MigL Posted July 24, 2017 Posted July 24, 2017 Overpopulation ? That's not why we went to the Moon, or need to go to Mars. Canada has 33 Million people. And 95 % of those people live on much less than 1 % of the land area. Land which is way more hospitable than Mars. And I'm not including vast areas of North-Eastern Russia, most of Western Australia, jungles of Brazil, pampas of Argentina, and all of Antartica. Heck, even the bottoms of shallow seas/oceans are more hospitable. We have proven we can get to the Moon. We need to prove we can get to Mars/other planets. When the cost/benefit ratio becomes favorable ( in terms of resources ) people WILL go there. But, other than bases, for staging/exploration/resources, we will never have permanent 'settlements' there.
at0mic Posted July 24, 2017 Posted July 24, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, MigL said: Overpopulation ? That's not why we went to the Moon, or need to go to Mars. Canada has 33 Million people. And 95 % of those people live on much less than 1 % of the land area. Land which is way more hospitable than Mars. And I'm not including vast areas of North-Eastern Russia, most of Western Australia, jungles of Brazil, pampas of Argentina, and all of Antartica. Heck, even the bottoms of shallow seas/oceans are more hospitable. We have proven we can get to the Moon. We need to prove we can get to Mars/other planets. When the cost/benefit ratio becomes favorable ( in terms of resources ) people WILL go there. But, other than bases, for staging/exploration/resources, we will never have permanent 'settlements' there. So Canada will still have land available in 50,000 years? The human race should still be around in 10 million years, 20 million years, even 30 million years. Space colonization is inevitable. Dinosaurs were on earth for 165 million years before they got wiped out. Maybe human's could beat that. Edited July 24, 2017 by at0mic
Moontanman Posted July 24, 2017 Posted July 24, 2017 17 hours ago, Ken Fabian said: The primitive urge to seek new and better horizons and leave intractable problems behind rather than face them. The popularity of science fiction that tends to downplay or completely bypass - by some imaginary tech brilliancy - the extraordinary costs and difficulties. The illusion that it would be a lot like the successful historic colonisations that happened on Earth. The false expectation that ingenuity can overcome all limitation. The belief that it will be not just economically viable to do so, but deliver enormous economic benefits. The belief that space colonies can provide enduring security and defence from existential threats. The unlikely expectation that humans in space will enjoy greater freedom from regulation or societal constraints. Colonization of space requires no magical technology, no imaginary tech, and the costs are relative. The economic benefits are quite obvious, your attitude is like saying exploring the new world can have no economic benefits. Nothing can provide unlimited security but not colonising space is one of two options, the other is extinction. No one has or is saying that space colonies will enjoy greater freedom but when the new world was stolen from the natives there was indeed a time of of such freedoms. The difference is that space does not have to be stolen and we will never be able to fill it up.. 1
Ten oz Posted July 24, 2017 Posted July 24, 2017 On 7/21/2017 at 6:33 PM, nec209 said: It not some thing the middle class can have enough money on one way ticket to the moon or mars. Even the upper class will not have the money for a one way ticket to the moon or mars. So it not going to solve the overpopulation problem. What is with the government and private sector pushing this trip to the moon or mars in 10 to 15 years. When there is no spacecraft that cost effective? Why such a push for space colonization? From memory foam to GPS both the middle class and upper middle class have a lot to be thankful for with regards to the space race. Smartphones to LEDs technologies created by our space race have pumped trillions of dollars into our economy. It is myopic vision to demand knowing where research and development, discovery, will lead in advance. Columbus sought out looking for a short cut and on that front was a failure that lost Spain money. Initially all the Spanish and Italians cared about with regards to the Americas was gold but eventually realized the termondous profit values of Coca, Tobacco, Tomatos, Corn, Peanuts, and etc, etc, etc. It is impossible to know where colonization technology will lead. History has already proved our space program to be an huge success responsible for trillions of dollars worth or new technological growth and innovation. 1
nec209 Posted July 24, 2017 Author Posted July 24, 2017 1 hour ago, zapatos said: Okay so is it reusable like plane? Can it take of in less than hour after it lands like a plane? Can it make many trips in day like plane being reusable? Can it take up hundreds of people in day like plane?
