SPACE IS GOOD

I am a long time supporter of NASA and space travel generally.  I think it's time we gave slightly different, more specific names to these enterprises.  I also want to explain why planetary travel and colonization are worthy goals.  That requires me to delve into economics.

New Names

Why should we call travel beyond our planet "space travel"?  That's a really spacey description,  and probably a turn off for many people.  It's time for more specific descriptions,  based on what's going on.  People who go to Europe or Japan or China say "I went to China,"  "We visited Kyoto" or  "I toured Europe."

It's isn't just space out there,  even if all those places and methods of transportation are generically extra-terrestrial.  In four decades, we've become far more familiar with the territory to say it's only space.  The same sort of language problem must have occurred to early travelers to the Western Hemisphere.  Just where was it Columbus was going?  To the EAST Indies,  of course,  but he found the unnamed WEST.  It took awhile before Amerigo Vespucci's name got stuck to whole continents.  What's all the more amazing is we call a portion of the Northern Hemisphere "America," which is farther than Vespuccci ever went,  and qualify the name as "South America" where he did venture.  Once a place gets a name,  it seems more ordinary and accessible,  but the name that sticks may be neither.

In our transition to greater familiarity,  and commonly agreed naming,  we are going to make mistakes and apply misnomers.  Should the near-Earth zone be called "Glenn" or "Right Stuff" after fmr Sen John Glenn?  But, what about the Soviet Cosmonauts - e.g., Yuri Gagarin - who, after all,  were the very first.  Or, is it like Columbus,  who has cities named in his honor,  and even a holiday stuck in the American calendar,  but is otherwise without territory?  Worse,  when we think about "Hail Columbia," we have a woman in mind.  Was Columbus secretly a transvestite?

I don't have all the answers for these perplexities.  I do have a few small suggestions.  To start with,  I am going to try to refer to these missions and adventures outside Earth more specifically;  not just the generic "space travel."  In fact, I am going to try to avoid the word "space" in this context.  Thus,  my first suggestion:  we need to rename NASA,  to be no longer the "NATIONAL AERONAUTICS & SPACE ADMINISTRATION."

I think we can drop the "national" in the name,  since it adds nothing.  There are many "national" governments,  but we know NASA is an agency of the United States government.  The new name should be more specific, and may include "US ...", or just "..." leaving the "US" implied.

I also think the "aeronautics" label no longer represents a primary mission,  although NASA does some research on airplanes and air travel.  Maybe all of the aeronautics unrelated to rocketry should be transferred to the FAA or other civilian and military agencies.  NASA is not primarily concerned with atmospheric flight,  except for Martian landing vehicles.  Most of the bodies of travel interest in our Solar System don't need an aerodynamic design.

Next,  NASA is not just an "administration."  It is very much a huge, active group like the Pentagon or HHS.  It is not intended as a regulator, like the FDA or EPA.  I prefer thinking of it as a 'SERVICE',  as in "armed services" and "human and health services."   So, I would end the whatever name with "SERVICES."  Compounded,  so far we have "[US] ... SERVICES."

What then is the key descriptor,  the infamous ellipsis "..."?  Certainly not "space," white-space or even "rocket."  My outrageous,  and far-sighted, proposal is "SOLAR SYSTEM;"  thus,  "SOLAR SYSTEM SERVICES" or "US SOLAR SYSTEM SERVICES."  Because,  folks,  that is where we are headed, and that includes the whole she-bang.  It should work for at least 100 years; after that, maybe, there's the stars to consider.

By the way, it cannot be "Planetary Services,"  because the acronym USPS is unavailable,  and that name confuses the target of the agency's operations.

What does this renaming to "US SSS" or "US3S" or "USS³" or maybe "US⁴" imply?  Obviously, such a name suggests re-orientation to a larger goal including many territories.  Mars, Venus and Mercury become sub-agencies of US⁴, not just unrelated projects.  There are other ways to group things, but that will fall out from a changed concept and altered priorities.  Maybe unmanned missions should come under general headings, such as "Early Exploration," "Research and Development," or "Inter-Planetary Monitoring."

In my scheme of things,  the issues and goals concerning exploring and colonizing other planets cannot be ignored.  The name says what it is all about.  So, my favorite is US⁴, UNITED STATES SOLAR SYSTEM  SERVICES.  Think of it as a latter day British East India Company,  without the Raj.

