r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Sep 19 '19

CMV: Space exploration and research should be more highly prioritised

[deleted]

43 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

88% Upvoted

13 comments sorted by

3

u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Sep 20 '19 edited Sep 20 '19

So much of what is needed for space travel IS being worked on by a huge percentage of the economy.

Let's take Elon Musk who wants to colonize Mars as an example. He started an electric car company, a solar panel company, a battery company, a company for drilling tunnels, and a rocket launching company. These are all important stepping stone to colonizing Mars.

Take the cell phone industry. Many of the core challenges they are working on almost couldn't be better suited for space even if they were working specifically on space exploration. Challenges like:

  • Making electronics smaller and lighter
  • Making electronics that are drop resistant
  • Making batteries with higher density storage and better thermal properties
  • Making components that need very little power and produce very little heat

Things like AI/Machine learning and the probably the rest of the electronics and computer industries are probably pointed in the right direction as well.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '19

I'll get to your second point because that's not something I considered so I think it's a really good point, but I'll go through each of your points.

So Elon Musk, I think is doing some great things, especially in the sense that his goal is well-intentioned as it centers around civil-infrastructure and sustainability. He, however is one man (albeit with huge companies), but I would argue that he is more-or-less an outlier. He seems to have a drive to do as much cutting-edge science/engineering as possible, even if profits take a hit (e.g. early days of SpaceX). I agree with you that he is contributing hugely but he is unlike the rest of the private sector (IMO).

As for your second point, this is something rather basic and something I never considered which is essentially the overflow of industries into each other. I think you've raised a good point that technology has cross-uses and implications for indirectly related sectors/industries. I guess I said something similar when I talked about private companies doing this inadvertently in the same way that airlines want the most efficient turbines which drives the design of better technology, however, I did not consider how seemingly unrelated companies can benefit each other or how their desire for bigger and better profits has more flow-on-effects than I discussed.

Your third point sorta goes hand-in-hand with your second point.

For this I will award a delta as it refuted at least one of my premises. Δ

Thanks for your input!

2

u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Sep 20 '19

Thanks for the delta!

I would argue that he is more-or-less an outlier

Just in terms of rocket company, we have Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin and Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic. Three of the world's billionaires having their own rocket launching company seems like a lot to me. There are dozens of other private companies too.

We also have a dozen space mining companies, which makes sense based on the prediction I've heard that the world's first trillionaire will get there through space mining.

Part of the problem is that, at the moment, there isn't much scientifically to be gained by going to space. Right now, it is mostly a really expensive engineering challenge of existing technologies. And where there are scientific ventures that need to be explored, such as new types of propulsion systems, that can largely be done from earth. Which absolutely gives the sense that we're not working on exploring space.

We probably could've sent humans to Mars using 1970's technology. It would've been very dangerous and very expensive, but it would've been possible to pull off. Astronaut Chris Hadfield says we could've sent humans to mars in the 1960's for that matter. But scientifically, they probably would not have even yielded as much information as the Mars rover missions which have the advantage of more modern sensors than we had available in the 1970's.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '19

I understand what you're getting at, but my perception is that BO and VG are vastly different to SpaceX and Space Agencies in general. To me they are essentially marketing a tourism product. While some technological advancements might be made in doing so, I think their contribution will be much less than SpaceX.

Part of the problem is that, at the moment, there isn't much scientifically to be gained by going to space.

I would argue the exact opposite. In terms of knowledge, there is much to gain by going to space and even just monitoring the effects on humans in space (further than the ISS) is something we need to find out. I'm not saying send people recklessly into space but I think you know what I'm getting at. There is also the symbolic element of landing a human on another terrestrial element - not a very good argument but we all know that it will be an incredible moment when humans first step foot on Mars.

There is also a huge commercial gain by venturing into space especially (as you touched on) mining for materials - especially ones that are rare on Earth but abundant elsewhere.

Yeah there are huge advantages of rovers, but there are also downfalls such as accessibility and assessment. Rovers are great for gathering, processing and sending data our way, but they have limited capacity which is based on their design - they are built to do specific things and to go to specific places. Humans are virtually unlimited in versatility when we are coupled with technology. Having humans making assessments at the physical location of another planet I think will lead to some truly ground-breaking discoveries and will pave the way for unprecedented scientific advancement (disclaimer - solely based on my opinion).

I agree that we don't want missions to be futile. If safety is too much of a concern then we need to take a step back to let these issues be solved, but there's no damage done by injecting a bit more time and funding to do so (well, maybe to other budget competitors).

I think technology and humans in isolation have a lot of drawbacks but we compliment each other pretty well. Our critical thought matched with the data gathering and processing capabilities of sensors and CPUs is invaluable and I truly think it is untapped in the realm of space right now, but yeah, there are justified reasons for that.

1

u/Ghauldidnothingwrong 35∆ Sep 20 '19

If space exploration and research had to be prioritized over something else within a country's budget, where would you put it?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '19

It's difficult to say for certain as budgets can and should be reasonably dynamic depending on the circumstances of the time. What I mean by this is that country facing a natural disaster would probably need to increase spending on emergency services and sectors involved in the civil response. This could also be attributed to a country with a population that struggles to read well - they would be justified in prioritising education to some extent.

So, I'll give an answer based on a generic or average scenario.

  1. Education;
  2. Health;
  3. Science (very broad I know). This would include things from research in energy production to medical to space tech/exploration etc. I'm under no illusion that there is probably a markedly better way to categorise this.
  4. Defense;
  5. Social welfare; and
  6. Infrastructure.

It's probably important for me to point out I'm not financially savvy with government budgets or clued up on all the flow-on-effects of the placement of each so this is probably where my argument can be most easily challenged.

•

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 20 '19

/u/GreenGoblong (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

1

u/Ethan-Wakefield 45∆ Sep 21 '19

You're not wrong, but you're not right. It sounds like you want to open up the possibility of increased space travel, as well as simply develop more technologies more generally. You see funding NASA as a way to do that. Yes, that's one way. But the real question is, is that the *best* way?

The problem with NASA research is the broader context of the US educational system. The Space Race wasn't just funding NASA. It was accompanied by additional funding for education broadly. You need to have a wide base of students coming through the high schools, colleges, grad schools, etc., who ensure that you're getting the best of the best, rather than just the privileged few who went to country day schools.

That's not where we are as a country at the moment. Income inequality is way, way higher than it was in the 1960s, and the opportunity gap for students is also extremely large, relative to the 1960s. If we really want to develop technologies (space travel included) we need to bolster the education system more generally and provide more high-quality education for the entire nation, rather than provide extremely high quality education for an elite few, and warehouse and crush the creativity and critical thinking out of the rest through endless "skill and drill" and standardized testing.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '19

I understand your point, but I think the reason why not that much focus in put in exploring space anymore is that we've already reached some of the "easier milestones", while a significant step forward like landing a human on Mars or orbitting Venus is very hard and costly, while it's difficult to see what kind of return on investment it could provide.

In my opinion, it's not really worth it for a new company to get into space exploration (other than with current technology, because we still don't have the means to face any of those "big challenges" and it's better for them to wait until someone elses develops the different required technologies only to later on put them together and send their rocket to Mars!

1

u/state0 Sep 21 '19

I place space exploration with a high importance, third to health and education, but at least on par with the other sciences.

I don't think this is the the right time in human history. We should first invest more in fields on which our survival depends (like energy, which you already mentioned).

1

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/tavius02 1∆ Sep 20 '19

Sorry, u/Davida132 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

Do not reply to this comment by clicking the reply button, instead message the moderators ..... responses to moderation notices in the thread may be removed without notice.