Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

clark · 2005-11-17 06:40:17

Recently the subject of space exploitation versus space exploration has come up, and this thread is intended to be an area of discussion related to the viewpoints surrounding the competing, or melding, of the ideas of space exploration and space exploitation.

Can the two exsist together? Are they mutually exsclusive? Is there a balance, and can it be defined? How do you feel about it?

clark · 2005-11-17 06:40:43

The anti-privateer viewpoint for space is understandable, but largely misplaced dissatisfaction with the general state of hyper-commercialization and consumerism.

Those in the anti-space-exploitation camp largely see the commercialization of space, in any form, as evidence of mankind’s inability to find new alternatives to the historical experience. In essence, it is the mark of failure that our species/culture is incapable of advancing forward towards the “final frontier” in anything but the same manner in which we have always moved humanity forward; i.e., the utilization of greed, desire, and self-aggrandizement for the sake of personal benefit, and not societal good.

Space-exploitation is not about traveling to the heavens in celebration of mankind’s ultimate achievement. It is merely an opportunity to expand and celebrate individual egos and advance the personal wealth of individuals. Space and all the points of light above become not destinations, but proverbial beans to count on one side or the other of the accountant’s ledger. The excitement, the thrill, the sheer hope of what might be when the best and brightest that humanity can muster venture forth with vision is subsumed by a mockery of space as one more joy-ride, one more roller coaster ride with all the seriousness and importance of cotton-candy confection.

And there in lies the final culmination of what space-exploitation truly means. It means this noble dream of civilization expansion, of colonization, of traveling the stars; it is nothing more than just a way to make a buck. The Moon and Mars no longer become places of new starts, but of profit and loss statements all based on who owns what and how much- long before any human foot sets down on those distant bodies.

Now some willingly accept the price of admission to our bold new future. Pragmatists. Realists. Cynics. And of course those who have an idea on making a buck off someone else’s dream (in America, we call them “Entrepreneur’s”). In the name of expediency they clamor for the familiar, because after all, if we “sell” it, some will “buy” it, and somehow we are closer to the noble dream that was the genesis of it all. Yet, by doing so, the noble dream is undermined, and the very thing that engenders this devotion and sheer romantic madness flees in the distance.

Ask yourself, when you look at the stars and the planets up above, do you think, “I” want to own that? Most true space advocates, even those that are on the side of space exploitation, would answer no. Yet space exploitation, in essence, is about owning the shared dream of space. It reduces the dream from the quality of ideas and individuals, to the quantity of amassed fortunes for the price of admission.

Let me present this in a condensed version though, to mull over:

When a child asks you how they can travel to the stars, would you rather tell them, “by being the best or brightest,” or “by being rich enough to afford it.”?

The motivation of one engenders the pursuit of personal betterment and individual improvement. The other merely reduces the motivation to one of simple math that does nothing to actually push an individual towards a more meaningful state.

However, in a moment of full disclosure, seeing that I am far from being the best, and am woefully missing the mark on being the brightest, I know my only shot at the brass ring is if I can buy my ticket.

clark · 2005-11-17 06:45:28

To demonstrate the danger of exploiting space:

http://www.thisislondon.com/showbiz/art … ce=PA&ct=5

A new reality TV show is aiming to pull off the biggest hoax in TV history - by persuading a group of Britons that they have been blasted into space

Exploitation comes in many forms, but it all centers around using anothers ideal for personal gain.

Does this make a mockery of the people and those who support space exploration by mankind? Is this one more example of creative marketing to bring "space" into a greater collective consiousness? Does this cheapen space, and in the process, make pro-space advocates look like idiots?

BWhite · 2005-11-17 06:57:08

Suppose a significant school reunion is coming up. You resolve to lose weight but aren't doing so well at that.

Do you skip the reunion, or go anyway?

= = =

I would prefer that a "better" or "more morally improved" humanity (compared to the humanity we now share) lead the way out into space. But, as Rummy says, you work with the species you got, not the species you wish you had.

Anyway, going into space changes engineers into poets and makes hardened fighter jocks weep from the beauty of it all.

I say get out there. And if the cost is a few advertising logos, so be it.

clark · 2005-11-17 08:36:43

Well done! Pragmatism blended with a Realists point of view. All supported by an optimistic long view.