nec209 Posted July 24, 2017 Author Posted July 24, 2017 52 minutes ago, Moontanman said: Colonization of space requires no magical technology, no imaginary tech, and the costs are relative. The economic benefits are quite obvious, your attitude is like saying exploring the new world can have no economic benefits. Nothing can provide unlimited security but not colonising space is one of two options, the other is extinction. No one has or is saying that space colonies will enjoy greater freedom but when the new world was stolen from the natives there was indeed a time of of such freedoms. The difference is that space does not have to be stolen and we will never be able to fill it up.. So we don't have to be millionaires to go to moon or mars? It some thing the middle class and lower class can pay for? -1
at0mic Posted July 24, 2017 Posted July 24, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, nec209 said: So we don't have to be millionaires to go to moon or mars? It some thing the middle class and lower class can pay for? That's correct. Only the upper classes could afford to fly when passenger planes first started. Flying was so expensive. Now anybody can fly. In 500 years, I think the middle classes could afford to travel to mars. Edited July 24, 2017 by at0mic
beecee Posted July 24, 2017 Posted July 24, 2017 9 hours ago, nec209 said: Not sure what you mean. The holy grail is reusable spacecraft to lower space cost. But unfortunately that not come to be. There where many ideas of reusable spacecraft of the search of holy grail of reusable spacecraft. Perhaps you have been hiding under a rock somewhere? http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/26/elon-musk-instagrammed-a-video-of-his-spacex-rocket-landing.html Obviously early days yet, but its a very promising start. 9 hours ago, nec209 said: 1 One idea was spacecraft on a rocket to space and lands like plane 2 two rocket/plane combo. Takes of like a plane and use jet engine to gets very high up than the rocket takes over. 3. three single-stage-to-orbit (or SSTO) vehicle reaches orbit from the surface of a body without jettisoning hardware The rocket engines where not powerful enough and so they said these ideas will not work so back to basics. And NASA and other governments cut the x-programs back to the basics. They spend billions and billions of dollars looking into spacecraft on a rocket to space, rocket/plane combo and single-stage-to-orbit (or SSTO) costing billions and billions of dollars!!! All to find out rocket engines where not powerful enough and back to the basics. Again in time all that you are questioning will be achieved and more. The many billions and billions of dollars spent are worth it and will bring great benefit to mankind in general.
Moontanman Posted July 24, 2017 Posted July 24, 2017 13 minutes ago, nec209 said: So we don't have to be millionaires to go to moon or mars? It some thing the middle class and lower class can pay for? I know it's not a direct comparison but think of the voyage of Columbus, the queen had to hock the crown jewels to finance his trip. Now we fly people across the atlantic by the millions every year. But more to the point, Mars and yes even the Moon are dead ends as far as colonization is concerned. I doubt that visiting them will be a popular past time. But asteroids will be used to build rotating habitats, carbon will be the construction material of the future and, IMHO, places like the trojan asteroids of Jupiter will be manufacturing sites and eventually small groups or even individuals will be able to have their own habitats. Think of how difficult and expensive it would have seemed 300 years ago for someone to own a 1500 square foot home. Back only the very wealthy could afford such a thing, it would have required a large number of people (usually slaves or serfs) to maintain and even then it couldn't be compared to what we commonly have today. Extrapolate this to 300 years into the future...
Moontanman Posted July 24, 2017 Posted July 24, 2017 25 minutes ago, nec209 said: Okay so is it reusable like plane? Can it take of in less than hour after it lands like a plane? Can it make many trips in day like plane being reusable? Can it take up hundreds of people in day like plane? Not yet, not too long ago airplanes couldn't do that either...
