I’ve noticed that Columbus Day is not as…celebrated… these days as when I was a kid, when it was pretty much an unalloyed paen to the great explorer and navigator who thought that the planet was a lot smaller than it was, bumped into a convenient continent in between Spain and Asia (had it not been there, the expedition would have been lost, or the crew mutinied and return home, long before they arrived at the real Spice Islands). Fortunately for him, the power of self delusion is great, and he seems to have gone to his deathbed thinking that he found a new route to the Orient, albeit one that bore no obvious resemblance to the one being traded with previously, other than full of heathens.
Anyway, the holiday seems to arouse much more protest today than in the sixties, at least among the politically correct and bien pensant, many of whom think that colonizing and industrializing the continent was the worst thing to happen to not only the people who had already been living here (and despite Rousseau’s toxic delusions about savage nobility, pillaging and making war amongst themselves, torturing and human sacrificing, and slaughtering the fauna who had beaten them here), but the entire planet.
I’m somewhere in the middle, but more old school than new. Certainly the place could have done with a lot less slavery and gold digging in the name of the Lord, and it would be a happier, or at least more productive place had both the north and south been Anglicized, rather than feudalized by Spain and Portugal, but overall I think that we’ve been better stewards than the first plunderers were, having gained a lot more scientific (as opposed to faux spiritual) knowledge and developed technologies to make things more to everyone’s liking, for all their cavilling. I don’t, after all, see the natives doing much of that return-to-the-earth stuff — they find casinos much more lucrative. That seems to have been left to their worshipers in communes and academia, who seem to worship them even when they are fake but accurate. And it’s tragic that so many died from simple contamination by diseases to which they had no immunity (though not deliberately for the most part, despite that particular mythology), but this is another area in which we may learn from the past, and at least try to minimize such future events.
Which gets me to my real point.
In reading some of the comments over at Pop Mechanics today, I was struck (on this day) by how many in the space advocacy (and non-advocacy) community continue to use the opening of the New World as an analogy for where we are today, or are going, in space. For instance, Jeff Greason:
I think Mars is a very obvious place for settlement to happen. It is the place we have that is closest to us and looks like the most prominent candidate for a self-sustained human presence. Why would anyone want to go there? I want to go! There are lots of people out there who want to go. Wind that question back 400 years. Why would anyone want to go this great howling wilderness in North America? When the pilgrims got here, they wrote about what inhospitable place it was, with no inns to refresh one’s spirits, nothing but howling wilderness. The first three attempts to make a permanent place in the Los Angeles area ended in death. Even now, you have to pipe in water to survive. We had to master fire to get out of Africa, and agriculture to get to a lot of places. The American West had to be subjected to massive civil engineering works before more than a small community of pioneers could live there. What you consider to be habitable is a function of your level of technology.”
This is an argument that I (and countless others) have made in the past. And then we have the inevitable Bob Park:
When we established colonies [on Earth], we did it for very specific reasons. To rape the resources and bring them home. There aren’t any resources on Mars, not that we know of. There’s nothing to go there to get. If there were diamonds a feet deep on Mars, it still wouldn’t be worth the cost of sending people there. We’re already doing a great job with unmanned explorers.
That last, of course, always begs the question of what “the job” is.
So is it a good analogy or not? Yes, in some ways, no in others. As Scott Pace notes, our future in space depends on two critical issues, and one can build a quadrant table from them:
| Can Live Off The Land | Can’t Live Off The Land | |
| Economic Benefits | Space Settlements | Oil Rigs |
| No Economic Benefits | Antarctica | Nothing Much In Space |
| Can Live Off The Land | Can’t Live Off The Land | |
| Economic/Spiritual Benefits | Space Settlements | Oil Rigs |
| No Economic/Spiritual Benefits | Massachussets/Salt Lake City | Nothing Much In Space |
>Edward Wright Says:
> October 13th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
>
>What other economic activity would you suggest?
>
> Those that rely on intellectual capital more than physical capital.
> Communication and information services. Exploration. Entertainment.
Those don’t generally need anything from space except the com sats, and that market is developed
> Scientific research.
No (or little) market at these prices.
You don’t seem to have a handle on the sovereignty issue, even though this is explained to you every time we have this discussion.
Well, you haven’t really explained the sovereignty issue so much as merely stated it and become irritated and annoyed when it isn’t accepted without question.
For my own part, I consider issues like sovereignty, property rights, spiritual benefits, etc as second or third order influences on space colonization prospects behind such heavy hitters like technology and economics.
For my own part, I consider issues like sovereignty, property rights, spiritual benefits, etc as second or third order influences on space colonization prospects behind such heavy hitters like technology and economics.
Apparently, then, that’s why there’s little common ground for discussion. If you refuse to acknowledge the most important reason that people might want to emigrate off planet, and one of the primary drivers for the past colonization of the present-day US, then it’s pointless to argue any further. Please get off the carousel.
If you refuse to acknowledge the most important reason that people might want to emigrate off planet, and one of the primary drivers for the past colonization of the present-day US, then it’s pointless to argue any further.
Please don’t put words in my mouth, Rand. I don’t “refuse” to acknowledge any such thing. I’m merely pointing out that “the most important reason” hasn’t as yet placed one colonist in space. That suggests that there are more important considerations.
I could easily see LEO quickly becoming the global financial center as it could be specialized and not compromised with geographical or heritage problems. An obvious independent place from which to run things with the capacity to write laws to suit.
Not subject to invasion or global warming and kind of disembodied it might also be a good match for the internet. One might also communicate with anyone on Earth directly via say cellphones or equivalents without government censorship. There is potential here for some very interesting things to happen. LEO – a country without borders.
I’m merely pointing out that “the most important reason” hasn’t as yet placed one colonist in space. That suggests that there are more important considerations.
And prior to the early seventeenth century the same statement would have applied to the New World. I continue to fail to see your point, as you do mine.
Those don’t generally need anything from space except the com sats, and that market is developed
Really? How does one explore space without being in space?
