why outer space?

-- 0-g recreation
-- unmatched views
-- about 1,000 times the surface area of the Earth in new real estate
-- no local biosphere to damage (although we must be careful about launches
damaging our atmosphere)
-- territorial expansion without the need for war (although we might be
stupid enough to fight anyway)

skywise372@... wrote:

> What are the advantages of populating space as apposed to populating
> some of the less hospitable regions of the earth (the deserts, the
> poles, and the deep sea for example)? I mean at least most of these
> places have oxygen, an atmosphere to protect them from asteroids, and
> they are much closer so you don't need to buy an expensive rocket to
> get to them.
>

Al Globus
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an accident.

Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.

I think we should:

1. Devote half of NASA's budget ($7 billion) to reaching NASA's 2020 goal of

reducing launch costs to Low-Earth-Orbit to $220/kg with a 0.01% failure
rate.
This should enable space tourism. The resulting orbital hotels will need to
develop efficient orbital life support and other necessary technologies.

2. Build orbital space colonies. The materials in the largest asteroid are
sufficient for orbital colonies with a combined surface area about 500 times

greater than Earth's. Eros alone could make over ten thousand space
colonies,
each with about about 10 square kilometers of 1g living area.

3. After a few generations of orbital living, people won't need their colony

to be near Sol. Then small groups of colonies with populations in the
tens-of-thousands can set out on multi-decade journeys to nearby stars.

Except the launch goals, none of this is even a little bit official.