-
#160
by
MP99
on 19 Jan, 2010 21:04
-
Large scale experiments on the validity of General Relativity, etc. If those experiments show our fundamental understanding of physics is incorrect, it would have huge potential to change things in the future.
Is anyone holding off building some fantastic widget based on General Relativity just because it hasn't been properly validated yet?
If they built it, wouldn't that be validation in itself?
cheers, Martin
You're looking at it backwards. Invalidation of GR and other current physics theories leads to development of new physics, which could result in completely new devices, energy sources, etc.
Sorry, I mis-read your comment as "show our fundamental understanding of physics is correct" rather than incorrect.
Agreed, invalidation could be a real game-changer.
cheers, Martin
-
#161
by
William Barton
on 19 Jan, 2010 21:24
-
I'll ask this question again (and as often as necessary), since no one seems to offer an answer that doesn't boil down to sociopolitical gobbledegook. How do you quantify the value of the "scientic return" from a space mission? Until you can do that, you can't actually determine the cost coefficient for manned vs. unmanned space exploration. Therefore, the entire discussion is political, and it's content is utterly irrelevant.
My personal opinion is, without an intent to send a manned mission at some point in the future, unmanned space exploration has a value of zero. Which is, indeed, sociopolitical. I know of no scientific or economic argument that justifies any space activity whatsoever much beyond GEO. By contrast, I can muster any number of sociopolitical arguments for both manned and unmanned space exploration.
Well, to me we need a Earth-based unit of measure. How do we measure the value of discovery in the Antarctic, or deep sea submersibles, or geologic digs in Egypt?
In the end, there is no tangible way to measure it, it can be argued it is simply the knowledge gained. Now, you could get lucky along the way, find something so unique from the oceans that it provides a cure for cancer, or a snail that has a special steel-layered sheel that could provide better armour for troops, or simply the crowds that will flock to see some new discovery.
Science is the accumulation of wealth in terms of knowledge. It may have short term benefits, long term benefits, unequalled benefots, or no benefit at all. But I would like to know how large a collection of encyclopedia books there would be today for all the kowledge gained through science alone. Good thing we have DVDs and such storage media.
In a way, that was my point. It's *not* quantifiable, so anyone claiming unmanned space exploration gets you more bang for the buck is disingenuous. It's the taxpayers shell out for this stuff, and if the main return they get is in the form of goshwow, then we need to compare the two in those exact terms Buck Rogers vs. Toy Cars on Mars. And if unmanned space exploration is all about Boys with Toys, then the boys (and yes, I know there are girl scientists too) need to pay for their own toys and leave the taxpayers to their Wii and beer (yep, there's a pun there alrighty).
-
#162
by
William Barton
on 19 Jan, 2010 21:25
-
... I know of no scientific or economic argument that justifies any space activity whatsoever much beyond GEO ...
Large scale experiments on the validity of General Relativity, etc. If those experiments show our fundamental understanding of physics is incorrect, it would have huge potential to change things in the future.
Edit: it's difficult to estimate the economic impact of changes in fundamental physics. However, it's fairly obvious that the taming of electromagnetism in the 1800s was worth 10s or 100s of trillions of $$$ in the 1900s.
Is anyone holding off building some fantastic widget based on General Relativity just because it hasn't been properly validated yet?
If they built it, wouldn't that be validation in itself?
cheers, Martin
Isn't that a little like saying if we don't explore space, we'll *never* find that crashed alien spacecraft?
-
#163
by
William Barton
on 19 Jan, 2010 21:27
-
I'll ask this question again (and as often as necessary), since no one seems to offer an answer that doesn't boil down to sociopolitical gobbledegook. How do you quantify the value of the "scientic return" from a space mission?
First order estimate: Number of peer reviewed publications.
I got a good laugh out of that one! I can just imagine using that as the basis for a funding proposal! "My Ariel Orbiter project will result in 12,861 peer reviewed publications. Therefore, since a peer reviewed publication is valued at $18.4mln, I request a budget of..."
-
#164
by
Robotbeat
on 19 Jan, 2010 21:37
-
I think the General Relativity alternative theory and finding an alien spacecraft are just two examples of us finding things we aren't really looking for. Do you think that the fish in the sea can even see the stars, let alone comprehend what they are? Perhaps we need to expand in to space before we can find out about the NEXT BIG THING. There's no real way we can point to what the unknown may be, except to look to fiction for analogies (i.e. the alien spacecraft).
