Implementing the Space Option:
Elaboration & Dissemination of a New Rationale for Space

Part I: The Rationale
Marco C. Bernasconi & Arthur R. Woods*

Paper IAA.8.1-93-764 a & b presented at the
44th International Astronautical Congress, Graz, Austria. October 16-22

See also: Part 2: The Space Option

Abstract
During the last few years, space activities have entered a phase of strong decline. This paper presents an analysis of the causes for this lapse, and a plan for improving the status of the astronautical enterprise. It includes the results of the first implementation step, in the form of a comprehensive rationale for space. It is argued that the decline is linked to a divorce between space programs and national agendas, and that the Space Option – the use of the capabilities and resources of space to the fullest for providing to humanity what it needs to survive and prosper – is the most logical and only ethical justification for a continued, and expanded, space program.

 

1. Introduction

Events during the last few years have clearly shown that space activities have entered a phase of strong decline: the question to be asked is: Why? This paper presents an analysis of the current status of the astronautical enterprise and a plan for improving it. It furthermore includes the results of the first step in implementing that plan.

Krafft Ehricke, with the prescience that was part of his vision, repeatedly addressed the issue of the future of space development. At least as early as 1970, he stated: “While civilization is more than a high material living standard, it is nevertheless based on material abundance. It does not thrive on abject poverty or in an atmosphere of resignation and hopelessness. It needs vigour as well as vision. […] Therefore, the end objectives of solar system exploration are […] social objectives in the sense that they relate to, or are dictated by, present and future human needs.” (Ehricke, 1970). However, in the intervening years the astronautical community has largely ignored such basic advice. It is our conclusion – drawn after many years of observation and analysis of, as well as work in, the space field – that the current decline in space activities is directly correlated to this fact.

While several authors have recognized – to various degrees – the significance of the utilization of space resources for the future of humanity, only a few of them seem to have fully grasped the import of, and urgency for, what we have chosen to denominate “The Space Option”: possibly, its simplest definition being that of a program aimed at using space to the fullest for contributing to the solution of the problems confronting our civilization, i.e. in total compliance with the Ehricke’s recommendation.

The first step in implementing the Space Option must (a) boost the general level of support for space and (b) inform all possible audiences about the actuality of such program. The cornerstone of such strategy is to provide a comprehensive answer to the question: Why space? This was done by compiling and integrating a number of arguments formulated by many researchers. Four classes of arguments were found: the consideration of the proportion between Earth and the Universe, the inspirational drivers, the evolutionary perspectives for terrestrial and human life, the immediate utility of activities in space (to which the Space Option belongs).

Steps to follow are, e.g., the discussion of the economic feasibility of the Space Option, and of the cultural changes needed to reduce the costs of space operations.

Probably the most innovative aspect of our program is the recourse to an interdisciplinary framework for its implementation which, if it fits naturally with the philosophy of the initiative, it has never before been exploited to such a degree. The OURS Foundation has been established as a cultural and astronautical entity; its art projects can therefore be integrated with the Space Option program and their public attractiveness will provide a vehicle for the dissemination of the relevant facts.

The present reality in space development is reviewed in Section 2, where the fundamental steps to be taken on the road to recovery are also discussed. Since, given the generalized skepticism with which the astronautical endeavor is viewed, the first priority is acquire a high readiness in answering the still, too often, asked question of “Why space?” The central part of the paper presents a comprehensive summary of the arguments for space. Section 8 then, introduces the significance and the meaning of the Space Option — discussed in some more detail in a companion paper (part II).

 

2. A Crisis in Space Development

2.1 Analysis

Section 5 below relates some very basic arguments for the conclusion that human expansion into space ought to be unavoidable. The present reality – outcome of a twenty-year evolution – shows, however, that the astronautical development is essentially bogged down. A substantial fraction of the space community has come to agree that the world-wide situation points clearly to the fact that “long-term” space goals are no longer recognized by governments as something very important for their countries, and seem irrelevant in comparison to what are perceived as more urgent social and economic problems.

Many facts and observations can be listed to explicitly corroborate the statement above. For instance, the media display an utter lack of support and, more and more, an outright hostility for astronautical projects. Claims about future space operations are discounted in advance by ‘cunning’ references to “Challenger and Hubble”; on the other hand, claims about the uselessness of space research receive plump prominence as ‘newsworthy’ – no matter how thin their factual support. Clearly, such behavioral influences, then reflects and reinforces an unprecedented dose of public skepticism.

Or, the President of the United States makes a major, long-awaited declaration in favor of space exploration and development: four years later, nothing has happened and even NASA has buried any hope of implementation.
Or, the European governments finally manage to agree on a modest real development of their space capabilities and programs, in the own words of the then-ESA Director General, “to satisfy Europe’s own objectives, adapted to its own resources and [to its] role on the international scene.” Five years later, the program is in shambles – and almost daily notice is given that ‘the worst is yet to come’.

The astronautical community is pervaded by a feeling of uncertainty, which can only be reinforced by the current lack of direction: there is a sense that we are wading on our own steps, a sentiment that no real progress has occurred during the last 10-20 years, and the bleak expectation that even less will happen during the next period: fundamental missions, discussed since the very beginnings of astronautics, keep receding into the future (Figure 1). Wasn’t this supposed to be “humanity’s greatest adventure”?

