Communications satellites were not some happy accident. People realized their potential decades before they were technologically feasable.
The thing with the Spanish and the Portugeuse … they weren’t just exploring blindly. It wasn’t a case of “let’s just wander around the globe and maybe eventually we’ll make some money off it”. The target was the Spice Islands and they were fairly confident starting out that they could turn a profit if they could find the right route. So much of the early exploration was very targeted. And when Vasco de Gama finally made it there and back he turned a profit on his very first voyage. They knew their business model, took a gamble, and it paid off.
Space colonies have no business model. There’s no compelling reason to build one other than it would be cool and vague ideas about Manifest Destiny. That’s not enough.
For the thousandith time … space colonies are **immaterial ** to the question of how to solve earth’s problems. They neither help nor hinder. We could have hundreds of thriving colonies scattered through the Solar System and we’ll still need to deal with the problems of pollution and over-population on Earth. So why do you keep bringing this point into the discussion?
No, space colonization isn’t going to solve earth’s problems in the next 92 years, and you and your ilk insist it must or there’s no point. Let’s talk 200 years, or 500 years, or 1,000 years. Things get very different, but we’ll never know because you’ll shut down the space program because it can’t cure cancer tomorrow.
One more thing. We have to separate out different parts of the “space program”.
The Apollo missions to the moon were done for fun. Let’s face that fact. I’m really really glad we did them, but they weren’t done for economic reasons or even for scientific reasons, they were done to beat the Soviets and to show that Americans kick ass. And they were worth it on that level.
If you want to sell me on a manned mission to Mars, you’re going to have to sell me on doing it because it’s cool, not because that will be the first step to colonizing space. We might or might not end up colonizing space, but if we do, priming the pump NOW isn’t going to leapfrog our technology ahead. We still have to develop quite a lot of basic technology before we can even think about it.
And the reason I keep bringing up Baffin Island should be obvious then. If we want to colonize Mars eventually, it won’t matter whether the first rickety Mars mission happens in 2037 or 2057 or 2107. If we don’t have the technology and/or wealth to support people on Mars, it will be a stunt. It might be a worthwhile stunt, I can be sold on the worth of that stunt, especially if we send a trained paleontologist to Mars, that’s the real scientific gamble that might pay off.
But if you want space colonies we need advances in materials science, we need experimental ecology, remember Biosphere 2? We need about 100 of those things. We need to increase our economy ten fold, so even if colonization turns out to be a bust it won’t hurt. That self-sufficient city on the summit of Mt Everest isn’t a put-down, it’s an example of the sort of thing we HAVE to be able to do before we can even consider a city on Mars. We have to have that technology down cold and working here on Earth before we try it out a million miles away in deep space. If a city on the summit of Mt Everest seems silly or counterproductive or pointless, just consider that if constructing such a city never becomes a cheap and easy fun stunt for us, then it’s hopeless to wish for a Martian city.
If we can’t relocate the wretched refuse of Earth to comfortable self-sufficient inexpensive housing high on the Himilayan plateau then how are they going to survive on Mars? Even if they could get to Mars for near-free through a stargate?
The question of how to solve earth’s problems is immaterial to whether we’ll ever colonize space or other worlds, yet it keeps coming up. You keep bringing it up.
Developing space isn’t going to save the earth in the next 100 years - for the thousandth time. If space becomes the next Wall Streets, the next Silicon Valleys, the next cutting edge medical centers, the next agriculture pesticide-free organically grown bread baskets, the next Disney Lands, long-term that is, then yes, it could solve earth’s problems if real estate here on earth becomes ever more expensive and earth’s governments enact more and more laws making it near impossible or astoundingly expensive to pave over, carve up and drill out large areas of the earth we’ve decided we really need to stop paving, carving and drilling, in order to preserve the only fucking place in the universe we know where life originated, and still exists.
Why is Silicon Valley where it is? Is it naturally nestled on a bed of cheap, easy to extract silicon? Of course not. I do know real-estate prices are high, there’s the possibility of earthquakes, and some high-tech companies decide to move. Where do the move? Who knows where they decide to move, or why? But there seem to be a lot of dot.com millionaires and billionaires who are looking more towards space than Antarctica or the Marianas Trench. I know that, and I’m with them.
In retrospect, Biosphere was a tiny little podunk experiment practically designed to fail. Almost no one was committed to making it work. Had the United States brought its full might to bear on that project, we could have made it work. We bludgeoned our way to the moon, we didn’t spend a couple mil to see if maybe we could get there.
It was a fun little experiment, but let’s not pretend we were serious about it.
Then what was the point of post #50? I think that’s where we started talking about earth’s over-population “problem” in the context of space colonization.
So if “problem” isn’t the right word… What is the incentive for colonizing space? What do we get in return for all the expense?