Scientific research.
No (or little) market at these prices.
I must be suffering from amnesia. What prices did I mention?
Perhaps delusions also. Am I imagining the fact that NASA spends billions on space research?
>Rand Simberg Says:
> October 13th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
>> For my own part, I consider issues like sovereignty, property rights,
>> spiritual benefits, etc as second or third order influences on space
>>colonization prospects behind such heavy hitters like technology and economics.
>== If you refuse to acknowledge the most important reason that people
> might want to emigrate off planet, and one of the primary drivers for the
> past colonization of the present-day US, then it’s pointless to argue any
> further. Please get off the carousel.
Think your missing the boat on this one Rand. Sounds like your dismissing economics – and though it doesn’t sound as cool, the vast bulk of folks came to the US to eiather flee a place they were scared of, or to come here for a better job adn opportunity to make something of yourself and for the kids.
>Pete Says:
> October 13th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
>
> I could easily see LEO quickly becoming the global financial center
> as it could be specialized and not compromised with geographical
> or heritage problems. An obvious independent place from which
> to run things with the capacity to write laws to suit.
>
> Not subject to invasion or global warming and kind of disembodied
> it might also be a good match for the internet. One might also
> communicate with anyone on Earth directly via say cellphones or
> equivalents without government censorship. ===
Your at least as vulnerable to gov influence in space as on the ground. You can call anyone anywhere on earth now via cellphones – and if you want a better net. Thats a reason to launch a newIridium ansd flag it under a flag of convenece like ships.
Really doing all this in space doesn’t add anything to the financial company that they can’t get on Earth – but at vastly higher cost, and a harder problem getting folks to move there.
You want to be free of your countries financial regs – move to a friendlier country. If current fionancial centers were that eager to move, they could go to the Camen Islands, Belize, etc. No reason to move to LEO.
> Edward Wright Says:
> October 13th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
>> Those don’t generally need anything from space except the
>> com sats, and that market is developed
> Really? How does one explore space without being in space?
Exploring space isn’t a economic activity. No one is likely to contract you to explore.
>>> Scientific research.
>> No (or little) market at these prices.
> I must be suffering from amnesia. What prices did I mention?
You were assuming tens of billions that are spent in space would be paid to the space colony.
> Perhaps delusions also. Am I imagining the fact that
> NASA spends billions on space research?
Actually they don’t spend it in space research – but beyond the symantics, they arn’t going to send those billion to the space colony under discusion to do it for them. Its not a economic basis for a colony.
You want to be free of your countries financial regs – move to a friendlier country. If current fionancial centers were that eager to move, they could go to the Camen Islands, Belize, etc. No reason to move to LEO.
High finance is the least of it. Try draconian “carbon neutral” legislation that won’t let you set your thermostat where you please, or forces you to commute by smelly slow bus instead of a nice car, or possible some “discrimination” rules that won’t let you hire and fire who you please, or “hate speech” legislation that won’t let you speak your mind.
You’re absolutely right that a corporation is not likely to want to move to orbit. A corporation is just a mechanism for making money, and it takes the existing system and exploits whatever energy flows within it it can. A corporation has no permanent interests. It can readily make money producing fine artwork or polishing shit or supplying fuel for the death camp crematoria. It’s almost by definition impossible to imagine a corporation not being able to do business on Earth.
Individuals are a different story. Individuals have goals and aspirations and feelings that are not limited to mere existence, or even comfort. Individuals are perfectly capable — as the Puritans in 17th century England proved capable — of leaving very comfortable surroundings for hardship and privation, as long as it comes with liberty, if only to say out loud what you think, even if the dominant religion considers it heresy.
As for the notion that no one has attempted the colonization yet for individual reasons : up until very recently, it was not possible for an individual to get to orbit at any price. Now that you can, we notice that people are willing to spend $20 million dollars of their very own money to “colonize” space for a few days only. With zero economic return. That should certainly get people thinking — that the first “bleeding edge” adopters, willing to spend staggering amounts of money, are doing it for purely personal reasons, not economic reasons at all. Marx was wrong. Not everything people do can be reduced to maximizing economic utility (which is fortunate, since otherwise the rate of childbirth would drop to zero). Furthermore, the satellite business is a fascinating wrong analogy. I don’t think people will go to space, when they go in large numbers, in order to make money at all. They’ll go to get away, even if it costs them money and effort.
I’m merely pointing out that “the most important reason” hasn’t as yet placed one colonist in space. That suggests that there are more important considerations.
And prior to the early seventeenth century the same statement would have applied to the New World. I continue to fail to see your point, as you do mine.
Rand, I was under the impression that the New World had been colonized long before that, certainly by the neolithic era the population of the New World was in the millions.
I was under the impression that the New World had been colonized long before that
It had. But not for that reason.
Jim Davis – Cost to orbit and the technology to live in space are, to say the least, non-trivial issues. We’re solving those issues, much like Neolithic humans had to figure out what plants were edible in the New World.
I think the sovereignty issue is what causes the first few colonies to be founded. But unless an economic case can be made, you don’t get large-scale settlement.
It’s very difficult to predict what will become the economic engine of space – again that’s tied to launch costs. Although, getting stuff down from space is always easier then sending it up. Mineral extraction seems likely, since that’s a dirty business nobody wants in their back yard or wilderness area.
Also of note is the impact of short-term booms. For example, during the California gold rush, not only did thousands of people stampede west, but San Fransisco businesses were making money sending dirty clothes to Hawaii to be washed! Now, that bubble busted, but many of the gold miners ended up staying in California and finding something to do.
As for the notion that no one has attempted the colonization yet for individual reasons : up until very recently, it was not possible for an individual to get to orbit at any price. Now that you can, we notice that people are willing to spend $20 million dollars of their very own money to “colonize” space for a few days only. With zero economic return. That should certainly get people thinking — that the first “bleeding edge” adopters, willing to spend staggering amounts of money, are doing it for purely personal reasons, not economic reasons at all.