The definition of a pragmatist is a person who knows they will settle for a price. Realists are people who know that everyone has a price, so we might as well just start talking about it. And an optimist thinks the price will end up being a bargain!

Yet will lofting rich millionaires and foolish fame seekers really create the spiritual metamorphosis that underlies your willingness to accept the blatant whoring of space exploration?

We must also differentiate between sending individuals of merit into space, who often seek the goal, not for fame or fortune, but for a personal desire bound inexplicably to just going “there”. Would-be millionaire tourists and thrill seekers are motivated to journey into space as a joy-ride ego-boost. Space is not the pinnacle of a life long dream for these individuals, it is merely another anecdote to impress, or another adventure to set themselves apart from others. Can we really expect a changed humanity when those that go never bother to contemplate the significance of what their journey means?

What does their journey mean? What value is there to the human species in sending people on holiday, or on a quick jaunt in and out of the atmosphere? How are a dozen Tito’s helping us spread the seed of civilization? If we entice people into understanding space as a glorified theme park, how does that really further the pro-space communities ultimate ambitions?

In deed, it can detract from the end goals by limiting what many will consider as achievable in space. In other words, if we make it a tourist trap, what incentive is there really to make it anything other than that? Where do we balance the hard science that waits to be developed and discovered?

You gladly accept a few advertisement logo’s, but let me give you the dark cloud to your silver lining: Imagine if you will a race to return to the Moon, and it is won by commercial interests. Now imagine that the people returning to the moon are not scientists, but rich (or lucky) tourists. Instead of spending any time discovering what might be found there, they spend their time drinking, and hot-wheeling around on Moon-ATV’s.

What have we gained? People on the Moon for the sake of it? Is that the future we wish to sell out for? It is hollow and it is empty.

We learn from those who go before us, and if the ones to go before are disinterested in space as a destination, how do we really create the genesis for any kind of permanence in space?

BWhite · 2005-11-17 08:55:47

Artists and scientists have always required the protection and support of patrons. To satisfy both the demands of the market and the artists' inner voice is a never ending struggle.

In recent times, the US federal government (due to the unprecedented wealth of the US economy and a shared liberal vision of humanity) served as benign patron, handing out grants far and wide.

Those days are ending, for better or worse. If we want space, we need to go where the money is.

= = =

Human beings are a study in contradiction and ambiguity.

Me? I want BOTH the science and the ATVs.

I loathe the idea of running an ATV over an important study site or fossil bed (whether on the Moon or Earth) yet on terrain that has already revealed its major secrets or is otherwise not special, hey, free-wheel away!

After a week in Napa, drinking excellent wine, you sometimes just need a beer.

= = =

Permanence in space will come when people want permanence.

Do we want to raise children there. If some answer "yes" then the millionaires and ATVs on the Moon will help give them the capability to do that.

BWhite · 2005-11-17 09:00:56

PS - - Do some people waste their lives? Squander the few moments we are granted?

Yup. Film at 11.

Is that a reason for not going to the Moon?

clark · 2005-11-17 09:04:00

Will people want to raise children there if space becomes a glorified theme park?

BWhite · 2005-11-17 09:06:12

Will people want to raise children there if space becomes a glorified theme park?

Space is a big place. Plenty of room for theme parks AND quiet retreats.

And monasteries, whether devoted to God or Science.

Rxke · 2005-11-17 09:06:33

Clark,

I know some people here regard you as a mere troll, but I just want to say 'thank you' for so clearly laying out the issue as you did in the now locked topic, so I'm glad you re-posted it here for discussion.

I hope this thread will keep up that quality 8)

BWhite · 2005-11-17 09:08:44

Rxke, there is nothing "mere" about clark.

= = =

When he trolls, it's usually very well done and you gotta admire a really good troll.

BWhite · 2005-11-17 09:24:22

Yet will lofting rich millionaires and foolish fame seekers really create the spiritual metamorphosis that underlies your willingness to accept the blatant whoring of space exploration?

Not for all, but for some. Maybe. But what is the alternative?

= = =

For centuries the Catholic Church conducted services in Latin and printed the Bible in Latin saying that the subject matter was too precious for the common man or woman.

If we select space explorers based on "merit" who shall judge what constitutes merit?

= = =

The phrase "blatant whoring" reminds me of the series FireFly and the movie Serenity. I just purchased the complete series on DVD and will see the movie after watching all the episodes.

clark · 2005-11-17 10:20:39

Who shall judge?

