James Oberg on feel-good space stations

Johnny1A wrote:


The only thing that keeps space flight going is the half-conscious
thought that humans will be following the machines in 'due course'.
If that is openly removed, space flight beyond Earth orbit is over,
including the scientific efforts, since what public support exists*
will vanish.

Space flight beyond Low Earth Orbit IS over, and has been for 30 years. maintaining a fantasy that it is
otherwise in the face of modern political and economic reality is to ignore the facts. Since Apollo the
only true space exploration has been done by machines. I support sending machines to show us what other
worlds are like, and if a dozen probes to each of the rocky inner planets are cheaper than one manned flight
to Mars I would vote for the option which provides a greater variety of knowledge. I would be happy to see
widespread human space exploration and O'Neill colonies but I keep waiting for any sign of such things
getting started.

Don Davis

Don Davis wrote in message ...

Space flight beyond Low Earth Orbit IS over, and has been for 30 years. maintaining a fantasy that it is
otherwise in the face of modern political and economic reality is to ignore the facts. Since Apollo the
only true space exploration has been done by machines. I support sending machines to show us what other
worlds are like, and if a dozen probes to each of the rocky inner planets are cheaper than one manned flight
to Mars I would vote for the option which provides a greater variety of knowledge.

Don Davis

No manned space flight means, in time, no space flight at all. The
thing keeping the unmanned probes in business is the public
perception, right or wrong, that eventually they'll be followed by
humans (in whatever due time).

It doesn't matter whether they're cheaper or not in that context.

Shermanlee

"Johnny1A" wrote:
No manned space flight means, in time, no space flight at all. The
thing keeping the unmanned probes in business is the public
perception, right or wrong, that eventually they'll be followed by
humans (in whatever due time).

No, only, by your argument, no *non-commercial* space
flight at all. Commercial spaceflight pays for itself
handily, it ain't gonna stop no way no how.

Nevertheless, there are only two (maybe 3) countries
which have ever had manned spaceflight programs but
dozens with unmanned (non-commercial) spaceflight
programs so I don't think your argument holds much
water.

Space flight beyond Low Earth Orbit IS over, and has been for 30 years. maintaining a fantasy that it is
otherwise in the face of modern political and economic reality is to ignore the facts. Since Apollo the
only true space exploration has been done by machines. I support sending machines to show us what other
worlds are like, and if a dozen probes to each of the rocky inner planets are cheaper than one manned flight
to Mars I would vote for the option which provides a greater variety of knowledge. I would be happy to see
widespread human space exploration and O'Neill colonies but I keep waiting for any sign of such things
getting started.

Don Davis

I'd like to see a program that would first put sensor sats in orbit
around all the planets of the solar system, and then put rovers down
on the ones that have surfaces and hover probes in the atmospheres of
the ones that don't. Who knows - we might find something new that is
so valuable it would be worth sending people out to get and bring back
- like a submarine life-form on Europa.

Space Exploration and O'Neill colonies aren't cost-effective (why
build an O'Neill colony when we haven't filled up the Earth yet - not
even the Badlands in the Dakotas?) and so will not be built.

John Ordover wrote:

Space Exploration and O'Neill colonies aren't cost-effective (why
build an O'Neill colony when we haven't filled up the Earth yet - not
even the Badlands in the Dakotas?) and so will not be built.

But I observe that Europe colonized the New World prior to every part of Europe
being completely filled up.

As you yourself have (correctly) pointed out, colonization beyond Earth could
only happen if an economic opportunity presented itself. The only difference
between you and some of the rest of us is that you dogmatically state the
economic situation will never change from its present state, while some of us
allow the possibility that the economics might change in the future.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the
best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the
Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely.
Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable - the best site is
"somewhere else entirely."

Gerard O'Neill - "The High Frontier"

"John Ordover" wrote:
Space Exploration and O'Neill colonies aren't cost-effective (why
build an O'Neill colony when we haven't filled up the Earth yet - not
even the Badlands in the Dakotas?) and so will not be built.

Because people don't just live where they can, or where it's
easiest, they live where they want. And that includes living
where it's more difficult or more expensive. Living in San
Francisco is much more costly than living in Los Angeles, and
Los Angeles isn't even full yet, so why would anyone live in
San Francisco? Why would people emigrate from any country
before that country was "full"?

By your argument, nobody would visit or live on Antarctica,
because it's so difficult to live there and so costly to
reach. Yet hundreds of people live there (which is really
something, because you can't own land there, which is why
nobody lives there permanently) and thousands of people
visit on short trips. Antarctic tourism is a self-
supporting industry.

