Re: ...Nasa/Griffin LYING about Public Support for Moon/Mars Missions!

In article <Xns986DBDCF0444Fjimdavis2earthlinkne@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Jim Davis <jimdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I claim that large-scale colonization of space being dependent
on Earth is highly unlikely for two reasons:

1. No new science or extreme technology is needed for
self-sufficiency; we already know how to do all the individual
pieces, and it seems unlikely that putting them together into a
working whole would forever elude us. It's more a problem of
scale than of technical difficulty.

Not at all clear that this is the case. A space colony must
generate more wealth than it consumes for self-sufficiency. We
simply do not know whether a colony can be built that meets this
criteria.

Well, we have an existence proof: the Earth. The Earth is
self-sufficient (for now at least), so if we built a colony with the
same scale and contents (and orbit) as the Earth, it would be
self-sufficient too. Therefore a self-sufficient space colony is
possible at least in principle.

But of course I recognize that this says little about space colonies we
could actually build in practice. But you see why I say it's a problem
of scale. A tiny space station is not self-sufficient. A planet-sized
space colony is self-sufficient. Somewhere in between, there must be
colonies smaller than the Earth yet big enough to be self-sufficient.
We could explore where that crossover point might be, and how likely it
is that we could build on that scale.

To use a terrestrial example suppose one were to state
about floating colonies on the earth's oceans:

No new science or extreme technology is needed for self-
sufficiency; we already know how to do all the individual pieces,
and it seems unlikely that putting them together into a working
whole would forever elude us. It's more a problem of scale than of
technical difficulty.

All true. However, I don't think there are nearly as many people with
the desire to live in floating ocean colonies, as there are with the
desire to live in space. So, even though self-sufficient ocean colonies
are clearly possible, they may never be built due to lack of interest
(plus competing concerns such as how they might impact the ocean
ecosystem).

I think one would immediately recognize that it does not
necessarily follow that floating colonies will ever be able to
generate wealth regardless of the level of technology asssumed.

Hmm, no, I don't see that at all. With even today's technology, a
floating colony could be self-sufficient if it were big enough. Many
islands are self-sufficient, and this self-sufficiency has nothing to do
with the fact that they're anchored to bedrock. So it seems obvious to
me that a floating island of the same scale could do the same.

2. If putting that all together DOES forever elude us, and space
colonies remain dependent on Earth, then they will never develop
beyond the "base" or "station" level anyway (e.g. McMurdo
station, which is Antarctica's largest population center but is
not a colony).

So, if we find life has spread throughout the solar system at
some point in the future, then I would argue (by the two points
above) that it is most certainly NOT dependent on Earth.

I don't follow. If in the future we have a lot of McMurdo stations
scattered throughout the solar system why couldn't they be
dependant on earth and what possible survival value could they have
if a disaster overtook earth?

They would have no survival value, however, they wouldn't constitute
space colonization either. Nor would the constitute "life spread
throughout the solar system." They would constitute a handful of bases,
nothing more. Even if there are dozens of them, the point stands.

So maybe our issue is one of definition: I see a clear difference
between a colony and a base, and my arguments apply only to
colonization, not to establishment of bases. You seem to be lumping
them together into one category, and arguing that this composite
category may or may not improve humanity's prospects. Of course, sez I,
since you have lumped together colonies (which do) and bases (which do
not).

True, but that's arguing the different point again, that space
colonization isn't (or may not be) possible.

No, I am not making the argument that space colonization is not
possible. I am making the argument that it may not improve
humanity's chances for survival.

....By arguing that instead of true colonies, we may only establish
bases. In my view, this is the same as arguing that space colonization
is not possible.

Well, yes, of course, if one assumes that space colonization
improves humanity's chances for survival, then of course it follows
that space colonization improves humanity's chances for survival.
But it leaves much to be desired as a compelling argument. :-)

No, it's not circular, because I'm not defining space colonies as "bases
which improve humanity's chances for survival." The differences between
bases and colonies are more fundamental, though I'm hard-pressed to
define them precisely -- maybe it's a bit like pornography. But you can
know a colony when you see it because, for example, there is a large
civilian population, including children (born and raised); the people
are engaged in a wide variety of markets rather than mostly working for
one organization; and so on.

