Don’t get me wrong, going into space is a great enterprise, and it has incalculable value for humanity, I’m all for it, it’s just that from a purely cost-accounting point of view, from a pure applied research standpoint, we would have been better spending that money on earth.

Space HAS paid for itself, the communications satellites have been an extremely profitable technology that have changed our world. So have been the earth-resources and navigation satellites. And of course, we all know about Tang, that delicious and nutritious breakfast drink! Much of our computer tech comes from space (and the military) but all that money was spent right here on the ground. Basic research advances science, and some of it will eventually pay off handsomely way down the line, in ways we can’t possibly anticipate.

I’m just saying that much of what we have been promised never quite materialized. Its like those nature shows we watch on public TV that tell us about fascinating research conducted on tropical rain forest fungi, or deep sea smoker vent ecosystems. There is always a somber scientist justifying the work by mentioning some Brazilian mushroom or abyssal sulfur-eating plankton that has shown promise in cancer research.

In the 19th century, paleontologists and geologists were telling us the world was millions of years old, but astronomers and chemists could not explain how the sun could shine for more than a few thousand years without using up its chemical fuel reserves. This, of course, led to the discovery of radioactivity, fission and fusion, and nuclear physics.

Those rock hounds and star gazers stumbled on one of the great secrets of matter, it led to Quantum physics. a totally new source of energy, but they had no way of knowing they would do so, or even understanding what they had found. It was totally unexpected. What we get out of the space program will be like that. Totally unexpected, and way down the line.

We do science because its fun. That’s all the justification we need. The benefits to humanity will come much later, probably when we least expect it.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/experiments_hardware.html#Biology-and-Biotechnology

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/cellbox_thyroid

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/benefits/human_health.html

http://www.citizensinspace.org/2012/11/space-manufacturing-the-common-wisdom-is-wrong/

I love manned missions, and believe they are important, but in a time of constrained budgets you get a lot more for your buck with automated probes and pure science. Besides, you greatly increase the possibility of stumbling onto something so wonderful that a manned mission becomes worthwhile. You can thoroughly explore the solar system for the cost of one new Apollo. Some science missions, like the Mars rovers and Hubble, have been big popular successes but as a rule, the propaganda value is in the manned missions.

There is one other issue, as well, that is rarely brought up but should be factored in to our calculations. The failure of a manned mission, particularly one where lives are lost, can cost the space program a great deal in public support, perhaps even provoke its cancellation. The risks of space exploration are worth it, and they are inevitable, but they should only be taken when the payoff is undeniable and substantial.

In today’s political climate, its propaganda, not science, that really matters. Right now, the biggest science payoffs are in the outer solar system, while the easiest manned target is the moon. Mars is right in between. Manned missions to the outer satellites are currently out of the question at our level of technology, and even Mars is, at best, marginal. And why go back to the moon? I can’t think of one good reason.

In my opinion, we should continue our robotic exploration of the outer solar system and its comets and the asteroid belt and continue our expansion of the space telescope and earth resources programs. Since we have already made a huge investment in the space station, I think we should follow up on that effort, it allows us to continue developing manned space tech. But our early fantasies about industrial facilities in earth orbit never really worked out. Where are all those zero-g cancer cures and hyper-spherical ball bearings we were supposed to get out of space station labs?

We should cut back on lunar, Mars or asteroid manned missions unless our robots turn up something that simply demands human exploration.

Their excitement over the announcement was palpable, and I hope I live long enough to see what further investigation brings…but then, perhaps it won’t be America that takes the next step.