My understanding is that currently, those who are selected to venture into space, by and large, are selected based on their ability to contribute back towards the societal investment inherent in the struggle to place a person in space.

Because access is limited, and the need and opportunity to do many things great, a default process based on rational practicalism dictates that the “best” are often chosen to go. Has this always been the case? No. And when this isn’t the case, it is readily apparent to most by simply measuring what was and was not accomplished.

One need only look at the PR stunt of launching Glenn back into space as a recent example.

Yet space exploitation makes no bones about not choosing the most qualified, or those who might provide some greater return to society at large. In fact, it ignores any societal return for one that validates and valorizes personal wealth as an indicator of access. It does not seek any public good, only private service of personal egos. So space becomes a romping ground for rock stars and business tycoons to film 30 second ads promoting the latest brand name.

Where is the exploration? Where is the science? The only limit being pushed is our own tolerance and the bounds of good taste.

The question should not be if there is a place for the exploitation and commercialism of space, for as you say, space is a big place. The question, in my mind, should be one of, “what place, and how much, should space exploitation and space commercialism take in our push to move beyond?”

In this day and age, when free market capitalism is king, we take for granted the idea that there may be alternatives. Many in the pro space community lose site of the underlying impetus to get out there in the first place- to try a different way. Yet, here and now, there is no attempt, or little interest, in finding that alternative.

“Just get out there, and we’ll sort it out,” is the last defense. The fast gloss that supersedes true discussion. The question remains though; if we use the means to get into space that largely make us want to go in the first place, how do we ever reach the final destination.

Man, fleeing from himself, with his shadow always on his tail.

clark · 2005-11-17 10:39:22

I know some people here regard you as a mere troll, but I just want to say 'thank you' for so clearly laying out the issue as you did in the now locked topic, so I'm glad you re-posted it here for discussion.

To be honest, I learned the various viewpoints by simply listening to either side. The ability to understand different perspectives has been invaluable to me. The process by which I arrive at this understanding, well, can confuse some, upset others, and sometimes make one or two laugh.

I have never really believed in a right or wrong answer, and have generally been disinterested in those questions with such answers. To me, the questions are more interesting, and the process by which others arrive at their own answers the most intriguing.

Sometimes you have to push a few buttons to understand how the machine works.

In the case of space exploration and space exploitation, again, I ultimately come down on the side of exploitation. I do so only because I understand that my own personal motivations determine my final stance. However, I can more than appreciate that others are more than able to restrain their own compulsions, and so I try to see that viewpoint.

BWhite · 2005-11-17 10:52:38

A few weeks ago I spent a morning in Chicago's Art Institute. I don't go there often enough.

The art was stunning, of course, however I was also struck by the donor name plates that were plastered everywhere. Rubloff, Pritzker (sp?) and many of the other wealthy Chicago families. Oh, and Boeing. heh!

Advertising. Tasteful, Art Institute vetted advertising.

A group of us sat in an audiotorium named after a wealthy heiress. So what?

= = =

Retired USAF General Pete Worden has said that he tells rich capitalists that they should do things like fund liquid mirror telescopes on the Moon "to atone for their sins" - - of course he wants a big telescope to play with.

Is tax revenue really "cleaner" - - that is the question, IMHO.

By the way, google liquid mirror telescopes. Waaay waaay cool.

A large lunar liquid mirror (use mercury) telescope could make Hubble look like a child's toy at a surprisingly affordable price.

BWhite · 2005-11-17 11:06:15

I gotta follow up. We are what we are. Deal with it.

The idea that money laundered through the US Treasury and then spent on space exploration is somehow "cleaner" or "more pure" than money acquired from giving Bill Gates an ego massage simply does not resonate with me.

Frankly, obtaining a funding grant by being a buddy of Tom Delay (or Ted Kennedy) seems more like whoring than naming a telescope after Bill Gates.

= = =

Edit: None of this should be construed to mean I oppose the pursuit of social justice.

We must pursue social justice. But to say we cannot enter space until we achieve social justice? I refer you back to my school reunion metaphor.

clark · 2005-11-17 11:17:57

The idea that money laundered through the US Treasury and then spent on space exploration is somehow "cleaner" or "more pure" than money acquired from giving Bill Gates an ego massage simply does not resonate with me.
Frankly, obtaining a funding grant by being a buddy of Tom Delay (or Ted Kennedy) seems more like whoring than naming a telescope after Bill Gates.

