The end of the Space Age

[gbaikie]

Space isn't normally considered when most people think of the future or at least speak about the future.
I find this to be quite amazing.
Here is The Economist latest story:
The end of the Space Age
http://www.economist.com/node/18897425?Story_ID=18897425
The concluding remarks:
"The future, then, looks bounded by that new outer limit of planet Earth, the geostationary orbit. Within it, the buzz of activity will continue to grow and fill the vacuum. This part of space will be tamed by humanity, as the species has tamed so many wildernesses in the past. Outside it, though, the vacuum will remain empty. There may be occasional forays, just as men sometimes leave their huddled research bases in Antarctica to scuttle briefly across the ice cap before returning, for warmth, food and company, to base. But humanity’s dreams of a future beyond that final frontier have, largely, faded."

And interesting presentation regarding Global warming:


Other than mentioning potential future technology nothing about space.

Why is space not in your future. Or I guess more accurately why isn't in your future?
I can't imagine a future without space being a very significant aspect of it.
The reason is because getting into space is too expensive.
That is your entire reason.
It's a stupid reason.
Now if you instead said the reason was due to politics- as in a failure of politics. That would be less stupid.
At least it's assigning the correct thing to blame.
Though what is actually meant by a failure of politics, is unclear.
I say it's less stupid, because it's at least pointing in the correct direction.
It's wrong to assume that politicians will or can solve the problem, which generally considered the "solution" if the problem is a failure of politics.

Generally people don't regard politics as what politics actually is- which is it's what people decide they want- but it instead regarded as something politicians would do. Or something politicians somehow make people decide they want.
When in fact politicians never actually cause people to do anything, never make people decide what they want. The idea that politician actually do this is a grand fiction. Similar to the idea that news reporters are objective. Nice idea, perhaps, but it's fiction/fantasy.
They are selling you stuff, but they aren't making you want something.

Anyways, the people who know anything about space will say the reason we aren't in space is because getting into space is too expensive.
Which is farcical, and they say it with straight face.
The same thing was said about flying- maybe a hobby for the rich. Same thing said about computers- maybe three will be needed in the world.

Obviously reason space is too expensive is because there is a shortage of market in space.
It's always the reason things are too expensive.
In fact everyone knows [and actually dreads] that market left on their own, will "recklessly" drive down prices. It's why government is meddling in markets and the "modern economy"- that supposedly is how modern government are "saving us".
It might be a secret, but it's in plain sight and few economist could argue. Though they may call it price fluctuation. If prices get too low, then prices zoom up. Whatever- it's more politically correct to say you worry about prices being too high rather than too low.
But deflation is the terror.
The main reason why we are taxed more than any people in the history of the world, is to check deflationary tendency of free markets.

So we are living in the time where we overflowing in wealth, government taxing us like crazy [saying they really want to tax is the rich- but the normal Joe buys the oil, and all other products which are taxed, so that's a  scam, to play against the envious nature of people].
There appears to be a sucker born every minute.

We got this idea that getting into space is too expensive. And this said at same time that the private sector are supporting a massive and evil government. What is it, they costing us? 4 trillion dollar a year? And getting to space is somehow too expensive.
Just astonishing.

[Longhorn John]

All very confusing, from the thread title, to the post, but why are you giving attention to idiots?

[Mark Max Q]

I have no idea what this post is about, just seems to be randomness to mask the posting of a right wing anti global warming conspiracy video to be posted, as that video, while brilliant, has nothing to do with space or the subject of the title.

Very strange.

[gbaikie]

All very confusing, from the thread title, to the post, but why are you giving attention to idiots?

My point is it's common perception, that 99.99% of this solar system [and universe] isn't thought of as being in the future.

It seems general notion that we are going to remain on Earth for next +100 years. And also seems that if space is ever entertained as notion- humans are going to other star system. So we are star traveling or staying on Earth those seem to be the options. And those options could classified as reality vs fantasy.

It seems to me that 21 century is going to be mostly about things human do in this solar system.

I thought the economist article was pretty good compared to most news articles. I would say it's wrong, but it fairly informed- relatively speaking.
At least the article acknowledged the value of the satellite market.

[gbaikie]

I have no idea what this post is about, just seems to be randomness to mask the posting of a right wing anti global warming conspiracy video to be posted, as that video, while brilliant, has nothing to do with space or the subject of the title.

Very strange.

That fact that video didn't mention space was exactly my point.
It just example, of the no mention of space.

Space isn't normally considered. It's not relevant to nation policy.
People can even say we in the space age- and still nothing.
It's staggering how badly NASA has promoted space.

[Mark Max Q]

Ok, thanks for explaining

[Political Hack Wannabe]

Because we failed to deliver after Apollo.  That is the single number one reason.  People expected us to be a lot further along, and since we aren't there yet, people no longer take spaceflight seriously. 

The fundamental problem is the space community in general, and NASA in particular, did not realize that it was still far too much at the mercy of larger forces. 

