Slashdot Log In
The Top Three Reasons for Humans in Space
Posted by
samzenpus
on Mon Apr 11, 2005 11:00 AM
from the so-we-can-fight-the-aliens dept.
from the so-we-can-fight-the-aliens dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Why humans in space? The Space Review has the top three reasons: 3. To work. 2. To live. 1. To survive. 'To work' means doing stuff in space: research, explore, visit, etc. 'To live' means to have humans/life beyond Earth in colonies/settlements. 'To survive' means that putting humans/life beyond Earth is a very Good Thing in case a very Bad Thing happens to humans/life on Earth."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Regarding the article: (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather interesting order this article puts the reasons in...
'to work' is not a real reason to go to space, instead, the article really shold have focused on a) the abundant energy and raw materials available in space, and b) the nearly infinitely-customizable work environments abailable in space. At any rate, this is only a secondary reason.
'to live'? Exactly what sort of reason is this? Sure, life is important (of course I think that...I'm a living being...I can't help it), but does that mean it's our manifest destiny to spread life throughout the universe, merely for the sake of spreading life? Again, this reason, although important, is purely secondary.
'to survive'. Finally we come to the heart of the matter...the reason that should have been number one, with the two reasons listed above in support of it. Humankind must colonize space, and do it soon. Between the dwindling rescources available to us while we remain shackled to a gravity well, and the impending mass-extinction events (asteroid, pandemic, super-volcano...take your pick), we are left with very little time in which to secure our species' future. Establishing a viable space-community should be the primary goal of the human race.
(BTW, more interesting information regarding our continued survival can be found here [thepreparation.com].)
Re:Regarding the article: (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously you were not raised Catholic.
Parent
Re:Regarding the article: (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, I was. That's why I'm questioning this one.
Parent
Re:Regarding the article: (Score:5, Insightful)
It is.
Althought space colonization is a good thing IMO, we're currently bogged down in crap down here. It's time for humans to just get more intelligent about things, from war to drugs to hunger, instead of listening to one person, taking that opinion as their own, and sticking to it for all eternity. The last thing we need is another colony that works the same as Earth, it'd be a little self-defeating after awhile.
Parent
Re:Regarding the article: (Score:4, Insightful)
The funny part of this is that people often think we'll escape what they don't like about society here, by just leaving.
If your opinions aren't properly represented on earth, what makes you think it will be any different just because you're in space? I think we ought to work on making earth a nice place, THEN worry about how well we can manage ourselves in space colonies.
Living in space won't make you happy and free. Learning to make a difference here will.
Parent
Re:Regarding the article: (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Regarding the article: (Score:4, Insightful)
Your unsupported "flame" doesn't really change that fact at all.
Parent
Re:Regarding the article: (Score:5, Insightful)
The article was not about why crap in general should be in space.
It was in fact about the top reasons for humans in space.
In fact, having humans in space is not a necessary condition for gathering "abundant energy and raw materials" of other planets. The article just makes the arguments that humans would be better suited than robots to work in space.
Parent
The article seemed a bit fluffy (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure that people must colonize space immediately. For me, it's like playing those old sim games. Do you spend limited research dollars on building 1960's style moon bases, or keep pressing on and shooting for nanotech before you move off the planet? If you can hold on long enough before colonization, you can move far more people and reach self-sufficiency much sooner.
Parent
beware (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, there is the distinct possibility that the decision for humans to travel to space would actually act as a catalyst for innovation. After all, necessity is the mother of invention.
Parent
Re:beware (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Regarding the article: (Score:5, Insightful)
Establishing a viable space-community should be the primary goal of the human race
Interesting point you make, but alas, it may be life that people say is precious. However, the one singulare reason why we as humans are not making space colonisation a top priority is money and greed. If one looks into the past for an answer as to why we are not colonizing space at this point it is simple.. We have not been given the old 'kick in the pants yet'
Parent
Re:Regarding the article: (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, I did, right after I read one of Douglas Adams' books in which it was related that an entire empire was lost due to an unsanitized telephone.
Then I came to my senses.
Has it occurred to you that the advances in technology made during the space race benefited all humanity? Granted there are still people squatting in the mud building houses out of sticks and straw and mostly going hungry, but those people were doing that BEFORE space travel. Now, they occasionally get someone bringing them some medication, sometimes some food - and the shit is wrapped in space-age (and later) plastics. I don't want to get off on a rant here, so I guess I'll just stop soon, but have you considered that if there is always going to be this great a disparity, the answer is to provide enough wealth so that everyone can actually have some?
Developing space is highly desirable because it's not hazardous to people living on Earth. Whatever you say about Earth's climate, and the materials lying around on or near its surface, Humans are making it worse in both regards. Even if it's only a tiny nod of the head compared to natural processes, why do we want to do that to ourselves? Putting a lot of our infrastructure in orbit (food and energy production for example, as well as heavy manufacturing, refining, blah blah blah) would allow us to increase production and decrease pollution. Having people up there is sort of a necessary part of building it all, putting it in place, and maintaining it. For some types of problems, you really need a human at this point.