We need to explore every nook and cranny of our solar system. If there's any way we can, we need to live on the Moon, Mars, Ceres...
It's easy for some people to dismiss what one might find if one explores the unknown. I've never understood that. It could be nothing, or it could be something we have no idea about right now. Either way, the money is going to be spent on Earth, not launched into space.
EDIT: And if astronauts die trying to explore those unknowns, then I wish I could be as lucky to have such an honorable death.
-
#165
by
robertross
on 19 Jan, 2010 21:54
-
Science is the accumulation of wealth in terms of knowledge. It may have short term benefits, long term benefits, unequalled benefits, or no benefit at all. But I would like to know how large a collection of encyclopedia books there would be today for all the kowledge gained through science alone. Good thing we have DVDs and such storage media.
In a way, that was my point. It's *not* quantifiable, so anyone claiming unmanned space exploration gets you more bang for the buck is disingenuous. It's the taxpayers shell out for this stuff, and if the main return they get is in the form of goshwow, then we need to compare the two in those exact terms Buck Rogers vs. Toy Cars on Mars. And if unmanned space exploration is all about Boys with Toys, then the boys (and yes, I know there are girl scientists too) need to pay for their own toys and leave the taxpayers to their Wii and beer (yep, there's a pun there alrighty).
It is quantifiable, but only at the end (IE:results). You can manage it if you can measure it. But it is an unknown 'quantity' until it is measured.
Do you play a game of baseball 'knowing' you are going to win ahead of time? Some would put less value on it since we already know the answer, just proving it's true. But because we don't know the outcome, and there is a challenge, we make the effort.
To that end, what value has a game like baseball provided, even though taxpayer money usually goes into tax incentives & so on? (rhetorical)
So until you have gone out to, in this case, an asteroid, and determined if there is anything of value from the mission, can you truly value it. Many science experiments are that way. You still spend money for baseline data, even though you usually know the result; but it helps you move beyond your intial assessment.
By going out to visit an asteroid, if that were to happen before going to a moon of Mars, then we know how to handle smaller bodies, longer duration missions, the ins & out of the spacecraft to get more baseline data.
-
#166
by
A_M_Swallow
on 19 Jan, 2010 21:57
-
Lets try history. Over many areas there is a 60 year delay between a scientific discovery and a product that uses it effecting the general public. 2010 - 60 = 1950. The spinoffs from NASA technology are well known, what are the spinoffs from NASA/space science discoveries?
-
#167
by
MP99
on 19 Jan, 2010 22:01
-
I think the General Relativity alternative theory and finding an alien spacecraft are just two examples of us finding things we aren't really looking for.
We know that GR is incomplete, and plenty of energy goes into finding something more complete.
Evidence would move that work on hugely, from what I've read.
cheers, Martin
-
#168
by
MP99
on 19 Jan, 2010 22:07
-
... I know of no scientific or economic argument that justifies any space activity whatsoever much beyond GEO ...
Large scale experiments on the validity of General Relativity, etc. If those experiments show our fundamental understanding of physics is incorrect, it would have huge potential to change things in the future.
Edit: it's difficult to estimate the economic impact of changes in fundamental physics. However, it's fairly obvious that the taming of electromagnetism in the 1800s was worth 10s or 100s of trillions of $$$ in the 1900s.
Is anyone holding off building some fantastic widget based on General Relativity just because it hasn't been properly validated yet?
If they built it, wouldn't that be validation in itself?
cheers, Martin
Isn't that a little like saying if we don't explore space, we'll *never* find that crashed alien spacecraft?
I misread "incorrect" as "correct", and therefore "the taming of GR". I didn't see how this justified technology impacts.
I should have read more carefully, he was talking about "the taming of non-GR effects".
cheers, Martin
-
#169
by
Cons
on 19 Jan, 2010 23:17
-
I'll ask this question again (and as often as necessary), since no one seems to offer an answer that doesn't boil down to sociopolitical gobbledegook. How do you quantify the value of the "scientic return" from a space mission?
First order estimate: Number of peer reviewed publications.
