Malthusian Theory and Travel Beyond Earth Orbit

"John Maxson" writes:

What's the projected world population by the time we expect
to have completely replaced the space shuttle for ISS trips?

I can't see any relationship between Shuttle/ISS and world population.

Does a newer space ship offer us a timely chance to beat the
Malthusian outcome (i.e.., will it help us find natural resources
on another celestial body and also lead to colonization)?

Ditto. There is no relationship between a newer space ship and a
"Malthusian" outcome. There simply will be no space capability in
the foreseable future that will have any appreciable impact on
population and/or available resources.

We will simply have to rely on the fact that we humans are extreme
"K strategists" and therefore will self-limit our population growth.

http://fig.cox.miami.edu/Faculty/Tom/bil160sp98/16_rKselection.html

... investing more heavily in plans for preventing our extinction?

Definitely. A self sustaining colony on Mars or in space habitats
would be great and we should lay the foundations ASAP. But any
colony is not going to be self sustaining in the lifetime of anyone
around today.

Wouldn't that require vast reductions in military expenditures
for space, so we can find peaceful solutions to world strife?

It would be nice if we could all agree on reducing our military
expenditure. Ultimately it comes down to feeling secure and being
able to trust your neighbours that they won't harm you. Of course
there will always be some troublesome neighbours who have been at
each other's throats for hundreds of years and are unlikely to stop
now (f.e. in the Balkans); but 10% of current military expenditure
should be enough to police that.

--
Manfred Bartz

Manfred Bartz wrote
in message ...
"John Maxson" writes:

What's the projected world population by the time we expect
to have completely replaced the space shuttle for ISS trips?

I can't see any relationship between Shuttle/ISS and world population.

That shouldn't stop you or someone else (e.g., one of the Oxford
scholars) from supplying an estimate in reply to my question.

Does a newer space ship offer us a timely chance to beat the
Malthusian outcome (i.e.., will it help us find natural resources
on another celestial body and also lead to colonization)?

There is no relationship between a newer space ship and a
"Malthusian" outcome. There simply will be no space capability
in the foreseable future that will have any appreciable impact on
population and/or available resources.

Again, I think someone should be able to define "foreseeable future"
and give a better idea of what space ship should replace the shuttle.
Look how far we have come (almost geometrically) since Kitty Hawk.
Otherwise, you added an interesting discussion, it seems to me.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)

"John Maxson" writes:

Manfred Bartz wrote
in message ...
"John Maxson" writes:

What's the projected world population by the time we expect
to have completely replaced the space shuttle for ISS trips?

I can't see any relationship between Shuttle/ISS and world population.

That shouldn't stop you ... from supplying an estimate ...

Accepting some thread drift given your subject line, my estimate would
be based on the commitment NASA has made to developing a new, man-
rated space plane for crew rotation.

It will probably be at least 10 years before we see a new space plane
in operation. Until then we rely on the Shuttle for crew rotation and
we may as well utilise the cargo capability of the Shuttle. In
addition, all currenly planned modules for the ISS are designed for
launch by the existing shuttle and rely on the Shuttle's orbital
maneuvering and robotic manipulating capabilities.

Existing, unmanned LVs already have a payload capacity similar to the
existing shuttle, so normal evolution will probably boost that by a
factor of two by the time the OSP arrives. So, once a new OSP exists
the Shuttle will probably be phased out very quickly and any future
space stations or station-components will be launched by unmanned
heavy lifters.

There is no relationship between a newer space ship and a
"Malthusian" outcome. There simply will be no space capability
in the foreseable future that will have any appreciable impact on
population and/or available resources.

Again, I think someone should be able to define "foreseeable future"

The key here is that you asked about Malthusian Theory. No space
capability will EVER have ANY impact on population growth as defined
in Malthusian Theory. At best, and in an imaginary, ideal scenario
you can postpone the crunch by a very small number of years.

Imagine a new planet magically appeared in our solar system and it
happens to be exactly like Earth but without intelligent life on it.
Also imagine that we magically had no limit on transport capability.
Now look at how world population has grown over the past few hundred
years, then extrapolate from that curve. How many extra years can we
sustain the past growth rate? And then what?? Find two more planets
and continue at the past growth rate???

IMHO, Malthusian Theory is at the very least incomplete. As extreme
"K strategists" [1] we will simply limit our growth long before we hit
subsistance limits. This can already be seen by looking at the
population growth of developed countries [2].

[1]http://fig.cox.miami.edu/Faculty/Tom/bil160sp98/16_rKselection.html

[2]http://www.wri.org/wri/trends/popgrow.html

--
Manfred Bartz

Manfred Bartz wrote
in message ...

Accepting some thread drift given your subject line, my estimate
would be based on the commitment NASA has made to
developing a new, man-rated space plane for crew rotation.

I've seen those, and they are not what I have in mind. I'm talking
about a space plane which is at a minimum capable of totally
replacing the current space shuttle, not just some aspect of it.
I guess that's one reason why no one has responded directly yet.

The key here is that you asked about Malthusian Theory. No
space capability will EVER have ANY impact on population
growth as defined in Malthusian Theory.

You have my concern just backward. I'm interested in how
population growth (geometric) might influence space exploration
(which has the potential to go forward geometrically).

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)