beecee Posted July 24, 2017 Posted July 24, 2017 25 minutes ago, nec209 said: Okay so is it reusable like plane? Can it take of in less than hour after it lands like a plane? Can it make many trips in day like plane being reusable? Can it take up hundreds of people in day like plane? As I tried to convey to you before, after you claimed that reusable rockets was "not come to be" It's only early days yet, and again, in time all you have raised will be second nature. Let me ask you a few questions. Would you have cancelled the Apollo program after Grissom, White, and Chaffee perished in the fire that engulfed their capsule? Would you have ceased any attempts to put Satellites into orbit and testing rockets after WW2? You do realize the great benefits that Satellites have given all mankind don't you? I mean they have benefited agriculture, meteorology, GPS, just for starters. Why do you appear so negative and pessimistic about the future, particularly with regards to space, the solar system and beyond? 39 minutes ago, nec209 said: So we don't have to be millionaires to go to moon or mars? It some thing the middle class and lower class can pay for? I'm not really interested in [and I don't believe science is either] whether millionare class, middle class, or lower class, tourists will ever take advatage of going to the Moon and/or Mars and beyond. The first priority is science, exploration, and outposts.......If and when tourism takes effect, all well and good. Worth noting also that there are many people today that cannot afford to travel from the Americas to Australia and vice versa...or for that matter, any form of air travel...You do understand that, don't you? 1
Moontanman Posted July 24, 2017 Posted July 24, 2017 One of the real possibilities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Ring_(habitat) http://pin.it/owEy-0s
zapatos Posted July 24, 2017 Posted July 24, 2017 2 hours ago, nec209 said: Okay so is it reusable like plane? Can it take of in less than hour after it lands like a plane? Can it make many trips in day like plane being reusable? Can it take up hundreds of people in day like plane? If I say yes to any of those questions, will you move the goalposts again? 1
Ken Fabian Posted July 24, 2017 Posted July 24, 2017 2 hours ago, Moontanman said: Colonization of space requires no magical technology, no imaginary tech, and the costs are relative. The economic benefits are quite obvious, your attitude is like saying exploring the new world can have no economic benefits. Nothing can provide unlimited security but not colonising space is one of two options, the other is extinction. No one has or is saying that space colonies will enjoy greater freedom but when the new world was stolen from the natives there was indeed a time of of such freedoms. The difference is that space does not have to be stolen and we will never be able to fill it up.. I'm saying exploring and exploiting space resources are so unlike historic explorations and colonisations that any similarities are superficial and very misleading; those historic "new" world colonies died or thrived according to their ability to participate in the existing sailing ship enabled trading economy. They were "discovered" and established using long proven, widely used technologies, very often the cheap run down vessels that were no longer economically viable, a step short of being stripped of salvage and scuttled; any explorations and colonisations of space requires at the minimum the most advanced technologies, much improved and at far greater scale than currently exist - the low cost versions of these are a necessary prerequisite, to start with, not a hoped for benefit that might emerge along the way. A huge pre-investment is needed that has no historic equivalent that I'm aware of. The not-imaginary technologies currently in play remain far short of what is needed to be financially viable - and the hypothetical improved and enlarged iterations remain hypothetical and unproven, no matter that they may appear, as a schematic on a screen, technically viable. The economic benefits are not obvious; (leaving aside the near value of near Earth satellites for purely Earth based reasons, where the benefits are clear) as soon as we move our sights beyond Earth orbit the costs escalate ahead of the potential for economic returns. Vast resources yes but the costs and difficulties are extreme. It requires such a huge pre-investment necessary to exploit even the most accessible space mineral resources that break even look - pardon the pun - astronomical. There is no starting small to mine asteroids or the moon or Mars and investments on that scale don't happen without far greater certainty of lucrative payoff on bank approved time scales than can possibly be given ahead of those projects going ahead - a catch 22 that I've only seen addressed by proposing vastly more government subsidy of space programs - and those aren't even aimed at delivering what is needed. The urge to seek better pastures well suited early homo sapiens - pushing past that mountain range or beyond that desert really could and did deliver them abundant resources and opportunities as well as distance between intractable problems they left behind, and they could do it with what they carried on their backs and with the skills within a few individuals - because even the high rocky places and harsh deserts are far more habitable and their resources more readily exploitable, than anything in space. Whilst the appeals to that primitive urge to seek better pastures make good PR and induce continuing popular support, they can't and won't deliver the opportunities wished for and in that sense it's a kind of false advertising.
