What Motivates Those of Us Here?

[JohnHunt]

I'll admit it. Dialoguing about the future of space development is a lot of fun. I would do it even if I expect to die before seeing these ideas come true. I routinely post because I really enjoy talking about these things and seeing what ideas y'all have as well. Very stimulating.

But for me it's much more than just for the fun of it. I have a real sense of urgency and a drive to figure out what approaches are most likely to work.

So, what's motivating me? Why am I driven to see something happen soon?

I believe that by mid-century, humanity will be facing existential threats of its own making (self-replicating chemicals, biotech, nanotech, and accelerating AI). Every month that goes by I read about progress towards these risks. And virtually no one and nothing is slowing this progress. To me, it's inevitable that we'll be facing these things. Extraordinary power in the hands of too many graduate students.

Defensive mechanisms (nanoshield, AI shield, bioshield, etc) will work no better than anti-virus software because only one successful ecophage is all it takes. Trying to control everyone is impossible. A contained demonstration will help shock people into taking serious action. But it will only buy us some time.

The only practical solution, as I see it, is an off-Earth, self-sustaining colony established as fast as possible. That's why I write. That's why I adamantly seek answers for technical parts of the plan as best as I can understand it. That's why I e-mail people smarter and with more authority than I to see if they will be willing to do something.

But I feel pretty alone. Very few people take existential threats seriously even after careful explanation. Generally what people say motivates them are either highly altruistic or highly selfish -- to bring mankind together, to usher humanity to the stars, to keep America #1, to have unlimited resources, etc.

None of that will happen if we all die first.

So am I crazy, a prophet, ???

How about you. How much do you care about what we're doing here. What motivates you?

[joertexas]

How about you. How much do you care about what we're doing here. What motivates you?

I simply want the human race to move on. Between natural disasters, oppressive governments, environmental issues, and all the rest, I'd as soon take my toys and move elsewhere.

JR

[moonus111]

I dealt with feeling alone on the subject for years... about 10 years now. It was dejecting, to see so much wasted when humanity could be so much more. To watch, listen, and occasionally mention the solution only to get no response worth remembering. It got so bad that I stopped paying attention, and tried to push it out of my head. I told myself in many a drunken stupor: "Forget it the ship of fools will sink." I didn't even know about the Constellation Project until 2007... pretty damn late. The rejection of the concept was to much to even keep up on events.

Last year A month went by where I met 3 individuals who had heard about it. They grasped the subject, but were not staunch advocates, they just thought it was an idea with some merit. It awoke the dream laid dormant in my soul. The possibility of others knowing and understanding, it was like the breath of life. Something I believed in but had shut out due to others viewing it impractical was now possible. I looked into it and found out that the idea is on the cusp of main-stream acceptance, just begging to come in from the dark.

[JohnHunt]

Why we do this or that space mission can make a huge difference as to which ones we do and how we do it. I would like to suggest that a formal list be established (starting here) with terms for each category

A great example of how this could be useful is to deduce what are the motivations/purposes/goals for the Obama plan for going to an asteroid. I would say that the motivations are #1 - Glory and distant second is Science. Loosing motivations are Development and Survival. Although he fails to mention this, the consequences of his choice of motivations are that it will likely fail to open up commercial development of asteroids and hence miss the opportunity to provide cheap fuel for beyond-LEO work.

Here are my suggested list of motivations. Can you add/modify this list?

Glory - National pride, for the greatness of humanity, doing what hasn't been done before. manifest destiny

Discovery / Science - Understanding of the history of the solar system, understanding planetary history, search for exobiology, etc

Basic Development - Establishing infrastructure beneficial to future activities.

Commercial - Exploitation of space resources for profit

Colonization - Establishment of manned bases towards a permanent presence in space

Survival - Ensuring the off-Earth survival of humanity

[moonus111]

This is a great idea. I've thought about generating a list similar to this. It can help in the persuasive aspects of the plan to take man into space. I'll add a few.

