From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Tue Sep 05 2000 - 09:43:41 MDT
On Monday, September 04, 2000 10:46 PM Eugene Leitl
eugene.leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de wrote:
> > That said, how many on this list see planetary colonization is
necessary or
> > desireable? I tend to think once we get to space, we should stay there
and
>
> There are higher priorities, but given how little is being invested
> into space development it should receive more funding.
Given the potential for something to destroy the biosphere -- whether an
asteroid hit, the Earth freezing over, or some human-made disaster
(biological, nanotechnological, nuclear, etc.) -- and how much probability
is assigned to this, some might disagree. (I'm not among them, though I
don't like having all the human eggs in one basket.:)
As for funding levels, I think funding is increasing in the private sector,
especially after the successful Sea Launch launch. (Unintended pun.:) But
investments have been on the upswing for the past decade anyhow. I also
think government space programs should be curbed and abolished. This will
encourage more private investment and the efficiencies that will make
possible, but I don't want to start another thread on politics here.
> I'm particular
> to (at least partial closure) self-rep automatic systems on the Moon
> first. Most of the work for that can be done on Earth surface in space
> simulators, and hence require no cheap launch to LEO (but I still
> think they shouldn't have killed Sanger).
Well, the problem is NASA is a political beast and Mars is seen as its
salvation by it. Mars is portrayed as sexy, hence more Mars missions and
little interest in the Moon. That said, there are private groups looking
into lunar exploration and exploitation.
I'm for doing stuff cheap and now, but since I don't have several million to
throw around, I generally just do the same: talk.:)
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:30:46 MST