Once we get this little matter straightened out,  then rest should fall in place.  People will get used to 'I'm on a trip to US⁴ Hermes II' or 'I moved to Asteroid Belt A, Orbit 399-93 #2'.

I know a lot of you already want to buy me a one-way to Mars' North Plains City.  What the hell, why not;  that just shows how quickly a little language changes how you think about things.

A Larger Economy

The United States has had the world's largest markets and economy for the half century following World War II.  It has been the most powerful State,  and so far defeated or contained all who challenged it. That status is likely to end within the lifetime of most of us.

China's economy is already huge,  because of its population.  In 15-20 years,  China's economy will probably surpass that of the United States.  After that,  the Indian economy will eventually surpass the United States.  Within a half century,  the United States will become to China as the European nations have been to the US,  at worst a satellite, at best an annoying latter day Gaullist State.  (Yes, sooner or later, Americans will once again recognize the virtues of la France,  and the incredible example of Charles de Gaulle.)

This has much to do with Solar System Services.  In time,  the United States won't have the resources to compete with the future major powers on the Moon, Mars or elsewhere.  Just as the Europeans have played second fiddle to the US in extra-terrestrial matters,  so the US will be relegated to supporting the dominant powers.  It is worth considering that France's is the European space program;  one result of de Gaulle's fierce determination to achieve glory for la France.

What's at work is the Founder Effect, a rule of thumb that has made many Californians rich merely for buying a piece of real estate.  Whoever gets there "firstest with the mostest" has a large claim on the future,  just in case anyone else wants a piece of that action.  Of course,  being the first to control the cockroach market won't get you much,  but being the first to own a slice of Los Angeles works wonders.  Essentially,  the Founder Effect implies a pyramid scheme.  It works because many human doings are pyramid schemes;  e.g.,  having children.

For those of you who believe non-terrestrial property is worthless,  then there's no point in putting a dime into Moon property,  or making a claim on Mars.  If, on the other hand, such skepticism is misguided,  and there is value out there, on the frontiers, the sooner claims are made, the better.

It is exactly because properties in the asteroid belt, and on the Moon and Mars, are going to be extremely valuable,  that the United States should lay claim now.  The Chinese are already going for it,  and hope to be first.  If they succeed,  it will be really difficult for the United States to get "a piece of the action" once they're there.  However unseemly, it is a replay of the White Man's rush to acquire colonies during the Victorian era.  The latter-day revenge would be Chinese people get the best planets first.

So, hypothetically,  if you believe there is a future out there,  that it is worth sending people to the frontier,  then the sooner we do it, the better.  But, is there a future there?

Let's clear up one objection frequently made against us "space-nuts."  The opponents say we can't move that many people into the great elsewhere.  It is just not feasible to support many people out there.  So, the other planets won't matter, because they are largely inhabitable and will never be otherwise.  You can't make a living there.

Well, that is misconceived and wrong.  Frontiers become populated by the reproduction of people,  not the movement of people.  Maybe a million or two pioneers moved to the American West over a period of several decades. The rest of the western population - maybe 100 million or so - is the result of sex, pregnancy, birth and growth to adult age.  Keep in mind the exponential power of reproduction:  if the population doubles every generation,  2 people become 128 in just 7 generations (2⁷).

In fact, California's population quadrupled since I arrived here just over 40 years ago,  making the doubling time about 20 years - right on generational target.  It's been a little more than 7 generations since the 49er Gold Rush days,  so maybe the generation time is a little more than 20 years.  What California's growth shows is that most of its people are native born,  not immigrants,  and that a favorable spot will permit considerable population growth.

Frontiers are not settled by the many,  but by the few.  In most cases, to live there, the pioneers have to solve new problems.  In the Southwest, for example,  life does not last long without water,  and water is extremely scarce.  The early settlers found water where others did not look,  and also built huge water works and invented conservation (environmentalism).  All the generations since depend on that water,  and most inherited an outlook unique to the American West.

If other parts of our Solar System are at all habitable,  colonization and growth will probably follow the same pattern.  A few pioneers will go there first.  Some will survive,  and their survivors will grow.  In the process, new ideas and new economies will of necessity be developed.  Eventually,  the new transcends the old.  So it was with Europe and America,  and then with the American East and the West.  So it will be with the Solar System,  or so I believe.

Earth won't be depopulated by growth elsewhere.  On the contrary,  initially, it is more likely to benefit from that growth.  Lots of people will have jobs in the solar system trade,  both on Earth and elsewhere.  In the long run,  most of those jobs will be elsewhere.  The Earthly States that benefit the most will be those that got there "firstest with the mostest." Or at least, that has been the pattern of modern times,  and most times before that.