Carl, Paul Allen was willing to spend half a billion dollars on a 400 foot yacht with annual upkeep in the tens of millions. Can we conclude that Allen is an “early adopter” and that the surface of the seas will soon be “colonized”?
Or do we note that on the surface of the seas, at any given moment, are hundreds of thousands of people, and that this has been the case for centuries if not millennia? Some are there to get from point A to B, some are there to make a living, some are there to relax and enjoy themselves, but very few, if any, of them make their homes there.
Do you think it possible that space might follow a similar pattern? Enormous numbers there at any given moment, for any number of reasons, but very few that actually make their homes there? Who can say? I think many different conclusions can be drawn from present conditions. Some might even turn out to be correct.
Carl, Paul Allen was willing to spend half a billion dollars on a 400 foot yacht with annual upkeep in the tens of millions. Can we conclude that Allen is an “early adopter” and that the surface of the seas will soon be “colonized”?
Jim, that is a logic error. Just because A implies B, doesn’t mean that B implies A. Just because a rich guy spends a lot of money on an activity, doesn’t imply that they are an early adopter, even if early adopters implicitly spend a lot of money on certain activities.
Do you think it possible that space might follow a similar pattern? Enormous numbers there at any given moment, for any number of reasons, but very few that actually make their homes there? Who can say? I think many different conclusions can be drawn from present conditions. Some might even turn out to be correct.
Where are they living then? Everyone still on Earth? That’s something like claiming there will be massive ocean traffic throughout the world even if everyone lives only in the British Isles. I don’t believe it would work that way.
Jim, that is a logic error.
Indeed, but Carl Pham’s, not mine.
Just because A implies B, doesn’t mean that B implies A. Just because a rich guy spends a lot of money on an activity, doesn’t imply that they are an early adopter, even if early adopters implicitly spend a lot of money on certain activities.
More or less the point I was making to Carl.
Where are they living then? Everyone still on Earth?
Making their homes there, yes.
That’s something like claiming there will be massive ocean traffic throughout the world even if everyone lives only in the British Isles.
More like claiming that there will be massive ocean traffic throughout the world even if everyone lives only on land. Which, coincidentally enough, is the present situation.
I don’t believe it would work that way.
Maybe not. I don’t really think we can make this call from a 2009 vantage point.
I was under the impression that the New World had been colonized long before that
It had. But not for that reason.
That reason apparently arrived at the New World colonization party some tens of thousands of years late, then. Makes one wonder about its relative importance.
That reason apparently arrived at the New World colonization party some tens of thousands of years late, then. Makes one wonder about its relative importance.
For tens (or hundreds) of thousands of years, it was of no importance whatsoever. The notion of religious liberty would never have occurred to nomadic neolithic hunters with lots of room to roam. But (DUH), societies evolve. Maszlow’s hierarchy works on a cultural as well as an individual level. It became much more important when 1) there were religious wars going on in Europe and 2) a new land to which one could go to escape them was discovered. They are likely to increase even further in importance in the future as society continues to evolve and the planet continues to get effectively smaller. But I’m confident that you’ll continue to not get it, extrapolating from years of experience.
More or less the point I was making to Carl.
I haven’t seen Carl make that error. I have seen you make that error.
Making their homes there, yes.
Then what’s the incentive that’s going to put large numbers of people in space? Tourism?
More like claiming that there will be massive ocean traffic throughout the world even if everyone lives only on land. Which, coincidentally enough, is the present situation.
No. You’d have to have people living in quantity in places like the Moon, L4/5 points, or Mars for that analogy to hold. If they’re all living on Earth, then they’re effectively living in one small place. That’s why I chose the British Isles as my analogy. There are multiple ports, even multiple islands, but the place where people live is small while the oceans are vast. That analogy is more accurate.
Maybe not. I don’t really think we can make this call from a 2009 vantage point.
That is worth remembering the next time you enter into this sort of discussion. Having said that, we can evaluate to a degree the economics of space travel. For example, it doesn’t make sense to ship large numbers of people in and out of some remote location on a frequent basis. For example, on Earth it is easy to ship people in and out of Antarctic bases. So you can have a team stay just for the summer. A similar situation doesn’t exist for a Martian base. Moving people out after a few months is an extraordinary waste of resources. If you can move people there for a three month stay, you can muster the slightly greater resources needed to keep them there for a couple of years and get considerably greater value for the money.
A similar thing holds for space tourism. As it currently is set up, any space tourist will require some degree of training and a good sum of money. So there is a considerable initial investment of time and money, no matter how short a stay in space. So you might as well get a more extensive stay in space than a short one for a bit more money. In other words, I think the ante for getting into space will, at least in the next few decades, encourage serious stays in space.
The same happened in the historical New World. People who went to the New World typically either did so to stay for a considerable period of time. Even in the 19th Century, travel was typically for long durations. There are plenty of examples of people who’d stay half a year or more in some exotic locale.
Now, we do things like weekend visits or week long cruises. These things are the exception and not the norm. Space travel will not economically support quick or casual trips for some time to come. And when it does get to the point where you can have casual visits, then the economics will be solidly in place for space colonization.
Exploring space isn’t a economic activity. No one is likely to contract you to explore.
Really? Do you all those tour guides, cruise lines, etc. spend so much money advertising because no one ever hires them?
You were assuming tens of billions that are spent in space would be paid to the space colony.
Really? I must be assuming in my sleep. What else was I assuming?
Wernher von Braun was fond of telling people that NASA didn’t spend any money in space, it spent it in Houston and Huntsville.
If you expect tens of billions to be spent in space, where do you think people will be spending it? At vending machines?
Perhaps delusions also. Am I imagining the fact that
NASA spends billions on space research?
Actually they don’t spend it in space research –
Really? NASA’s FY2010 budget requests contains $1,405B for Earth science, $1,346B for planetary science, $1,121B for astrophysics, and $0.605B for heliophysics.
What do you think they’re really going to spend the money on? Golf courses?
but beyond the symantics, they arn’t going to send those billion to the space colony under discusion to do it for them. Its not a economic basis for a colony.
