Usage of Space travel
Moderator: Moderators
Usage of Space travel
Space travel seems to be more and more mainstream, but my question is this: What possible good could come from traveling off-planet? What could we possible find, see, capture, or colonize that would pay off a multi-thousand manhour, multi-billion dollar investment of this calibur?
Colonization of the moon, Mars, Europa, and possibly other spacial bodies worth inhabiting.
Actively seeking out space rocks to gather ores we have used up on the motherworld, or ores which are rare here (iridium comes to mind).
Tap comets, ice asteroids and gas giant rings for unpolluted water.
Perform research unaffected by gravity. (Being done already.)
Two words: Space Lasers.
(nah, just kidding)
Study, in the greatest detail possible and without any sort of atmospheric interference, non-stop, space around us; the Sol System, other stars, stellar nurseries, black holes, quasars, supernovae, gamma ray bursts, and of course the edge of visible space, giving us a glimpse of time as far back as Planck time, and hence almost to the very beginning of time itself.
Actively seeking out space rocks to gather ores we have used up on the motherworld, or ores which are rare here (iridium comes to mind).
Tap comets, ice asteroids and gas giant rings for unpolluted water.
Perform research unaffected by gravity. (Being done already.)
Two words: Space Lasers.
(nah, just kidding)Study, in the greatest detail possible and without any sort of atmospheric interference, non-stop, space around us; the Sol System, other stars, stellar nurseries, black holes, quasars, supernovae, gamma ray bursts, and of course the edge of visible space, giving us a glimpse of time as far back as Planck time, and hence almost to the very beginning of time itself.
A vast array of commercial technlogies where developed by noncommercial space organizations then put to use in non-space components.
Space technology also makes intercontinental travel a lot faster. a 20+ hour journey from UK to Australia could be cut down to 2-4 hours.
Also, the earth is already according to some overpopulated and has long reached the maximum sustainable population as shown by a peak of reproduction in the 70's followed by a tumbling global growth rate. Colonization would provide a means for humanity to expand without turning earth into a giant city with some parks for growing food.
Also the armageddon avoidance thing.
Tourism. Being in unusual environments with unusual views is a very lucrative business.
Resources. I give an example. On the moon their is a certain isotope of hydrogen in large quantities. This isotope is extremely rare on earth. As ti falls from space in minute quantities they burn up in the atmosphere and form compounds, but on the moon they collect and gather dust. This isotope has been labbeled as nuclear super fuel, and its estimated that a single tonne of it would power the US for a year with little or no waste. Other sources of rare materials or materials in short supply such as platinum could be found offworld.
Power generation. Why build a gigantic nuclear reactor in a city suburb of an overcrowded planet when you can put it in space and have it beam power to an orbital station, possibly an orbital tether. Or have solar panelling in space where the amount of sunlight isnt diminished by an atmosphere.
Food generation. Chinese scientists say they can grow food in space that has 200x the nutritional value of the best earth has to offer. Plants in space tend to grow larger aswell.
Crystals. In space crystals grow bigger by orders of magnitude at much faster rates.
Construction. Once the necessary infrastructure is in place industry can benefit from weightlessness. Not dealing with weight makes the requirements of machinery smaller, and the lack of gravity makes the construction of precise machinery much easier. For example, a perfect sphere would have to be created in zero gravity or the sphere would warp downwards slightly.
Sub orbital fireworks (enough said).
Space technology also makes intercontinental travel a lot faster. a 20+ hour journey from UK to Australia could be cut down to 2-4 hours.
Also, the earth is already according to some overpopulated and has long reached the maximum sustainable population as shown by a peak of reproduction in the 70's followed by a tumbling global growth rate. Colonization would provide a means for humanity to expand without turning earth into a giant city with some parks for growing food.
Also the armageddon avoidance thing.
Tourism. Being in unusual environments with unusual views is a very lucrative business.
Resources. I give an example. On the moon their is a certain isotope of hydrogen in large quantities. This isotope is extremely rare on earth. As ti falls from space in minute quantities they burn up in the atmosphere and form compounds, but on the moon they collect and gather dust. This isotope has been labbeled as nuclear super fuel, and its estimated that a single tonne of it would power the US for a year with little or no waste. Other sources of rare materials or materials in short supply such as platinum could be found offworld.