I got a good laugh out of that one! I can just imagine using that as the basis for a funding proposal! "My Ariel Orbiter project will result in 12,861 peer reviewed publications. Therefore, since a peer reviewed publication is valued at $18.4mln, I request a budget of..."
Welcome to todays academic funding practice.
The number of publications (multiplied by the impact factors of the respective
journals) is a measure of your past performance. Your future budgets
will be mostly based on this past performance, not on the quality of your
funding proposals.
For space missions the number of peer-reviewed publications (* impact factors)
is quite a good metric for science return, not as an absolute value but to
compare science return from different mission.
(BS is usually published in very low impact journals)
Is anyone holding off building some fantastic widget based on General Relativity just because it hasn't been properly validated yet?
GPS actually uses General Relativity to correct the frequency shift in gravitational fields.
-
#170
by
Robotbeat
on 19 Jan, 2010 23:21
-
...
(BS is usually published in very low impact journals)
...
True, but such a rating system can be perverted via political prejudices.
For instance, suppose some of the higher rated journals have editors and reviewers which are culturally opposed to manned spaceflight, so tend not to want to publish such papers, making this a poor metric to use for this purpose (i.e. comparing manned to unmanned scientific impact).
Overall, though, it's as good of a rating system as could be expected.
-
#171
by
Cons
on 19 Jan, 2010 23:36
-
...
(BS is usually published in very low impact journals)
...
True, but such a rating system can be perverted via political prejudices.
For instance, suppose some of the higher rated journals have editors and reviewers which are culturally opposed to manned spaceflight, so tend not to want to publish such papers, making this a poor metric to use for this purpose (i.e. comparing manned to unmanned scientific impact).
Overall, though, it's as good of a rating system as could be expected.
Agreed, this metric is far from perfect. But it's at least a start.
-
#172
by
William Barton
on 20 Jan, 2010 00:03
-
Lets try history. Over many areas there is a 60 year delay between a scientific discovery and a product that uses it effecting the general public. 2010 - 60 = 1950. The spinoffs from NASA technology are well known, what are the spinoffs from NASA/space science discoveries?
A case can be made for "nuclear winter theory" (TTAPS) and its offspring, "Global Warming."
-
#173
by
William Barton
on 20 Jan, 2010 00:12
-
Science is the accumulation of wealth in terms of knowledge. It may have short term benefits, long term benefits, unequalled benefits, or no benefit at all. But I would like to know how large a collection of encyclopedia books there would be today for all the kowledge gained through science alone. Good thing we have DVDs and such storage media.
In a way, that was my point. It's *not* quantifiable, so anyone claiming unmanned space exploration gets you more bang for the buck is disingenuous. It's the taxpayers shell out for this stuff, and if the main return they get is in the form of goshwow, then we need to compare the two in those exact terms Buck Rogers vs. Toy Cars on Mars. And if unmanned space exploration is all about Boys with Toys, then the boys (and yes, I know there are girl scientists too) need to pay for their own toys and leave the taxpayers to their Wii and beer (yep, there's a pun there alrighty).
It is quantifiable, but only at the end (IE:results). You can manage it if you can measure it. But it is an unknown 'quantity' until it is measured.
Do you play a game of baseball 'knowing' you are going to win ahead of time? Some would put less value on it since we already know the answer, just proving it's true. But because we don't know the outcome, and there is a challenge, we make the effort.
To that end, what value has a game like baseball provided, even though taxpayer money usually goes into tax incentives & so on? (rhetorical)
So until you have gone out to, in this case, an asteroid, and determined if there is anything of value from the mission, can you truly value it. Many science experiments are that way. You still spend money for baseline data, even though you usually know the result; but it helps you move beyond your intial assessment.
By going out to visit an asteroid, if that were to happen before going to a moon of Mars, then we know how to handle smaller bodies, longer duration missions, the ins & out of the spacecraft to get more baseline data.