Nice try!

You are comparing an ideal scenario- a private individual using their amassed wealth to improve their community and give something back to society at large. I agree, putting their name on a plaque is a small price to pay for the benefit.

However, space exploitation is more than just the White Knight and a rich tycoon. Space exploitation makes no pretense of returning anything of any value back to the community. It is unpretentious in its motivations, and apparent in its desire: Profit.

You cite examples of private sources contributing to a common cause that benefits more than one person, or more than one group of people. It is an ideal way to pursue space exploitation; however, the pro-space advocates that buy into space exploitation have stopped holding their breath for an enlightened billionaire to fund space colonization.

So the bar is lowered, the horizon reduced, and the ideals sold at discount price to the highest bidder.

Companies and business people are not lining up to give money to further space exploration. If there is a discussion regarding space, it is how it will affect the bottom line and what Return of Investment is. There is no discussion on what or how it improves society, or the human condition. There is a fundamental problem with relying on this mindset to build colonization plans around. There is a fundamental problem with the competing requirements of commercial interests and scientific pursuits.

It is a mistake to expect that space exploitation will act as the primary catalyst for moving more people out into space with any kind of permanence.

BWhite · 2005-11-17 11:33:01

Space exploitation will not work (IMHO) unless the exploiters persuade humanity in general that the species benefits from entering space. Adventure or exploitation as we normally think of it won't be enough to raise sell the billions that are needed

Space TV as a variation of "Survivor" simply will not sell at the levels needed to buy the necessary equipemnt. A sound stage is sufficient for that

This guy wrote an interesting short story about the first expedition to Mars with the viewers at home being more interested in the heroine's bra cup size than the science. IMHO that is a ludicrous scenario since that type of media cannot raise the billions needed to do the job.

Only a story that resonates more deeply than shallow sex appeal or other tacky themes can raise the billions needed to exploit space.

= = =

By the way, if Dennis Wingo is correct about exploitable PGMs being present in lunar asteroid fragments, returning lunar platinum will materiallly increase Terran standards of living. Its a theory, but its exploitation of a resource we can all benefit from.

Cut the price of platinum in half and every new car will cost $50 - $75 less than today, because of the cost of the catalytic converter.

If we sell souvenir coins to build the infrastructure to do that, so what?

BWhite · 2005-11-17 11:43:00

A better link for the Alex Irvine story. A while back, I purchased the hard copy (research material on this exact topic!) and I don't think the story is on-line.

Pictures from an Expedition ( by Alex Irvine)
Alex Irvine tends to take a dim view of the future, although not in the dystopian manner that, say, Russo does in this same issue.
"Pictures from an Expedition" assembles snapshots along the whole of a very plausible Mars expedition, which culminates in one member of the crew being abandoned (depending on your definition of the terms) on that planet.
Irvine skillfully crams much of the interpersonal dynamics that could fill a very long novel into this tight, taut novella. We follow the six-person crew through many ups and downs as they reach Mars, establish a year-and-a-half outpost to look for life (nicely done) and more importantly, water. We follow the expedition not only from direct views into the crew, but also from the perspective of chat-rooms and newspaper articles.
The heart of the story has very little to do with actual space exploration, and everything to do with the sensationalist frenzy of media attention: in particular its impact on the lives of people just trying to do a job.
That said, Irvine is adept both at layering in the hints of doom, and also at creating a very convincing account of what a first Mars trip might be like.

The idea of public fascination with the space heroine's "cup size" comes from this story.

clark · 2005-11-17 12:00:59

Do you need a catalytic convertor in a hydrogen economy?

BWhite · 2005-11-17 12:04:51

Do you need a catalytic convertor in a hydrogen economy?

No. But fuel cells need platinum. The house always covers all its bases.

And direct methanol fuel cells are way cool. Imagine portable light fixtures and electronic gadgets using LED lighting and direct methanol fuel cells.

No need to wire a home. The same standard of living (or better) at a much lower cost.

All made possible by the wonders of platinum.

= = =

Seriously, direct methanol fuel cells will do nothing for global warming but would reduce the total waste stream arising from used up batteries.

Throwing away fewer batteries allows us to live "more lightly" to use the green metaphor.

BWhite · 2005-11-17 12:11:37

By the way, I had forgotten how much fun it is to chat with you, clark.