Gaia Theory/Hypothesis: The only gap in the Gaia theory is that the "earth" has not reproduced, look up chippro on youtube.

Life (links with Gaia): Belief that if man takes to the stars he must take life with him, and thus it would save life itself.

Environmental: Space Power Satellites have the potential to solve the Greenhouse problem

Technological: A presence in space can spur technological research and thus improve our lives. There are many scientific projects that are not being perused due to lack of resources, and some that cannot be done on earth only in space.

Energy: Power Sats alone trumps all other known/proven energy sources.

Economic Short Term/ Jobs: The traditional method to solve economic woes is for the government to finance giant engineering projects, a plan to colonize the moon and implement space solar sats could/would do just this

Economic Mid Term/ Poverty: The amount of energy that Power Sats are capable of can provide enough energy to make it feasible to have no 3rd world.

Economic Long Term/ Historical: Massive amounts of cheap energy and new resources combined with a population valve can give a multi-thousand year boost to the economic hardships that exist today in the same way America was an economic boon for hundreds of years.

Anti-Globalization/ Anti-Tower of Babel: This is both an agnostic and religious argument that mankind cannot be united under one banner, space has the potential to make this permanent.

Politics: There is no political party that stands to lose if plans are implemented

Demagogues: For thousands of years we've been hearing that the world is going to end, how about putting a pie in their face and telling them to shut it.


-"Maybe the day the world ends is the day we stop thinking of it as the world and start thinking of it as the universe"
-Logan Knox

yes u can quote me on that one.

[Rhyshaelkan]

Nice list of motivations guys. I have nothing at this time to add. Some are quite new to me.

[JohnHunt]

Moonus111, Thanks for the thoughtful and detailed response.

I now recognize that there are major categories and subcategories. In order to create a simplified system, I'll clump several motivations together as best as I can.

To my original 6, I would add:

ENVIRONMENTAL - This would include energy (such as SPS & He-3) providing off-Earth resources so that we can stop exploiting Earth, and space-based environmental observation of the Earth.

EDUCATION - This common argument is that, we (America) need the space program (especially the manned space program) to inspire our children to pursue careers in science, engineering, and math.

---------

I'm going to change the COMMERCIAL heading to the broad category of ECONOMIC as you suggest.

ECONOMIC - Includes exploitation of space resources for economic benefit (this would include power and material), communication satellites, and secondary spin-offs (e.g. velcro, microwave ovens, etc)

---------

I would include Gaia, Life, Anti-globalization, Demagogues, & Politics under GLORY / DESTINY including Unity which is proposed to be a purpose for the space program (especially manned space, e.g. the ISS & a Mars landing)

---------

So, here's the current list ordered (in my opinion) starting with the most commonly used arguments (for manned space):

1) GLORY / DESTINY
2) SCIENCE / DISCOVERY
3) EDUCATION
4) ECONOMIC
5) DEVELOPMENT / STEPPING STONES
6) COLONIZATION / EXPANSION
7) ENVIRONMENTAL
8) SURVIVAL

A way to remember this is to remember your DDEE DEE's.

[moonus111]

there are some that bridge categories like the Gaia Theory stuff that chippro puts out on youtube.

[asteroid-wildcat]

Folks - I copied this from another post because I thought it was improtant to the thread...

Sam – as if I’m not getting enough sleep already and you put out a link to the Maslow Window.

The what?

This is very interesting stuff. My first Google search leads me here:

http://www.habitationintention.com/2009/06/spc-7-maslow-windows.html

It then leads me here:

http://21stcenturywaves.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/2006frq.pdf

Sam - Thanks for the post. I think I know now what is driving me better.

For me - It is almost like a need, a desire, an itch, a nagging pain, or deep rooted factor of my being to move into space.

I'm going to post this in another bucket on the forum too.