I’m not sure you understood my point. A billion dollars spent on Biosphere 2 style experiments, a billion dollars spent on nanotechnology research, a billion dollars spent on materials science, a billion dollars spent on elementary school science education, or a billion dollars spent on robotics research, will do 10 times more for an eventual Mars colony than 100 billion spent on a mission to Mars in the next 10 years.
The Columbus analogy is very apt. Columbus “discovered America” because it was the right time to discover America. Sailing technology, after centuries of incremental improvements, was now advanced enough to allow it. It wasn’t the case that if Columbus had been hit by a bus in 1491 the age of Exploration would have died in its infancy. Someone else would have done it, within a decade.
In many respects, you represent Columbus…trying to convince the court that the Indies are only a few hundred miles west, when we can clearly see that they’re actually 10,000 miles west. And you can’t point to Columbus’s serendipitous discovery of the Americas as a justification for the space program, because just because Columbus fortuneatly ran into a mysterious new continent doesn’t mean that anyone who sails out into the ocean will. Plenty of people spent their lives searching for the Northwest Passage, or the great Southern Continent, or Prester John’s kingdom. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. They laughed at all the other nameless explorers who wandered over the horizon and never came back. They laughed at the alchemists who tried to turn lead into gold.
Columbus got lucky, and you somehow have the idea that proves that all voyages of exploration are likely to do the same.
Money spent directly on a manned mission to Mars in the next few decades will have almost no effect on whether we eventually have substantial colonies on Mars. Just like Columbus’s voyages didn’t do one whit to establish trade relations with the Indies. Until you can prove that a hundred people can live in a sealed underground box for a couple of years, you have no business advocating that they try the same experiment for the first time on Mars.
You can’t brush these things aside as technicalities that can be solved. Of course they can be solved. But they are absolutely essential before we can consider space colonies that are something more than expensive stunts done for fun. You’re like Colubus setting sail westward with no food and no water and no spare parts, imaging that these details will somehow work themselves out.
In post #50 I said “For those of you who feel humanity should stay on earth forever, I have a couple questions.”
I still haven’t gotten much in the way of answers other than “die offs, decline, stability,” whatever all those mean.
What’s our ROI? What’s it to you, dirt-sider? If millionaires want to pay Russia $10 mil a pop for a joy-ride to space, if millionaire space tourists want to pay whatever-million per pop for their space jonts, what’s it to you, Mr. ROI? You didn’t pay diddly. Apparently space tourism, and eventually space colonization is going to happen without you. See ya.*
*Well, I wish I could say “see ya.” I’m stuck here with you fuddy-duds.
Gah! :mad: I keep bringing it up to point out that it’s immaterial! Here I am way back in post 63 saying it:
You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that those of us who oppose space colonies do so because they don’t provide any benefit to Earth. That’s wrong. I’d be perfectly happy for us to build a moon colony or a Mars colony or a city-sized space station even if it never benefitted Earth one iota, so long as there was some reasonable expectation that it would be self-sufficient in the long run … say within a century or so.
The problem is before we can establish an extraterrestrial colony that will be even marginally self-sufficient we have to develop a large number of extremely speculative technologies. Until that basic reaseach has happened and the mechanics of creating a viable colony are understood, it’s all just make-believe.
I don’t get your reference, but I guess you’re saying tourism is one motivation for constructing a space colony. Is that all? And would you consider that a self-sufficient colony?
Well, that was quite a switch. Just a short while back you were telling us that you thought off-earth colonies were actually going to be important for practical reasons:
Now, finally, you seem to have fallen back to the position that the point of off-earth colonization is simply that it’s fun and hip and groovy, and if millionaires want to pay for the trip then who are we to criticize?
I’m fine with that attitude. I would be happy to wave goodbye to all the people who are impatient to live offworld and are bummed at having to stay around here with us “fuddy-duddies”. Bon voyage! Have fun!
But it’s very inconsistent with the arguments you were trying to make earlier, when you were attempting to persuade other posters that offworld colonization might actually be, you know, useful for practical economic or environmental reasons. As far as that line of argument goes, you’ve still got nothin’.
But you keep asking, "how’s it going to solve earth’s problems and I keep saying “I dunno” at least for a long time.
Maybe I missed something way back in the thread. I’m not going back to look, but the crux of the argument now is that the colony has to be completely self-sufficient? Well let me make this clear right now: not my goal for space colonization. Is the US self-sufficient? Put a dome over the US, cutting if off from the oceans, the rivers, the lakes, the atmosphere and it’s precipitation - how long does it last? What would it take to make the US a 100% self-sufficient, completely recycling environment, and still maintain our spoiled standard of living? Could we ever do it?
