From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Fri Feb 28 2003 - 01:10:16 MST
I believe the author was stating that the greater resources are closer, at
hand, on the ocean floor; while space colonization and exploration might cost
trillions and will not happen soon, in any case.
Its an audacious opinion, by the author and engineer (Graham Hawkes) and the
damned thing about it, looking at it from pure economic justification (which
in itself is never pure) oceanic exploitation might be far more rewarding
over the next 300 years, then the solar system (no bets!).
I did not take the meaning of the author to believe that we need extract HEł
for fusion reactors, from the ocean floor; but I suspect, that Hawkes must
have meant methane gas hydrates, which exist in fantastic amounts, if the
estimates are accurate. He is also gung-ho for extremophiles for use in
biotechnology and medicine.
For someone like myself, who has been a space nut since I was a preschooler;
its odd finding myself siding with the author. I think I will just lay down
till the feeling goes away.
Wingcat and Anders Sandburg discussed the Wired article:
<<--- Anders Sandberg <asa@nada.kth.se> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:25:19PM -0000,
> cryofan@mylinuxisp.com wrote:
> > Yeah, I totally agree:
> >
> >
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.03/view.html?pg=2
>
> Yes, although I doubt subsea He3 mining will ever be
> a hit. Also, the
> sea is an even more hostile place than space - it is
> a very active
> chemical environment under high pressure, which
> requires more extreme
> protection than most space environments.
>
> Space is important because it is *space*. For
> resources, yes, go to the
> sea.
That's exactly the attitude they're attacking, though
I believe their attack to be flawed. Almost all of
their criticisms can be traced to the way we have
attempted to go to space - for instance, NASA - rather
than the potential of space itself. Had something
like NASA been in place with regards to Earth's
oceans for the past 40 years, I dare say there would
be a flag and a few more pieces of junk at the deepest
point of the Earth's oceans, but nobody would have yet
come near the Titanic, for example, though some
multi-billion dollar plans to do so would have been
floated.
Which is not to say that oceanic applications of
science could not use more investigation. For
instance, robot deep sea submarines (or even sea floor
crawlers) to hunt for significant concentrations of
certain valuable minerals and/or energy. Or possibly
research into cheap but durable aquatic residences, to
allow population pressures in certain coastal cities
to be partially eased by expanding into the sea, while
still keeping people relatively close to the trade
hubs that are their reason for living near the cities
in the first place..>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 28 2003 - 01:13:59 MST