Power generation. Why build a gigantic nuclear reactor in a city suburb of an overcrowded planet when you can put it in space and have it beam power to an orbital station, possibly an orbital tether. Or have solar panelling in space where the amount of sunlight isnt diminished by an atmosphere.
Food generation. Chinese scientists say they can grow food in space that has 200x the nutritional value of the best earth has to offer. Plants in space tend to grow larger aswell.
Crystals. In space crystals grow bigger by orders of magnitude at much faster rates.
Construction. Once the necessary infrastructure is in place industry can benefit from weightlessness. Not dealing with weight makes the requirements of machinery smaller, and the lack of gravity makes the construction of precise machinery much easier. For example, a perfect sphere would have to be created in zero gravity or the sphere would warp downwards slightly.
Sub orbital fireworks (enough said).
-
Forboding Angel
- Evolution RTS Developer
- Posts: 14673
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43
-
FoeOfTheBee
- Posts: 557
- Joined: 12 May 2005, 18:26
-
BlackLiger
- Posts: 1371
- Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 21:58
Space elevator, matey. Sound, scientific, and it returns the energy it uses tenfold.neddiedrow wrote:Space travel is an economic sinkhole. There is no way to travel into space and return with a profit in any sense - every time we dabble in it we simply reduce our own resources. This is not negotiable, it is scientific fact.
Does have the minor flaw of short circuiting the ionosphere, but we didn't want nice sunny weather anyway <_<
AF means helium-3, not hydrogen-3.P3374H wrote:IIRC it's made fairly cheaply in a nuclear research facility in Ontario, and exists in the upper atmosphere also. (tritium)AF wrote: Resources. I give an example. On the moon their is a certain isotope of hydrogen in large quantities. This isotope is extremely rare on earth.
Right now? Yeah, you're right. However, when the infrastructure is in place, we can use space travel for economic reasons; like Zoombie, AF and myself said, the Earth's resources are finite - but we can extend our supply a heck of a lot by exploiting various types of space rocks.neddiedrow wrote:Space travel is an economic sinkhole. There is no way to travel into space and return with a profit in any sense - every time we dabble in it we simply reduce our own resources. This is not negotiable, it is scientific fact.
Besides, who says we need to "return"? Once the orbital facilities are up (not if, but WHEN), we don't ever have to return to Earth in anything except specially-built passenger and cargo shuttles. We can leave the interplanetary and (possibly) interstellar travel to ships built entirely in space, thereby cutting the fuel requirements immensely as they don't need to climb out of as deep a gravity well as the shuttles of Canaveral. Plus, once fusion drives are developed to be sufficiantly economically viable, fuel costs will go down into the cellar, since about 75%(!) of the universe's matter consists of hydrogen.
Moreover, we can eliminate pesky problems like pollution (well, the source of the problem - not the effects), overpopulation, power production et cetera by dumping our waste into the furnace of Sol, building offworld colonies and/or space-based habitats and building solar satellites in close orbit around the Sun. All that may not be economically viable (at least at this time), and may never turn a profit EVER, but it can help alleviate problems we have to suffer from if we stay here, confined to this one planet. Economy isn't everything, and not everything we do has to turn a profit.
If all we do has to turn a profit, and the maximum profit at that, we will ruin ourselves within a century - within a decade, perhaps. We are by nature a social species; therefore, we must act socially. We must base our judgments and decisions not only on what is best for ourselves, but by what is best for ourselves and the group - the rest of mankind, if you will. By extension, all space travel need not be intended solely for personal or corporate profit; if we can alleviate problems by utilizing space travel at an economic loss, then we must.
-
BlackLiger
- Posts: 1371
- Joined: 05 Oct 2004, 21:58
Heh. Economic loss in exchange for NOT TOTAL DEATH OF HUMANITY IN BIG DISASTER.... Um... I'll take Economic loss for a total of 10 please, dave.
Like I said, a space elevator, with the only flaw being that it short circuits the ionosphere, which NO ONE has a clue what the fuck that will do, but I'm betting on VERY nasty static charges....
Like I said, a space elevator, with the only flaw being that it short circuits the ionosphere, which NO ONE has a clue what the fuck that will do, but I'm betting on VERY nasty static charges....