Starting sooner rather than later means that we will proceed faster. The faster we improve our level of technology the more rapidly the lower levels of technology will reach more people, allowing them to crawl up out of the mud, take a shower, and go to work, feed their family, et cetera. Personally I'm merely hoping that somewhere in the world, these people end up building a society that's not predicated upon taking advantage of the weaknesses of the citizenry.
Parent
Re:Regarding the article: (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
So, you've decided to miss the point.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not the least of which is self-annihilation by nuclear or biological weapons (which have proven that they are ready and capable of killing many of us very quickly). The article also mentions natural disasters, which (once again) have proven themselves able to wipe out huge portions of the earth.
We are also aware of certain natural disasters that might be able to wipe out ALL LIFE on this planet pretty much within a day. I won't bother naming any because most educated people should be able to come up with at least 3 good ones, including as least one inevitability.
Parent
Re:We cannot deal with either case (Score:5, Insightful)
We did it because we had to.
Parent
Re:We cannot deal with either case (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:So, you've decided to miss the point.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Everywhere in this discussion I'm seeing the same arguement...that a space colony must be located on a planetary surface. Why, after you spent all the time, money, and effort to break free of one gravity well, would you willingly shackle yourself to another???
Establishing colonies on planetary surfces is expensive, for the same reason getting off Earth in the first place is. Building a colony that remains in nice flat space saves a lot of money, and affords portability in the bargain.
Parent
Re:So, you've decided to miss the point.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:So, you've decided to miss the point.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The first clue would probably be fish kills. Massive fish kills, which would only fuel the bloom by adding more nitrates and other minerals to the water. However, going from "seing fish kills", to not only identifying the chemical cause, but isolating what is producing it and coming up with a way to combat something spread across the entire planet before it kills us, would be quite the challenge.
Parent
Re:Regarding the article: (Score:5, Insightful)
Mars is just like Antarctica, except there's pretty much no water, less sunlight, and you can't breathe the air.
Until the Sahara desert and both of the Arctic Circles are completely populated with big cities, things are not so crowded here that we need to move to Martian suburbs.
Parent
Re:Regarding the article: (Score:5, Insightful)
We may not be able to make the earth unfit for life in general, but we sure can make it unfit for ourselves.
The earth can handle humans. We're insignificant on planetary timelines. Question is, can humans handle themselves? I don't want to go political, but give Dubya or Kim Jong enough reason, and they'll blow us off the planet in a second. Other life will go on though.Comforting thought in a very odd way.
Parent
George Carlin Quote: (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Regarding the article: (Score:5, Funny)
Damn straight!
That's why I propose we cut straight to the chase, and blow up the sun.
Who's with me?
Parent
Real Top Reason (Score:5, Funny)
same reasons (Score:3, Insightful)
0 base counter... (Score:5, Funny)
Mutants!
Yes, you too can mutate beyond your wildest dreams, slice-n-dice your DNA and see what progeny you yield! Two heads? Three arms? Oh, no! That's fine for the Beeblebrox's next door over, but you could have any of the following with proper exposure to unshielded solar radation:
Or with improper planning it may just be a short-lived pile of goo! Send for free brochure:
(Include $10 for shipping and handling)
Work? (Score:5, Funny)
I can understand Living and Surviving are pretty important but I could list a few hundred things that would beat out "Work" on my priority list.
Another reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
I/we want to know what's out there.
NASA's Missing the Mark (Score:5, Insightful)
Mission costs would be lower, and I really believe the payoff would be much, much greater!
Re:NASA's Missing the Mark (Score:5, Informative)
That is the job for NOAA [noaa.gov] (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration).
Parent
Re:NASA's Missing the Mark (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
The REAL reason (Score:4, Funny)
Because it is there (Score:5, Insightful)
"oh, we can get to India faster" or "oh, we can fly mail to South America in 3 days" or "oh, we can throw explosives further", all this comes later as part of the speech aimed at the venture capitalists, etc. The foundation, the basic desire is always just because it is there. The practical needs come later.
Reason #3 sounds a lot like a Dilbert engineer. (Score:5, Funny)
Make sure you have enough redundancy in your population to ensure DNA data integrity
Space.com's top 10 (Score:5, Informative)
Missing the Point (Score:5, Interesting)
This article entierly misses the point. No one argues that humans should not eventually go to space for these reasons and many more. The question is whether it makes sense to send people into space now.
In particular the question boils down to whether the money spend on human space flight now would be better spent on general technological advancement and not wasted on giant solid rocket boosters. This general technilogical advancement would then reduce the cost and increase the utility of going to space. This would be a plan to ultimately colonize space faster in the long run and in no way contradicts the arguments in the article.
In short the question is whether we are ready for human space flight or if we should spend more of our resources laying groundwork. I mean I think we all agree that in the 1950's it would have been a mistake to just try and build a really big v2 and do space exploration in that fasion. Instead we needed to do lots more research and build tools. Perhaps we need to build better launch systems, robotic support systems, life support systems and the like before it really makes sense for humans to be in space.