And you know that, how? (Beyond the fact that you say so.)
More or less the point I was making to Carl.
I haven’t seen Carl make that error. I have seen you make that error.
Here’s Carl:
Now that you can, we notice that people are willing to spend $20 million dollars of their very own money to “colonize” space for a few days only. With zero economic return. That should certainly get people thinking — that the first “bleeding edge” adopters, willing to spend staggering amounts of money, are doing it for purely personal reasons, not economic reasons at all.
Here’s you ascribing Carl’s error to me:
Jim, that is a logic error. Just because A implies B, doesn’t mean that B implies A. Just because a rich guy spends a lot of money on an activity, doesn’t imply that they are an early adopter, even if early adopters implicitly spend a lot of money on certain activities.
Then what’s the incentive that’s going to put large numbers of people in space? Tourism?
We can only speculate at this juncture. Tourism has already come to pass. Solar power satellite construction workers, platinum metal group minors, or whatever. Name your poison.
No. You’d have to have people living in quantity in places like the Moon, L4/5 points, or Mars for that analogy to hold. If they’re all living on Earth, then they’re effectively living in one small place.
I have some news for you, Karl. They are all living on Earth. That’s reality not, analogy. Earth might seem to be a very small place to you but you must remember that it has been home to every human that has ever lived. The population of earth better be large enough to sustain large scale space commerce or discussion is merely an academic exercise.
That’s why I chose the British Isles as my analogy. There are multiple ports, even multiple islands, but the place where people live is small while the oceans are vast. That analogy is more accurate.
I’m sorry I don’t see this, Karl. I don’t see how having all people living on terrestrial land masses precludes them from exploiting space resources any more than it precludes them from exploiting maritime resources. Indeed, most space advocates insist otherwise.
That is worth remembering the next time you enter into this sort of discussion.
Good advice for all of us, to be sure.
Having said that, we can evaluate to a degree the economics of space travel. For example, it doesn’t make sense to ship large numbers of people in and out of some remote location on a frequent basis. For example, on Earth it is easy to ship people in and out of Antarctic bases. So you can have a team stay just for the summer. A similar situation doesn’t exist for a Martian base. Moving people out after a few months is an extraordinary waste of resources. If you can move people there for a three month stay, you can muster the slightly greater resources needed to keep them there for a couple of years and get considerably greater value for the money.
I’m not sure what your point here is, Karl. Certainly, considering some of the distances and difficulties involved, years away from home will certainly often be involved. Indeed, throughout human history there have been many lines of work that required these lengths of time away from home.
A similar thing holds for space tourism. As it currently is set up, any space tourist will require some degree of training and a good sum of money. So there is a considerable initial investment of time and money, no matter how short a stay in space. So you might as well get a more extensive stay in space than a short one for a bit more money. In other words, I think the ante for getting into space will, at least in the next few decades, encourage serious stays in space.
Oh, sure. Some people spend a lot of time at sea. I’m sure some will want to spend a lot of time in space. Again, I’m not sure what your point is.
The same happened in the historical New World. People who went to the New World typically either did so to stay for a considerable period of time. Even in the 19th Century, travel was typically for long durations. There are plenty of examples of people who’d stay half a year or more in some exotic locale.
Of course. Again, I’m not sure what point you’re making.
Now, we do things like weekend visits or week long cruises.
Well, maybe you do things like weekend visits or week long cruises. When I was in the navy, I was away from home for years at a time.
These things are the exception and not the norm. Space travel will not economically support quick or casual trips for some time to come. And when it does get to the point where you can have casual visits, then the economics will be solidly in place for space colonization.
I submit that your conclusion does not follow logically from your premises, Karl. There are plenty of places on earth, where people work and/or play, that are far easier to get to than anywhere in space is ever likely to be. You mentioned Antarctica. I brought up Canada and Alaska. One could add the surface of the seas. The various deserts. Mountain peaks. The skies. Yet we don’t make our homes there. Mightn’t the far less habitable outer space get similar short shrift from humanity?
And, by the way, I have seen the opposite point argued by space advocates, that space colonization is inevitable because space travel will never be as casual as terrestrial travel.
I have some news for you, Karl. They are all living on Earth. That’s reality not, analogy.
So what? That’s today. That’s not a century from now. My view is that within a thousand years, most humans will no longer live on Earth. I’d guess I should say that I see that as a more likely scenario than humans staying solely on Earth for whatever reasons.
I’m sorry I don’t see this, Karl. I don’t see how having all people living on terrestrial land masses precludes them from exploiting space resources any more than it precludes them from exploiting maritime resources. Indeed, most space advocates insist otherwise.
You are claiming widespread human activity in space while everyone lives on Earth. I’m just pointing out yet again that your analogy on Earth didn’t fit your description in space. The important thing to remember about sea and space travel is that the most important resource is the ability to travel from point A to point B. That’s the key reason for travel in both mediums. Where’s point B in space? It’s Earth because that’s the only developed destination in your scenario.
I submit that your conclusion does not follow logically from your premises, Karl. There are plenty of places on earth, where people work and/or play, that are far easier to get to than anywhere in space is ever likely to be. You mentioned Antarctica. I brought up Canada and Alaska. One could add the surface of the seas. The various deserts. Mountain peaks. The skies. Yet we don’t make our homes there. Mightn’t the far less habitable outer space get similar short shrift from humanity?
Actually we do make our homes in those places (including “air”, that’s what skyscrapers are for). They for the most part aren’t popular for various reasons, but people do live there. Also, how can you determine that my conclusions don’t follow from my premises when you claim that you don’t understand my argument?
And, by the way, I have seen the opposite point argued by space advocates, that space colonization is inevitable because space travel will never be as casual as terrestrial travel.
Whatever. I’m not arguing with those guys. I’m arguing with you. My view is that it’s a economic threshold. Once we get low enough prices to orbit, then we’ll have the necessary environment for space colonization. My view is that the bottom end of chemical rockets, say $100 to $200 per pound is probably adequate. And if it gets cheap enough for casual visits to orbit, then that’s well below the threshold.