Maybe we need a poll to ascertain whether anyone else finds this useful, or enjoyable.

Comments from others?

clark · 2005-11-17 12:28:13

How does sending tourists into space further any of this?

You selectively focus on the pieces of space exploitation that reinforce your dogmatic viewpoint that selling space is the way forward, while summarily disregarding the more negative aspects that represent the full cost of the trade-off.

Are we also willing to consign the heavenly bodies to nothing more than a source of raw material to feed our consumer avarice? If people are mining these places, people will want to own it. Ownership leads to vested interests, controlling bodies, and limitations.

Space becomes an area of uninhibited freedom and one of territory.

The telescope, with untold scientific potential is evaluated against simple economic analysis based on the value of the land it will inhabit. Also, I might add, the value of the moon as a scientific research body is reduced by strip mining and increased communication on or near it.

By pursuing this route from the beginning, we create a precedent for ventures further a field.

P.S. – I’ve missed some of our lively debates too.

If anyone doesn’t like this thread, well, they can shove it. Or put us on their ignore list. Preferably both. Heaven forbid someone talk about something that another doesn’t want to talk about. I mean, my GOD! That would be chaos! Bedlam! You see, I act like a troll. Some people really are trolls.

Anyway, any others want to help me in explaining how wrong Bill is, and how his willingness to sell his children’s children’s birthright away is the sign of oncoming senility?

John Creighton · 2005-11-17 13:07:06

Will people want to raise children there if space becomes a glorified theme park?

Well, people live in Las Vegas and Niagara Falls.

BWhite · 2005-11-17 13:23:28

How does sending tourists into space further any of this?

Personally, I find the whole space tourism thing very much over-rated. However, to say that too loudly at the other places I visit tends to get me flamed.

So, being a diplomatic soul, I employ the classic "Yes, and" or "Yes, but" rather than "no"

Are we also willing to consign the heavenly bodies to nothing more than a source of raw material to feed our consumer avarice? If people are mining these places, people will want to own it. Ownership leads to vested interests, controlling bodies, and limitations.
Space becomes an area of uninhibited freedom and one of territory.

As always, such issues are rarely either / or. The phrase "nothing more" and the phrase "blatant whoring" suggests a denial of the essential human ambiguity that we are flesh and blood yet also have aspirations for trancendence all rolled into one package. (Is Platonic trolling like platonic love?)

The Moon can be a source of PGMs without being "nothing more" a source of PGMs.

Besides I believe in private property and I assert Adam Smith was the first true modern liberal. But that discussion will outlive both of us, I am sure.

Uninhibited freedom? Sounds good to me, within reason. 8)

The telescope, with untold scientific potential is evaluated against simple economic analysis based on the value of the land it will inhabit. Also, I might add, the value of the moon as a scientific research body is reduced by strip mining and increased communication on or near it.

Sensible zoning (or its celestial analouge) is called for. Yup, radio noise near a FarSide scope is a bad idea. Light pollution near a big lunar liquid telescope is a bad idea.

But there is no platonic or ideal solution even if laser links for data flows are coming on line and will partially solve such problems.

Strip mining? I oppose unregulated, unrestricted strip mining, anywhere.

Done sensibly to help re-green the Earth? A worthy trade.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-11-17 06:40:17

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#2 2005-11-17 06:40:43

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#3 2005-11-17 06:45:28

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#4 2005-11-17 06:57:08

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#5 2005-11-17 08:36:43

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#6 2005-11-17 08:55:47

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#7 2005-11-17 09:00:56

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#8 2005-11-17 09:04:00

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#9 2005-11-17 09:06:12

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#10 2005-11-17 09:06:33

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#11 2005-11-17 09:08:44

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#12 2005-11-17 09:24:22

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#13 2005-11-17 10:20:39

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#14 2005-11-17 10:39:22

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#15 2005-11-17 10:52:38

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#16 2005-11-17 11:06:15

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#17 2005-11-17 11:17:57

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#18 2005-11-17 11:33:01

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#19 2005-11-17 11:43:00

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#20 2005-11-17 12:00:59

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#21 2005-11-17 12:04:51

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#22 2005-11-17 12:11:37

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#23 2005-11-17 12:28:13

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#24 2005-11-17 13:07:06

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

#25 2005-11-17 13:23:28

Re: Space Exploitation vs. Space Exploration

Board footer