why outer space?

Bill wrote:

> The assumptions are valid. Even if all the assumptions are met, there
> is still a very large amount of technology missing. Example, what can
> replace the gasoline engine today. Who is doing the research to
> replace the gas engine?

Electric engines are very mature and superior to gasoline engines in every
respect except energy storage. At present, the gas tank radically
outperforms batteries for energy storage. The market for portable electronics
(laptops, PDAs, cell phones, etc.) *should* drive the development of ever
better batteries. Sooner or later, hopefully sooner, the cost curves will
cross and electric cars will replace gasoline automobiles.

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.