But I’m confident that you’ll continue to not get it, extrapolating from years of experience.
I get it, Rand. I really, really do. Religious freedom is important. Religious freedom is important to me especially since I don’t have conventional religious views.
But there are things that are more important. Air to breath, water to drink, food to eat, shelter against the elements, etc. I submit that if the New World did not offer these things then few Europeans would have cared whether it offered the prospect of religious freedom. Maybe the Irish emigrated because they didn’t like their taxes going to the Church of England but I think the famine was more important.
But there are things that are more important. Air to breath, water to drink, food to eat, shelter against the elements, etc. I submit that if the New World did not offer these things then few Europeans would have cared whether it offered the prospect of religious freedom.
Who is arguing with that? Our point is that once technology evolves to the point at which they are available off planet, then other reasons will prevail than simple economic ones.
So what? That’s today. That’s not a century from now.
Well, I don’t what conditions will be like a century from now. I submit that you, or anyone else, doesn’t either. So I don’t think arguments predicated on conditions a century hence are very strong.
My view is that within a thousand years, most humans will no longer live on Earth. I’d guess I should say that I see that as a more likely scenario than humans staying solely on Earth for whatever reasons.
You’ve made your views very clear. I respect you views but as premises for arguments they are unpersuasive.
You are claiming widespread human activity in space while everyone lives on Earth.
I view this as a possibility, yes. Indeed, even if space colonization is eminently practical as you insist, I think this would be a necessary step along the way.
I’m just pointing out yet again that your analogy on Earth didn’t fit your description in space.
Not precisely, no. What analogy could? We can’t fish in space, for example.
The important thing to remember about sea and space travel is that the most important resource is the ability to travel from point A to point B. That’s the key reason for travel in both mediums. Where’s point B in space? It’s Earth because that’s the only developed destination in your scenario.
No, I disagree. I think point to point travel on earth will only be a minor driver for space development. If I had to speculate (which I did as you recall) I think resource extraction (solar power, platinum group metals, etc) would be the main driver for space development. I think these drivers could possibly be lucrative enough to support a large number of people working in space even if that number is only a small fraction of humanity. I think few space advocates would disagree with this, indeed many make the same claim.
Actually we do make our homes in those places (including “air”, that’s what skyscrapers are for). They for the most part aren’t popular for various reasons, but people do live there.
Fine, Karl, I won’t quibble over what constitutes a home. If you want to claim that the seas are colonized because a very small fraction of humanity are present there at any given moment, I see no reason to object. And if a small fraction of humanity being in space at any given moment (like 6 people on ISS) excites you, you can declare space colonized as well. Most people won’t find much satisfaction in “colonization by redefinition”, but me, I won’t quibble, as long as we understand each other.
Also, how can you determine that my conclusions don’t follow from my premises when you claim that you don’t understand my argument?
Well, first you made a big deal about the length of time people would have to spend in space. I didn’t and still don’t see the relevance of that. Then you changed over to space travel becoming casual as the enabler for colonization. I thought that was a separate argument. If it wasn’t then I confess I have no idea what your argument was.
My view is that it’s a economic threshold. Once we get low enough prices to orbit, then we’ll have the necessary environment for space colonization. My view is that the bottom end of chemical rockets, say $100 to $200 per pound is probably adequate. And if it gets cheap enough for casual visits to orbit, then that’s well below the threshold.
My view is that the cost of space access is only one barrier to space colonization. We tend to overstate its importance because its the barrier that we’re hard up against right now. I think it likely we’ll discover that access was the least of our problems.
Our point is that once technology evolves to the point at which they are available off planet, then other reasons will prevail than simple economic ones.
Then we’ve come full circle, Rand. My point is that it technology might not ever evolve to the point at which they are available off planet, just as it hasn’t in the cases of various locations here on earth.
Or it might. But who knows?
> Carl Pham Says:
> October 13th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
> High finance is the least of it. Try draconian “carbon neutral” legislation
> that won’t let you set your thermostat where you please, or forces you to
> commute by smelly slow bus instead of a nice car, or possible some
> “discrimination” rules that won’t let you hire and fire who you please,
> or “hate speech” legislation that won’t let you speak your mind.
That could drive folks out of the US or EU, but none of that is getting any traction around the world. So again that doesn’t give a reason to move off world.
>== we notice that people are willing to spend $20 million dollars of their
> very own money to “colonize” space for a few days only. ==
Going to visit for a couple days doesn’t say anything about colonization (the rich spend hundreds of millions to by Yachts they sail once in a while. Doesn’t meen they will live on the ocean) — and given after only a couple tourist flights they are re-flying old customers, maybe the markets smaller then folks think.
> Edward Wright Says:
> October 14th, 2009 at 10:43 am
>
>> Exploring space isn’t a economic activity. No one is likely to contract you to explore.
>
> Really? Do you all those tour guides, cruise lines, etc. ===
Tourism isn’t exactly exploring space, and doesn’t need a colony.
>=
> Wernher von Braun was fond of telling people that NASA didn’t spend any money
> in space, it spent it in Houston and Huntsville.==
Further reason why assuming groups who spend x billion on space, does not equal then spending x in space in your colony. The colony is just extra overhead to them.
>>> NASA spends billions on space research?
>> Actually they don’t spend it in space research –
> Really? NASA’s FY2010 budget requests contains
> $1,405B for Earth science, $1,346B for planetary
> science, $1,121B for astrophysics, and $0.605B for heliophysics.
I been in NASA – damn little of that money goes to research.
> What do you think they’re really going to spend the money on? Golf courses?
More of that then research.
General pork, ships, etc. Drop a few billion on flying a sat to jupiter – never spend a dime on looking at the data.
>> but beyond the symantics, they arn’t going to send those billion to
>> the space colony under discusion to do it for them. Its not a economic basis for a colony.
> And you know that, how? (Beyond the fact that you say so.)