The question is, which Earthly States will benefit from the Founder Effect?

   Living There

Turning to the basic contention of those against "space travel,"  that it is a huge,  nearly endless, money pit without reward,  I contend otherwise.

The initial voyages of Christopher Columbus were expensive.  Aside from the exciting news of a NEW WORLD,  no profits were made for a long time.  Even Cortes' Conquest of Mexico did not make the Spanish crown much richer after expenses.  It was Pizarro's robbery of Incan Peru that made a big difference for Spain, for  a while.  Later it was the steady trade in slaves, sugar, rum and tobacco that created great fortunes.

It was a generation after Columbus before a pattern developed in the exploration and expropriation of America.  The New World did not become truly profitable and interesting for about 100 years.  At first,  it was the extraction of gold and silver, and later sugar and other resources, that mattered.  Unlike the Spanish,  the Dutch, English and French provided colonists who meant to develop the continent for fun, profit and, sometimes, their own freedom.  These colonists did not come so much to exploit the native assets, then return home rich, but to build their own worlds.  The permanent colonies which have become the modern nations of the New World arose from settlers who had no intention of returning to their native lands.

We have not arrived at that stage, yet,  even though there are thousands willing to stake their lives on colonization efforts on Mars - including myself.  (I am an old man with very little to lose,  but I have wanted this all my life.)  It is not for want of volunteers that we have not returned to the Moon, spent a night or two on Mars,  or prospected on asteroids.  It is only the disinterest, provinciality and penny-pinching of our citizens and government that prevent people from going.

So, in the matter of solar system colonization,  we are way ahead of early modern Europe.  We are prepared to make a financial go of it,  because we have people who are willing to live there.  The question is how long would Earthlings have to support those colonies before they become self-supporting?  (And, bearing in mind that as soon as those colonies are self-supporting, they are likely to insist upon their political freedom.)

Can anyone survive there?  Clearly, yes,  as we have people in Earth orbit all the time.  Can they support themselves?  I think so.  There is no shortage of the basic materials of life among the asteroids,  and on other moons and planets.  There is water, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen,  as well as the minerals and trace constituents of all Earthly beings.  I do not doubt for a second that primitive Earthly critters - bacteria, algae and lichens - can be transplanted to the Moon, Mars and probably elsewhere.  In due time,  those "lowly" creatures found everywhere on Earth,  can make another Earth almost anywhere.  Terra-forming is something Terrans do.

We need not wait hundreds or thousands of years for results.  It is perfectly feasible to grow plants in greenhouses built in appropriate solar orbits.  All of the materials to build and sustain those greenhouses,  save the first seeds and seedlings, are available from extra-terrestrial sources.  It might take 10 or 20 years to develop the resources,  but it can be done.

I'm an optimist and a proponent about the humanized solar system,  so I think the cost of building unearthly habitats will be less than most suppose.  I think resources obtained locally (in space) will be probably be far cheaper than those imported from Earth.  For example, ore-processing plants can be located near the power source, Sol, where the huge amounts of energy they require are essentially FREE.  Moreover,  we won't have to worry anywhere near as much about toxic waste and environmental degradation.  Unusable wastes can be dumped into the Sun.  Unlike Earth, the main cost of making iron, aluminum, chromium, manganese, nickel and many other metals and alloys will be transportation,  not production.

Solar system transport costs will be reduced dramatically after we get past our crude chemical rockets.  While chemical rockets are unlikely to be replaced in liftoff vehicles, they are bulky and inefficient once the transport is freed of gravity and air.  Advanced systems, such as ion propulsion, are being tested today - mostly by the Russians - which will work far better in space than our present vehicles.  When we spend more time on the frontier,  what is economic and what isn't will quickly become apparent.

The most obvious efficiency is this:  it is far easier and cheaper to dump steel on Earth than ship it the other way.  Gravity is the earth-bound rust-belt nightmare,  because Earthlings just cannot get rid of it.  Physics works in favor of those out there,  freed from Earthly confines.

Right now, I wouldn't live long in orbit or on Mars, alone in my self-contained space suit.  I need you until that better day when I, or my descendants, can be self-supporting in the great elsewhere.  After that,  you will need us.

That day will come.

December 28, 2003

Last update: 11/13/2007

© Copyright California Expert Software 2007

All rights reserved.