Why The Netroots Should Care About Space Policy

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 15:45


One of the four panels I am on at Netroots Nation focuses on developing a progressive space policy (it is today at 3:00 p.m. central time). On this panel, I have been specifically tasked with explaining why the netroots should care about space policy. Now, personally I think the netroots is geeky enough that many of us already do care about space policy, at least in so much as how it relates to the shaky alliance between the rebel cylons and the humans.

Still, since I am never one to turn down an easy task, in the extended entry I offer three reasons why the progressive movement should take space policy seriously.

Chris Bowers :: Why The Netroots Should Care About Space Policy
Three good reasons to care about space policy:

  1. Space is already part of our national infrastructure. As wonderful and amazing as they were, the Apollo moon missions also had a negative side effect on the image of the space program. The space program was viewed as amazing--wow, we can send people to the moon!--but also entirely unproductive (wow! There is really nothing to do on the moon!). This is unfortunate, because there are many, far less visible ways in which the space program is directly connected to our national infrastructure. Five months ago, a commenter at Matthew Yglesias's blog presented this case succinctly and clearly:

    But apart from reliable weather forecasts, perfect navigation, cheap worldwide phone services, search and rescue, environmental imaging, forest fire monitoring, arms reduction verification, sixty-channel television, discovering the origin of the Earth and Moon, and vastly increasing our knowledge of the solar system and the rest of the Universe, what has space travel ever done for us?

    If you worry about bridges collapsing or leeves breaking, you should also worry about maintaining the many important parts of our national infrastructure that are in outer space. The space program is essential to our telecommunications infrastructure, our transportation infrastructure, our educational infrastructure, our diplomatic infrastructure, and our meteorological infrastructure. The space program is no more useless pork than our highway system is useless pork. In all likelihood, everyone reading or hearing this will interact with space-based infrastructure on at least three different occasions today. Maintaining and improving the space program is part of maintaining and improving all areas of our national infrastructure.

  2. Cheap, Bloodless National Glory: A February 2007 Gallup poll asked Americans to rate the best President of the United States of all time. The top six presidents, according to the poll were, in chronological, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. With the exceptions of JFK and Clinton, the other four Presidents were best known for winning one of the four major American military conflicts: the war of independence (Washington), the civil war (Lincoln), world war two (FDR), and the cold war (Reagan). Clinton certainly made the list because he is the most recent President who didn't suck. Kennedy, by contrast, largely made the list because of his achievement with the space program, specifically for jumpstarting the drive to put a man on the moon.

    Other than winning wars, the space program is the only other proven means to achieve a national consensus on greatness in America. Now, as progressives, the choice between achieving national glory through war, or achieving through space, isn't even a choice. Hell, given the vast difference in the amount of blood and money at stake in each, it really shouldn't even be a choice for Americans of any political persuasion. If we can become the first nation to develop a permanent moon base, or travel to Mars, or discover life on an extra-solar planet, or construct a cheap-space travel superstructure such as a space fountain or a space elevator, as a nation we will have achieved a milestone in human history equal to that achieved by any other nation in history. And, with the space program, we can do that sort of thing for only about 0.2%-0.3% of our national economy, not to mention virtually no casualties, civilian, military or otherwise.

  3. Space Is Progressive. One of the main reasons that I prefer the term progressive to the term conservative is that it draws a direct contrast: conservatives look to the past, while progressives look to the future. Conservatives view the ideal of society as existing in a past golden age, while progressives view the ideal society as never having existed, but being a future state toward which we are working. The space program, by its very nature, is a part of the progressive ideological and cultural ethos.

    By pushing the limits of human understanding on our place in the galaxy, the pace program is inherently progressive. Answering fundamental questions such as the origin of the universe through the WMAP satellite, or determining whether we are alone in the universe through new exoplant discovery telescopes, the space program helps to answer fundamental questions of humanity in non-dogmatic, reality-based ways.

    By pushing the limits of human engineering capability, the space program is also progressive.

    By creating an increased sense of connectedness, such as the important ways in which the first pictures of the entire Earth from outer space helped launch the environmental movement, the space program is progressive.

    And, if none of these reasons convince you that the space program is fundamentally progressive and connected to the expansion of humanity,  keep in mind that if progressives don't care about space policy, then conservatives will destroy outer space in much the same ways they are destroying Earth. Excessive militarization and corporatization is just as possible in outer space as it is on our home planet.

I know I need to flesh out the last bullet point a bit more, but hopefully you found this enjoyable and convincing anyway.

Update: I fleshed out point three during the panel. The idea is that the space program, properly developed, can turn into a progressive feedback loop in terms of increasing environmental awareness, increased education funding and student interest, and also in terms of an increased sense of global interconnectedness.