Your colony doesn’t have anything to offer. Worse, even if it could compete with all the infastructure and companies on Earth; they all have senators and congressmen who vote for the money. Your colony doesn’t.
No, I disagree. I think point to point travel on earth will only be a minor driver for space development. If I had to speculate (which I did as you recall) I think resource extraction (solar power, platinum group metals, etc) would be the main driver for space development. I think these drivers could possibly be lucrative enough to support a large number of people working in space even if that number is only a small fraction of humanity. I think few space advocates would disagree with this, indeed many make the same claim.
Wait. What in the world are you thinking? There’s the people living in space. There’s the future colonies. Why are you arguing with me?
Well, first you made a big deal about the length of time people would have to spend in space. I didn’t and still don’t see the relevance of that. Then you changed over to space travel becoming casual as the enabler for colonization. I thought that was a separate argument. If it wasn’t then I confess I have no idea what your argument was.
I don’t know why you don’t know. It reads pretty clearly to me. I was pointing out that near future space travel isn’t going to be casual like today. People traveling in the near future will be much more likely to stay for long periods of time. The problem with comparing near future space travel to current human settlements is the effects of casual travel. People sailing on the oceans these days are less likely to be living there because they can come out for a casual visit. Same with living in remote areas. One can fly out for a casual visit. In those cases, there’s little incentive to stay for a long time. The same goes for oil rigs and other industrial infrastructure. You don’t need to live out there in order for it to work. A lot of it just requires someone to come out every week or two and take a look. In other words, a lot of activity can be done in remote locations without requiring a continuous human presence. As a result, people don’t live there because they don’t need to.
However, in space, if you need a human presence for any ongoing reason, then they might as well live either on site or very close nearby. It’ll be cheaper than flying them in every couple of weeks.
My view is that the cost of space access is only one barrier to space colonization. We tend to overstate its importance because its the barrier that we’re hard up against right now. I think it likely we’ll discover that access was the least of our problems.
Of course it is only one barrier. Another very significant one is the biological problems of living in space and on low gravity bodies. You have low or zero gravity health consequences, radiation, hazardous materials (lunar dust) and possible prevalent toxins (chromium on the Martian surface). Things that on top of the general difficulty (vacuum, temperature extremes, etc) will make living in space even more difficult.
What makes cost of access to space the Great Wall of barriers is that it is the residue of the fundamental barrier, access to space (namely, that you can’t do anything in space because you can’t get to space) and the only barrier common to every conceivable activity in space, manned or unmanned.
Then we’ve come full circle, Rand. My point is that it technology might not ever evolve to the point at which they are available off planet, just as it hasn’t in the cases of various locations here on earth.
The problem of making the technology for finding of resources for supporting humans is a problem we only need to solve once for a location before it becomes a solved problem. And for a number of interesting locations, we have a good idea of how to do it. Finally, Jim, none of your Earth examples are examples where we couldn’t develop the technology to live there. Even if we aren’t currently able to live there (say a home in the “air” as opposed to a fixed ground structure), we’ve developed many technologies that are getting us closer to doing so.
So you can talk about the “technology never evolving”, but you don’t have evidence where that actually has occurred. That is, you don’t have an example where the technology of living somewhere has simply failed to evolve further. Even if we choose not to live somewhere, we still are developing technologies that would help us, when we change our minds.
Edward,
[[[Columbus did not have the complete resources of the Spanish government behind him. Ferdinand and Isabella required him to show a cost-benefit analysis before he received a penny. They were not just politicians but the leaders of a large business empire. The Kingdom of Spain was their personal property, in a very real sense, and they expected it to be run at a profit. Columbus was on a strict budget and used the cheapest transportation available — something you find completely unacceptable today.]]]
Once again you fail to see the forest for the trees.
Columbus was limited to 3 small ships on his first voyage. On his second voyage he had 17 ships. And the number of ships keep increasing as Spain saw wealth emerge from the New World. The resources of the Spanish Crown, applied to the discovery of Columbus, ground the native Americans down.
Leif Ericson had 1 boat on his first trip. He got some inlaws and friends on the later trips but they were not enough to offset the strength of the natives. He didn’t have any kings supporting him and so was forced to give up due to lack of resources. That he why history almost forgot him but for the Norse Sagas and recent (1960’s) discoveries in Canada. The key was the depth of resources available. Columbus had the resources of Spain behind him. The Vikings only had their family and friends. That is why European settlement of the New World dates to Columbus and not Leif Ericson.
The good thing about space, or as least the Solar System, is you have no hostile natives to deal with, just space itself.
Tourism isn’t exactly exploring space, and doesn’t need a colony.
I see. You’ve swallowed Griffin’s hogwash — exploration is “tourism” unless it’s done by the government?
Drop a few billion on flying a sat to jupiter – never spend a dime on looking at the data.
“A few billion”? But you just said NASA doesn’t spend billions of dollars on space science!
Columbus was limited to 3 small ships on his first voyage. On his second voyage he had 17 ships. And the number of ships keep increasing as Spain saw wealth emerge from the New World.
Now, contrast that to your approach, Tom.
Instead of starting small, as Columbus did, you want the government to give you hundreds of billions of dollars up front, before your first voyage even begins.
Instead of using existing vehicles, whose development has already been paid for, you would postpone the first voyage for a decade or more so NASA can build an expensive new vehicle. A vehicle so big that the loss of a single ship would mean the failure of an entire expedition.
Most importantly, Columbus and his crew spent years honed his skills in coastal voyages in the Mediterranean and Atlantic — the equivalent of those boring suborbital and LEO markets that aren’t “hard” enough to hold your interest.
> Edward Wright Says:
>October 14th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
>> Tourism isn’t exactly exploring space, and doesn’t need a colony.
> I see. You’ve swallowed Griffin’s hogwash — exploration is “tourism” unless it’s done by the government?
No just the fundamental that tourism isn’t exploration -certainly not the same as the exploration nations are paying for, or that being paid for by universities etc.