When watch a baseball game, your payoff is watching baseball. One of the things that keeps happening when I ask questions like these is, people go haring off in all directions. So: what is the direct payoff to the current taxpayers for the money they are (compelled) to pay for space exploration (manned and unmanned)? This has nothing to do with the intangibles you and others are talking about, which is the issue I raised in the first place. Can you quantify the sciencific return in such a way that you can make a valid comaprison between manned & unmanned? I don't think so, and that's why we keep hearing about the vaporware results of space exploration. Give me a $XXX now and I'll pay your grandchildren back a hundredfold? I don't think so. (Heck, I'd be happy with my share of the taxflow if I could just get the UAZ Space Science Series volumes for free. Why should I have to pay $100 for a book, when I already helped pay from the space probes and the salary of the researchers?)
-
#174
by
JohnFornaro
on 20 Jan, 2010 14:15
-
Sure, Robert, "By going out to visit an asteroid, if that were to happen before going to a moon of Mars, then we know how to handle smaller bodies, longer duration missions, the ins & out of the spacecraft to get more baseline data." But we should be doing this later, rather than sooner.
I think that the "spinoffs from NASA/space science" are few because we haven't been doing it as much as we need to over the last forty years.
"The number of publications multiplied by the impact factors" is a false metric, and the budgets based on those metrics are self-fulfilling prophecies. Prejudicial perversion is the name of the game.
One of the reasons that, in these discussions, "people go haring off in all directions" is because of the inherent inability of a strict interpretation of the scientific method to acknowledge or create higher purposes. It cannot be argued but that the payoffs are largely indirect, and that the choice to follow a path of scientific endeavor is ultimately and always a choice.
The universe is not scientific. Science is an activity of arbitrary choice that some higher organisms here on Earth elect to do. It's an insoluble Gordian knot to find purpose in the activity by scientific methods. It's indirect proof that intelligence exists copletely outside of science.
Nobody is compelled to believe the above.
-
#175
by
jimgagnon
on 20 Jan, 2010 17:16
-
I'll ask this question again (and as often as necessary), since no one seems to offer an answer that doesn't boil down to sociopolitical gobbledegook. How do you quantify the value of the "scientic return" from a space mission? Until you can do that, you can't actually determine the cost coefficient for manned vs. unmanned space exploration. Therefore, the entire discussion is political, and it's content is utterly irrelevant.
My personal opinion is, without an intent to send a manned mission at some point in the future, unmanned space exploration has a value of zero. Which is, indeed, sociopolitical. I know of no scientific or economic argument that justifies any space activity whatsoever much beyond GEO. By contrast, I can muster any number of sociopolitical arguments for both manned and unmanned space exploration.
To refute your point that an unmanned space exploration to a place we have no intention of visiting has a value of zero, you need to examine the value of science. I'll defer to Richard Feynman on the subject:
http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/vladi/phys216/Feynman.htmlFeynman notes:
1) It is that scientific knowledge enables us to do all kinds of things and to make all kinds of things.
2) Another value of science is the fun called intellectual enjoyment which some people get from reading and learning and thinking about it, and which others get from working in it.
3) [paraphrased] The third value is a little less direct. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty - some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don't know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question - to doubt - to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained. Herein lies a responsibility to society.
So, in terms of unmanned exploration of space:
1) Each of the planets and moons in our solar system offer science a test crucible for our theories on how and why Earth is the way it is. Born of the same weave, these places operate by the same physical laws that govern our own existence, and thus offer the perfect test cases for our models of our own home world. Given mankind's ability to affect the planet as a whole, the understanding gained by fine honing these models cannot be underestimated.
2) Of course planetary scientists enjoy the thrill of discovery and understanding, but with care this excitement can be shared with the public at large. Look a the Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity. By applying some simply anthropomorphic principles (stereoscopic cameras close to average human head height), JPL allowed the rover experience to seem familiar and thus easily accessible to the public at large.
3) Outer space is the ultimate uncertainty. Allowed to curl up on our cozy little planet here, it would be easy for humanity to forget that. Confirmation of how dramatically strange and exotic virtually any destination in space is pulls the public perception from the ground and to the sky, away from the mundane to whatever greater purpose lets you get out of bed. Some find the red sands of Mars compelling; for others, it's the notion of methane showers and sand dunes of ice; and some find excitement in the wispy magnetic vapors that fill interstellar space.
Some day we may visit all these places, though most remain centuries in our future. However, the wonder can begin today, and through robotic explorers we can begin to open our eyes to the grand vista surrounding us.