Figure 1: Evolution of the predictions for the date of the first manned flight to Mars

Of course, there are some contingent causes for the present crisis: but they largely are just contributing factors. But, e.g., to point an accusing finger at the “greedy industrialists” would be at least as unfair as to accept as a natural law that “space is expensive”. Industry, agencies, the political bureaucracy and its decision-makers, scientists, the whole community must share responsibility for the ills that affect it. Removing the contingent causes (e.g., increasing program effectiveness) will not suffice to restore a true space program. Greater cultural change will be needed, changes addressing the real cause for the decline in space activities, i.e. the increased divorce between space programs and national agendas. With reference to the Ehricke’s quotation in the Introduction, the objectives of space exploration are no longer related to present and future human needs, but are rather set to satisfy the needs of insider, specialized agencies.

2.2 Cause for Optimism?

There are some self-styled ‘optimists’ who label the above analysis ‘catastrophist’, and remain confident that this is just another, passing, crisis. Better economic weather shall return, they further argue, and with it space development will be able to resume. The present doldrums will end, and in another 10-20 years space exploration will be renewed.

It is our opinion, based on more than thirty years of observation of the astronautical scene, that these are dangerous delusions. Some people at NASA have been lulled by such sirens for a quarter of century – but the good times have not come back. In Europe, the growth pattern during the last decade may give a wrong impression: that growth was not generate by a sincere and determined space policy, but simply by the enormous pent-up demand for a few mundane applications created by the enormous inactivity of the preceding twenty years. Nor is the absence of a real space policy a coincidence, but rather is due to the negligence in establishing a public support base. Current civilian space programs cater to the needs of a relatively small number of scientists and of a restricted circle of industrial companies: the society at large perceives the relevance of these projects for them as low: hence, astronautical efforts are increasingly seen as expendable. The minuteness of the national economy associated with astronautical work (less than 0.1% of the GNP), the lack of a political base, and the press of issues with a constituency, all suggest that space activities can be limited, reduced, or eliminated – without any substantial political retribution.

2.3 Which Way Up?

How can the space effort be reinvigorated? Recent history clearly shows that this will not occur by attempting to push though massive new exploration projects – no matter how attractive such plans may appear to their authors. Nor does this aim seem to be achievable by calling for the development of newer and cheaper transportation systems – no matter how correct might be the analyses behind such suggestions. Before we get even near such steps, simple questions like: “Spaceplanes, exploration, what for?” will have to be answered.
Therefore, to assure itself a future – and to the world the benefits of the exploitation of space – the astronautical community will have to take actions for:

• increasing the public understanding of, and the support for, an expanding set of space activities.
• showing that space development is indeed, directly, and substantially relevant for everybody’s future.
• obtaining a long-term commitment for the use of space toward such purposes.
• increasing the range of economic applications for space means, while
• increasing the effectiveness of space projects, e.g. through the adoption of the “lightsat philosophy” and other cultural changes.

The first point calls for the preparation and dissemination of an up-to-date, but also visionary, rationale for astronautics: this forms the core of the present paper.

The second point is strictly related to the Ehricke’s passage quoted in the Introduction. The consensus is even now growing that the space community has to engage in innovative thinking to identify its goals as relevant to the cultural, social, and economic needs of humanity. It could even be argued that such an approach will take seriously the perennial critics who have asked: “If it is possible to do … in space, then why don’t you solve … on Earth?” – and will allow us astronauts to verify how serious they are about solving Earth’s problems! For sure, there are currently enough problems to provide a rich content for a space program designed to address human needs, i.e. for a program that amounts to nothing less than moving to solve society’s problem through space activities! This, which we call the Space Option, is the highest-priority theme within the rationale, must become the subject of intensive discussion, study, and of a public education campaign: work which is begun in Part II of the present contribution.

 

3. Rationale for Astronautics

3.1. Why a Rationale?

Such a question might seem tautological, but is indeed a legitimate one, and can serve as an introduction to the whole discussion. As shown in the previous Section, reviewing, discussing, and disseminating a rationale for astronautics is not only of intrinsic significance: it is a first, mandatory step to reinvigorate our faltering movement toward space.

It is actually symptomatic of the gravity of the current situation that there exists, within the astronautical community itself, persons who express their doubts as to the existence of anything but a contingent dip in the space development curve, dictated by economic recession.

3.2. Why Space?

Astronautics has won full technical and scientific recognition: no one can today question the feasibility of space flight, or the validity of the achievements of space-based scientific systems. Only a very small fraction of the world population, however, seems to have recognized and accepted the rationale for activities in space. The question: “Why astronautics?” is still asked, explicitly or implicitly, even after thirty-six years of satellites, twenty-eight years of global communications systems, or twenty-one years after man’s (temporary) retreat from the Moon.

It is not that the burden of the proof ought to rest on those favoring astronautics: if the exploration of space is an activity only recently undertaken by our civilization, it is not a deviation from the track of the human evolution. A more appropriate question would indeed be: “How much for space?”, i.e., how large an effort ought we invest in space?

It is also not the case that discussions of the implications of, discourses on the justification for, or philosophical arguments about the astronautical endeavor have been excessively rare: from the pioneers onwards, numerous researchers – such as Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky, Hermann Oberth, Arthur C. Clarke, A. Val Cleaver, Wernher von Braun, Eugen Sänger and Krafft A. Ehricke – have contributed to the subject. Four major, complementary, categories of arguments are discussed in the next sections:

• the consideration of the proportions between the planet Earth and the rest of the Universe (or appropriate subsets thereof);
• the conventional arguments about the inspirational values of astronautics;
• the evolutionary perspective, with reference to both terrestrial life in general, and human history in particular;
• the direct and indirect utilitarian interest of space activities.