>> Drop a few billion on flying a sat to jupiter – never spend a dime on looking at the data.
> “A few billion”? But you just said NASA doesn’t spend billions of dollars on space science!
Is send a probe out and not looking at the data science. 😉
If they send the probe out and don’t look at the data, they have spent the money on science without actually doing it.
However, in space, if you need a human presence for any ongoing reason, then they might as well live either on site or very close nearby. It’ll be cheaper than flying them in every couple of weeks.
Really? You know this for a fact? And where do you get “every couple of weeks” from? Why not every couple of years?
The problem of making the technology for finding of resources for supporting humans is a problem we only need to solve once for a location before it becomes a solved problem.
The problem is more of finding technologies at low enough cost for supporting humans.
And for a number of interesting locations, we have a good idea of how to do it.
We have a pretty good idea of how to do it if cost is no object.
Finally, Jim, none of your Earth examples are examples where we couldn’t develop the technology to live there.
I suggest the collective experience of humanity in extreme environments over recorded history demonstrate that the problems are less tractable than you imagine.
Even if we aren’t currently able to live there (say a home in the “air” as opposed to a fixed ground structure), we’ve developed many technologies that are getting us closer to doing so.
So when can we expect Canada’s population to approach that of similar sized nations?
So you can talk about the “technology never evolving”, but you don’t have evidence where that actually has occurred. That is, you don’t have an example where the technology of living somewhere has simply failed to evolve further. Even if we choose not to live somewhere, we still are developing technologies that would help us, when we change our minds.
You put words in my mouth. I don’t claim technology never evolves. That would be stupid. I claim that technology is not a magic lamp that grants us all we arbitrarily desire if we just rub it hard enough. What would be your reaction to a claim that technology will evolve to the point where a 400 foot yacht will be within the budget of the average man? Or a 150 room mansion? Or a private Mach 3 jet? Mine (and I think most) would be that while I would not absolutely rule out such possibilities (singularity? omega point?) I would be very skeptical. I feel much the same toward colonies in space. But space colonies have a far greater emotional appeal than 400 foot yachts or 150 room mansions or Mach 3 private jets.
> john hare Says:
>October 15th, 2009 at 1:14 am
>
> If they send the probe out and don’t look at the data, they have
> spent the money on science without actually doing it.
Rule one in politics: images is everything, results or substance are nothing.
They can brag about colecting huge amounts of data and getting probes there first. So they get all the headlines and pork, and minimize wasteful spending on researchers.
Old story. Skylab had spectacular solar and Earth observatories, but most of the data tapes were never looked at afterwords. Finally they weer lost when the basement store room in Maryland flooded, and was so out of the way – no one even noticed for days.
Folks wonder about the insanity of building the ISS for over a $100B then throwing it away 5 years later? Well, they didn’t build it to do anything with it – just to build it with the Russians. They striped the research and on orbit operations support functions to save money. All the show with none of the go.
> Jim Davis Says:
> October 15th, 2009 at 4:45 am
>
>> However, in space, if you need a human presence for any ongoing reason,
>>then they might as well live either on site or very close nearby. It’ll be
>>cheaper than flying them in every couple of weeks.
> Really? You know this for a fact? And where do you get “every couple of
> weeks” from? Why not every couple of years?
😉
Agree – but not with the couple of Years part. A couple weeks likely is to short, but years would burn folks out. The oil rigs and sub forces figure 3 months on, 3 off was about optimum.
Really adding a ful comunity there for perminent res – is almost a ten folld jump in expence. Your not going to do that until your local ops are getting very large scale.
>..But space colonies have a far greater emotional appeal than
> 400 foot yachts or 150 room mansions or Mach 3 private jets.
I don’t know about that. The yacht adn jet sounds really appealing to me.
😉
No just the fundamental that tourism isn’t exploration
Even the Saganites disagree with you on that. Louis Friedman says “Exploration without science is tourism.”
-certainly not the same as the exploration nations are paying for, or that being paid for by universities etc.
So, the market does exist but you consider it Politically Incorrect because the wrong people are paying for it?
But, aren’t the people who pay for “tourism” usually taxpayers? Doesn’t that mean they’re the same ones paying for those nations and universities?
> “A few billion”? But you just said NASA doesn’t spend billions of dollars on space science!
Is send a probe out and not looking at the data science.
You’ve got me, but you didn’t say that such spending was Politically Incorrect — you said it didn’t exist.
What would be your reaction to a claim that technology will evolve to the point where a 400 foot yacht will be within the budget of the average man? I would be very skeptical.
No doubt. It wasn’t that long ago that a 14-foot boat was outside the budget of the common man. (Something that John Stossel pointed out in a recent special.) The concept of economic and technological progress seems to be completely beyond you. The most foolish of your “unconventional religious beliefs” is the conviction that nothing that hasn’t happened in the past can ever happen in the future.
Rand. My point is that it technology might not ever evolve to the point at which they are available off planet, just as it hasn’t in the cases of various locations here on earth.
Or it might. But who knows?
People who analyze the technological requirements and the underlying science.
Understanding such things is not impossible, no matter what you believe.
Really? You know this for a fact? And where do you get “every couple of weeks” from? Why not every couple of years?
Read my post. I was discussion Earth infrastructure that needs to be inspected that frequently. So if we have space based infrastructure that needs to be inspected that frequently, either you have people live nearby or you bring them in every couple of weeks. It’s a mode of maintenance that can’t really be sustained in space due to near future barriers to casual space travel.
The problem is more of finding technologies at low enough cost for supporting humans.
Yes. And that is a problem we only need to solve once. We probably go well past that basic threshold, evolving technology as we go, but it’s only a one time barrier.
We have a pretty good idea of how to do it if cost is no object.
In my view, we have a pretty good idea how to do it even in the real world once we get cost of access to space down enough.
I suggest the collective experience of humanity in extreme environments over recorded history demonstrate that the problems are less tractable than you imagine.