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Space the unlimited frontier (4.00 / 2)
Why is space progressive

1.  Technology...space drives technology.  Zero G factories can make stuff we can only dream of.  It is better than the military driving technology.

2.  Survival...the according to many TED speakers, an planet killing asteroid hitting the earth is long overdue.  We missed one by 4 hours in 1989.

3.  Unity...from what i hear, when you look down on our blue ball of life from up there, you don't see countries, or nations, or ethnic groups, you only see our mother!

ty!
mlk


I especially like #3 (0.00 / 0)
Space exploration gives us an opportunity to remember we're all humans, despite borders and tribal tendencies.  To truely capitalize on this, progressive policy should encourage international cooperation and frame space missions as human endevours.  

Unfortunately, space has often been used to prove nationalistic superiority rather than foster a collective atmosphere.  To change this, progressives should advocate more project in the mold of the International Space Station and less of Regan's Star Wars.  


[ Parent ]
as an avid sci-fi reader (0.00 / 0)
I can't help but pin hopes on the space program-- it's advances in the name of general science especially.

Politically speaking, I think the US is ready to ditch the anti-science neaderthalism of the creationist right, but I think there are a lot of people, dems included, who put the space program under "classic wasteful govt spending".

See http://www.gilscottheron.com/l... for a classic take.

Your most compelling argument to me is the last one-- if progressives don't take charge on space, the military will continue to expand and dominate, turning what should be a scientific program into another sector of the military-industrial complex. And since we all know the military has been infiltrated by Cylons, that spells doom.  


Good arguments (0.00 / 0)
Another reminder--all of the moeny for the space program is spent on earth.  True, some of the goods and services go into space, but the money all goes to enhance the earth's economy; it isn't blasted off into space.  And the knowledge is useful hee too.  May come in handy to understand and cope with global climate change.

Space also is an outlet for humans' restlessness.  Better space than going to war against other peoples to get more room here on earth.

Cheney is big on militarizing space.  'nuff said.

And I'd love to find there was intelligent life in the universe somewhere.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
Works for me (0.00 / 0)

 That said, while I certainly agree that we should keep a foothold on progress in space, I'd rather not do it at the expense of more pressing human needs here on this planet.

 Of course, given global warming trends, it might be prudent to fast-track the search for potential future homes...

 Oh, this bit cracked me up:

 

The space program was viewed as amazing--wow, we can send people to the moon!--but also entirely unproductive (wow! There is really nothing to do on the moon!).

  Well I thought it was funny...

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


Me too. (0.00 / 0)
Typical short attention span, dislike of B&W.  

Look at all the delight the Mars rovers have brought, at least to some of us.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
The mistake you're making is that (0.00 / 0)
space can't help us solve our problems, and thats not true - consider the impact that space solar power would have, or the economic growth that can be had from the space economy.  

If you want to solve problems here on earth, you should be all for more human spaceflight


[ Parent ]
Sadly... (4.00 / 1)
The pro-space contingent has for too long been dominated by libertarians.  I believe this is because NASA has done an awful job overall (in large part due to not being well-funded for the past 25 years or so), so the idea that anyone, including a for-profit corporation, could do a better job.  

Sadly, this really misunderstands how exploration and colonization actually worked historically, as in most cases there was substantial to total state support, and decades of investments before the ventures turned a profit - if they ever turned a profit.  Space technology is simply too new to expect any modern capitalist business which worries about quarterly profits to invest in.  

Oh, and I might offer a fourth reason, building off your number two: Space offers a "dignified climbdown" for the military- industrial complex.  Imagine we decreased the military budget by 15%, but put the savings, dollar for dollar, into space travel.  As the same large contractors build space systems as defense systems, there would be no reason for the industry to oppose such a shifting of funds - a shift which would be far more likely to eventually reap rewards to the average citizen.  


The space program has always been militarized --- (4.00 / 3)
the evidence is there for anyone who looks.  Many of the shuttle missions were military-only, and were launched into  polar orbits, enabling them to cross directly over the USSR every orbit.  There are scholars and peace groups like the one headed by Bruce Gagnon who specialize in trying to educate the public about the continuing militarization of space.

If the U.S. government was really intent on the peaceful extension of humanity into the deeps they would publicize and speed up the necessary materials development to build the space elevator, which would lift material into orbit at a tiny fraction of the cost of sticking payloads on top of chemical rockets.

The real drawback to the space elevator is that it has to be built near the equator, and thus outside US territory, an international project.  Uncle Sam and the Pentagon want no part of that, so the most intelligent and cost effective way to lift lots of material into space will probably never happen.

Additionally many weapons programs like Reagan's "star wars" were sold to the public under false pretenses.  It is now evident that the Patriot missile, enabling US land forces to operate on the Eurasian continent despite medium range ballistic missiles in the hands of the Chinese, Iranians, or whoever, was the intended outcome of "star wars" all along.

