Why Colonize Space?

wrote in message
...
In sci.physics "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe
wrote:

"Immortalista" wrote in message
...
Today I was reading some opinions of people who believe that there is
no reason for humans to leave earth. Are all arguments for moving into
space and onto other bodies in space really that weak and irrelevant?

To say on the one hand that there is no reason and on the other 'it is
too
expensive' is a kind of a contradiction. This means that if it was a lot
cheaper then it would be justified, and that means there must be some
reason
for doing it, and the persons putting forward such an argument obviously
recognise that. So if it just a question of allocation of resources,
rather
than fundamental value of the enterprise, then fine, it should recognised
as
a financial discussion, not really a philosophical one.

Depends on who you are talking about doing it and what you are talking
about doing.

Governments do lots of things for no other reason than enough people
think it is a "good idea" both directly and indirectly through grants.

Commercial enterprise doesn't do anything that doesn't have a ROI.

The only government colonies have all been penal colonies.


--
Jim Pennino

===========================

Not true. The Virginia Company was a state chartered business cartel. As
long as the cartel got the job of colonization done it could make whatever
profit it could make. It eventually made good profits for its investors,
revenues for the government and crown, and didn't directly cost the
government a dime. Not only were the chartered lands of the outland New
World a new frontier, so were the Old World homelands. Not only did
[people-going-nowhere-before] find chances for relatively unlimited new
beginnings and opportunities from the new dimensions in the vastnesses of
the New World Frontier, but so did the people who stayed behind in the Old
World discover themselves to be in a brand new and extraordinarily dynamic
frontier of their own. A brand new 'Old World' frontier made possible thanks
only to the increasingly energetic -- increasingly electric -- flow between
those staying and those trickling and pouring out into that harsh,
dangerously raw and alien (potently opportunistic) vastness to stay.

GL

===========================

Steven L. wrote:

The "When Worlds Collide" scenario isn't impossible.

Actually, the one shown in the film is... figure out the velocity that
Bellus would have to have to get from first detection to Earth impact as
fast as is shown in the film - to get to Zira, the Space Ark must match
the velocity of the Bellus-Zira system as it passes by, and that's way
outside of the abilities of the propulsion technology shown in the film.

Pat

"Immortalista" wrote in message
...
Today I was reading some opinions of people who believe that there is
no reason for humans to leave earth. Are all arguments for moving into
space and onto other bodies in space really that weak and irrelevant?

No.

-- Ken from Chicago

Puppet_Sock wrote:
Oh, by the way. Space is already making huge stacks
of money for those participating. Space has been a
net profit for some considerable time now. There are
these things called weather satts, telecom satts, GPS,
and others. They are already producing more revenue
than is spent on space, by a lot. So you can just go
turn in your GPS, your cell phone, your internet
connection, your weather reports, etc.


You've confused "space" with "manned space"
The only ones that have made a buck off of manned space are the Russians
with their space tourist program.
And you notice that they just take one tourist along on a already
planned trip to the ISS, and haven't started to send up Soyuz flights
with all-tourist crews, or build a space station just for tourist use.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote
Puppet_Sock wrote

Oh, by the way. Space is already making huge stacks
of money for those participating. Space has been a
net profit for some considerable time now. There are
these things called weather satts, telecom satts, GPS,
and others. They are already producing more revenue
than is spent on space, by a lot. So you can just go
turn in your GPS, your cell phone, your internet
connection, your weather reports, etc.

You've confused "space" with "manned space"

Indeed.

The only ones that have made a buck off of manned space are the Russians with their space tourist program.

They didnt make any money out of that either, just
got back a microscopic percentage of their costs.

And you notice that they just take one tourist along on a already
planned trip to the ISS, and haven't started to send up Soyuz flights
with all-tourist crews, or build a space station just for tourist use.

Bret Cahill wrote:
Today I was reading some opinions of people who believe that there is
no reason for humans to leave earth. Are all arguments for moving into
space and onto other bodies in space really that weak and irrelevant?
If you venture outside the Earth's atmosphere you lose the equivalent
of a full yard of solid lead radiation shielding (and no heavy element
pair formation), 14.7 psi. Asstronaughts in Skulab, Mir, and ISS
FUBAR ahve a 95% incidence of radiation cataracts.