No, everyone imports and exports and we’re all interdependent. I don’t see space colonies as being completely self-sufficient. I don’t really want them to be. The OP didn’t stipulate this. One of the problems with the Biosphere is they couldn’t bring in help. I don’t require that for future off-world colonies. They should be largely self-sufficient sure, they’ll have to be I imagine, but if they need more oxygen & hydrogen or Van Halen CDs or genuine Columbian coffee beans, I don’t expect them to do it all on their own, anymore than I expect any country on earth to do it all alone.
Let me point out also that there are two different approaches to what I would consider self-sufficiency:
True Autonomy – The colony can manufacture whatever it needs on its own without help from Earth. The mother planet could be wiped out by an asteroid and the colony could continue to thrive just fine on its own. This is a very difficult stage to achieve. Any space colony is going to depend on a wide variety of different advanced technologies just for basic survival. Complete autonomy means that you need to have the manufacturing capabilities for all of them. It’s hard to imagine that happening without at least 10,000 people in the colony.
Balance of Trade Autonomy – The Prudhoe Bay example. In this situation the colony can’t survive on its own, but it balances the imports it receives from Earth with exports of a comparable value. This sort of colony is almost achievable to us now technologically. The problem here is that there is absolutely nothing in space that can provide enough return to balance the exchange. Which means that it is not sustainable past the short term.
This is the rock and the hard place we’re caught between. True Autonomy requires a huge jump forward all at once – which is doable only if Earth’s economy grows to be so much larger that the jump becomes trivial. This is the “Rich Man’s Hobby” version of colony creation.
But the incremental Balance of Trade approach only works if there’s something to trade at the other end. Which there isn’t. This is the “Show Me Your Business Model” version of colony creation.
Ultimately neither approach may be viable. Earth may never be prosperous enough to create extraterrestrial cities on a lark. And we may never come up with any way to get a financial return on our investment in space. Until we can see a way forward on one of these two fronts, a space colony is pure fiction.
Why do Mexicans often risk their lives coming to the US? It’s not like they don’t have resources in Mexico. It’s a huge fricking country. Yet, they do. Mexicans come to the US for economic reasons. Does money grow on trees here? Or might it be a bit more complex?
Environmental reasons? Long term, more people living off-world, too expensive to live on earth with its incredibly inflated real-estate prices and environmental controls, and we beam energy down from the array of solar energy satellites in orbit around earth. Okay? Just a possibility.
Instead we’ve pointed out over and over again that Earth’s problems are immaterial to the question of whether or not space colonies are viable.
Earth’s problems may make space colonies DESIRABLE, but that doesn’t say anything about whether or not they’re VIABLE. Personally, I find the idea winning the lottery and retiring to the south of France highly DESIRABLE, but I would never claim that such a plan is VIABLE.
You keep redefining what it is we’re actually discussing. Cute trick. Kinda old. Not playing.
First space colonies have to solve over population, then they have to cure global warming, then they have to provide a return on investment, then they have to be sefl-sufficient, then they have to viable.
What’s next? Never mind. I don’t feel like playing. I’ve got homework.
I don’t understand this analogy at all. Are you saying we’d move to space for economic reasons? Are there high-paying jobs available in space now? Are there roads and other infrastructure in space already?
You need to look at why Europeans (and later others) colonized America in the first place, and whether those same reasons apply to space.
Yes, it’s a bit more complex. Why don’t Mexicans risk their lives to go to Antarctica? Why do they come to the United States? As you say, they don’t come here for the natural resources. The line between San Diego and Tiajuana is just a line on a map.
This is why “space is full on natural resources” doesn’t mean a thing. This is why something as simple as a lightbulb could cost the equivalent of thousands of dollars if it has to be made by a machine shop on Mars, yet only $1.99 at WalMart, even though Mars has silica for glass, iron oxide for steel, copper, tungsten, everything you need to make a lightbulb is just sitting there on Mars. Yet to build a factory that builds the tools to mine those materials is a gigantic undertaking. To build a factory that builds the machinery to run a lightbulb factory is a gigantic undertaking. You can’t just send a lightbuld factory to Mars, the colonists will have to build one. And that lightbulb factory is dependent on hundreds of inputs.
Sure, you can make lightbulbs in the machine shop the way Thomas Edison did, and those lightbulbs will take hours of skilled labor to make one by one. Or you can import lightbulbs from Earth. Either way, each lightbulb will be the instantiation of a tremendous investment of capital and labor. That is, the lightbulb will cost a tremendous amount, even if the colony doesn’t use money, even if taxpayers here on Earth pay most of the bill.
If it were as simple as getting the plans for a factory, getting together a couple tractors and some engineers and some sheetmetal, then all those guys in Mexico wouldn’t be coming over here for jobs in a lightbulb factory, they’d build their own.
If millionaires want to pay Russia $10 mil a pop for a joy-ride to space, if millionaire space tourists want to pay whatever-million per pop for their space jonts, what’s it to you, Mr. ROI? You didn’t pay diddly. Apparently space tourism, and eventually space colonization is going to happen without you. See ya.*