So when we are uncritical supporters of the "space program" without being sure that we are opposing military uses of space, we are missing the real deal here.  It's not like our government, especially the Pentagon and its contractors and hirelings feel obligated to tell us the truth.  We are obliged to look for it, to face it squarely and to act on it.

"If you want that good feeling that comes from doing things for other people, then you have to pay for it in abuse and misunderstanding..."
Zora Neale Hurston


Uh, no (0.00 / 0)
the shuttle missions have only had a few military missions, and the military lost all interest after Challenger.  

Specifically, to you're claim of polar orbits - The shuttle has only ever flown out of the Cape, in Florida - launching out of the Cape, you can't do polar orbits, because there is a real danger to people on the ground, in Miami.  

Up until the arrival of Bush (which I would be very hesitant) the military has, by and large, operated in space without NASA.  


[ Parent ]
Great post. (0.00 / 0)
I'm an avid reader of the Smithsonian and some of the things mentioned in that particular magazine provide for additional points.

For instance, the sites of previous lunar landings are now archaeological treasures.  Currently, private companies are working to fill the void left by neglectful government policies.  If action isn't taken soon, precious pieces of our history could well be destroyed.

Also, as far out as it may sound, this Earth isn't going to be around forever.  While he have a tremendously long time to think about that, and there are countless things that could happen in the meantime, the survival of the human race (as Stephen Hawking once stated) may well depend on our ability to live on other planets in the future.  That sounds unbelievable, but then again, so did walking on the moon at one point.

Check out Blue Arkansas:
http://bluearkansas.blogspot.com/


One of the biggest benefits of the (0.00 / 0)
space program was American leadership in computer technology.

I am always amazed this link is not drawn.  The Space program required more computing power in a compact place, and as a result greatly accelerated the development of the components that would eventually show up in personal computers.

I have first hand knowledge of this.

There can be no doubt that Personal Computers would not have appeared as early as they did if the space program had not required portable computers.  


We need to be involved and interested so we can mold & steer it (4.00 / 2)
My impression is that much of the 60's space missions were university-based - that is, lots of graduate students were trained by working on one aspect or another of the different probes or manned launches.  This had a very positive impact on education in this nation.  

Lately, I believe that more of the $$ have flowed to defense contractors.  Not such a positive impact.

We need to steer the space program so that it becomes a development program for our future talent, not a welfare program for defense contractor while they're waiting for the next bomber contract.

BTW and on that note - anyone see the controversy about Ares/Orion/Constellation, the next space vehicle which is supposed to get us back to the moon?  Some of the NASA engineers are drawing up a competing plan on their own time; they say that NASA's design is flawed.

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength; McCain/Palin 2008


link... (0.00 / 0)
http://imechanica.org/node/3517

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength; McCain/Palin 2008

[ Parent ]
Kennedy Is 50 Years Behind the Times (0.00 / 0)
Al Gore just gave a speech this past week in which he said that over the next ten years the USA's energy needs should come from 100% renewable energy.  That's today's challenge.  Kennedy gave his speech challenging America over 50 years ago now.  The primary purpose of that challenge--to ensure that America exceeded the Soviet Union in missile prowess and the prestige that results from it--is a dead issue.  

If I were President, I would shift all of NASA's budget to research dedicated to reduce global warming, except for those resources needed to finish space projects that have already been started.  If there are space projects that are related to the reduction of global warming, great.  Otherwise, finish the projects started to date and divert the savings to meet Al Gore's challenge issued earlier this week.  

Not only are there greater priorities at this point in history, but this simply isn't a progressive issue.  The initial impetus for the space race goes all the way back to rocket development in WW II.  Rockets were developed to drop bombs on people.  Bigger rockets were developed to drop bigger bombs on people.  Intercontinental ballistic missiles were developed to drop hydrogen bombs on people.  Finally, the accuracy of these weapons improved until we could hit the pepperoni on Alexander Putin's pizza slice with a ICBM carrying a nuclear warhead.  All developments brought to you by the USA's space program.  

The space program has always been part of the military industrial complex.  It's the technological leading edge of the military industrial complex.  America's technology is controlled by export regulations.  The most tightly controlled technology is that used for military weapons and space systems.  Your government understands the close ties between the space program and our military industrial complex.  You seem to have overlooked it.  