If you additionally venture outside the Earth's magnetosphere you get
cooked alive by solar storms and cosmic radiation.

Sounds almost as bad as Texas.

nah, much less dust & hot air, and fewer texans.

regards,
jack tingle

wrote in message
...
In sci.physics "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe
wrote:

"Immortalista" wrote in message
...
Today I was reading some opinions of people who believe that there is
no reason for humans to leave earth. Are all arguments for moving into
space and onto other bodies in space really that weak and irrelevant?

To say on the one hand that there is no reason and on the other 'it is
too
expensive' is a kind of a contradiction. This means that if it was a lot
cheaper then it would be justified, and that means there must be some
reason
for doing it, and the persons putting forward such an argument obviously
recognise that. So if it just a question of allocation of resources,
rather
than fundamental value of the enterprise, then fine, it should recognised
as
a financial discussion, not really a philosophical one.

Depends on who you are talking about doing it and what you are talking
about doing.

Governments do lots of things for no other reason than enough people
think it is a "good idea" both directly and indirectly through grants.


i.e, the voters and tax payers who are going to pay for it?

Commercial enterprise doesn't do anything that doesn't have a ROI.

Potential and hoped for ROI at least.


The only government colonies have all been penal colonies.


America wasn't a penal colony.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Sir Frederick" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 03:56:00 +0100, "Giga" "Giga"
just(removetheseandaddmatthe
wrote:


"Immortalista" wrote in message
...
Today I was reading some opinions of people who believe that there is
no reason for humans to leave earth. Are all arguments for moving into
space and onto other bodies in space really that weak and irrelevant?

To say on the one hand that there is no reason and on the other 'it is too
expensive' is a kind of a contradiction. This means that if it was a lot
cheaper then it would be justified, and that means there must be some
reason
for doing it, and the persons putting forward such an argument obviously
recognise that. So if it just a question of allocation of resources,
rather
than fundamental value of the enterprise, then fine, it should recognised
as
a financial discussion, not really a philosophical one.

What worries me 'most' is that the human race is basically
anachronistic, 'we' are still in the medieval ages, culturally.
Honesty is not as strong as hubris. 'We' are still the fantasy
folk. Those fantasies don't work out of 'our' supportive
context.

Somewhat pessimistic I would say.

"David Johnston" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 03:56:00 +0100, "Giga" "Giga"
just(removetheseandaddmatthe wrote:


"Immortalista" wrote in message
...
Today I was reading some opinions of people who believe that there is
no reason for humans to leave earth. Are all arguments for moving into
space and onto other bodies in space really that weak and irrelevant?

To say on the one hand that there is no reason and on the other 'it is too
expensive' is a kind of a contradiction. This means that if it was a lot
cheaper then it would be justified, and that means there must be some
reason
for doing it, and the persons putting forward such an argument obviously
recognise that. So if it just a question of allocation of resources,
rather
than fundamental value of the enterprise, then fine, it should recognised
as
a financial discussion, not really a philosophical one.

Pragmatism is also a philosophy.

But accountancy isn't or the practical business of politics and the
allocation of resources. Obviously Pragmatism can make a contribution to
such debates, and other philosophical approaches.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Giga" "Giga wrote
Immortalista wrote

Today I was reading some opinions of people who believe that there is no
reason for humans to leave earth. Are all arguments for moving
into space and onto other bodies in space really that weak and
irrelevant?

To say on the one hand that there is no reason and on the other 'it is
too expensive' is a kind of a contradiction.

Nope, the original is just a loose form of saying that there
is CURRENTLY no reason for humans to colonise space.

I presume by emphasising 'currently' you mean there might be in the future,
or perhaps there will be. I suppose if you are already living the good life
then why bother, but billions of people are not.


This means that if it was a lot cheaper then it would be justified,

Not necessarily, most obviously if no one is interested in being colonists
etc.


I think many people would be interested, me for one, but I doubt that I
would be chosen.


and that means there must be some reason for doing it, and the persons
putting forward such an argument obviously recognise that.

Utterly mangled all over again.

So you do not recognise any value human beings exploring space with manned
craft? That would be an extreme and difficult to justify position.


So if it just a question of allocation of resources,

It isnt.

rather than fundamental value of the enterprise, then fine, it should
recognised as a financial discussion, not really a philosophical one.

No one ever said it was a philosophical one.