4. Considering the Universe

“Today the social and environmental frame of reference of nations and
mankind is still determined exclusively by the terrestrial scene.”
Krafft A. Ehricke, 1976

The progress of the astronomical sciences has constantly opened new horizons to the humanity’s culture, not only by the discovery of new celestial objects, but mainly by showing the real dimensions of the Universe. In recent times, astronautical techniques have contributed substantially to the cosmic research effort, to the point that science has been advanced as the primary reason for spaceflight. In reality, although astronautics and astronomy have a common origin in the human drive to explore and to penetrate the mysteries of the heavens, this is not the case. The scientific research aimed at the basic understanding of the Universe is but one, if important, argument for space activities; the simple reflection on the dimensions of the Universe provides another, at least as powerful, theme in support of a real astronautical endeavor

While most people do acknowledge – at least on an intellectual level – that the Universe is extremely large, they implicitly assume that the relevance of this same Universe for the human affairs is nil. Even the much smaller group which recognizes in some way the significance of human activities in space, tends to consider it to be very near to Earth, as a kind of ‘extended atmosphere’. As a consequence even this group attributes a very low relevance to astronautics, estimating this factor as a sort of product of current activities multiplied by the (perceived) availability of financial and material resources.

In truth, if we consider any sort of proportion between our planet and the Universe, or more modestly the inner Solar System, or even just geolunar space, it must become apparent that Earth is but a very small fragment of reality and that the astronautical technology, even the current one, opens a new arena of huge potential to human activities. For instance, the sphere centered on Earth with a 1.5-million km radius (the distance to the second Lagrange point of the Earth-Sun system) offers, e.g., 13 million times the whole volume of the Earth, and 30,000 times the amount of solar power available on Earth.

If astronomy opens new horizons to the humanity’s culture, then astronautics is necessary to make the environments within those horizons operative for the human prosperity and happiness. But for many – too many! – people space remains an irrelevant fragment of the ‘real world’: this condition applies to the general public, to politicians, to economic leaders, to environmentalists, and to cultural actors; only for scientists and military leaders is this perception tempered by the detail that this ‘fragment’ is seen as their ‘private playground’.
By considering the Universe, its size, age, and properties, one is led to wonder about the uniqueness of Earth’s life and human intelligence. Fermi’s question: “Where are they?” has then to be taken seriously, because its implications are not only philosophical, but also sociological. In any case, none of the possible answers is without impact on our future.

In conclusion, if one considers the Universe, there is no reason to question the need and the relevance of astronautics. Such a myopic attitude may be compared to that of a group of people, thrown by fate to live on a small isle, that argue against building a boat, one able to take the sea not only for fishing along the coast but also for reaching larger islands nearby, and that support their opposition by maintaining that such an endeavor is of secondary importance to the task of filling the cracks in their cabins’ walls with moss, to better keep out the coming winter wind.

 

5. The Inspirational Drive

“Fifty years of inspirational & visionary justifications of space flight produced nothing
more in America than Vanguard – and even that most reluctantly – in spite of material
wealth & an abundance of technological capability.”
Krafft A. Ehricke, 1970

5.1. Political prestige,  national security

Historically, public support for arts and sciences has mostly been motivated by prestige considerations, rather than by a true understanding of the social and economic value of such activities. The military has appeared as an early and quite sincere (if sometimes unruly) sponsor for scientific research, because of the particular relevance of new means in this field, where novel technologies are – literally – a life or death issue.

For these reasons, as well as for contingent historical ones, the first development of astronautical technology to receive government support did so for the stated purpose to ready new weapon systems. Then, in the struggle between democracy and totalitarianism, the parties supported the progress of civil space research and exploration with level of resources never before attained in prestige competitions among potentates.
If the issue of prominence of a political system has waned with the progress of space activities (one can achieve only some many “firsts”…), the personal vanity of the decision makers has continued to assure an outstanding role to political prestige among the drivers of astronautical progress. The publicly invoked reasons, however, move to the somewhat higher ground of supporting the development of advanced technology and the competitiveness of the national industry.

National security has remained a powerful driver throughout: under this heading, however, more general factors than strictly military space activities are addressed here, since those properly belong in the class of direct benefits. In the early years, strategic considerations such as, e.g., the “Panama Theory” (Cole, 1963) surely influenced both political thinking and pace of activity, until rendered moot by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty: indeed, it can be argued (see, e.g., Estrade, 1974) that the creation of the international space legislation – due as it was primarily to contingent political circumstances – has dealt one major blow to future astronautical development.

An element often mentioned as a reason for large-scale space activities is that of favoring international cooperation (e.g.: Michael, 1961; Michaud, 1973; Hazelrigg & Hymowitz, 1986): while it represents quite a sensible approach when used in the proper context (witness Western Europe and ESA), it is just as easily an abused argument – and it has been abused! In general terms, it can also be seen as contrasting with the above national security argument: furthermore, it must not be forgotten that international cooperation is not free, i.e. its realization is also associated with an additional financial burden, which can substantially reduce the effectiveness of the invested means (Bernasconi, 1993).

5.2 The scientific orientation and the classic inspirational themes

A classical theme has been the human interest for flight and for ascending into the heavenly realms, what Sänger (1963) has called “Longing for Heaven” (Himmelssehnsucht), in noting that “Humans of all races […] have inherited in similar ways […] the belief in a supernatural heaven, which may be reached as reward for good works on Earth”. He further observed that there is a close relationship, throughout many cultures “between the seat of the gods and the visible starry sky, and it seems beyond doubt that the mystical yearning for the sky of all human beings – expressed through the religions – and the longing for the corporeal ability to fly – identifiable back to the very limits of the human history – have a deep connection in human nature and bespeak common roots” (Sänger, 1963).

