Why Colonize Space?

In sci.physics Dimensional Traveler wrote:
stfuudork 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?

I think it best (in my opinion) that humans fix Earth before going to
other planets. Everyone has a right to a safe and happy life. A right
to have dreams and have them fulfilled, to study and learn. The expense
involved with leaving Earth just isn't justified when so many people
live without hope and die of such stupid and simply fixed problems like
hunger. But I do understand the people who say that Humans should have a
bet both ways in case of an asteroid impact or similar extinction type
event.

The "First we have to fix every problem on Earth" argument is a common
one. Its also a false choice. The amount spent on space exploration is
a tiny fraction of what is spent already on issues such as literacy,
famine relief, etc. It also ignores the fact that many of the advances
that help "fix Earth" are spin-offs _from_ space exploration. Not to
mention ignoring that most such problems are cultural and the solutions
are rejected by those suffering from them.

It is not a choice _between_ feed the hungry and explore space. We can
easily do both and each helps advance the other.

The 2009 US budget show $1630 billion for direct social programs and
$17.6 billion for NASA; it appears the US is doing both.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Michael Stemper wrote:

I don't need to; I live in Minnesota. It gets cold enough here; I don't
need to go there -- or to Mars -- to see what it would be like to live
someplace where you don't unnecessarily go outside for days at a time,
and never without proper protective gear.


I'm in North Dakota...you want to see _real_ cold, you just go over to
St. Petersburg, Russia for New Years sometime.
When the 40 mph wind comes off of the Baltic Sea at you, you will know
what cold is all about.

Pat

On Jul 22, 12:56*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

Aargh, here they come matey:http://www.markdery.com/archives/images/flm.gif

Looks like Bonestell!

John Savard

On Jul 22, 9:22*am, David Johnston wrote:
But...it's there. *If "it's there" is enough to reason to settle, then
since Everest is obviously there, it should have been settled. *- Hide quoted text -

Actually, it has been. There are four or five base camps with
permanent structures, staffed year-round. The highest one is less
than a kilometer away from the summit. As far as I can tell, the only
purpose behind these camps is to facilitate tourism. I don't know if
that will change anyone's opinion, but I thought we should at least
clear up this minor point.

: Damien Valentine
: Actually, it has been. There are four or five base camps with
: permanent structures, staffed year-round. The highest one is less
: than a kilometer away from the summit. As far as I can tell, the only
: purpose behind these camps is to facilitate tourism. I don't know if
: that will change anyone's opinion, but I thought we should at least
: clear up this minor point.

Well, tourism *is* the least-implausible reason people might go
into orbit in the anywhere-near-future. Or so it seems. However,
the expense is considerably greater than for an expedition to
Everest, and so the clients correspondingly thin on the ground...
or in the vacuum as the case may be. Remains to be seen whether
transport costs can be made inexpensive enough, and safe enough
(as Scaled Composites has discovered).


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

In sci.physics Damien Valentine wrote:
On Jul 22, 9:22Â*am, David Johnston wrote:
But...it's there. Â*If "it's there" is enough to reason to settle, then
since Everest is obviously there, it should have been settled. Â*- Hide quoted text -

Actually, it has been. There are four or five base camps with
permanent structures, staffed year-round. The highest one is less
than a kilometer away from the summit. As far as I can tell, the only
purpose behind these camps is to facilitate tourism. I don't know if
that will change anyone's opinion, but I thought we should at least
clear up this minor point.

And space tourism will bootstrap triving "colonies" just like it has
on Everest.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

:
: And space tourism will bootstrap triving "colonies" just like it has
: on Everest.

I dunno about "colonies", but there's probably a bunch of sherpas (and
others) staffing the various camps. Of course, raising families and
starting schools and universities and such, not so much. Problem is,
you can commute down the mountain at vaguely reasonable intervals,
so no reason to have your family colocate. Similar for LEO. Now,
if costs fell enough to make a tourist destination on the moon work,
one can imagine the permanent staff might include males, females, and
eventually children. But I'm not going to hold my breath. Just saying.

See also, second episode of Futurama.

"We're sailors on the moon, we carry a harpoon..."

Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

On Jul 22, 2:30*pm, wrote:

And space tourism will bootstrap triving "colonies" just like it has
on Everest.

If the costs were orders of magnitude lower than they are, I would be
more inclined to take this seriously.

Until the cost for going into space is vastly decreased, massive
government-funded programs, not private enterprise, are the only
workable possibility.

John Savard

In sci.physics Quadibloc wrote:
On Jul 22, 2:30Â*pm, wrote:

And space tourism will bootstrap triving "colonies" just like it has
on Everest.

If the costs were orders of magnitude lower than they are, I would be
more inclined to take this seriously.

I think you need to look up the word "sarcasm".

Until the cost for going into space is vastly decreased, massive
government-funded programs, not private enterprise, are the only
workable possibility.

John Savard

Well, maybe private tourism out as far as LEO for a limited time assuming
you can find enough well heeled people, but not anything else with people.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:05:27 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
wrote:


It is not a choice _between_ feed the hungry and explore space. We can
easily do both and each helps advance the other.

Exploring and colonizing are two different things, you know.