Is Space Exploration an Ego Trip or a Scientific Investment?

[sophiecentaur]

It looks to me like no more than a huge ego trip for rich people. How much of the money spent will contribute to our knowledge of Science or Space. One image from JWST probably has more worth than the whole of this fun project. They might just as well send their money to Yemen, Ukraine or Haiti if they want to do something worth while.

 

[TeethWhitener]

How much of the money spent will contribute to our knowledge of Science or Space.

1) This is “lunar tourism,” where an individual is using his own money to pay for a service from a private company. Asking what it will contribute to our knowledge of science is kind of like asking what your vacation to the French Riviera will contribute to science.
2) That said, SpaceX is free to do what they want with the profit from this venture. I’m guessing at the very least that they want to continue developing their products to help ensure future profits. This will likely ultimately redound to science’s benefit.

 

[sophiecentaur]

@TeethWhitener
Their own money, yes but the impact of such waste hits us all. I could make a similar comment for a fun trip to Antarctica.

 

[mfb]

How much of the money spent will contribute to our knowledge of Science or Space.

Something like 90% because it goes into Starship development. That's not yet including the indirect effect of getting more people interested in science.

They might just as well send their money to Yemen, Ukraine or Haiti if they want to do something worth while.

Good old "fix problems on Earth first". Fix problems with stone tools first before working on metals!

 

[sophiecentaur]

You won’t find me arguing against serious Science projects. The name”starship” says it all: but they are not contributing to an Enterprise and the name Starship is just commercial.
Everyone has a favourite spending target but the other targets should always be considered. Worth is an appropriate criterion in all enterprises - particularly in vanity projects. (I realise my slip is showing here.)

 

[TeethWhitener]

I could make a similar comment for a fun trip to Antarctica.

Yes and it would be just as silly and off topic.

 

[sophiecentaur]

"Silly" just trivialises a very relevant point. "Off topic" could, of course be true - if you lived in a vacuum.

 

[hmmm27]

It looks to me like no more than a huge ego trip for rich people.

Wonder how far along we'd be if all the scientific advances of the last millenium or so were paid for solely from the scientists' pockets.

How much of the money spent will contribute to our knowledge of Science or Space.

Including or not new spaceship and spacesuit designs ?

One image from JWST probably has more worth than the whole of this fun project.

How about an image from SOFIA ? 8 years worth of a ginormous telescope, operating from 40,000 ft. So, was the contraption that lofted the telescope to that altitude cobbled together by MIT students over a weekend ? (hint: 747's take longer than that to assemble)

They might just as well send their money to Yemen, Ukraine or Haiti if they want to do something worth while.

"They" in this case being the billionaire who's funding the jaunt ; other philanthropic interests include a foundation that supports artists ; no specific mentions of supporting other countries in his Wikipedia bio.

 

[sophiecentaur]

"They" in this case being the billionaire who's funding the jaunt ;

Are you saying that there are no other 'costs' for a project like this? If I choose to burn a thousand tons of low grade coal, just because I can afford to buy it, would that make it OK? All actions have consequences and the 'right' thing is to consider the true cost / benefit.

Look, I know space flight is every (many ) kid's dream but cost benefit justifications tend to be very specific here. WW2 led to a lot of very handy technology spin-offs for public use but, looking back, was WW2 such a good idea? You can argue the details about that and the circs that brought about WW2 were very different and the justification was a lot greater.

 

[pinball1970]

Are you saying that there are no other 'costs' for a project like this? If I choose to burn a thousand tons of low grade coal, just because I can afford to buy it, would that make it OK? All actions have consequences and the 'right' thing is to consider the true cost / benefit.

Look, I know space flight is every (many ) kid's dream but cost benefit justifications tend to be very specific here. WW2 led to a lot of very handy technology spin-offs for public use but, looking back, was WW2 such a good idea? You can argue the details about that and the circs that brought about WW2 were very different and the justification was a lot greater.

Artemis did deliver some science projects/probes. so that saves individual rocket launches. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-selects-new-instruments-for-priority-artemis-science-on-moon

EDIT: The thread has moved on so I will not try and delete. I got my wires crossed. Comments I responded to were DEAR MOON not Artemis.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Artemis did deliver some science projects/probes. so that saves individual rocket launches.

I don't think anyone would call Artemis a rich man's vanity project. A properly designed Moon Landing would / will have plenty of scientific justification. I'm not sure that the proposed crew is the best for that purpose but we shall see from any results they come up with and there is a meaningful forward plan for the programme.

