[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: Re: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against.
> In a message dated 10/5/98 1:59:07 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> >With our current level of technology and planet-bound economy, I
> >can see how it would be hard to imagine how to fund interstellar
> >When we have an interplanetary economy, with the level of
> >technology and access to resources that implies, answering the
> >question "Why should we go to the stars?" with "because we can"
> >will make a lot more sense. If we have self-sustaining orbital
> >colonies, then the expertise and infrastructure needed to build
> >interstellar spacecraft is far more likely to be there, and the
> >expense of obtaining the materials and construction labor will be
> >far less.
> >In other words, the culture that goes to the stars will be a far
> >different culture than we have now, particularly in the economic
> >sense. This isn't the first time I've had to remind Kelly of
> Two problems with that.
> 1 - such a economy is unlikely to develop to that degree (where interstellar
> missions can be aforded as a lark rather then for a valuble purpose) within
> the next century or two.
> 2 - within that time period all current sci and tech limits will be invalid.
I'm willing to concede that; there's no guarantee that by 2050
we'll have the technology or the willingness as a society to
stage an interstellar exploration mission.
Is the original target goal of the Lunar Institute of Technology
still feasible? I don't know, but the possibility of manned
starflight by 2050, without some major adjustments in society and
technology, is beginning to look a bit slim.
> In other words, yes at some point in the future our technology will bring down
> the cost enough, and our our economy will make indeviduals or clubs rich
> enough, to pay for a star flight. Not soon, and they likely will just be a
> flight out, a few tourist or research photos, then everyone comes home.
> Colonies, regardless of the tech, are done for reason of profit and loss.
That seems to be a very selective view of history, as there are
plenty of examples of colonization that were never intended to
bring home a profit (at least when the society in question had
that concept), such as the people who colonized the South
Pacific, or for that matter that left Africa a million years ago.
You seem to be considering only recent European examples of