You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
There are levels of progression, I think, with regards to how to colonize space. The most elementary criterion, on the political front, for doing so is strong, focused government initiatives for interplanetary exploration and low cost LEO transport. It appears to me very unlikely that we will see much progress in these areas until this happens. A continued policy of such should, I think, get us into space. However, there are other considerations as well, which I will discuss shortly. They do not, I think, directly influence whether we can get into space or not. The Pentagon System, as some have called it, of funding the R&D necessary for something to gain short term profitability, is a tried and tested approach, and I have little doubt that, if done in a competant fashion, it can succeed at its goals if pursued long enough. Nevertheless, I think the following questions should be raised, because at least in the long long term they will, as far as I can tell, become very important.
In a capitalist system, the fundamental aim of the people who hold power--or, that is, the people who control the major institutions of the society--is to gain profit. If it wasn't, then they wouldn't be there. As such, capitalism is a system which fundamentally promotes domination and profit at the expense of others. This relates to warlordism, where the aims and structure of the "system" are similiar but the methods are more brutal. The most ferocious individuals gain the power. At least in the long long term, ie centuries if nothing else, I think it is clear that allowing systems like this--based, fundamentally, on the values of imperialism and domination-- to remain in existance in the technological societies can only result in the annihalation of the human race. Albert Einstien had a similar position--he was a kind of socialist, taking a position very nearly the same as mine, actually--and was much disturbed by the prospect for total nuclear war. The methods for massive destruction can only increase in the future--say, by steering an asteroid into a planet, it would be a simple matter to obliterate civilization there.
So I think therefore we face two choices if we plan to create a sustainable civilization. Either we go into space using the Pentagon System and then reform these structures of domination and control, or we do it beforehand and then colonize space, not because our competitor is going to out-do us and crush us if we don't, or because we just want the power, but because it is something that would be valuable to the human--or perhaps, looking more speculatively, the conscious--spirit. It is my opinion that, if we find ourselves committing to a mostly pure version of the former approach, we will not have much of a civilization left to take to the stars down the line as a consequence.
Offline
The approach we should take to space should be capitalistic-capitalism drives innovation. But it should be done through the ever achieving private sector. This is what the X Prize aims.
Capitalism isn't about domination-we have government regulations to make sure the little guy gets paid a reasonable amount of money (yes, it's too little, but if the minimum wage is too high, the economy goes down the drain). Europe, for example, cannot outproduce America because people work too short of a work week and receive immense benefits for doing so.
Pure capitalism may be about domination, but that's why real world capitalism is regulated. For every Bill Gates, there are millions of middle class entrepreneurs, making a good living.
Government shouldn't be the only means of space access, and if space is only about militarization, we won't get there. But we won't get there if there is nothing to be gained-and I honestly don't believe that people care enough about the human "spirit."
Offline
Government shouldn't be the only means of space access, and if space is only about militarization, we won't get there. But we won't get there if there is nothing to be gained-and I honestly don't believe that people care enough about the human "spirit."
Okay, how do we do this and still keep the generals at US Space Command comfortable that future civilian terrorists won't launch 11Sep01 style attacks with LEO capable launch systems? Recall the furor over launch tech transfers to China in the late 1990s.
Why would/should the Pentagon allow low cost Earth to LEO launch systems to become available for purchase in the private sector?
Offline
Private sector = regulated highly by the US government, no technological exports allowed.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
Why does the government allow Sea Launch to operate? Why does the government allow planes to fly?
Technological exports are allowed, classified exports are not.
Why would/should the Pentagon allow low cost Earth to LEO launch systems to become available for purchase in the private sector?
They already are.
Offline
Pages: 1