While this ‘longing for the sky’ originally is mystical in nature, it is not unreasonable to interpret the generalized fascination in a technological world for aerospace activities as the transformation of such a basic inclination.
Furthermore, astronautics is seen as a preferred avenue for satisfying the human ‘thirst for knowledge’, his fundamental curiosity, particularly directed at investigating its surroundings (for good evolutionary reasons), but also the Universe at large. Again, Sänger (1963) has argued that ‘thirst for knowledge’ and ‘longing for heaven’ “belong […] to just those fundamental human properties which differentiate our species essentially and definitely from all other animals”.

While scientific research properly speaking is a cultural activity and, as such, its discussion belongs to the class of astronautics’ direct benefits, it is fact that space has been, and remains, a most fascinating subject, indeed one of the few science-related subjects able to attract and retain the attention of, in particular, young people. As such, it can serve a useful purpose in stimulating interest for the study of scientific and technical disciplines, with obvious benefits for societies which depend on technology for their prosperity. It could further be argued that, given the importance of system considerations for the execution of a successful space project, an attitude to consider societal problems as parts of more extensive issues would be an additional, moral spin-off: unfortunately, this is not borne out in actual experience, and it rather seems that the persons who are attracted to become good system thinkers already possess such mental attitudes.

5.3. The “gee-whiz” factor and vicarious adventures

The above-mentioned fascination for all things astronautical is expressed as well through a simpler kind of appeal, the kind generally associated with, and used by, the advertising profession. It is difficult to believe, however, that such an approach can succeed in securing support for a mature astronautical program; rather, it would seem that, as Michael (1961) observed long ago, “for many people, space is simply a gimmick to sell […] products unrelated to” it.

In more recent years, it has been pointed to the possibility that space activities may receive public support based on their thrilling value as ‘vicarious adventures’, with the taxpayers sharing – in front of their TV sets – the experiences of the astronauts in space. The price tags would seem, however, somewhat excessive for such an argument to really carry weight: changing the label into ‘the ultimate reality show’ may better outline the pitfalls of such an approach, since such shows are particularly popular with networks because they are cheap. Also, the entertainment industry offers quite inexpensive vicarious TV adventures, and new media will soon allow the viewer to interact with the story, creating his or her own happy or catastrophic ending, without any verisimilitude worries.

5.4. Entertainment and, simply, hope

The above discussion may appear to express a somewhat negative mood: this is not to say that inspiration and entertainment are negative factors in the overall rationale for astronautics, if used with proper measure. It is indeed an often underestimated point that space activities, to gain proper public support, ought to have attractive and entertaining angles, too. Life cannot be only educational, inspirational, and utilitarian: at times, we all need to relax and just enjoy ourselves, as circumstances will allow. So, the space program, in its formulation, reporting, as well as some future utilization, ought to include an element of fun.

We also maintain that it ought to include an element of hope. Ours is a troubled age: “to be sure, all times are troubled (as some bland pundit is certain to say at this point), but none has ever been quite as troubled as ours is” (Asimov, 1969). What makes it particularly so, is the steady erosion of any remaining confidence in the future. In this respect, space activities must be directed at renewing hope: this may well be their best motivation and justification.

 

6. The Evolutionary Perspective

“The challenge of the great spaces between the worlds is a stupendous one, but if we fail to meet it, the story of our race will be drawing to its close. Humanity will have turned its back upon the still untrodden heights
and will be descending again the long slope that stretches, across a thousand million years of time,
down to the shores of the primeval sea.”
Arthur C. Clarke, 1968

The evolutionary perspective is based on the consideration of the history of life on Earth, including human life, and of its future.

Life originated in the shallows of the Earth’s oceans some three billion years ago, building on pre-biotic compounds synthesized by natural phenomena in the planet’s secondary, reducing atmosphere. It is the pre-eminent characteristic of life, to reproduce and proliferate, given acceptably favorable environmental conditions. This leads to the need for adaptation, either to follow environmental changes or to occupy new ecological niches. The introduction of the photosynthetic process significantly altered the boundary conditions for life, enabling plants to thrive by directly accessing sunlight and inorganic materials, making it possible for animal life to prosper as a consequence. Ehricke (1976) has referred to such processes, which connect life with the primordial resources, as “umbilical metabolisms.” Thus, chemosynthesis — characteristic of the original life and of some contemporary bacterial species — and photosynthesis are the two umbilical metabolisms for current Earth life.

In most terrestrial organisms other than humans, evolution is strictly a genetic process. Culture provides an alternative to adapt or improve one species’ behavior: and human culture has by now developed extra-genetic means for the conservation and transmission of experience and knowledge, just as it has yielded exo-somatic organs to extend the reach, power, and ability of the human body (Georgescu-Roegen, 1980). The characteristic of human intelligence – to collect, analyze, organize, conserve, and transmit information used to perfect tools that increase his productivity and ease his life – is an evolutionary step comparable to the appearance of photosynthesis, and constitute a new umbilical metabolism (Ehricke, 1976). In this same fact lie the causes of the “megacrisis”, addressed in the following Section. The power of this evolutionary innovation seems to be endangering the environment which has generated it, just as photosynthesis actually changed Earth’s environment, substituting an oxidizing atmosphere for the reducing one, within which life had originated. Obviously, the human life form is not desirous to destroy the present-day Earth’s environment – nor is this necessary, since that same human culture has made accessible the space environment and the resources of space.