Now that's just silly. Asteroid monitoring is so ridiculously
cheap that we're doing it already. :)

Irrelevant. We might be doing so today but tomorrow we might have
other priorities like the war in Iraq, the vision for space
exploration, unemployment benefits for auto workers, health care
for inner city children, or fending off Chinese agression, etc,
etc, etc. Resources are finite, demands on resources are infinite.

It's still a straw man, because you're stating these things as if their
resource requirements are all similar, and as if the decision-makers are
all in the same camp. Neither is true. Asteroid monitoring is so
ridiculously cheap that *hobbyists* have been doing it with notable
success, and will continue to do so whatever national budget winds may
blow. Professionals in the field, I strongly suspect, would also find a
way to continue on, even if they have to do it out of their pockets, or
through philanthropic organizations, or by piggybacking on other
research. When an activity is this cheap, and this interesting to this
many people, your "resource constraints" argument simply doesn't hold
water.

But as a practical level, we can and must
make educated guesses about the future, and some educated
guesses are better than others.

I disagree strongly here. We are in no better position to evaluate
the very long term merits of space colonization now than an
educated person in 1840 (reading of Henson's Aerial Steam
Navigation Company) could evalute the long term prospects of air
travel.

If we were talking about colonizing other stars, or even the outer
planets, then I would agree with you. But we're not; we're talking
about colonies in cislunar space. That's not so far off.

And to say he "must make educated guesses about the
future" of air travel is silly. Why must he do such a thing?

Because it is unavoidable. When you get up in the morning and decide to
walk across the street, you're making an educated guess that you won't
be shot, run over, or sneezed on by someone with Ebola on the way. Any
of those things are possible, and you could choose to stay indoors --
but that choice would be driven by an educated guess, too. Almost ANY
decision is based on your educated guess about the future; weighing
alternatives amounts to weighing likely outcomes. Usually which outcome
is most desirable is pretty obvious; the difficulty is in guessing which
ones are most likely for any given course of action.

It might happen it might not, but it won't happen anytime soon.
Interesting but pointless to speculate about and current efforts
are better placed in shorter term ventures.

It might happen sooner than you think, especially if we don't refrain
from thinking about it. :) And I see value in long-term thought and
discussion about the future too, even though we frankly admit that our
vision gets increasingly cloudy the further ahead we look. The
difference in mindset between "Earth is all there is" and "Earth is one
planet in a vast, resource-rich solar system" is fundamental and affects
which shorter-term ventures we give serious consideration. Having a
vision of humanity spread throughout the solar system is important to
gaining this broader (and more useful) mindset, even if the details of
that vision ultimately turn out to be inaccurate.

Best,
- Joe
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ...Nasa/Griffin LYING about Public Support for Moon/Mars Missions!
    ... simply do not know whether a colony can be built that meets ... be self-sufficient too. ... colonies we could actually build in practice. ... And space colonies might one day be a quaint passion of the late ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Large Space Colonies and Large Disasters
    ... > Earth by enemies equipped with nuclear and biological weaopns. ... > observation and changing orbits of threatening asteroids will mitigate ... families and small groups will own large space colonies. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Large Space Colonies and Large Disasters
    ... >> Earth by enemies equipped with nuclear and biological weaopns. ... space colonies when they're mature will be far safer than ... >> Earth orbit for processing ... >> vessels will be housed inside stationary sheilding materials to ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Why Colonize Space? Because We Are Dealing In Absolutes
    ... Let's see, we have the Earth, a two dimensional sphere, with a primary productivity depth measured in meters, inhabited by 6.5 billion idiots. ... A natural or manmade disaster strikes and the lucky survivors vow to start a new life on the moon where life holds fewer surprises. ... What is space if not a wilderness, ... I see you have a more realistic concept of what space colonies will be like than Mr. Bradford. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: The moon, solar power and dark pollution.
    ... The brilliant moonlight that we take ... colonies all over, what they'll find is the earth has become ... ....escape from planet earth. ... The moon is known to ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Loading