Just being argumentative, but He3 is cheaper to get from space just for the fact that it doesn’t exist on Earth.

It’s also cheaper to send people for long terms rather than short terms, which would mean colonization. Congress and the president seem to fear the word colonization. I would pay to be a space pilgrim in a yellow space submarine.

What are the priorities and the annual budget?

Do we wait for private sector to develop a spacecraft to access ISS post shuttle? (How many years would that take? And who pays for it?)

How long do we keep the Shuttle going before congress finances an alternative?

Do we phase out all human travel to space after commitments to ISS have been satisfied?

If robots are better than why send a shuttle to fix Hubble?

Does the U.S. lead in space expansion or follow?

What we are capable of doing in the relatively near term is exploit resources on the Moon and on near Earth Asteroids. This would not require colonization, but merely “tours of duty” in space.

The percentage contribution of raw materials towards total economic production has been rapidly falling for decades if not centuries.

Can we really expect to mine aluminum or even platinum for a lower cost than the cost of more aggresive re-cycling?

As Sam Dinkin has said, we cannot beat the export cost of video-tape.

Posted by at August 18, 2004 06:02 AM

What we are capable of doing in the relatively near term is exploit resources on the Moon and on near Earth Asteroids. This would not require colonization, but merely “tours of duty” in space. That is the comparison to the oilrig / SSN that applies, not leaving the planet to live the remainder of ones life in space or on the Moon / Mars.

The point is, thousands of people already live in environments comparable to a space colony. I doubt we’ll ever have a shortage of people who would be willing to live like that on Mars or the Moon if given the chance. Just because a Mars hab isn’t a suburban ranch house, doesn’t mean no one will want to live there.

In the aftermath of the breakup of the space shuttle Columbia an important debate on the purpose and future of the U.S. human-space-flight program is under way, though perhaps not as forthrightly as it should be. The issue at stake is not space exploration in itself but the necessity of launching manned (versus robotic) vehicles. Because articles of faith are involved, the arguments tend to be manipulative and hyperbolic. If the debate is to be productive, that needs to change.

And here is the crux of William Langewiesche’s piece:

One thing for sure is that the American public is more sophisticated than the space community has given it credit for. In the event of a grounding the public might well be presented with a question now asked only of insiders—not whether there are immediate benefits to be gleaned from a human presence in space but, more fundamentally, whether we are to be a two-planet species?

The author is an esteemed mainstream journalist who has interests far beyond the space community.

So, is it worth it? Is it worth the money and risk for a tiny group of humans to live their entire lives (and bear children) confined to an oil rig or nuclear submarine?

Frankly, if we answer “No” – – then why bother with manned spaceflight at all?

And, how has George Bush or the Aldridge Commission helped us address this question?

“Occasionally I hear someone say we should wait until the technology is ready… Better technologies are developed because they’re needed to do a job; rarely, if ever, does an expensive and elaborate technology get fully developed purely for its own sake, with the hope that someday somebody will decide it’s ready to use for something. New technologies typically develop by steps, perceived needs leading to new developments, and those in turn suggesting new steps–but we’re talking about steps, not leaps across chasms. There’s no reason to expect human exploration and colonization of space and other worlds to be any different. First we’ll send a few individuals, at considerable cost and with occasional deadly accidents along the way. But we’ll learn from the experience…”
Stanley Schmidt, Editorial, Analog Science Fiction and Fact, September 2004