Ethicists Tell NASA How To Weigh Hazards Of Space Travel

On 4/7/14 2:12 AM, Al Globus wrote:

>> OK, all true; it's possible I overstated my point. :) My real
>> point is just that I don't buy the "we should send robots instead
>> of people
>
> It depends on what you are trying to do. If you are trying to do
> settlement, what we want, then sending robots instead of people is
> idiotic. The whole point is to send people.
>
> If you are trying to explore Mars, then maybe robots are a better,
> cheaper, and faster way to do so all the evidence points that way.

I agree.

>> The only way to get people living in space is to send people to
>> live in space.
>
> Totally agreed. What that means is that space settlement is a real
> estate business. People will typically spend a few times their
> annual salary for a house. For a house in space we could probably
> bump that up a bit, maybe a factor of 5-10. That gives us an idea of
> how cheap settlement construction has to be before it can take off as
> a commercial enterprise.

That's an interesting point.

It also reminds me of the offworld property idea... if there were some
widely recognized legal regime for claiming (and then parceling out and
selling) property on the Moon, Mars, etc., then this could spur
investment -- possibly quite a lot of investment. This is something
only governments can do, and they could do it relatively cheaply
(compared to, say, building new heavy-lift vehicles). I don't know why
this idea never gets any traction.

Best,
- Joe