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message ...
"Johnny1A" wrote:
No manned space flight means, in time, no space flight at all. The
thing keeping the unmanned probes in business is the public
perception, right or wrong, that eventually they'll be followed by
humans (in whatever due time).

No, only, by your argument, no *non-commercial* space
flight at all. Commercial spaceflight pays for itself
handily, it ain't gonna stop no way no how.

True, I should have said non-commericial exploration. Comsats,
Earth-resource and spysats, things on that order are here to stay. If
someone finds a money-making enterprise beyond Earth-orbit that
doesn't require manned presence, that too would work. But there's a
limit to how far science for its own sake will be supported by
governmental money.



Nevertheless, there are only two (maybe 3) countries
which have ever had manned spaceflight programs but
dozens with unmanned (non-commercial) spaceflight
programs so I don't think your argument holds much
water.

The large majority of those missions come from the same few countries
that had manned flight, however.

Shermanlee

(John Ordover) wrote in message . com...
Space flight beyond Low Earth Orbit IS over, and has been for 30 years. maintaining a fantasy that it is
otherwise in the face of modern political and economic reality is to ignore the facts. Since Apollo the
only true space exploration has been done by machines. I support sending machines to show us what other
worlds are like, and if a dozen probes to each of the rocky inner planets are cheaper than one manned flight
to Mars I would vote for the option which provides a greater variety of knowledge. I would be happy to see
widespread human space exploration and O'Neill colonies but I keep waiting for any sign of such things
getting started.

Don Davis

I'd like to see a program that would first put sensor sats in orbit
around all the planets of the solar system, and then put rovers down
on the ones that have surfaces and hover probes in the atmospheres of
the ones that don't. Who knows - we might find something new that is
so valuable it would be worth sending people out to get and bring back
- like a submarine life-form on Europa.

That IS a very, very good idea, both scientifically and from the POV
of those who wish to encourage further space flight, both manned and
unmanned.


Space Exploration and O'Neill colonies aren't cost-effective and so will not be built.

They aren't _currently_ cost effective. In fact, I agree that it's
unlikely any O'Neills will ever be built, I suspect that whatever does
finally get built will be to O'Neill's ideas much as real aircraft are
to the theoretical models of the 18th and 19th centuries.

(why build an O'Neill colony when we haven't filled up the Earth yet - not
even the Badlands in the Dakotas?)

Non sequitur. Expansion of any sort doesn't operate on the 'fill up
one environment then expand' plan.

Shermanlee

I'd like to see a program that would first put sensor sats in orbit
around all the planets of the solar system, and then put rovers down
on the ones that have surfaces and hover probes in the atmospheres of
the ones that don't. Who knows - we might find something new that is
so valuable it would be worth sending people out to get and bring back
- like a submarine life-form on Europa.

That IS a very, very good idea, both scientifically and from the POV
of those who wish to encourage further space flight, both manned and
unmanned.


Thank you.



Space Exploration and O'Neill colonies aren't cost-effective and so will not be built.

They aren't _currently_ cost effective. In fact, I agree that it's
unlikely any O'Neills will ever be built, I suspect that whatever does
finally get built will be to O'Neill's ideas much as real aircraft are
to the theoretical models of the 18th and 19th centuries.

Which has been my point all along - for us to go into space in any
significant way, we need a significant breakthrough in our technology
(or to find something very, very valuable).

"John Ordover" wrote:
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message
...
Because people don't just live where they can, or where it's
easiest, they live where they want. And that includes living
where it's more difficult or more expensive. Living in San
Francisco is much more costly than living in Los Angeles, and
Los Angeles isn't even full yet, so why would anyone live in
San Francisco? Why would people emigrate from any country
before that country was "full"?

Because they have better opportunities to make money in San Fran than
in LA, or they have social and emotional ties to San Fran.

Clearly, nobody has or ever will have an emotional
attachment to anything outside of Earth's atmosphere.

Oh, and John, I just thought I'd mention, in case you
hadn't noticed, that your other argument was that
people only move away from places that are "full",
whereas your new argument is completely different.
You might want to look into that.


By your argument, nobody would visit or live on Antarctica,
because it's so difficult to live there and so costly to
reach.
[snip]

The only people who live in antarctica are paid to do so.

The only people who *can* live in Antarctica for any extended
period of time can only do so as scientists working for
national governments. Therefore, legally, the only people
who can live in Antarctica *must* be paid to do so.

Nevertheless, many tourists visit Antarctica without being
paid to do so, many for quite a long time.

Regardless, I fail to see how even your interpretation
supports your argument. Why people live on Antarctica
is irrelevant, the fact is that they do. And if people
can and do live on Antarctica, why can't they live on
Mars, or in Earth orbit?