Moontanman Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said: I'm saying exploring and exploiting space resources are so unlike historic explorations and colonisations that any similarities are superficial and very misleading; those historic "new" world colonies died or thrived according to their ability to participate in the existing sailing ship enabled trading economy. They were "discovered" and established using long proven, widely used technologies, very often the cheap run down vessels that were no longer economically viable, a step short of being stripped of salvage and scuttled; any explorations and colonisations of space requires at the minimum the most advanced technologies, much improved and at far greater scale than currently exist - the low cost versions of these are a necessary prerequisite, to start with, not a hoped for benefit that might emerge along the way. A huge pre-investment is needed that has no historic equivalent that I'm aware of. The not-imaginary technologies currently in play remain far short of what is needed to be financially viable - and the hypothetical improved and enlarged iterations remain hypothetical and unproven, no matter that they may appear, as a schematic on a screen, technically viable. Again, at the time sailing ships were not cheap, but if you want to look at it that way then to be comparable you have to compare sailing ships to a floating log. The "non imaginary" technologies do need to mature but not developing them will mean they never will mature. Getting into space is expensive, once you are there you use materials in situ to build more ships and habitats. Quote The economic benefits are not obvious; (leaving aside the near value of near Earth satellites for purely Earth based reasons, where the benefits are clear) as soon as we move our sights beyond Earth orbit the costs escalate ahead of the potential for economic returns. Vast resources yes but the costs and difficulties are extreme. It requires such a huge pre-investment necessary to exploit even the most accessible space mineral resources that break even look - pardon the pun - astronomical. There is no starting small to mine asteroids or the moon or Mars and investments on that scale don't happen without far greater certainty of lucrative payoff on bank approved time scales than can possibly be given ahead of those projects going ahead - a catch 22 that I've only seen addressed by proposing vastly more government subsidy of space programs - and those aren't even aimed at delivering what is needed. The economic benefits of the space program consist of technology developed to support space travel that is used to benefit modern life. As for the government funding space programs your are aware that our investment in space travel currently is pitifully small. The military spends more in a week than NASA gets in a year. A single small asteroid has a dollar value above the GNP of the planet just in precious metals. Quote The urge to seek better pastures well suited early homo sapiens - pushing past that mountain range or beyond that desert really could and did deliver them abundant resources and opportunities as well as distance between intractable problems they left behind, and they could do it with what they carried on their backs and with the skills within a few individuals - because even the high rocky places and harsh deserts are far more habitable and their resources more readily exploitable, than anything in space. Whilst the appeals to that primitive urge to seek better pastures make good PR and induce continuing popular support, they can't and won't deliver the opportunities wished for and in that sense it's a kind of false advertising. You are correct in this, but Earth resources are limited by the fact that to harvest them we have to destroy our planet. Once we establish a presence in space building habitats and space craft become much easier. Like I said a simple dyson swarm, without fusion power gives us more land than a million earths. I think that is worth reaching for... Given fusion power we can convert the solar system into the equivalent of billions of earths... Edited July 25, 2017 by Moontanman
beecee Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 57 minutes ago, zapatos said: If I say yes to any of those questions, will you move the goalposts again? Yes, incredible how someone who has been shown to have the facts wrong [reusable rocket technology] can still focus their insecurities, negativity, and pessimism on even more nonsensical reasoning. 22 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said: I'm saying exploring and exploiting space resources are so unlike historic explorations and colonisations that any similarities are superficial and very misleading; those historic "new" world colonies died or thrived according to their ability to participate in the existing sailing ship enabled trading economy. They were "discovered" and established using long proven, widely used technologies, very often the cheap run down vessels that were no longer economically viable, a step short of being stripped of salvage and scuttled; any explorations and colonisations of space requires at the minimum the most advanced technologies, much improved and at far greater scale than currently exist - the low cost versions of these are a necessary prerequisite, to start with, not a hoped for benefit that might emerge along the way. A huge pre-investment is needed that has no historic equivalent that I'm aware of. The not-imaginary technologies currently in play remain far short of what is needed to be financially viable - and the hypothetical improved and enlarged iterations remain hypothetical and unproven, no matter that they may appear, as a schematic on a screen, technically viable. The economic benefits are not obvious; (leaving aside the near value of near Earth satellites for purely Earth based reasons, where the benefits are clear) as soon as we move our sights beyond Earth orbit the costs escalate ahead of the potential for economic returns. Vast resources yes but the costs and difficulties are extreme. It requires such a huge pre-investment necessary to exploit even the most accessible space mineral resources that break even look - pardon the pun - astronomical. There is no starting small to mine asteroids or the moon or Mars and investments on that scale don't happen without far greater certainty of lucrative payoff on bank approved time scales than can possibly be given ahead of those projects going ahead - a catch 22 that I've only seen addressed by proposing vastly more government subsidy of space programs - and those aren't even aimed at delivering what is needed. The urge to seek better pastures well suited early homo sapiens - pushing past that mountain range or beyond that desert really could and did deliver them abundant resources and opportunities as well as distance