These projects need public approval for the huge amount of funding needed and they don't want any project to fizzle out like the Apollo project did, due to lack of public interest.

I always ask myself what's so special about 'someone' actually being there on missions. No one needs to be standing inside the LHC in CERN for the results to be valid, interesting and useful. Humans are really bad value in dangerous places. Just one serious accident could put the funding back by many years

 

[hmmm27]

Are you saying that there are no other 'costs' for a project like this? If I choose to burn a thousand tons of low grade coal, just because I can afford to buy it, would that make it OK? All actions have consequences and the 'right' thing is to consider the true cost / benefit.

I couldn't (easily) find which rocket booster will be used : SpaceX seems to have kerosene, methane and hydrazine engines available.

But, the carbon footprint of the launch is probably less than that of any single rush-hour aggregate in any small city, anywhere. Which is a crap argument, but the same could be said for any mission where the resulting data does not immediately result in GHG decrease, ie: almost all of them.

Wonder what the mpg of the trip is.

Look, I know space flight is every (many ) kid's dream but cost benefit justifications tend to be very specific here. WW2 led to a lot of very handy technology spin-offs for public use but, looking back, was WW2 such a good idea? You can argue the details about that and the circs that brought about WW2 were very different and the justification was a lot greater.

I think we can stick with "every" : I find "many" people confusing. If I could've been arsed at the time (and not suspicious at all), I would've signed up for that (currently defunct) mission where they were going to lob people at Mars 4 at a time under the assumption that some of them would make it.

(Direct scientific:) benefit is a straight up multi-human excursion well outside the comfort of the van Allen Belt. Benefit is live-testing of a spaceship and related systems. Benefit is increasing the number of circumlunar trips by double-digit percentages.

What do you want to trade for the cruise ? Want to stick a moratorium on commercial space travel for x years in return for say : an extended repository similar to the Seed Bank, which saves genetic material of everything on Earth ? sure ; a few tens of millions of wind-turbines circling Greenland to supply the Northern Hemisphere with all its energy needs ? okay ; maybe 300 miles worth of ocean earthworks to make Hudson Bay the largest freshwater lake, ever ? cool. Et cetera.

 

[mfb]

Most of the money goes into Starship development - the same thing that is needed for Artemis, too. Maezawa is saving NASA money by financing part of the development.

As a what-if scenario it's necessarily speculative, but imagine a situation where dearMoon would not exist: It's likely SpaceX would have made a more expensive proposal, asking NASA to fund more elements of Starship. NASA was just able to finance the real SpaceX proposal, it's possible they wouldn't have been able to award any contract for the Artemis III lander without dearMoon. I'm sure Congress would have shuffled money around until an award could be made, but that could easily delay a Moon landing by 1-2 years (and still cost NASA more money).

I couldn't (easily) find which rocket booster will be used : SpaceX seems to have kerosene, methane and hydrazine engines available.

Starship uses methane and oxygen. The carbon footprint of that mission is negligible compared to its impact.

I always ask myself what's so special about 'someone' actually being there on missions. No one needs to be standing inside the LHC in CERN for the results to be valid, interesting and useful.

The dearMoon crew won't be inside the Raptor engines and fuel tanks either, what's your point?

 

[sophiecentaur]

I think we can stick with "every" : I find "many" people confusing.

That probably indicates your age and circumstances. There are tens of thousands of people who skydive, dive, use recreational drugs but the median age is pretty low. To be honest, that was me when I was younger but I grew out of that stuff once other responsibilities kicked in. It's definitely not "every".

Starship uses methane and oxygen. The carbon footprint of that mission is negligible compared to its impact.

I know there's a lot of re-usable stuff in modern space flight but the proportion of the footprint due to actual fuel, as opposed to the manufacturing footprint is probably similar to that for a domestic car. Not too dissimilar total mileage. People tend to forget that, as they do when they buy a new 'economical' family car.

I know I must sound like the Grinch where manned space travel is concerned but so many people view it through rosy tinted spectacles. Someone has to inject some reason, imho. However, I do get very enthusiastic about unmanned missions so I'm not all bad.

 

[TeethWhitener]

Wonder what the mpg of the trip is.

You piqued my curiosity so I did some very rough number crunching: Starship + super heavy has a propellant capacity of 4800 t (I’m assuming that’s metric tonnes). If we assume this is all methane (the conservative estimate omitting the oxygen), and that liquid methane has a density of roughly 400 kg/m^3 at its boiling point, then cranking through all the math, we end up with about 3 million gallons of methane. A straight shot to the moon and back is roughly half a million miles, giving a fuel efficiency of 1/6 mpg. (Of course this is meaningless. The ISS has completed over 100000 orbits of roughly 25000 miles since its launch, meaning it has travelled well over 3 billion miles. So even given several million gallons of fuel to combat orbital decay, it would likely be more efficient than any car on the road today.)