Often, it is stated that one characteristic of life is to expand, to occupy all suitable environments; actually, as the above summary of the history of life on Earth show, life has the power to modify some environments, to make them suitable. Thus, life originated in the ocean and ‘migrated’ to the land; then it even expanded into the lower atmosphere. It has been argued by several authors that life ‘wants’ to expand further, into extraterrestrial space, and is doing this through human intelligence and technology. In this sense, astronautics is an extension of the evolutionary means used by life to occupy our planet (Ehricke, 1957).

The hominid evolution can also be seen as a sequence of migrations (Finney & Jones, 1983). The very origin of the Australopithecus genus has often been associated with the change of environment from the forest to the savanna. Later, species of the genus Homo left Africa and expanded on the Eurasian continent. Homo sapiens, a terrestrial organism, in historical times acquired the technologies to master the sea, not only expanding to, and colonizing, then-uninhabited lands (the Polynesian experience), but also finally acquiring conscience of the global nature of his reach (the European Age of Exploration). The next human migration, the next evolutionary step shall be from Earth into space (Haas, 1965; Finney & Jones, 1983).

The last theme of the evolutionary perspective is the issue of long-term survival. A number of cosmic threats to the survival of humanity – and of Earth life in general – can be identified (Wood, 1979; Sheffield, 1988); the last, and otherwise unavoidable, one is the expansion of the Sun into its red giant phase, which is expected to make the inner planets unsuitable for life. Spaceflight can be seen as a “cosmic insurance” to protect against, alleviate, or allow recovery from such natural catastrophes; in the long term, only astronautics can provide for the survival of terrestrial life (Wood, 1979; Wood & Wood, 1980).

 

7. The Utilitarian Approach

“The choice is the Universe – or nothing.”
H.G. Wells
(Quoted by Arthur C. Clarke, 1968)

7.1 The Imminent Crisis

On a less fundamental level, the pragmatic consideration of the utility of astronautics is not neglected. During the last thirty years, a number of global crises have been identified, leading some authors to use the expression ‘megacrisis’ to characterize the complex of issues confronting humanity and its future (Stine, 1974). These issues include:

• food shortages and famines
• overpopulation
• the growth of pollution
• the energy crisis
• ecological imbalances
• depletion of natural resources.

Generally, the outcome of the megacrisis is seen in the alternative of either catastrophe or a future of “decreasing expectations”, even advocated by the ‘no-growth’ movement. And indeed, a huge propaganda and conditioning effort has been, and is being, deployed to mold public opinion into acceptance of such a future. It can be argued, however, that the above alternative is only an apparent one in terms of the ultimate results, the difference being limited to the time scale: a sudden destruction vs. a drawn-out state of disaster. This applies with particular force to the less-developed countries: the limits-to-growth recipe generally calls for reducing the standard of living and sharing the available resources. Only, under such a scenario, all we would have to share is poverty, not wealth: in other words, such “philosophy”, if ever implemented, only means that the aspirations of the poorer part of humanity to a more fortunate future would be canceled – and forever!

There is, however, a third option. Humanity can recognize that the major source of its problems is that it still looks at Earth as though it were the whole Universe (Sheffield, 1986) and that instead it can explore space and develop the resources of space. This is at the core of the near-term justification for the astronautical endeavor, and this is the one option – the Space Option – that does not lead to catastrophe, nor to a subsistence-level survival, but to the full potential for wealth and prosperity. But there is also an urgency to begin the realization of such an option: numerous students of the matter (see, e.g., Martin, 1985) have come to the conclusion that there exists a window of opportunity that will last only a few decades, before being closed by degrading material and sociological conditions.

The specific contributions of astronautics to the various subsets of the megacrisis can be identified, in outline, with relative ease. At the core of the crisis is energy, and space seems to be the best place for power generation. The primary energy may be nuclear or solar – and the flux of solar energy through geolunar space is one billion times the total Earth-installed electrical power capacity. With abundant power, the amount of usable resources is also increased. But, more importantly, the Earth – Space division of labor makes it possible to have recourse to new resources, obtained and used outside the biosphere. This exemplifies the argument that space industrialization can return most of the planetary ecology to conditions equivalent to those at the end of the Pleistocene (Stine, 1974) – but, contrary to what many politicians seem to advocate today, still with a vital and dynamic presence of the human species!

The decreased need for Earth-derived energy and resources, in combination with the enhanced quality of climatic and environmental data provided by the space-based systems, will indeed enable not only a reduction in the pollution levels but also an improved conservation of habitats and species. Furthermore, the technical capabilities associated with this part of astronautics will also enable corrective measures to be taken, e.g., for reducing the solar radiation input to mitigate any greenhouse effect which may be caused by a still high rate of fossil fuels burning as well as by the still increasing human population.

It is indeed this one aspect of the megacrisis which cannot be directly addressed by the astronautical endeavor: the excess of population cannot be resettled into space. Population growth is an eminently human issue, and must be solved through the ‘conventional’ means of improved living conditions provided by an industrial infrastructure and of family planning. Astronautics does contribute to this effort, by supporting the completion of the global industrialization processes and, more fundamentally, by providing the access to the sole, lasting resource foundation for the resulting civilization.

7.2 Utilitarian Applications

In addition to the novel aspect of human emergence into space, and to the overall ‘Promethean gifts’ (Georgescu- Roegen, 1980) of similarly extraterrestrial environments and resources, astronautics provides a set of economic benefits that may be structured as follows:

• direct benefits:
  • collection of culturally & technically valuable scientific data
  • provision of civil and military functional services
  • solutions to sociological and environmental issues
• indirect benefits:
  • acquisition of technology know-how
  • economic stimulation
  • ‘spin-offs’, i.e. application of space-derived techniques to other fields.