between intractable problems they left behind, and they could do it with what they carried on their backs and with the skills within a few individuals - because even the high rocky places and harsh deserts are far more habitable and their resources more readily exploitable, than anything in space. Whilst the appeals to that primitive urge to seek better pastures make good PR and induce continuing popular support, they can't and won't deliver the opportunities wished for and in that sense it's a kind of false advertising. Nice post, although I see it as grossly down playing the beneficial side and exploiting some of the questionable negativity side. Sure it's expensive, sure it's difficult, sure it's got a large degree of uncertainty, but just as surely, humanity is not going to stay glued to planet Earth...Its out there, and we will in time go. Notice my oft mention phrase "In time"....I don't know when we will visit another star system, I don't know when we will land man on Mars, but if we can survive any potential catastrophic astronomical event, and if we are able to survive our own follies here on Earth, there is nothing more certain that we will achieve most of those goals I have mentioned. The greatest inhibitor in taking man to Mars or beyond is I believe radiation: A big problem that that they are now working on. Earth also obviously has a "use by date" probably around 3 billion years or so, so again most certainly we will need to have spread our seed beyond our Earthly confines. That of course will be done...Progress will not be stopped and spacefaring and exploration is the way to go
Ken Fabian Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Moontanman said: Getting into space is expensive, once you are there you use materials in situ to build more ships and habitats. Using materials found in space in situ sounds great - but in my opinion people are grossly exaggerating how readily that can be done and downplay the costs and difficulties of doing so, the inverse of BeeCee's view of my position. Recalling a doco on doing repairs to Hubble, dealing with a handful of screws presented a team of leading engineers with a year of planning and preparation; sure, some of that would be once off (designing a power screwdriver that didn't twirl the operator around each screw for example) but those are a long way from being the mass produced, off the shelf items that in situ mining, refining and high tech manufacturing require. I think it is in fact very difficult, requiring technology that doesn't exist, using infrastructure that hasn't been built - and I believe it is not economically sound to develop and build such expensive infrastructure in such hostile conditions so far ahead of any reasonable expectation of financial returns; rather, the infrastructure is the necessary prerequisite to any such expectations. Yet building in space for other purposes, where those are not expected to deliver significant returns, seems unlikely to deliver the infrastructure such projects need. There is no real reason to expect any inevitability to any of it. Not even inevitability of continuing subsidy and popular support space ventures have previously enjoyed. Hype abounds here - and that, like the various motivations cited - is inadequate to achieve the extraordinary expectations being expressed. Economics as much as physics and technology is a difficult to surmount limiting factor so I am not surprised that it is those more ephemeral and idealistic motivations that are looked to keep things moving in a spacewards direction in the absence of any economically compelling ones. Comparing to military - or any other large scale spendings that have difficult to quantify benefits - is as dubious a comparison as comparisons to colonisations using sailing ships. I'm not convinced that the optimism is warranted. What minimum infrastructure to mine an asteroid? How much industrial capability in space is needed - starting from a base of zero - before such an operation can be undertaken and how far between that and delivering in quantity to customers who pay? It looks like a huge gulf. What minimum capabilities are needed for a space colony to be self supporting? Much more than any attempts at remote mining I would expect. More crucially, how big does a high tech dependent economy and populations have to be to support just the ability to reliably reproduce the basic, essential infrastructure for enduring survival, without reliance upon Earth's economy? Edited July 25, 2017 by Ken Fabian clarity
beecee Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said: What minimum capabilities are needed for a space colony to be self supporting? Much more than any attempts at remote mining I would expect. Whatever those capabilities are, whatever the political and economic scenario maybe, those and the technology will be achieved in time. A point you and others have avoided. In essence whatever the pros I put on this forum, and whatever the cons you have put, space exploration and off earth habitation is inevitable...in time. Edited July 25, 2017 by beecee
Ken Fabian Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 1 hour ago, beecee said: Whatever those capabilities are, whatever the political and economic scenario maybe, those and the technology will be achieved in time. A point you and others have avoided. In essence whatever the pros I put on this forum, and whatever the cons you have put, space exploration and off earth habitation is inevitable...in time. No-one has convincingly demonstrated that it is inevitable, just expressed extraordinary optimism that it is. A point you may be avoiding. Without favourable economics it's not inevitable. Nor is technology inevitably going to advance sufficiently to achieve those favourable economics. It may but it may not; greater capabilities may come with greater expense and with diminishing returns on R&D investments. Vanity projects I can see; populism within wealthy nations can achieve that and space ventures do have a solid body of popular support so a presence in space is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. That isn't the same as economically viable or self supporting or inevitably going to expand or lead to a future of favourable economics. A functional, enduring, healthy and wealthy Earth economy is, itself, not an inevitability but it looks essential to these optimistic scenarios. A sustained history of failing to be profitable (outside the communications and Earth sensing satellites) is cause to believe that just trying a bit harder for a bit longer won't be enough - and whilst a whole lot of tax dollars spent on space R&D delivered useful and marketable inventions from the US moon program there is nothing intrinsically superior about space R&D; similar scale R&D spending with different focus would also deliver useful and marketable inventions, just not the same ones.