[Phenix]

I did find a video from David Brin SciFi author and astrophysicist and he does explain my motivation on what are the reasons to use Asteroids as the first step for dawning the Space Industry/Economy :

http://scienceblips.dailyradar.com/video/space-exploration-part-1-planning-our-next-steps-in/

[moonus111]

As it stands, for those of us already motivated about space resources there are 3 defined groups

Reds = mars advocates (there don't seem to be any on this forum)
Whites = Moon (seems to be the majority on this forum)
Blues = Asteroids (we have a healthy mix of them)

I have to ask the question: is moon=white, asteroid=blue the correct lexicon?

Moon & Asteroid camps have very similar arguments. In-situ resources, low/no gravity well, easily obtained, etc. I propose we have an alliance between these two camps, or is that what we are?

Anyways, I stumbled upon another justification for space resource utilization:

The Moral Case

There exists a plan/conspiracy/group, whatever it is it's not well defined. The concept is to take humanity back to about 500 million people and have us live in a bucolic lifestyle.

The means to this end are horrifically left out, but I think the imagination can clearly spell out that they cannot be anything good. While it is a noble cause to reduce mother earths strain wars, genocide, human rights/reproduction rights violations, and whatever other means are in no way morally justifiable when there is an alternative available.

[Rhyshaelkan]

I see space as one big resource to exploit. But do it logically. Crawl before you walk, walk before you run. With the discovery of hydrogen on Luna, it now becomes a fuel station for us to break out into the solar system and beyond.

Luna is also a constant distance from Earth, unlike asteroids and Mars. Getting that insurance policy on humanity's survival is more easily done on Luna. Again with the discovery of substantial hydrogen, most likely in the form of water-ice, even early colonization gets a nod toward Luna.

By no means am I trying to alienate the asteroids or Mars. The asteroids will have precious materials to make many astro-construction projects feasible. Mars will also be a nice place for colonization. Step by step.

In personal preference. Much like someone wanting to live in Minnesota rather than Texas. I would rather live on Luna. But if an organization can sell habitation on Mars to more people? Who am I to argue.

If we wanted to have pretensions, we could always say Luna was silver ;)

Red = Mars

Silver = Luna

Black or blue = asteroids

[joertexas]

I see space as one big resource to exploit. But do it logically. Crawl before you walk, walk before you run. With the discovery of hydrogen on Luna, it now becomes a fuel station for us to break out into the solar system and beyond.

Luna is also a constant distance from Earth, unlike asteroids and Mars. Getting that insurance policy on humanity's survival is more easily done on Luna. Again with the discovery of substantial hydrogen, most likely in the form of water-ice, even early colonization gets a nod toward Luna.

By no means am I trying to alienate the asteroids or Mars. The asteroids will have precious materials to make many astro-construction projects feasible. Mars will also be a nice place for colonization. Step by step.

In personal preference. Much like someone wanting to live in Minnesota rather than Texas. I would rather live on Luna. But if an organization can sell habitation on Mars to more people? Who am I to argue.

If we wanted to have pretensions, we could always say Luna was silver ;)

Red = Mars

Silver = Luna

Black or blue = asteroids


Given a choice, I'd as soon live in a space habitat, preferably with a nice view of Saturn :)

JR

[Rhyshaelkan]

Better than a view of UrAnus. :P

[moonus111]

I cannot lie, if the plan happened today I'd be set for the jovian moons.... everybody has their love.

[Sam Fraser]

Poor Uranus, the *cough* butt of so many space jokes. Me, I want to see all the planets in my lifetime. I have a major yearn to explore.

[JohnHunt]

> Moon & Asteroid camps have very similar arguments. In-situ resources, low/no gravity well, easily obtained, etc. I propose we have an alliance between these two camps, or is that what we are?

Good point, but no, I think that these two camps should remain separate. They each have unique arguments which may beat the other and it is relevant to which we do first.

Moon = always close and therefore can initially be developed by telerobotics. Also safer regarding exposure to radiation in transit and emergency manned return.

