From: avatar (avatar@renegadeclothing.com.au)
Date: Mon Jan 27 2003 - 18:23:42 MST
Concentrating on space shuttle stuff is dumb. If you were going to do that, it should have been done in the 70s, a linear accelerator on the moon should have been constructed.
Allegations are made that a space tower can be constructed soon for less than a chunnel or giant Chinese dam or large highway system. This would change the whole equation before assembler "just add water" space systems.
Consideration of these issues needs a few pies. You need a pie of government expenditure and total GDP expenditure for the world, the US and Europe-Japan-Canada-Australia. That is the only way you can understand these issues more broadly. You need to be able to compare the expenditure on supermarket parking bitumen versus stealth bombers versus space shuttles. The results may not be what you expect.
Incidentally, as an aside, has anyone thought of using a specialized space tower (perhaps with superconductor cables attached) as a means of transporting electricity to earth from orbital solar power stations (rather than microwaving it down?) (as an adjunct to road surface solar power of course).
Towards Ascension
Avatar Polymorph
34 After Armstrong
In Celebration of the Techno-Rapture
www.paradigm4.com.au/way
Maximum choice and minimum non-consensual force
Avatar Polymorph
Star A Star
Alpha Null
Radiant Era
Neon Orthogenesis
Axiom Flux
----- Original Message -----
From: "Max M" <maxmcorp@worldonline.dk>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: Europe and Space
> Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>
> > Interestingly it points out how Europeans are only
> > spending $15/head on space while the U.S. is spending
> > $110/head. (I can understand this -- if one is spending
> > more to subsidize farmers to produce "green" farm products
> > then one can't really expect there to be funds available
> > for space exploration.)
>
>
> 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.
>
> There is so much more promise in bio-, nano-tech and IT.
>
> Then later, when we can do fully virtual designs, we can design cheap
> and efficient space travel. 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.
>
> Isn't that the more sensible route to take?
>
> --
>
> hilsen/regards Max M Rasmussen, Denmark
>
> http://www.futureport.dk/
> Fremtiden, videnskab, skeptiscisme og transhumanisme
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:03 MST