beecee Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said: No-one has convincingly demonstrated that it is inevitable, just expressed extraordinary optimism that it is. A point you may be avoiding. History has demonstrated that it is inevitable: Even the church in the dark ages could not curtail science and progress for too long. What you seem to be avoiding is that optimism is what is necessary for achievement, certainly not pessimistic negativity. 1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said: Without favourable economics it's not inevitable. Nor is technology inevitably going to advance sufficiently to achieve those favourable economics. Economics and political climate do change, over time.....but again irrespective, space exploration will certainly continue and a man on Mars will almost certainly take place, and in time further afield and more bold missions of the like of outposts as we do in Antarctica. History has also showed that. 1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said: A functional, enduring, healthy and wealthy Earth economy is, itself, not an inevitability but it looks essential to these optimistic scenarios. A sustained history of failing to be profitable (outside the communications and Earth sensing satellites) is cause to believe that just trying a bit harder for a bit longer won't be enough - and whilst a whole lot of tax dollars spent on space R&D delivered useful and marketable inventions from the US moon program there is nothing intrinsically superior about space R&D; similar scale R&D spending with different focus would also deliver useful and marketable inventions, just not the same ones. Profit [or a lack thereof] has nothing to do with it....Profit will not stop science and space exploration from continuing...it may hinder and slow it down at times, but in the end, it will continue. We are not born to stagnate on this fart arse little blue orb, just as we were not born to continue swinging in the trees...the "use by date" of Earth will esure our continued progress, given the time of course...probably around 3 billion years. Edited July 25, 2017 by beecee
beecee Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 (edited) The ISS has been continually and permanently occupied now for near 17 years from 2000.That fact is testament to the determination and courage of man to continue space endeavours. 17 NASA Astronauts have died in various missions to continue the inevitable, difficult and dangerous exploration of the solar system, the galaxy and the universe....Many Russians have also died for the same cause. I certainly do not see any logic or common sense in claims or demands that space science, and space exploration should or will cease, for the many reasons I and others have given, and see any abandonment as crazy in the extreme. At the risk of boring the nay sayers and their negativity, and pessimism, let me say again, I personally have not put any time frame on any aspect of space endeavours, whether space mining, going back to the Moon, establishing an outpost, Putting man on Mars, or even further more bold missions...Simply, I say that all these things will be done, in time, as long as we avoid any catastrophic astronomical collision that wipes out the human race, and our own follies here on Earth. That gives us 3 billion years or thereabouts. Can any one here really say that we will not have set foot on Mars, or gone back to the Moon, or progressed further afield in that time frame?....Even 1 billion years! Even 1 million years! or even more realistically a 1000 years! My only wish is that we can get to Mars before I kick the bucket, which at a pinch must be within the next 25 years, and some extraordinary evidence to surface to show that ETL does exist elsewhere. Edited July 25, 2017 by beecee 1
Moontanman Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Ken Fabian said: No-one has convincingly demonstrated that it is inevitable, just expressed extraordinary optimism that it is. A point you may be avoiding. Without favourable economics it's not inevitable. Nor is technology inevitably going to advance sufficiently to achieve those favourable economics. It may but it may not; greater capabilities may come with greater expense and with diminishing returns on R&D investments. Vanity projects I can see; populism within wealthy nations can achieve that and space ventures do have a solid body of popular support so a presence in space is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. That isn't the same as economically viable or self supporting or inevitably going to expand or lead to a future of favourable economics. A functional, enduring, healthy and wealthy Earth economy is, itself, not an inevitability but it looks essential to these optimistic scenarios. A sustained history of failing to be profitable (outside the communications and Earth sensing satellites) is cause to believe that just trying a bit harder for a bit longer won't be enough - and whilst a whole lot of tax dollars spent on space R&D delivered useful and marketable inventions from the US moon program there is nothing intrinsically superior about space R&D; similar scale R&D spending with different focus would also deliver useful and marketable inventions, just not the same ones. So you would rather choose extinction rather than trying to occupy space because it will be difficult and expensive? https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Benefits-Stemming-from-Space-Exploration-2013-TAGGED.pdf Edited July 25, 2017 by Moontanman