Asteroids = Doesn't require the development, cost, and risk of a lander/ascender. Access to large quantities of volatiles. May be more profitable in the short run?

[prometheuspan]

I'm motivated, perversely, by the simple fact that i am sure i know how warp drive and other lower tech space gadgets work.

Its seems like the biblical parable of the talents (not that I'm normally biblical or christian, mind you..)

Why would i know that kind of thing if it wasn't supposed to ...you know? get used?

[moonus111]

i am sure i know how warp drive and other lower tech space gadgets work.

ah, but

we must learn to ...
crawl before we can walk
walk before we can sail
sail before we can fly
(some people skip a lesson personally, but humanity as a whole doesn't skip)

We had to master sailing the Mediterranean before we mastered sailing the open Atlantic. We mastered sailing all oceans before we could learn to fly, and after we mastered flying we took to space.

We must master sailing earth-moon space before we sail interplanetary space, then we will learn to warp... maybe, hopefully, god it will be a shame if we don't.

BUT if you're talking about VASIMR that thing is awesome! It's like learning to fly before you can walk!!!

[Sam Fraser]

Yes, the Pilgrims didn't wait until jumbo jets were invented before they came to America. We can start developing the moon and near-Earth space now. There's no need to wait for warp drive, space elevators, etc. It's fun to speculate about that kind of stuff, but the NT in PERMANENT stands for Near Term. The main point of PERMANENT is we must spread into space before we develop nanotech and biotech to the point it can wipe out life on Earth.

[prometheuspan]

yes, i do understand that. yes, its good that you keep that in mind as constants.

Yes, i am interested in the very practical and very near term.

Specifically for me that means magnetic ram rockets with multiple engine systems to deliver a space plane to high orbit, launch probes to land on asteroids, and then a second wave to launch probes to deliver construction robots to asteroids.

And Airship To orbit habitat modules with internal centripetally generated pseudo gravity.

:)

[Sam Fraser]

Specifically for me that means magnetic ram rockets with multiple engine systems to deliver a space plane to high orbit

Nope (http://www.permanent.com/ep-cheap.htm). PERMANENT is only interested in current launch systems: commercial US and Russian launchers and maybe Arianespace. [Tens of] Billions to develop a dramatically cheaper launch system in 10 years like your magnetic ram rocket with space plane can instead be used to start developing the moon now. And the first phase hardly needs billions: a dedicated lunar orbiter and some lunar rovers to survey the water ice deposits at the north pole could be done for $100m or less.

The research has been done, systems studied and even prototypes built for most aspects of lunar ISRU. It's now just a case of cherrypicking the best ideas and actually doing it.

[Rhyshaelkan]

P rojects to E mploy R esources of the M oon and A steroids N ear E arth in the N ear T erm

If you are confused about what we are trying to do, I suggest you read Mark Prado's webpage, you can find a link in my sig. Rock on! We can do it!

[prometheuspan]

I'm not at all confused. I have been lurking for a few years.

I know exactly what you are about and exactly how i fit into it.

I also know the basic game play for different ways of going about it.

Which brings us back to reality; which is that its cheaper, more accessible, and by far saner to capture asteroids first and do the moon after.

The confusion that seems to exist still is whether or not you guys can rise to the occasion to warrant my interest and participation HERE.

I'm still waiting for anybody to link me to design process, design threads, or start a design conversation.

[joertexas]

I'm not at all confused. I have been lurking for a few years.

I know exactly what you are about and exactly how i fit into it.

I also know the basic game play for different ways of going about it.

Which brings us back to reality; which is that its cheaper, more accessible, and by far saner to capture asteroids first and do the moon after.

The confusion that seems to exist still is whether or not you guys can rise to the occasion to warrant my interest and participation HERE.

I'm still waiting for anybody to link me to design process, design threads, or start a design conversation.

I started posting here with my own ideas about how to mine an asteroid.

