NASA: "Water on the Moon!" This is the Shameless Science!
On Sep 25, 9:16*am, Sylvia Else wrote:
jonathan wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
.. .
Given the quantities they're talking about, and the amount of material that
would have to be processed to get a useful amount of water, I suspect that
shipping water from Earth would still be cheaper than putting the necessary
equipment onto the moon.
Thanks for replying. I would think the same thing. That any mining
would come at the very end of a long and expensive train of hardware.
A couple of generations.
Don't get me wrong. I also believe that moving into space is
the path to a better future. If not our ultimate salvation.
Now, well, I'm not so sure about that.
If we established self-sufficient colonies in space, then that would
obviate the eggs in one basket situation we have now, where a major
planatory disaster could wipe out the human race.
But the contentious question is, would that matter? After all, said
colonies would do nothing to mitigate the suffering that would occur
during the disaster. All the colonies would do would be to continue the
existence of the race. But is that so important? If the human race were
to be completely wiped out, there would, by definition, be no one left
to suffer the consquences. So beyond the pain and suffering involved the
the process, which would happen anyway, there is no down side to human
extinction.
A particular question is, if survival of the human race is deemed
important, what price should be put on it? How much is the taxpayer
willing to pay to ensure the race's survival? My guess would be, not
that much.
Sylvia.
No, but they sure do like to pay a lot to wipe it out!
|