Ken Fabian Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 14 hours ago, Moontanman said: So you would rather choose extinction rather than trying to occupy space because it will be difficult and expensive? https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Benefits-Stemming-from-Space-Exploration-2013-TAGGED.pdf We are not currently under imminent threat of extinction; other kinds of serious problems can and do rate as more urgent and in combination they represent a significant risk to long term efforts to exploit and colonise space - economics you know. Attempting to read into my doubts about the viability of space enterprises some kind of callous willingness to sacrifice the human race is not addressing the issues I've raised. I don't like the attempts to shame me into agreeing with you. As a motivation, going to space as an extinction prevention measure is both premature and I think has a high risk of being ineffective without some remarkable technological advancements - the same problems that impact the viability of space activities with more immediate goals and motivations. Achieving those goals appear to be necessary precursors to any capability for self supporting space colonies capable of being an off world backup for mankind. I'm willing to discuss why I think that.
Moontanman Posted July 25, 2017 Posted July 25, 2017 11 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said: We are not currently under imminent threat of extinction; other kinds of serious problems can and do rate as more urgent and in combination they represent a significant risk to long term efforts to exploit and colonise space - economics you know. Attempting to read into my doubts about the viability of space enterprises some kind of callous willingness to sacrifice the human race is not addressing the issues I've raised. I don't like the attempts to shame me into agreeing with you. As a motivation, going to space as an extinction prevention measure is both premature and I think has a high risk of being ineffective without some remarkable technological advancements - the same problems that impact the viability of space activities with more immediate goals and motivations. Achieving those goals appear to be necessary precursors to any capability for self supporting space colonies capable of being an off world backup for mankind. I'm willing to discuss why I think that. Exactly what "remarkable technological advancements" are you talking about? We currently have the technology to do this, yes it needs some development but that development cannot come to fruition on the Earth. Just because you do not see a problem happening tomorrow doesn't mean they will not happen. don't put all your eggs in one basket is a very wise old saying. An asteroid could be colliding with the earth as we speak, or it might be a million years from now. The amount of money we put into space exploration is a drop in the bucket compared to what we spend on ways to kill us all. Self destruction is far more likely than some sort of saving the economy, creating a paradise on Earth, or simply solving most of our problems before we act in space.. 1
beecee Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said: We are not currently under imminent threat of extinction; other kinds of serious problems can and do rate as more urgent and in combination they represent a significant risk to long term efforts to exploit and colonise space - economics you know. And yet we still spend trillions of dollars in militaristic endeavours, despite these more urgent problems you speak of. I smell hypocrisy. 1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said: As a motivation, going to space as an extinction prevention measure is both premature and I think has a high risk of being ineffective without some remarkable technological advancements - the same problems that impact the viability of space activities with more immediate goals and motivations. Achieving those goals appear to be necessary precursors to any capability for self supporting space colonies capable of being an off world backup for mankind. I'm willing to discuss why I think that. Why is it premature? Who can forecast when some giant asteroid/comet will not be dislodged from the Oort cloud or Asteroid belt to collide with us? What are these goals you speak of? Hunger, famine etc in the world today? Let's extract some of the trillions from the money spent by all nations in military endeavours. In my own country a huge 4 week naval/army/ and air force exercise has just been conducted with the NZ and USA forces. I wonder how much this cost? Wouldn't that have been put to better use? So why rant on against science and the science of space travel and exploration, that will certainly benefit all mankind despite your rather fragile pessimistic views to the contrary? Like I said, it will continue and will not nor should not be stopped, ceased or reigned in over the long run. Given the time of course. 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now