7.3 Direct Benefits
7.3.1 Scientific Research

Science is at the core of the modern human civilization and culture, and astronautical technology not only contributes substantially to the contemporary advances of the oldest scientific discipline – astronomy – and to the study of our own planet, but also increasingly to other disciplines, such as basic physics, chemistry, and biology. The achievements to date have been extensive, and may in part be summarized as follows:

• the environment of space has been studied in situ, near the Earth as well as in the interplanetary reaches; also studied have been the interactions between Sun and Earth;
• most other planets in the Solar System have been the subject of at least a preliminary study at “close” distance; one of the outcomes of this work has been the birth of comparative planetology, which promises to do much to improve the understanding of our home planet as well, e.g., by improving the predictive power of those planetary models necessary for the careful husbandry of the biosphere;
• the access to the orbital environment has enabled an enormous extension of the astrophysical observations within the electromagnetic spectrum: the infrared, ultraviolet, x- and gamma-ray observation of the Universe have increased many times our ability to detect, correlate, and interpret astronomical events;
• even in the visible and the radio bands, the recourse to space techniques and locations allows substantial improvements of both sensitivity and resolution, in particular through the future use of interferometric techniques;

Table 1 : Space Functional Services

• the study of corpuscular radiation, of solar and cosmic origin, has been similarly expanded through space means;
• the Sun, both for its direct influence on Earth life as well as our “sample star”, has been the object of numerous observations, exploiting the advantages of the orbital environment to extend our knowledge of its behavior and processes;
• biological studies have been conducted, using manned and automatic spacecraft, on cells and unicellular species, on plants, animals, and primates;
• “solid Earth” studies also belong to the scientific activities conducted in space; these geophysical satellites measure the shape of our planet, its gravitational field, and the behavior of its crust.

7.3.2 Services

The provision of services is often mentioned as one of the most significant utilitarian justification for astronautics: Table 1 lists such applications as currently implemented or envisaged for implementation in a near/ medium term time frame, for civilian uses. Such current applications concern exclusively the collection and transmission of information, since not only the communication services, but also the Earth observations are all essentially information transactions (see, e.g., Lebeau, 1980). Thus, following the morphological approach outlined by Woodcock (1972), the discussion hereafter is in order of increasing energy level of the products: thus, the “power generation class” includes applications requiring the manipulation of electromagnetic radiation at relatively high (GW to TW) levels.

Space technology has become a leading contributor to the observation, study, and monitoring of our planet, since it provides unparalleled access to large spatial and spectral domains, on a regular basis. Table 2 lists areas for which the space-based Earth observations’ contributions have already been demonstrated.

Communication satellites have been the first space application to reach the status of commercial enterprise. They have enabled the advent of high-quality, global telephone and television exchanges. Mainly based in the geostationary orbit, these spacecraft offer today a wide range of services, of which the principal types are summarized in Table 3.

Navigation systems, originally developed for military use, have been opened to civilian service for more than twenty-five years. They allow the position determination with accuracies better than 100 m, using ground equipment that has kept decreasing in size and costs, both for acquisition and for operations. By now, however, these satellite constellations allow more sophisticated operations, such as navigation in air traffic terminal areas and instrument landings.

Table 2 : Earth Observation Uses

Future systems are being studied to enable still other functions, e.g., the exchange of data between aircraft and traffic control centers, or the broadcasting of operational information, such as meteorological updates. Already, services have been established relaying navigation and other data from mobile elements to, e.g., the owner’s organization: such systems may evolve into ones providing a means for the surveillance of hazardous, or otherwise important, items.

Table 3 : Space Communications Services

7.3.3 Military Astronautics

One particularly successful area has been that of the provision of services for the military defense forces. In some areas, such as scientific research, communications, navigation aids, meteorological observations, is has paralleled the developments of the civil market; on the other hand, orbital weapons systems have been essentially proscribed by treaties and political considerations: even the concept of systems with space-limited war fighting capabilities has generally raised political objections. Thus, military space forces have received neither the nuclear deterrent nor the interceptors to be used against satellites of ballistic missiles foreseen or advocated by many at the beginning of the space age. A very significant contribution, however, has been done by satellites in a military “middle ground”: what to civilians is Earth observation is reconnaissance to the military services. Optical and radar imaging spacecraft, as well as vehicles for electronic support measures, not only have helped to preserve world peace during the Cold War (Klass, 1971), they also have enabled the disarmament treaties between U.S. and USSR through their function as “national independent verification means”.

7.34 Energy Supply

Astronautical technology can contribute substantially to the resolution of obtaining sufficient energy supplies for the human civilization. The proposal to use large-area orbital mirrors, e.g., for illuminating northern regions, or to control the weather to support agricultural production, goes back to Oberth (1923). In more recent years, a number of concepts have been studied, involving a wide range of configurations and applications, such as:

• night illuminators, which – in addition to the above example – can be used, e.g., to deliver emergency illumination to disaster areas or to increment the biomass production of marine ecosystems; such systems typically employ mirrors handling hundreds of MW, with intensities at a receiving site of less than 1 mW/m2;
• higher-power mirror constellations, designed to increase the output of ground-based photovoltaic power stations; such mirrors have to dispense power in the GW range, each contributing an intensity of at least 1 W/m2 over the receiving site;
• space-based power stations, beaming the power to the ground at microwave or near-infrared wavelengths, with beam intensities near the surface of the order of 100 W/m2.

As already remarked, in the medium term, only space power systems can provide the amount and quantity of energy necessary for the necessary world-wide development; in any case, space-based power systems are clearly the environmentally superior solution, since (i) they reduce the thermal burden, unavoidably associated with conventional generation methods (but also with ground photovoltaic stations supported by space reflectors), (ii) exhibit a very high energy efficiency (Criswell, 1991), and (iii) do not contribute to the atmospheric store of greenhouse gases. Currently, a number of projects are under study across the globe to fly experimental power beaming systems.

