Posts: 1309
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 06-30-2011 08:13 PM
I agree--broadly--with the Economist's pessimism regarding the foreseeable future of human spaceflight.The Chinese might well mount a flags-and-footprints expedition to the moon, and commercial ventures like SpaceX will probably be putting people in orbit in a few years, but to what end? Beyond being contracted to ferry crews to the ISS (and people are already discussing the end of that project's useful life), what then? I can't imagine any near-term developments which would make humans in space profitable. As for taxpayer-funded, government-mandated Apollo-type adventures... dream on. The near future of the Western social democracies is looking more and more every day like Greece 2011 to the Nth power. Nobody will be blasting off to Mars within the lifetimes of anyone reading this, nor probably your children's. I don't believe that human spaceflight is "doomed," unless we somehow annihilate ourselves. I do think it will be a VERY long time, not years or decades but generations, before the next real "leap" comes. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 07-01-2011 01:38 AM
quote:
Originally posted by GoesTo11:
I don't believe that human spaceflight is "doomed," unless we somehow annihilate ourselves.
Aside from the fact that that's pretty much what we are doing with the only spaceship we have, if something were to make the ISS useless, that would put an end to everyone's manned space program, excluding the Chinese. But since China's government wants to redirect the way they spend money - no more fancy projects (a picture of a futuristic high-speed train that no one uses was published recently in our local paper), I wonder if their space program isn't going to stagnate as everyone's else's. Manned spaceflight is on life support and no one wants to bear the responsibility of pulling the plug. It's going to stagnate until it eventually dies - unless *something* happens to bring it back to life. Probably much like aviation (civil/military): glory days are behind us. |
SkyMan1958
Member Posts: 867
From: CA.
Registered: Jan 2011
|
posted 07-01-2011 02:11 AM
Realistically it all comes down to cost per kilo to orbit. I have no doubt that various State and Corporate entities will be working at that. The reason they will be working at lowering cost to orbit is that space is WIDELY used today... be it weather satellites, GPS, military etc. etc., and if someone can build a better mousetrap (e.g. lower cost per kilo to orbit) then someone else will buy that mousetrap. At some point, I don't know when, that cost will come down to within reach of say the top 1 - 5% richest and then manned spaceflight will take off. Until that time it could be a long slow slog, and most space endeavors will be via robots. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 07-01-2011 02:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by SkyMan1958:
At some point, I don't know when, that cost will come down to within reach of say the top 1 - 5% richest and then manned spaceflight will take off.
Assuming that the richest want to go into space and that they're not afraid of being bored because let's face it, there's nothing to do in space. Sure the Earth is beautiful to look at but that's also true from the ground and at a fraction of the cost. |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 07-01-2011 07:52 AM
The boost for manned space flight could come from the need for various minerals particularly the rare earth minerals. China produces something like 95% of them and they have cut production dramatically. As we run out of them on Earth, we will have to try to find supplies somewhere. I don't know if any exist off earth, but if they do, it could provide the impetus for manned spaceflight to asteroids, Mars, and beyond. |
SkyMan1958
Member Posts: 867
From: CA.
Registered: Jan 2011
|
posted 07-01-2011 11:57 AM
quote:
Originally posted by fredtrav:
China produces something like 95% of them and they have cut production dramatically. As we run out of them on Earth, we will have to try to find supplies somewhere...
China has not cut production, however they are putting restrictions on export of the material.Second, as to running out of them, essentially all of the metals that were mined are still available, they are recyclable. Just look at what happens to a used car. |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 07-01-2011 12:50 PM
True to an extent. China has not cut production, but is keeping more for their own use. While the metals maybe recyclable, we are using more of them and people tend not to be big recyclers. We will have a crisis over this some day and the possibility of exploiting an asteroid, Mars, wherever could drive us back to space.
Short of some crisis like this, I don't see us going back for some time in any meaningful way unfortunately. Exploration for explorations sake is not going to happen at this point in history. Our leaders are too shortsighted to see the benefits of this and the inevitable technological advances that come from it. |
Pat Gleeson
Member Posts: 44
From: Limerick, Ireland
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted 07-02-2011 04:50 PM
I have to agree with the general air of pessimism evident here. Unfortunately we who have grown up with the once burgeoning space programme realise the simple fact that when the decision was made to end the Constellation program, it heralded the end of manned spaceflight for the US. Once a nation retreats from a continously difficult endeavour like this, it's almost inevitable governments will take the path of least resistance and abandon the programme by stealth. It's a case of putting the manned space program on the long finger for long enough, so that it's forgotten how and why it was done in the first place. Pulling back, closing the mind, and narrowing the vision. |
alcyone
Member Posts: 130
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 07-02-2011 08:38 PM
Another downbeat, cynical piece by The Economist. You can tell the author finds it amusing to berate space exploration. This kind of drivel is very easy to write. I am not a professional writer but I think perhaps I should apply for a job writing for this magazine. Easy job! On the other hand space exploration is expensive and difficult. Oh! The author intones, why bother with it! Nobody cares! I might add that this publication is not exactly the last word in factual dissertation, far from it. They like people to think they are though. If I was a member of the tin-foil hat club this would be my favourite publication! |
Philip
Member Posts: 5952
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 07-03-2011 03:04 AM
With STS, the general public lost interest in Manned Spaceflight and only the worst moments got news headlines...Other than international cooperation and jobs on Earth, the ISS is a profitless enterprise. The end of STS was predicted and it's certainly a pity for all those engineers who lost their job... Luckily scientists came up with some ideas how to put the ISS to some use, as we saw the integration of AMS - Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer in May 2011... On the other hand, let's hope that some budget can flow to more important missions such as the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) and the Space Interferometry Missions (SIM). |
SkyMan1958
Member Posts: 867
From: CA.
Registered: Jan 2011
|
posted 07-03-2011 01:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by alcyone:
You can tell the author finds it amusing to berate space exploration... I might add that this publication is not exactly the last word in factual dissertation, far from it. They like people to think they are though. If I was a member of the tin-foil hat club this would be my favourite publication!
I absolutely agree that the author uses words with high pejorative content when talking about space exploration. "Space cadet" is an obvious example of this. It seems self evident to me that the author is not a fan of manned space exploration and slants his article accordingly.On the other hand, the Economist is an excellent news magazine, giving in depth looks at many current international issues. It is a FAR better magazine than any of the major US news magazines; Time, Newsweek etc. As I mentioned previously, manned flight will all come down to cost of kilo to orbit. Once that drops far enough manned flight in many different varieties will be a given. In the interim, there is NO question that we get far more bang for our buck for unmanned space exploration... it's just not nearly as much fun and viscerally exciting to watch as manned spaceflight. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1586
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 07-06-2011 10:08 AM
The magazine is almost gloating to what seems to be a surrender of the U.S. program.
|
issman1
Member Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 07-07-2011 04:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Colin E. Anderton:
Sorry, but I think manned spaceflight is doomed.
Sorry you think that, but I'm more optimistic. The glory days of NASA (government-run) human spaceflight were over after the decision was made in 1972 to proceed with the shuttle programme. We're living in a different era where most of the things that shape the world are invisible to us. If you want a speech that can move mountains, then why doesn't the British prime minister announce plans to send British astronauts to Mars by 2025? Must the world only ever look to the USA to lead the way? So I'm not bothered if a Chinese was to set foot on Mars before an American or a European (ideally, they should go together). And that's why this revisionist dross by The Economist isn't worth reading anymore than that doomed tabloid News Of The World. |
advertisement