-
#176
by
robertross
on 20 Jan, 2010 18:00
-
It still doesn't answer Bill's original question of 'quantifying' it, as in a 'dollar figure'. That is why I used my beaseball game reference. How do you quantify 'pleasure' or 'entertainment', because there is a component factor in spaceflight which cannot be measured (the wow factor), and it is significantly greater for manned spaceflight than unmanned, and it depends on the roles.
Hubble gave us incredible wow factor for an unmanned telescope, and that is a case where you don't need the telescope to be tended.
You launch a mission to an asteroid, I certainly agree you could get results from an unmanned probe, compared to a manned mission, but for a cost comparison you need to include sample return for it to start being comparable. But then what is the cost 'benefit' to humanity for the knowledge gained from what is in a sample. If it were diamonds, or nickle, or iron, it would be a factor in future mining exploits, but that would be years in the future.
And a good analogy there is the total cost of the space shuttle: from design, to fabrication, to testing, to operations, to each and every flight. Those costs divided by the number of flights is a quantifyable number; you only need to know where to assign those costs in terms of $$/kg to orbit, or wow factor per launch, to local retail revenues per launch, to all the spin-offs attached to it (airline flights, meals, local benefits, technology learned)...it's mind boggling.
-
#177
by
Robotbeat
on 20 Jan, 2010 18:20
-
I really LOVE exploration, manned or unmanned. The Cassini-Huygens mission, you guys! What staggering beauty! And, SO MANY WORLDS!!!
See Enceladus hanging there like a marble in front of Saturn's rings, its wrinkles evidence of liquid underneath its surface!
The spectacular eclipse of Saturn!
And, TITAN!!!
While manned missions stir interest in unmanned missions, for myself, the inverse is JUST as true!
While we may not have planned on visiting Ceres for a while, observations from Hubble have made us start thinking about it.
-
#178
by
jimgagnon
on 20 Jan, 2010 18:25
-
It still doesn't answer Bill's original question of 'quantifying' it, as in a 'dollar figure'. That is why I used my beaseball game reference. How do you quantify 'pleasure' or 'entertainment', because there is a component factor in spaceflight which cannot be measured (the wow factor), and it is significantly greater for manned spaceflight than unmanned, and it depends on the roles.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that pure science is impossible to value: some of it is negative in cost (takes resources that could have gone elsewhere) to so valuable it transcends notions of money. It would be like trying to determine the value of the research that led to the transistor or the laser: theoretically, you can add the sum of all products that use them, but you would still be missing some of the value these devices give our modern lives.
Unmanned space exploration is in the same boat. Your mention of Hubble is an excellent one: here is an unmanned device exploring places that men most likely will never set foot on. Does that make Hubble worthless then? To say that is to say all science is worthless and that we should retreat to the same mindset Europe had in the dark ages.
Some things transcend money. Knowledge of the universe surrounding us is one of those things. The relatively small amount of money NASA spends each year on unmanned exploration is a bargain compared to the benefits it offers society.
-
#179
by
Robotbeat
on 20 Jan, 2010 18:30
-
It still doesn't answer Bill's original question of 'quantifying' it, as in a 'dollar figure'. That is why I used my beaseball game reference. How do you quantify 'pleasure' or 'entertainment', because there is a component factor in spaceflight which cannot be measured (the wow factor), and it is significantly greater for manned spaceflight than unmanned, and it depends on the roles.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that pure science is impossible to value: some of it is negative in cost (takes resources that could have gone elsewhere) to so valuable it transcends notions of money. It would be like trying to determine the value of the research that led to the transistor or the laser: theoretically, you can add the sum of all products that use them, but you would still be missing some of the value these devices give our modern lives.
Unmanned space exploration is in the same boat. Your mention of Hubble is an excellent one: here is an unmanned device exploring places that men most likely will never set foot on. Does that make Hubble worthless then? To say that is to say all science is worthless and that we should retreat to the same mindset Europe had in the dark ages.
Some things transcend money. Knowledge of the universe surrounding us is one of those things. The relatively small amount of money NASA spends each year on unmanned exploration is a bargain compared to the benefits it offers society.
Some of the mindset of the Dark Ages wasn't so bad. The cathedrals were amazing. If we had that same sustained commitment of time, money, and lives today, colonization would be cake.