To combat the climate changes feared as the consequence of the accumulation of greenhouse gases, the use of spaceborne shields, to intercept and reflect away from Earth a small fraction of sunlight is a distinct possibility. Any such shield ought to be located at the L1 liberation point of the Sun-Earth system, since from that distance its penumbra extends across the diameter of the whole planet. Obviously, a shield in such a location would always be in its correct functional position, i.e. between the Sun and our planet. The additional and generalized advantage of placing such remedial measures in the space environment is the ease of control that can be exerted on them outside the biosphere. Furthermore, all the above options can be made to interact synergistically (see, e.g., Singer, 1991).

The overall significance of the acquisition of extraterrestrial resources has been reviewed, if in general terms, in the preceding Section.

7.4 Indirect Benefits

The stimulation of the national economy by investments in the field of advanced technologies, and space in particular, has been the subject of a number of studies. The school of economic thought associated with these studies asserts that from technological innovations in general flow large economic benefits; microeconomics analyses have indeed repeatedly led to the quantification of substantial returns on the technological investment, benefits which – as reasonably could be expected – have affected the society at-large, and have not remained limited to the industrial sectors directly concerned with the developments.

It must, however, be noted that such returns appear in association with all advanced R&D efforts, and that the uncertainties intrinsic to the econometric models are still too large to provide a criterion for a priority of such investments. But, as the above discussion has attempted to show, astronautical technology is by its own nature (and not because of primary or secondary spin-offs) of an importance, a relevance, and a substance quite different from all other advanced technologies. The astronautical endeavor introduces a qualitative, self-sustaining, change in the history line of humanity. It is a qualitative change: from an Earth-limited perspective to that of an unbounded economic arena. And it is self-sustaining: given a small quantity of Earth-derived resources, humanity will be able to gradually accede to the whole Solar System, and will not even be restricted to that in the long term.

 

8. The Space Option

The above is an attempt to present a synthesis of a wide range of arguments for the astronautical rationale. All themes have their validity, and different segments of what we like to refer to as the astronautical community tend to adopt a particular subset as their banner argumentation. This also holds true for decision makers: is could be argued that the theme dearest to them is – against first appearances – the evolutionary one, the most unbearable being probably the utilitarian one, since it is a compelling argument for vitally urgent action; of course, inspirational (prestige) reasons are still the real prime mover.

Indeed, this is at the core of both the current state of abandon of the astronautical endeavor, and of the strategy proposed in the present paper. Astronautics is a valid pursuit for a large number of reasons, and all of them deserve consideration: but one argument is currently crucial, and deserves even greater, indeed high-priority consideration: it is the need for space activities and exploitation for the resolution of the megacrisis before us. The Space Option has not been chosen as the result of a calculating strategem: it is a compelling approach that forces itself upon any dedicated student of the matter not only as the most logical, but also as the only ethical justification for a continued, and expanded, space program.

The Space Option, in its simplest form, is the use of the space capabilities to the fullest for providing to humanity what is needs to survive and prosper: space to grow, abundant resources for economic development and environmental restoration, and choices for a hopeful future. A number of expressions have been used by other authors with identical or similar meanings: e.g., Krafft Ehricke has referred to it as the “extraterrestrial imperative”, while David Criswell (1984) has called the associated process “net growth.”

However, embracing the Space Option will also lead to many intangible, or less quantifiable, benefits, foremost among them being the manifestation of a future full of hopes.

 

9. Conclusions

There no longer is a space program, today: only isolated projects still floating here and there. Nor will an integrated space program re-emerge unless the Ehricke’s admonition, quoted at the beginning of the paper, will be heeded. Space is not a marginal element of the human environment: it is the whole Universe; therefore, astronautics cannot be an anecdote in human history.

We now need space, its resources, its freedom, its challenge, its potential, as never before.
Nor need space activities be so expensive as to remain economically irrelevant: space programs have been made expensive by a combination of expectations, as well as political and cultural factors (Mandell & Bilby, 1991; Parkinson, 1991; Elliott, 1992). Those conditions can be changed, indeed, the menace is today so strong as to justify, possibly, entertaining some hope that they will change.

New, independent actors on the astronautical scene can assume a critical significance in spreading the rationale and the arguments for the Space Option, because of their superior credibility. New, socially comprehensive themes can provide the weave for a successful astronautical plan. The OURS group will continue its supporting activities for astronautics and the Space Option: but it is now time for the whole community to get into the act and operate for a set of development policies that bring back space to the astronauts – and hope to the world.

 

Acknowledgements

Original impetus for the compilation of a comprehensive rationale for the astronautical endeavor was given by the study “The Case for Small Satellites” of the IAA Small Satellite Programs Subcommittee, to which the initial version was submitted as an input. The first author expresses his thanks to Arnoldo Valenzuela, Subcommittee Chairman, and to Jean-Michel Contant, Academy Secretary General, for their encouragement and the useful exchanges of opinions.

Successively, parts of this paper were presented as Keynote Address to the OURS Foundation’s First European Space Art Workshop, held in Montreux, 20-27 March 1992. Thanks are due to Roger Malina and to Bill Hartmann for the lively discussions during the Workshop.

