why outer space?

From: David Grunwald [mailto:skywise372@...]

Combs, Mike wrote;

> I hate to say it, but space
> settlement really can't
> be justified on the basis of shortages of any raw
> material or living space.

If this statement is an indication that you are
doubtful as to the feasibility of a "space based"
strategy for meeting our future demands for resources
and livable space, and that space exploration is,
therefore, not justifiable on those grounds alone,
then we agree.

I don't know if I would even go that far. I think space settlement, in
addition to providing humanity with both additional high-quality living
space and clean energy, could even conceivably provide Earth with raw
material (if we began running out of anything), given that aerobraking makes
sending things down to Earth somewhat easier than sending things up and
away. Still, O'Neill said that to bring space resources down to Earth is to
kill their one outstanding economic value: Their location at the top, rather
than the bottom, of our gravity well. In space, space resources compete
with Earth resources lifted into space at tremendous cost, and thus are
competitive even given greater processing costs. On Earth, space resources
must compete with Earth resources, which will always have much lower
transportation costs.

So the only issue really is: Are we fixing to run out of anything here on
Earth, such that importation from space is the only remaining option? On
the one hand, I've heard experts who were quite motivated to justify space
settlement regretfully admit that no, we are not running out of any material
resource in the foreseeable future. On the other hand, I've heard others
say that such estimates assume current consumption levels, which assumes
that the present situation of much of our planet remaining desperately poor
will persist. They argue that there isn't even enough of such an abundant
resource as iron ore to bring the entire planet up to a Western standard of
living. And thus, yes, we do need space resources here on Earth.

I'm not sure what to think on this particular issue.

If, rather, you are suggesting that we are in no real
danger of ever running out of "this or that material
resource", then we disagree. When it comes to the
nonrenewable resources such as minerals and metals, I
think it's possible that if we reduce our dependence
on them via the use of renewable alternatives (where
renewable alternatives can be found), and if our
numbers stabilize at reasonable levels, AND if we
begin to take recycling seriously, then we may not run
out of these materials. But there is certainly no
guarantee that all, or even any, of these
contingencies will be met.

I think Jerry Pournell and some fellow researchers were among those who I
earlier referred to as seeking a rationale for space settlement, but
regretfully reporting that material scarcity couldn't be it. I'm not sure
what assumptions they were making regarding alternatives or recycling.

Futhermore, "raw
materials" and "living space" are not the only
resources we need to consider when discussing growth
limits and sustainability. "Soil fertility, safe air
and water, stable climates, biological nutrient
recycling, the assimilative capacity of the
environment itself, and critical nutient cycles of
nature for oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, and
phosphorus. For these processes there are no
substitutes." (Ayres, R. (1993). "Cowboys,
cornicopians, and long-run sustainability". Ecological
Economics 8, p.195).

Good points.

> I think the only real remaining justification for
> space settlement is that a
> culture which ignores its frontiers is always a
> culture in decline. I'd say
> we need space settlement more for the reinvigoration
> of our global culture
> than because we are running out of this or that
> material resource.

I agree perially with this statement. I agree insofar
as I recognize the desire to explore new frontiers as
one of the defining features of our species. And that
much of the value of the space program lies in its
ability to satisfy this desire and to fulfill our
intellectual curiosity. But if the "cultural decline"
is shown to be more closely associated with factors
other than a failure to explore new frontiers, then
space exploration may well be accompanied by a
continued cultural decline.

Yes, there can be some debate on which is the cause, and which is the
effect. Personally, I think there's a bit of back-and-forth to this
dynamic.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
David Grunwald [mailto:skywise372@...]
Combs, Mike wrote;
> I hate to say it, but space
> settlement really can't
> be justified on the basis of shortages of any raw
> material or living space.
If this statement is an indication that you are
doubtful as to the feasibility of a "space based"
strategy for meeting our future demands for resources
and livable space, and that space exploration is,
therefore, not justifiable on those grounds alone,
then we agree.

I don't know if I would even go that far. I think space settlement, in addition to providing humanity with both additional high-quality living space and clean energy, could even conceivably provide Earth with raw material (if we began running out of anything), given that aerobraking makes sending things down to Earth somewhat easier than sending things up and away. Still, O'Neill said that to bring space resources down to Earth is to kill their one outstanding economic value: Their location at the top, rather than the bottom, of our gravity well. In space, space resources compete with Earth resources lifted into space at tremendous cost, and thus are competitive even given greater processing costs. On Earth, space resources must compete with Earth resources, which will always have much lower transportation costs.

So the only issue really is: Are we fixing to run out of anything here on Earth, such that importation from space is the only remaining option? On the one hand, I've heard experts who were quite motivated to justify space settlement regretfully admit that no, we are not running out of any material resource in the foreseeable future. On the other hand, I've heard others say that such estimates assume current consumption levels, which assumes that the present situation of much of our planet remaining desperately poor will persist. They argue that there isn't even enough of such an abundant resource as iron ore to bring the entire planet up to a Western standard of living. And thus, yes, we do need space resources here on Earth.

I'm not sure what to think on this particular issue.
If, rather, you are suggesting that we are in no real
danger of ever running out of "this or that material
resource", then we disagree. When it comes to the
nonrenewable resources such as minerals and metals, I
think it's possible that if we reduce our dependence
on them via the use of renewable alternatives (where
renewable alternatives can be found), and if our
numbers stabilize at reasonable levels, AND if we
begin to take recycling seriously, then we may not run
out of these materials. But there is certainly no
guarantee that all, or even any, of these
contingencies will be met.

I think Jerry Pournell and some fellow researchers were among those who I earlier referred to as seeking a rationale for space settlement, but regretfully reporting that material scarcity couldn't be it. I'm not sure what assumptions they were making regarding alternatives or recycling.

Futhermore, "raw
materials" and "living space" are not the only
resources we need to consider when discussing growth
limits and sustainability. "Soil fertility, safe air
and water, stable climates, biological nutrient
recycling, the assimilative capacity of the
environment itself, and critical nutient cycles of
nature for oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, and
phosphorus. For these processes there are no
substitutes." (Ayres, R. (1993). "Cowboys,
cornicopians, and long-run sustainability". Ecological
Economics 8, p.195).

Good points.
> I think the only real remaining justification for
> space settlement is that a
> culture which ignores its frontiers is always a
> culture in decline. I'd say
> we need space settlement more for the reinvigoration
> of our global culture
> than because we are running out of this or that
> material resource.
I agree perially with this statement. I agree insofar
as I recognize the desire to explore new frontiers as
one of the defining features of our species. And that
much of the value of the space program lies in its
ability to satisfy this desire and to fulfill our
intellectual curiosity. But if the "cultural decline"
is shown to be more closely associated with factors
other than a failure to explore new frontiers, then
space exploration may well be accompanied by a
continued cultural decline.

Yes, there can be some debate on which is the cause, and which is the effect. Personally, I think there's a bit of back-and-forth to this dynamic.

Regards,
Mike Combs