 

[Tom.G]

Starship uses methane and oxygen. The carbon footprint of that mission is negligible compared to its impact.

And it gets rid of a bunch of that potent GHG (GreenHouse Gas), Methane!

from: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials#Learn why

For a 100yr. period, Methane(CH₄) has about 28 times the GWP (Global Warming Potential) as Carbon Dioxide(CO₂).
Looking at a 20yr. period, Methane GWP jumps to 82.

 

[sophiecentaur]

The dearMoon crew won't be inside the Raptor engines and fuel tanks either, what's your point?

My point is that there is often very little reason for humans actually being there, except for the 'because we can' philosophy. Time was when only a very few people actually went anywhere much unless it was strictly necessary. Nowadays the fashion is that people with enough money feel entitled to go anywhere. Look at the state of the paths to Everest summit - full of rubbish, left by careless 'adventurers'. Diving locations have been totally spoiled because of 'trippers'. The fashion of building Cairns on mountain paths has caused erosion (as well as boots which have strayed from the path). It happens all over the place.

 

[hmmm27]

That probably indicates your age and circumstances.

'Twas meant a little tongue-in-cheek, but yes, yes it does.

I know I must sound like the Grinch where manned space travel is concerned

Your points are valid IMHO. (Personally) I think a human Mars landing is premature : bulk up that Lunar-orbital station first ; then, that divot in Phobos looks like a neat place to set up a tent. Either way, tossing garbage into orbit is almost dumber than tossing garbage onto the ground.

But, missions aren't using commercialized transport because it's more moral, but because it's cheaper. And, probably the bulk of that commercialization is going to come from space tourism.

 

[mfb]

There is a pressure drop in a Soyuz cooling loop.
NASA livestream
SpaceflightNow coverage

The Soyuz is the return capsule for three astronauts on board (2 from Russia, one from the US). If there is a more serious problem with that Soyuz capsule then Russia could launch one without crew to the ISS to bring the astronauts home. Or, if we explore more exotic options, Crew-6 (Dragon) could launch with three empty seats. Most likely neither of these will be needed.

I know there's a lot of re-usable stuff in modern space flight but the proportion of the footprint due to actual fuel, as opposed to the manufacturing footprint is probably similar to that for a domestic car. Not too dissimilar total mileage. People tend to forget that, as they do when they buy a new 'economical' family car.

Starship is designed to be fully reusable, and dearMoon will only fly after SpaceX has routinely reused both stages many times. The main carbon footprint will be the fuel used for that mission.

@TeethWhitener: 3.5 tonnes of oxygen per tonne of methane, so only 1/4.5 of the propellant is methane. Roughly 1000 tonnes per launch. dearMoon could need 1-2 refueling flights in space, but we still end up with less methane.

And it gets rid of a bunch of that potent GHG (GreenHouse Gas), Methane!

It doesn't get the methane from the atmosphere. It's sourced from natural gas, although SpaceX wants to produce some from atmospheric CO2 and water.

----

SpaceX is preparing two almost simultaneous launches: Two communication satellites for SES on Friday 21:21 UTC and a Starlink launch on Friday 21:54, both from Florida. With just half an hour between launches, they'll likely start fueling the second rocket while the other one is still on its launch pad. This means they have two fully independent launch teams in Florida.

Meanwhile the launch pad in California is preparing a Falcon 9 with SWOT, an Earth observation satellite that will measure water levels with centimeter precision (Thursday 11:46 UTC). Three launches in 1.5 days if nothing gets delayed.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Starship is designed to be fully reusable, and dearMoon will only fly after SpaceX has routinely reused both stages many times. The main carbon footprint will be the fuel used for that mission.

That's a politician's response. The real carbon footprint includes manufacturing divided by the number of trips it's used for. However you look at it, that's significant (as with your family car). For a valid choice of this sort of action, all the factors are relevant. Enthusiasts for anything tend to shy away from this sort of analysis. Heart can easily rule head.

I'mm not saying it's not all good fun but the arguments in favour always soft pedal the downsides.

 

[mfb]

That's a politician's response.

There is nothing political in my response. "The main carbon footprint will be the fuel" is a purely technical response, and it answers your concern about manufacturing. It's negligible compared to the fuel used, and I also explained why: Because the vehicle gets used often.