Finally, your list of glorious Presidents, based on a poll, is useless.  The people that were polled agreed on a majority basis that George Bush II should be elected to serve as President, twice!  They have no business telling us who America's greatest Presidents are.  They are horrible voters and they don't know crap about American history.  That is why the list heavily favors recent Presidents, who have all ranged from mediocre (Clinton & Bush I) to downright horrible (Bush II, Reagan, and Nixon).  Yet, today's voter finds two of the top five American presidents on this list.  
Any well-informed progressive would tell you that Reagan was one of the top five worst Presidents in American history.  In addition, it was Harry Truman that established the basic elements of American foreign policy that ultimately helped to lead to the downfall of the Soviet Union.  Truman's successors tweaked his foreign policy regarding nukes and the Soviets, but not one, including Reagan, made a significant change to it.  By giving Americans a pass on Reagan is a great president, you are at least partially buying into the Grover Norquist's argument that we should put Reagan on the dime.

Finally, anything to do with space requires resources to be concentrated into private corporations that sell the government customized, unique technology, at very expensive prices.  It's the same economic model that supports the military industrial complex.  There is very little that is progressive about the economic sector that supports all this technology.

Now, I've probably read nearly a thousand posts by Chris Bowers and this is your only post that has sent me off on a rant like this one.  You're incredibly talented at analysis and persuasion.  The downside of having these talents is that you can create arguments that sell any position.  I believe in this case, you started with an end, which is space exploration is cool.  It is cool!  But then you sought to justify it politically and created arguments to meet that end.  That's not cool.  

I was lucky enough to attend some of Howard Zinn's lectures on political philosophy and history and the one thing that Zinn tried to get across is that ends do not justify the means.  He taught that the means become the reality.  They exist long enough and they become the end.  At the end of the day, all we have are means.  They form our reality.  I know that you know this is true, but in this case, I believe you may have let your enthusiasm for the cool factor for space exploration (the end) pollute your analysis on the politics required to get there (the means).  

Full disclosure: I too am a Star Trek fan.  
 

Saxby Chambliss, worse than disgraceful; he's reprehensible.  


Re: (0.00 / 0)
If you care about renewable energy, and the earth, you should care about space.  Space development helps us - for example, perhaps one of the best ways to deal with the issue of clean energy is Space Solar Power.  As space development gets further along, more and more green jobs are being created.

Concerning your claim about rocket development - actually, the rockets that are used for space travel (liquid rockets, by and large) were first built by Robert Goddard, prior to World War 2, as a means to explore the upper atmosphere.  It is true they got substantially developed and expanded during WW2, primarily as weapon (and actually, there is some horrible history related to the holocaust with WW2 rocketry), but its also true that many advances in medicine came out of WW2, but we don't turn our backs on this because it helps save lives, and improves humanity.  Similar, space development, which will need rockets, should continue because it helps society.  BTW, you forgot a few other things that space has helped to produce, which can be read at Ethical atheist.

Finally, anything to do with space requires resources to be concentrated into private corporations that sell the government customized, unique technology, at very expensive prices.  It's the same economic model that supports the military industrial complex.  There is very little that is progressive about the economic sector that supports all this technology.

It is this paragraph that bothers me the most, however.  It is true that historically, that is how we've done spaceflight - with cost-plus contracts and the like.  But there is no fundamental reason for that to be the case.  In fact, there is a big push to change that, to make space accessible to the average person, and to open its resources to everyone.  Space can like many other industries, that doesn't require highly specialized customization.  We are seeing it, right now, with the rise of companies like SpaceX, Bigelow Aerospace, Armadillo Aerospace, XCOR, and others, that are NOT a part of the MIC, and don't want to be part of the MIC, but rather want to be part of developing, and colonizing space.  

Spaceflight, space exploration, space development, and space settlement are progressive.  


[ Parent ]
Thanks for Your Reply (0.00 / 0)
Your reply means that at least one person read my long rant.  I'm not arguing that we should never have invested in a space program or that there are no benefits from our investements into the space program.  There clearly are benefits. At this point in time, however, we need to redirect resources to tackling global warming.  If NASA can help on that front through space programs, great.  But when there is a planetary emergency on this planet, the costs of sending space craft to Mars to dig around the soil looking for microorganism do not appear to be worth it.

Saxby Chambliss, worse than disgraceful; he's reprehensible.  

[ Parent ]
gunnar, if you want to say that (0.00 / 0)
the climate crisis is the largest issue we are facing, I don't disagree.  

However, that wasn't the only thing you said, nor what I would argue your main point was - your main point was that spaceflight and the rest wasn't progressive.  And that, I would argue, is fundamentally wrong.  

I would also point out that, as much as we would like to imagine that we will focus solely on the climate crisis, the reality is that there are other interests that have to be considered, that are, I would argue, unrelated to the climate crisis - Consider Social security - we could pull all the money from that to pay for part of our transition from fossil fuels to renewables - should we be doing that as well?

But it was the argument of which you spent a large chunk of your time saying that space wasn't progressive, and it is.


[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search