mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/02/83)
Usually I agree with Michael Turner, but on the use of Space, I don't.
Space is both a psychological and a real opportunity to relieve the
tensions that plague the world, much as the North American West was
a century ago for European Americans. Not many people would go there,
but the IDEA opened their minds. There WAS an escape. The symbolism
of space, Moon landings and so forth, made us (not just USAmericans)
proud in the 60s, and the flybys of the Gas Giants have excited us
in the 70's and so far in the 80s. (Uranus still to come). Politics
is largely symbology, as any good politician knows. Space is good
symbology.
In the real sense, Space is a good investment, provided we keep
weapons out of it. Space stations would be very vulnerable, and
probably not worth building if there was a good chance they would
be destroyed quickly in a war. But if we could continue the existing
prohibitions against space weapons, the colonization of space makes
good economic sense NOW. It probably won't be possible 50 years from
now. One permanent space station doesn't mean much, but once there
is one, and a reasonable transport infrastructure (shuttle-like
things that never need to return to Earth), it is energetically
cheaper to get materials from the Moon than from Earth. Space
agriculture is feasible in principle, and if the stations and soil
could be built from Lunar materials, only the seeds and need be
brought from Earth (I seem to remember reading that Lunar soil
was incredibly fertile when tested in Earth atmosphere).
For more on these matters, read the two volumes of "The Endless
Frontier" edited by Jerry Pournelle (Pourne @ MIT).
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmtnotes@ucbcad.UUCP (12/04/83)
#R:dciem:-52800:ucbesvax:7500060:000:1299 ucbesvax!turner Dec 4 05:51:00 1983 Re: Martin Taylor's "Uses of Space" I agree with your basic statement. But your basic statement is implicative. It is "If <nuclear weapons are kept out of space> then <wealth will flow, peace and happiness will reign>". In fact, wealth might flow (albeit in limited directions) in any case. But that's not my point. I want to know just how you plan to avoid the militarization of space, given that the superpowers are entering into a screaming race upward in nuclear armaments. There is already a large enough contingent pushing the idea of "space, at any cost." That cost is proving to be militarization. For some, this is a necessary-- even an ideal--concomitant. For me, it's the penultimate stage of a ghastly drama--the winner of a war in space will then control the planet. The losers are locked on the surface. Strategists and ideologues on both sides say, "Better us than them." Better *neither*, say I. I'd be glad to die in (even, *for*) a world that put off cavorting in the great playground in the sky to instead work out a peaceful settlement of accounts at the bottom of the gravity well--BEFORE playing the game of first-one-over-the-top. There's escape, and then there's escapism. Pournelle I consign to the latter category. --- Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (12/07/83)
Why do some people wear blinders when they read articles on this medium? Nobody is advocating the militarization of space. What is being said is that now that we have the technology, why not use it to the betterment of all mankind on this big blue rock. Discover new resources on the moon, develop new technologies, do something other than sit here and squabble about politics and ideologies. Invite the Russians to participate, I don't care. The point is is that we had better get started now, and in a big way, before its too late. Why do we have to settle each and every little question before making a move, can't we work it out as we go along? That's how most of you program isn't it? Good God, here we are with resource shortages peeking over the hill and resources are out there, available for the taking and sharing. Perhaps we would even discover a way to use nuclear warheads in some kind of propulsion system, thus reducing that problem to where it should be. We will never know until we put people to work to find solutions to problems. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. T. C. Wheeler (Space Cadet - 3rd Class)
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (12/09/83)
"Better us than them"? How about, best everyone, but better them than nobody? Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (12/13/83)
I have a theory. T.C. Wheeler isn't a real person. It's a program spewing forth endless arguments, none of which respond to the criticisms of past refutations of his (its?) arguments. Will the real T.C. Wheeler please stand up?