I don't see the relevance for spaceflight, but building a car in the EU produces around 0.6 tonnes of CO2 emissions. You match that if your car burns around 200-300 liters of fuel, something cars typically exceed by a big factor in their lifetime.

If Starship has the same dry mass to CO2 emission ratio as cars then its production will be around 200 tonnes of CO2. It's tiny compared to the CO2 produced from the propellant even after a single flight. Add reuse and you can imagine how negligible the fraction becomes.

Can you stop driving this thread off-topic with wrong claims please?

 

[hmmm27]

That's a politician's response. The real carbon footprint includes manufacturing divided by the number of trips it's used for.

Are the carbon-emissions saved by recycling applied to the ship ? or to the new-build bridge, building structure, bicycles, whatever. Same for cars, I suppose.

However you look at it, that's significant (as with your family car). For a valid choice of this sort of action, all the factors are relevant. Enthusiasts for anything tend to shy away from this sort of analysis. Heart can easily rule head.

The environmental impact of all the spaceships in the world is orders of magnitude less than that of pretty much anything else.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I don't see the relevance for spaceflight, but building a car in the EU produces around 0.6 tonnes of CO2 emissions.

Your figure is from a source which may well be biassed in favour of the motor car industry (?).
According to this Guardian information, producing a Ford Mondeo creates 16 tonnes of Carbon and that includes as much of the total chain as they could research. There's quite a difference between the figures but my experience is that the Guardian has less of an axe to grind than many of the issues it covers.

Because the vehicle gets used often.

What do you mean by "often"? Once every six months for a few years would be hopeful and the actual carbon cost of refurb each time will be significant. Certainly more than the proportional cost of a yearly service for a motor car. The label 're-usable' will almost certainly be there for political reasons to some degree.

If we were to wait a few decades for all this space stuff, the carbon cost would be a lot less, now that Fusion has received a boost. And what could be the objection to the notion of a bit of a wait? Space travel is not likely to be solving many of our present problems in a hurry.

 

[sophiecentaur]

The environmental impact of all the spaceships in the world is orders of magnitude less than that of pretty much anything else.

True but is that relevant? The coal burned in an individual old fashioned power station is a tiny fraction of all our pollution. Does that justify it if the user in a developing country has no other way of getting electricity? Whataboutery is seldom a good argument. In the end it's about priorities, personal decisions and responsible behaviour.

 

[TeethWhitener]

Can you stop driving this thread off-topic with wrong claims please?

I agree, maybe a mentor can split that discussion off and stick it in General Discussion where it belongs.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Can you stop driving this thread off-topic with wrong claims please?

Which claims are actually "wrong" please? Your and my sources for footprint disagree by a factor of more than ten. Are you sure you are right overall? I realise that you are far more keen on space travel than I but that doesn't facts about impact.
I can't agree that environmental factors are actually off-topic. Should all that stuff be ignored and put to the back of discussions?

 

[Rive]

If we were to wait a few decades for all this space stuff, the carbon cost would be a lot less, now that Fusion has received a boost. And what could be the objection to the notion of a bit of a wait?

I think we need some really good rallying power now to restore 'faith' and trust in science and engineering in general, so we could continue to support fusion research (among many others) for a few more decades till they bear fruit.

That lull between the last Shuttle and the first Dragons might be considered a necessity, but I have a feeling that it also very much took its toll on the momentum and support.

So while I do agree that space tourism is not something we can't live without, right now I'll be happy to see its contribution in developing and maintaining heavy lifting capacity.

And by the way later on I'll be happy to see it taxed appropriately (for green reasons too).

 

[sophiecentaur]

That lull between the last Shuttle and the first Dragons might be considered a necessity, but I have a feeling that it also very much took its toll on the momentum and support.

That lull (iirc) was because the public lost interest (really not much to see and not good reliability, early on) and also because Apollo established the US superiority over the USSR in technology. These days, the missions can be presented to the public well enough to maintain their interest and reliability (safety) seems to be much improved. Possible use of space for military purposes is almost global now.

The green issues are very underplayed and often misrepresented. Afaics there's no urgency here apart from different military considerations. Another and bigger 'iron dome', this time for all the West, would be handy.

 

[mfb]

That's now 3 planned Falcon 9 launches within 10 hours and 8 minutes.

SWOT is about to launch (NASA coverage) and the commercial satellite is still on track for a launch in about 10 hours, but Starlink was moved to be a day after that.

Which claims are actually "wrong" please?

I'll ignore all the car stuff and other things unrelated to spaceflight to stay on topic:

One image from JWST probably has more worth than the whole of this fun project.