The work of many authors, some of them quoted in the body of the paper, as been particularly inspiring and deserves additional credit: so special thanks go to David Criswell, Anthony Martin, Michael Michaud, Harry Stine, Bob Salked and to the spirits of Isaac Asimov, Krafft Ehricke, Robert Heinlein, Eugen Sänger.
This paper presents the results of independent work done by the authors for the OURS Foundation: it would not have been possible but for the understanding suffering of Cris and Heidi.

Part 2: The Space Option

References

• Isaac Asimov (1969). The Stars in Their Courses. In: The Stars in Their Courses. Panther Books, Ltd., St Albans (Herts, U.K.), 1975.
• Isaac Asimov (1970). The Power of Progression. In: The Stars in Their Courses. Panther Books, Ltd., St Albans (Herts, U.K.), 1975.
• Marco C. Bernasconi (1993). Cost Models for Lightsats. Appendix 8 in: C.J. Elliott, Chairman. European Small Satellite Initiative. A Report of the Eurospace Small Satellites Group, Paris.
• Arthur C. Clarke (1968). The Promise of Space. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, England.
• Dandridge M. Cole (1963). Report on the Panama Theory. In: E. Burgess (editor). Fourth Western Meeting. AAS Advances in Astronautical Science 9,  229-238.
• David R. Criswell (1984). Cislunar Industrialization & Higher Human Options. Paper  IAF-84-313.
• David R. Criswell (1991). Terrestrial & Space Power Systems: Life Cycle Energy Considerations. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium SPS 91 – Power from Space, Gif-sur-Yvette (France), August 27-30, 71-78.
• Krafft A. Ehricke (1957). The Anthropology of Astronautics.  Astronautics 9[11], 26-68.
• Krafft A. Ehricke (1970). In-Depth Exploration of the Solar System and Its Utilization for the Benefit of Earth.  Annals New York Academy of Sciences 187, 427-456.
• Krafft A. Ehricke (1976). Astropolis and Androcell – The Psychology & Technology of Space Utilization and Extraterrestrialization. Paper presented at the  International Space Hall of Fame Dedication Conference, Alamagordo (NM); AAS Science & Technology Series 45, 373-396.
• Chris Elliott (1991). Cost-Effective Environmental Monitoring.  Earth Space Review 1[02], 7-10.
  Sebastian Estrade (1974). Problems of the Interference Between Space Technology & Space Law. Paper IAF-SL-74-10.
• Ben R. Finney & Eric M. Jones (1983). From Africa to the Stars: The Evolution of the Exploring Animal. AAS  Advances in Astronautical Sciences 53, 85-104.
• N. Georgescu-Roegen (1980). General Reflections on the Theme of Innovations. Paper presented at the  International Colloquium on Economic Effects of Space & Other Advanced Technologies, Strasbourg (France), 28-30 April, also: ESA SP-151, 17-29.
• Ward J. Haas (1965). The Biological Significance of the Space Effort. Paper Presented at the New York Academy of Sciences Planetology & Space Mission Planning Conference, New York (NY), November 3-4; also: Annals New York Academy of Sciences 140[01], 659-666.
• George A Hazelrigg jr & Madeleine E Hymowitz (1986). Research in Space: Prelude to Commercialization. Paper IAA-86-447; also: Acta Astronautica 17[04] (1988), 375-386.
• Philip J. Klass (1971). Secret Sentries in Space. Random House, New York (NY).
• André Lebeau (1980). Space Activities and Economic Forces. Keynote Address to the International Colloquium on Economic Effects of Space & Other Advanced Technologies, Strasbourg (France), 28-30 April, also: ESA SP-151, 17-29.
• Humboldt Mandell & Curt Bilby (1991). The Use of Activity-Based Cost Estimation as a Management Tool for Cultural Change. Paper  IAA-91-640.
• Anthony R. Martin (1985). Space Resources and the Limits to Growth.  JBIS 38[06], 243-252.
• Donald N. Michael (1961). Social Impact of Space Activities. In: Heinz Hermann Koelle (Ed.) Handbook of Astronautical Engineering. Section 1.8, 44-50. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York (NY).
• Michael A.G. Michaud (1973). After Apollo.  Spaceflight 15[], 362-367.
• Hermann Oberth (1923). Die Rakete zu den Planetenräumen. Verlag Oldenbourg, Munich/ Uni-Verlag, Nürnberg, 4th edition.
• R.C. Parkinson (1991). Organizational Impediments to the Reduction of Costs of Space Programs. Paper  IAA-91-639.
• Eugen Sänger (1963). Spaceflight – Today, Tomorrow, & Afterwards (in German). Econ Verlag, Düsseldorf/ Vienna.
• Charles Sheffield (1986). On Timeline Singularities, Space, and Human History.  Far Frontiers VII, 2-19.
  Charles Sheffield (1988). Unclear Winter. New Destinies IV, 11-34.
• S. Fred Singer (1991). Project SPACE [Solar Power And Climate Equalizer]: SPS Used for Global Climate Modification. Paper  IAF-91-232.
• G Harry Stine (1974). The Third Industrial Revolution – The Exploitation of the Space Environment.  Spaceflight 16[], 327-334.
• Geoffrey W Wood (1979). Survival – Of What and Why?  Spaceflight 21, 9-10.
• Geoffrey W. Wood & Karen R. Wood (1980). How to Survive.  Spaceflight 22, 256-257.
• Gordon R. Woodcock (1972). On The Economics of Space Utilization. Paper presented at the 23rd International Astronautical Congress, Vienna (Austria), October 9-14; also: Raumfahrtforschung 17[03] (1973), 135-146.

*Orginally published by The OURS Foundation © 1993
1 Vice-President, CM IAA, Member AIAA, Fellow BIS
2 President, Member IAAA, ISAST