Your evidence contradicts your suggestion. For example, you keep attempting to use Canada as an example. It’s populated and the population increaseses by 0.8% a year, there are people living everywhere. It doesn’t support your suggestion.
You put words in my mouth. I don’t claim technology never evolves.
You said it “might never evolve”. I was addressing that condition in which it never evolves. After all, if technology continues to evolve then you don’t have an argument. It isn’t worth the effort to consider the situation where your argument is wrong by initial conditions. So what are examples of technology not evolving, especially with respect to extending human habitat? I obviously can’t think of an example.
What would be your reaction to a claim that technology will evolve to the point where a 400 foot yacht will be within the budget of the average man? Or a 150 room mansion? Or a private Mach 3 jet? Mine (and I think most) would be that while I would not absolutely rule out such possibilities (singularity? omega point?) I would be very skeptical. I feel much the same toward colonies in space. But space colonies have a far greater emotional appeal than 400 foot yachts or 150 room mansions or Mach 3 private jets.
That would just be error on your part. It’s clear that the average man in a developed country now can afford things that his distant predecessors couldn’t. For example, a house or a car, the usual electrical appliances. That sort of thing. Simply raising the life expectancy of a person by a factor of ten would do the job, in my view.
Moving on, there is a big difference between a 400 foot yacht (and the other current trappings of great personal wealth) and a colony in space. Namely, that the former is intended to be expensive while the latter is expensive due to current economics. I see no indications that the economics of space colonization will remain infeasible.
> Edward Wright Says:
> October 15th, 2009 at 10:28 am
>
>> No just the fundamental that tourism isn’t exploration
>>-certainly not the same as the exploration nations are paying
>> for, or that being paid for by universities etc.
> So, the market does exist but you consider it Politically Incorrect
> because the wrong people are paying for it?
Are you trying to be dense?
The current folks paying for exploration and science in space (national govs and some universities) don’t count what tourist groups are proposing (or anything like other tourist ops I can think of) as exploration efforts.
> But, aren’t the people who pay for “tourism” usually taxpayers?
> Doesn’t that mean they’re the same ones paying for those nations and universities?
Ah, NO!
>>> “A few billion”? But you just said NASA doesn’t spend billions of dollars on space science!
>> Is sending a probe out and not looking at the data science.
> You’ve got me, but you didn’t say that such spending was Politically Incorrect — you said it didn’t exist.
I said it wasn’t spent on space science.
Back from your assides. The thread started with the idea that the world spent X billion a year (I think $20B) a year on space, so if that much a year was spent in the space colony – that would (with economic multipliers) lead to $200B a year economy. Except, virtually none of what those Nations spend in space now would be something the colonies could compete for.
The Mil and commercials dominate the money, and they launch sats to Earth orbits. Your not going to be cost competative with sat makers on earth due to your remote location with high costs to ship supplies to you from builders etc. For the mil, security and political interest demand in the nation constructions.
For national programs like NASA there are political constraints, and again – how coul;d you compete with earth builders lower costs?
Anyway this doesn’t leed to your space colony getting any sizable fraction – if any – of the current worlds expenditures in space.
I don’t think a convincing case has been made that space colonization won’t happen on a large scale. We’re talking about a future event so obviously, nothing is certain. But my view is that there hasn’t been any real evidence put forth against the feasibility of colonization. The only reason this is even in discussion in my view is because we didn’t solve enough of the space colonization’s problems in the past few generations. That is, because our current efforts aren’t quickly leading to colonies, people are starting to entertain the idea that maybe it will never happen due to hypothetical technological reasons. But that’s a bizarre assertion to make given both the history of massive colonization on Earth (we’re good at it and have done it on the scales needed for space colonization), and the fact that we’re still developing a lot of new technologies for space and access to space. It’s like a kid playing around with a Rubik’s Cube and declaring it unsolvable because they haven’t been able to figure it out in thirty minutes.
To put it simply, we haven’t worked enough on the problem to determine that it is as hard as is claimed.
Moving on, there are a number of technology “game changers” that could happen as well. Longevity increase is one such. Even ignoring other technological advances, I see a factor of ten increase in life span as sufficient in itself to enable space colonization. In my estimation, a factor of hundred increase in lifespan would be sufficient to enable interstellar colonization. For example, if I knew that I had a good chance (say 50% or better) of living 10,000 years, I would personally plan a one way trip to the Wolf 424 binary stars (which pass well within a half light year of Earth in roughly 8000 years). My lifespan is the only obstacle.
There’s also intelligence improvement (the trigger for the “Singularity” hypothesis is smarter than human intelligences iteratively building even smarter beings), great reductions in the cost of energy, and automated manufacture cost reduction to the limits solely of energy and the cheaper materials. Even if no dramatic breakthrough in technology occurs, there’s the steady improvement in the economy over decades.
I don’t think a convincing case has been made that space colonization won’t happen on a large scale. We’re talking about a future event so obviously, nothing is certain. But my view is that there hasn’t been any real evidence put forth against the feasibility of colonization.
I think you’re confused about where the burden of proof lies.
I think you’re confused about where the burden of proof lies.
It doesn’t lie with me. There’s no confusion here.
Jim, let me put this way. You have made some variation of the argument that space colonization won’t happen. As evidence, you claim that some areas on Earth are sufficiently underdeveloped and unpopulated to prove your point. Setting aside that I disagree with that interpretation of evidence, you are making a claim that requires evidence. Because it is effective a proof of impossibility, the claim cannot be falsified in a reasonable time frame (unless we kill ourselves off first).
In comparison, I have as evidence:
history of past human colonizations, some of similar extent to a large scale colonization of space.
Evidence that technologies necessary for space colonization continue to be developed at a steady pace. We also have a good grasp of what tools to use and problems to overcome.
Evidence that the cost of access to space, the single greatest obstacle is decreasing and can decrease considerably more than it has.
In other words, I have evidence that we are indeed progressing towards space colonization. I can’t prove that we can colonize space. We’d have to do so first. But I can prove reasonable progress to that goal which will have to suffice for today.