Given that this is a significant share of Starship development, which is critical for Artemis... no, definitely not.

The name”starship” says it all: but they are not contributing to an Enterprise and the name Starship is just commercial.

You can learn all that from a name? What is Boeing's Starliner doing then?
Starliner is designed to get NASA astronauts to the ISS and back.

What do you mean by "often"? Once every six months for a few years would be hopeful and the actual carbon cost of refurb each time will be significant.

Even Falcon 9 boosters make multiple flights per year already, and they are the first reusable system SpaceX designed. Starship is designed for full and rapid reuse, without refurbishment. Your "hopeful" case is far worse than the old system?

That lull (iirc) was because the public lost interest (really not much to see and not good reliability, early on) and also because Apollo established the US superiority over the USSR in technology.

Wrong decade.

You didn't like my 200 tonnes of CO2 estimate. How much do you think it's wrong? By a factor 10? Would surprise me, but then the first launch still emits more CO2 than the production. By a factor 100? I think that's absurd, but even then the first 10 launches emit more CO2 than the production. As a reminder, Falcon 9 boosters are already doing more than 10 flights.

 

[russ_watters]

True but is that relevant? The coal burned in an individual old fashioned power station is a tiny fraction of all our pollution. Does that justify it if the user in a developing country has no other way of getting electricity? Whataboutery is seldom a good argument. In the end it's about priorities, personal decisions and responsible behaviour.

It's not whataboutism. The atmosphere doesn't care about individual emissions it only cares about total global emissions. Comparing an individual house, car, power plant or rocket to each other is just a red herring. What's needed is to assess the relative impact of all of each. Power plants are the worst offenders, so changing the way we do power plants in general will have the biggest impact. Next is cars/trucks/ships (land transportation), next is heating. Space travel is way, way down on that list. Maybe someday it will be significant, so we'll need to make sure all rockets are fueled by electrolysis of water, but not yet.
https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-energy-related-co2-emissions-by-sector

Also, even if one thinks space travel is completely frivolous (and I think it is mostly frivolous), again, the atmosphere doesn't care if an activity is useful or frivolous. It only cares how much carbon it puts out. And while I'm aware that some people favor a morally aggressive stance that we should be curtailing non-essential activity to save the planet, I'm not one. I don't think we should destroy our way of life to save it.

FYI, we'll probably split this talk of the carbon footprint of space travel to its own thread...

 

[sophiecentaur]

It only cares how much carbon it puts out.

As long as "puts out" includes all manufacturing, servicing and transport contributions. Choosing what and what not to include is advertisers' technique and not good Engineering.

FYI, we'll probably split this talk of the carbon footprint of space travel to its own thread...

That could be a good idea; go for it. However, along the same lines as Health and Safety matters, environment should at least have a presence in any discussion involving large amounts of energy.

 

[russ_watters]

As long as "puts out" includes all manufacturing, servicing and transport contributions. Choosing what and what not to include is advertisers' technique and not good Engineering.

I agree, lifecycle emissions include manufacturing/servicing, but with a really, really big caveat: most of those indirect (not from the fuel) lifecycle emissions are pass-through from other sectors; energy and transportation. So if you fix those sectors, the indirect emissions go way, way down.

And while I too would like to see the numbers, since a rocket by empty mass is mostly a flying fuel tank I would find it hard to believe manufacturing carbon emissions is a significant fraction like it is for a car. Cars are even unusual amongst vehicles in that they have a very low utilization rate, which makes the manufacturing emissions a larger fraction than other vehicle types.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Cars are even unusual amongst vehicles in that they have a very low utilization rate, which makes the manufacturing emissions a larger fraction than other vehicle types.

Indeed. Public transport is often a far more economical solution to people getting to work than driving themselves in a year old family car.

 

[Frabjous]

Indeed. Public transport is often a far more economical solution to people getting to work than driving themselves in a year old family car.

Depends on whether you include the value of time.

 

[russ_watters]

Indeed. Public transport is often a far more economical solution to people getting to work than driving themselves in a year old family car.

I don't mean [emissions] cost per passenger or ton-mile (yes, cars are the worst at that too), I mean hours of use per year or lifetime. Truck, ships, planes, and yes trains all are operated much more than a car. Google tells me a truck gets 2-3x the distance lifespan of a car. So, for example if manufacturing emissions is 20% of a car's lifecycle emissions it might be 7% of a truck's. I'd have to do some research (a quick google doesn't find this info), but I suspect that the manufacturing emissions are only very significant for a car, and aren't for any other major form of transportation - including a hypothetical re-usable rocket.