[gbaikie]

Because we failed to deliver after Apollo.  That is the single number one reason.  People expected us to be a lot further along, and since we aren't there yet, people no longer take spaceflight seriously. 

The fundamental problem is the space community in general, and NASA in particular, did not realize that it was still far too much at the mercy of larger forces. 

It's interesting point.
I would say it this way, after Apollo, NASA [and space supporters] could have capitalize on the success of Apollo. But there were a number of things which were preventing this and nearly making it impossible.
Main things being the Vietnam war and the broader Cold War.

If we didn't have the Cold War, we would not have gone to the Moon- not before 1970 [and whenever we went to the Moon, it might been more sustainable].
By which I mean if Cold War ended in say 1960 we wouldn't have went to the moon so quickly. If we had never had a Cold War - then it's complicated and we have we endless arguments about could haves and would haves:)

[Orbiter]

Carl Sagan if he where alive would be shaking his head at the very thought of the end of the Space Age.

Orbiter

[Political Hack Wannabe]

Carl Sagan if he where alive would be shaking his head at the very thought of the end of the Space Age.

Orbiter

That assume Sagan would accept the notion that the space age is ending, when its (IMHO) starting to get exciting.

[alexterrell]

I know The Economist has been negative about manned space flight as long as I can remember, but this tops the bill - and leading article to.

http://www.economist.com/node/18897425

If there right, then there's not much need for NASA. Or Falcon Heavy.

(not sure if this is the right section - it's live opinion)

[KelvinZero]

I really don't see anything to this article. It is extremely lightweight in its argument.

The writer would have to present an argument that the NASA budget is going to be truely gutted. They presented no such argument.

Besides (and revealing the space cadet in me) unless robotics, recycling and alternate energy go out of fashion we will always be stepping towards the ability to live and work outside earth's biosphere.

[aquarius]

This article is already being discussed here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25755.0

[Space Pete]

I can't even begin to tell you how incorrect this "article" (which is really just the opinion of some so-called reporter who clearly doesn't have a clue what they're talking about) is.

Shoddily researched, even more shoddily written.

[Rocket Science]

Well I would rather see 100 billion dollars being spent for peaceful purposes by the partner nations (less than what the U.S. is spending in 1 year in Afghanistan) Advancing space technology and materials for earth bound products. The fact that it helped employ former soviet scientists in peaceful pursuits in itself was worth the cost for the highly industrialized nation involved with ISS. What magazines like “The Economist” fail to realize is that there is “no money” spent in space, it is all spent here on the “good-old Earth” creating new consumer items, scientific and medical advancements,  generating work and feeding families.
Regards
Robert

[aquanaut99]

I can't even begin to tell you how incorrect this "article" (which is really just the opinion of some so-called reporter who clearly doesn't have a clue what they're talking about) is.

Shoddily researched, even more shoddily written.

The article is not incorrect at all, it is depressingly accurate.

Accurate in the sense that this is exactly what the majority of the people who really count believe.

Remember, us "space cadets" represent only a small minority...

[Chris Bergin]

Merged the two threads which have decided to pimp this op-ed bollocks (which is even shorter than my latest processing flow update article - and I bet this fella was paid about $5K for it) into this single thread

[hektor]

The main concern when you read that is that it is not entirely untrue. From what I can see, this is a prevailing opinion in Europe, for instance, and that's why I think that the human spaceflight activities in Europe could well end with the ISS.

The other concern is that a lot of people whose opinion and decisions matter read The Economist.

[Space Pete]

The article is not incorrect at all, it is depressingly accurate.

Accurate in the sense that this is exactly what the majority of the people who really count believe.

Remember, us "space cadets" represent only a small minority...

Well, all I can say to that is that it's not accurate in my eye. The article hasn't captured any of the energy that is going around right now for commercial crew and BEO exploration. Rather, it makes out that no-one is pursuing crewed space exploration anymore - which is just completely untrue, since more people are pursuing it now than ever before.

If by "the people who really count" you mean politicians - well, I think there are a significant number of them who would also disagree with this article (Sens Nelson, Hutchison, Shelby et al). Also, don't discount the admittedly small group of "space cadets" - small groups can make a big difference. I'm sure the Wright Brothers were told similar things by "most people".

And as for the statement that ISS is a waste of money, I suggest the author actually does some research and sees all the important and essential research/tech demos that are being planned up there. And Rocket Science - I agree with your post, too.

The problem is that far too many important people read this kind of unresearched, opinionated rubbish, and thus have completely misinformed views on human spaceflight.

[A_M_Swallow]

No.  This is not the end of the Space Age.  NASA is simply getting a new car (spacecraft).  People are always buying new cars.

The new spacecraft is the latest design - a drone - it can fly to the ISS without having a pilot inside.

For this to be a viable story:
a. the Dragon or Cygnus has to birth with the ISS in 2011.
b. have a NASA sticker on the capsule.