From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Mon Jan 27 2003 - 12:01:02 MST
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Max M wrote:
> I love the space program as much as the next guy. But I don't think it
> is the area where reasearch money are best spend these days.
Max, you are probably highly correct. The only caveat I would cite
is the risk to humanity by a large asteroid or comet. The risks are
very very low -- but (from an extropic perspective) do we want to expose
ourselves to the risks?
It is very sad but humanity can tolerate the deaths of millions of
people from hunger or aging -- it is an extropic "loss" but it is
not an extropic "catastrophe". (I'll note as an aside that the
Gates Foundation today launched an effort to deal with some of these
problems.)
So I think there may be a discontinuity in the prioritization.
We have to take the elimination of humanity *much* more seriously
than the elimination of parts of it.
> There is so much more promise in bio-, nano-tech and IT.
Yes -- these promise to save many more of us in the long run
than space-tech.
> Then later, when we can do fully virtual designs, we can design cheap
> and efficient space travel.
I don't know whether it is generally known, but my read of Eric Drexler's
literature and development history is that cheap access to space was
one primary reasons he pushed to develop nanotechnology.
> The space programme as it is today is only for a select few anyway.
> And I honestly don't think the current space programmes will change this.
IMO, it would be nice if the "government" space programs would confine
themselves to things that create a moderately direct civilian benefit.
GPS satellites, monitoring of IR heat signatures (from ICBM launches
or asteroids entering the atmosphere), etc.
> Isn't that the more sensible route to take?
And the more sensible route for putting humans into space would be
to allow the private sector to develop it from either a tourism
or construction standpoint (someone has to go out and fix the
Canadian Robotic arm when it develops problems...).
But its for darn sure "space" isn't going to become a popular
destination when you have to sit yourself on top of a large
quantity of explosives and put yourself through 3+g of acceleration
for a number of minutes. If we ever get a space elevator -- *then*
it might just become a reasonable tourist destination for people
other than those who clearly have excessive levels of testosterone.
R.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:03 MST