If you're going to put workers in space its far more economical to put robots on the moon than humans. A fully automated space operation could be run without turning human lives into total hell. The mars robots are even able to self-repair to a degree. Humans living on the moon would be the worst job ever, but robots don't get cancer they don't need breaks or recreation areas or domed cities.
Any sort of non-toy moon colony is simply a toy for (super) rich
It is probably cheaper and safer to repopulate 100K back to Chernobyl/Fukushima than it will ever be to put 1000 on the moon.
It is cheaper to encourage systematic recycling (including subsidies, research, regulation and tax) than it is to mine anything in space.
It is cheaper and more effective to start an extinction level protection program here on earth (to save say 100K people) than it will ever be to build a true independent space colony.
Sure - it has scientific value and its progress, and its a stepping stone to Mars, etc.
But economically this is the equivalent of buying a Ferrari while you still have student debt.
Getting heavy industry off the earth soon may be a matter of survival. Not to mention the best extinction protection program we could reasonably hope for that might save other species as well.
I agree that we should take far better care of our cradle: but by now there's a mountain of evidence that we won't.
Do you think colonizing North America was a complete boondoogle?
Ben Franklin's reply is best, since he got the same kinds of criticism for spending money exploring the phenomenon of electricity: "Of what use is a new-born babe?"
Why the fuck would anyone in their right mind want to live on the moon or Mars or any other celestial body in this solar system apart from earth? Anywhere will be so much worse to live on that even the worst places on earth.
This will never happen, at least using conventional technology. It's just a fantasy to placate the masses. After another decade or so of CGI videos, they will just say that Kessler syndrome has made spaceflight impossible, or they will create virtual reality simulation environments to fool people into thinking they are traveling in space, when they are really in an underground military base somewhere.
Leaving the planet is meaningless if you still must rely on Earth for support. The moon is not going to be self-sustaining in any feasible future we might live to see. We’re stuck on Earth for now, let’s try to deal with it. Besides, if we can’t survive the fertile planet of our species’ birth what kind of lunatic arrogance makes us think we’ll survive a lifeless, airless rock?
11 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 36.6 ms ] threadIt is probably cheaper and safer to repopulate 100K back to Chernobyl/Fukushima than it will ever be to put 1000 on the moon.
It is cheaper to encourage systematic recycling (including subsidies, research, regulation and tax) than it is to mine anything in space.
It is cheaper and more effective to start an extinction level protection program here on earth (to save say 100K people) than it will ever be to build a true independent space colony.
Sure - it has scientific value and its progress, and its a stepping stone to Mars, etc.
But economically this is the equivalent of buying a Ferrari while you still have student debt.
I agree that we should take far better care of our cradle: but by now there's a mountain of evidence that we won't.
Do you think colonizing North America was a complete boondoogle?
Ben Franklin's reply is best, since he got the same kinds of criticism for spending money exploring the phenomenon of electricity: "Of what use is a new-born babe?"
This will never happen, at least using conventional technology. It's just a fantasy to placate the masses. After another decade or so of CGI videos, they will just say that Kessler syndrome has made spaceflight impossible, or they will create virtual reality simulation environments to fool people into thinking they are traveling in space, when they are really in an underground military base somewhere.