According to my research, an asteroid mission would require more fuel than could be economically boosted from the ground to LEO. So, I am now focused on a mission to provide that fuel from lunar resources as a stepping stone to the asteroids. All of my posts are still here on the site, and I've even posted the link to Jaqar's website for the relevant orbit calculations software I used to derive the mission profiles.

If you can show how a survivable - and profitable - asteroid mining mission can be flown in a reasonably safe manner with existing technology, then I'm all ears.

In the meantime, I am still working on a lunar robotic mission to explore the area around Hinshelwood Crater for the water ice the LRO insists is there in mass quantities. If you want to help, let me know.

JR

[Ommas]

[QUOTE=Here are my suggested list of motivations. Can you add/modify this list?

Glory - National pride, for the greatness of humanity, doing what hasn't been done before. manifest destiny

Discovery / Science - Understanding of the history of the solar system, understanding planetary history, search for exobiology, etc

Basic Development - Establishing infrastructure beneficial to future activities.

Commercial - Exploitation of space resources for profit

Colonization - Establishment of manned bases towards a permanent presence in space

Survival - Ensuring the off-Earth survival of humanity[/QUOTE]

Entertainment vs bordom

Feasibility

Vacation

Prize and Awards

[Mark Prado]

Let me try to reword the previously suggested list of motivations, since in my analysis there was some redundancy in the previous list as regards "motivations", it could be boiled down to some more fundamental values and interests, and some items could be grouped together:

-=-=-=-=-=-

Survival, humanistic - Ensuring the off-Earth survival of humanity in case we make our species extinct within the biosphere, e.g., a supervirus (space colonization) -- selfless

Survival, personal - of ourselves or our children or descendants, getting onto the arc (selfish personal motivation, not selfless humanistic motivation) -- selfish

Make money - Exploitation of space resources for private sector profit, or government contractor lobbying for tax payer money, or x-prize like awards, usually selfish but also selfless wise for sustainability

Discovery / Science / Curiosity - Understanding of the history of the solar system, understanding planetary history, search for exobiology - selfless

Challenge - seeking engineering solutions to new and different technical challenges -- can be selfless scientific pursuit, or selfish pride at personal accomplishment and grandstanding

Entertainment vs boredom, space tourism, space condos -- selfish

National pride (group identity) -- selfish groupthink or selfless ideology

Military superiority or hegemony or competitiveness by a nation or alliance -- selfish group benefits or selfless group ideology

-=-=-=-=-=-

Please feel free to critique, add or edit.

See also http://www.forumlog.com/nanobiotechnologyspace/showthread.php?p=3163#post3163

[sgeos]

Please feel free to critique, add or edit.
My main critique is that I do not believe that people perform "selfless" acts. I think that the distinction is arbitrary. Seeming selfless can have any number of hidden agendas. Fame, prestige, a place in the history books, or simply the psychic satisfaction of doing something "good". (A certain kind of person will do unproductive or even outright horrible things if they believe such actions are the "right" thing to do.)

Survival is selfish, but higher survival rate is good for everyone. Industry is selfish, although the end result is higher standards of living for everyone. Learning and discovery are selfish- they don't help anyone else until they are applied. Science is just a fancy name for a certain type of learning and discovery.

Flipping burgers could be classed as selfless. People are fed hot food right away for a buck. Clearly anyone who would rather be pursuing esoteric science that is not immediately useful is selfish and unproductive. I do not actually believe that, but I do not think that it is any less arbitrary.

Ideology can be productive or destructive. It is usually both. The most effective "selfish" ideology involves everyone on the bottom giving to the people on the top. The trick is getting those people to think supporting the people on top is a good thing.

In any case, I think the space is will be here relatively soon, and I think it will be a good place to be. If it does not roll around soon enough for me to participate on site, I'd like to give my descendants all tools to pursue such an opportunity if that is what they want to do. I think that will be a good place for them to be. =)