Men in space: an expensive trip to nowhere

Summary: NASA dreams of manned space flight to the planets, and spends billions to do so. They focus on “how” with no thought of why, repeating the error that led to the failure of Apollo. Like the State Department (wrecked in the 1950s, never fixed) and DoD (same mistakes in a succession of failed wars), NASA seems unable to learn from its experience. For 52 years manned space programs have provided expensive entertainment for Americans and welfare for its aerospace corporations. FAILure to learn is a serious weakness for the government of a great nation.

Given time, a desire, considerable innovation, and sufficient effort and money, man can eventually explore our solar system.Given his enormous curiosity about the universe in which he lives and his compelling urge to go where no one has ever been before, this will be done.

— Report by President John F. Kennedy’s advisory committee on space, 10 January 1961.

Contents

1. Men and Women in Space: a dead end.
2. Next steps on the road to nowhere.
3. Journalist cheerleaders.
4. Comparing space to other big projects.
5. For More Information.

 

(1)  Men and Women in Space: a dead end.

History consists of missed opportunities and wrong turning onto dead ends. For example, what if Charles Babbage had completed his Difference Engine (a mechanical calculator) by 1850, and on that success he or his successors completed his Analytical Engine (a programmable computer) in the 1870s? What if America had not poured so much of its energy, creativity, and technical talent into the space program in the 1960s? What if we had spent it on some other form of research?

It’s not just hindsight. During the 1950s and 1960s the government commissioned numerous committees to consider the benefits of manned spaceflight; most of them repeated the conclusions of the 1960 Hornig Committee and the 1961 Weisner Committee (quoted above; the Chairman became a life-long opponent of the manned space program): the cost would outweigh the benefits.

The first 53 years of men and women in space validated their forecasts. It produced little useful science. The technological spin-offs have been even smaller (many commonly cited ones are myths, such as Tang, Teflon, Velcro, MRI, barcodes, quartz clocks, or smoke detectors). As for the commercial benefits of opening the final frontier, we turn to the definitive account of this wrong turn is Dark Side of the Moon by Gerard J. DeGroot (2006) — “The magnificent madness of the American lunar quest.”

Those who justified the presence of men in space argued that the early astronauts were like the medieval seafarers, looking for places to colonize. But the efforts of Columbus and Magellan were inspired by the commercial potential of new territories — exploration was pointless unless commerce followed. The Portuguese and Spanish courts would have pulled the plug on the explorers quicker than you can say Vasco da Gama if their voyages had been exclusively esoteric, or if they had brought back only worthless rocks. Instead, they returned with valuable commodities — precious metals, spices, trinkets, potatoes — which thrilled the medieval money crunchers.

In addition, the places they sought to explore were, by virtue of their existence on Earth, actually habitable. The same could not be said for colonies on the Moon or Mars. … The Moon, remember, makes Antarctica seem like an oasis.

NASA, with other nations, built the $150 billion space station that does little of commercial or scientific value. Now they plan further adventures.

(2) Next steps on the road to nowhere.

The Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle is a spacecraft built to carry a crew of four astronauts to destinations from low Earth orbit to Mars, replacing the cancelled moon-bound Constellation Program. It’s the next step in NASA’s program to go places for ill-defined reasons, as they explain:

NASA is developing the capabilities needed to send humans to an asteroid by 2025 and Mars in the 2030s – goals outlined in the bipartisan NASA Authorization Act of 2010 and in the U.S. National Space Policy, also issued in 2010.

… Our next step is deep space, where NASA will send a robotic mission to capture and redirect an asteroid to orbit the moon. Astronauts aboard the Orion spacecraft will explore the asteroid in the 2020s, returning to Earth with samples. This experience in human spaceflight beyond low-Earth orbit will help NASA test new systems and capabilities, such as Solar Electric Propulsion, which we’ll need to send cargo as part of human missions to Mars. Beginning in FY 2018, NASA’s powerful Space Launch System {SLS} rocket will enable these “proving ground” missions to test new capabilities. Human missions to Mars will rely on Orion and an evolved version of SLS that will be the most powerful launch vehicle ever flown.

It’s already behind schedule and likely to run over budget.

We see the clearest evidence that the manned space program has been a dead end (to be reconsidered when new technology or needs make it feasible) in the words of enthusiasts. See these brief statements, repeating today the same reasons given 52 years ago, despite the failure to produce tangible evidence for the work and money invested.

(3) Journalist cheerleaders.

When it comes to space there’s a fine line between the press and The Onion. Journalists have written these stories for half a century, probably because we love them. These too probably will prove bogus.

1. “NASA Is Launching a Spacecraft That Will Take Humans to Mars“, BusinessWeek, 2 December 2014.
2. A rare note of realism slips in:”NASA’s Orion won’t fly again until 2018 at the earliest“, Washington Post, 5 December 2014.
3. “5 Top Landing Sites For A Manned Mission To Mars“, Forbes, 9 December 2014.
4. “Humans on Mars Soonish Says NASA Bigwig“, Scientific American, 10 December 2014.
5. “Forget Pluto, comets or Mars — let’s go back to the moon“, Dominic Basulto, Washington Post, 12 December 2014.
6. “NASA’s Incredible, Futuristic, And Totally Real Plan To Establish A Human Colony On Venus“, Jessica Orwig, Business Insider, 18 December 2014.

Most of this is fun nonsense. Dominic Basulto strikes an especially mad note at the WaPo (develop it for what?):

If America doesn’t go back to the moon and eventually establish a permanent lunar base there, someone else will. And whichever country is most active in moon exploration will have the biggest say in the moon’s future development. The most likely candidate to do so is China …

(4) Comparing space to other big projects.

As usual, research by the Congressional Research Service provides an invaluable perspective:  “The Manhattan Project, the Apollo Program, and Federal Energy Technology R&D Programs: A Comparative Analysis“, Deborah D. Stine, 30 June 2009.  She compares the Manhattan and Apollo projects in both absolute terms (constant dollars) and relative to the US economy at that time.

1. The Manhattan Project was intense (in terms of GDP), small in dollars, and brief.  It was an unqualified success.
2. The Apollo Program was intense, large in dollars, and long.   Apollo met its narrow goal, but was a near-total failure in larger terms (producing no space infrastructure or long-term national benefits).
3. Energy research has been a low fraction of GDP per year, but massive in dollars and sustained for almost 2 generations — with small useful results relative to the cost.

We’re one for three.  Not a happy record.  We’ll have to do better in the future if we’re to prosper — or even survive.

(5) For More Information.

1. Could a new “Manhattan Project” produce radically new energy sources?, 29 June 2010.
2. Slashing R&D in favor of more important things, like wars and profits. Who cares about America’s future?, 25 August 2010.
3. The X-51A is $300 million of fun. Can we spend our money smarter and build a better future?, 18 August 2012.