In particular at the moment it is not economically effective to send humans to space for raw materials. Thus at the moment argument 1 doesn't really apply yet. Also we don't have the technology to establish independent colonies. If the earth was hit with a disaster any space colonies we had now would die without support. This means argument 3 doesn't really apply yet. Finally argument 2 is a good general goal but it has no time component. Sure lets put life in space but lets spend our money now on technology and later use that to more effectively put life in space.
(Yes I admit that human space flight has some spin offs. However, my claim is that these spin offs are not really worth the large price compared to other research opportunities like robots or ground based research)
On my whiteboard at work... (Score:5, Insightful)
Slight oversimplification, but the idea is there.
Oh and by the way, IAARS (I am a rocket scientist).
Re:What Bad Things? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What Bad Things? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What Bad Things? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What Bad Things? (Score:5, Insightful)
I must disagree.
When Europeans moved to North America, they did solve some real problems. Granted, we still have problems, but they are different than the ones Europeans had circa 1000 A.D. It's a fairly trivial exercise to show things are much better now.
OK, what can moving into space do for humanity? First, there is the not putting all our eggs in one basket factor. Secondly, we can try new things. Some of our experiments will succeed; some will fail. Successful experiments can be emulated. Our failures can teach us what not to do.
Starting back in the 17th century, the part of North America governed by first England and now the United States and Canada tried doing some new things with regard to government and society. These experiments proved so successful that parent societies in Europe adopted many of the new ideas first tried in North America.
We haven't acheived any sort of utopia, but we have made significant progress.
Parent
Re:What Bad Things? (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, your examples of polution, population, and nuclear explosion don't make much sense either. Polution is far less likely on another planet, since fossil fuels are far less likely. We'd probably be using solar or nuclear power instead.
Population makes the least sense, since expanding to other planets is the single most effective way of dealing with this issue. You effectively double your space and eliminate population issues.
Nuclear explosion isn't really a factor either. If you're talking weapons, the likelyhood of them being taken to upstart colonies isn't too likely. Once the colony is established, if one location (Earth or the colony) wipes itself out with nukes, the other is going to think long and hard before using theirs. Having a front-row seat to devastation makes people do everything they can to avoid it happening again (see 9/11 attacks for proof). If you're talking about nuclear power plants, they're getting safer and safer, so I doubt it would be an issue. Besides, nuclear meltdown is a local issue, not a planetary issue.
Parent
Re:Survive? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Funny Math (Score:4, Insightful)
Be that as it may, currently we need only planet-breaking disaster for 100% guaranteed extinction. The odds of such a disaster are low, but they are nonzero.
Although the chances of survival on a completely new planet may be significantly lower than our chances of survival on earth, overall the idea of interplanetary colonization lowers the chances of total human extinction.
So "chances are worse elsewhere" still translates to "overall chances are better." You're applying faulty reasoning to the problem.
Parent
Re:Survive? (Score:5, Interesting)
However, while all of us dream of populating other planets, the practicality of doing so with today's technology is absurd. For example, we haven't colonized Antartica. Sure there are a few scientists living on isolated stations, but they are doing research - no intention of making the area habitable. If we can't even colonize all of the continents here on Earth, why bother with other planets. A better example is the bottom of the ocean. Why not colonize the ocean floor? It's less rediculous than colonizing the moon.
On this survival front, no scientist could possibly prove that life is safier anywhere else than on the Earth, where it has been happily plodding along for a few billion years, and so far been unobserved anywhere else.
Parent
Re:Survive? (Score:5, Insightful)
The counterargument is as follows: what could anybody or anything possibly do to our planet to make it as hostile an environment as, say, Mars?
Even nuclear war or an asteroid strike would be unlikely to eliminate the oxygen from the atmosphere or change the mean surface temperature by more than, say, 20 or 30 degrees Celsius. Still quite hospitable in the grand scheme of things.
Rather than shipping a self sufficient colony of humans to Mars, at extraordinary difficulty, expense, and risk, why not just build the same colony in a physically and environmentally isolated place on Earth, like some mine shaft somewhere? Heck, build two for redundancy. The engineering and political risk to such a project would be vastly reduced by avoiding the need to shlep everything between gravity wells. Space travel is extraordinary difficult, and as a result, space engineering projects have a remarkably poor success rate. The survival of the species hardly seems like an area where we should choose to take on vast and unnecessary risks.
If our goal were truly to protect the survival of the species, we would start with that premise and consider the technical merits of all the possible solutions. Yet we seem to be entering this debate with a preconception that space colonization is the answer. I believe that the answer is preordained simply because survival of the species never was a goal, and never will be; it is simply a rationalization for our desire to explore a new frontier!
I think nothing illustrates this better than the political absurdity of actually implementing a realistic human survival plan here on Earth. Can you imagine getting Congress to spend a few billion dollars for a self sufficient colony on Earth? It would be laughed out of committee. Even at the height of the Cold War, we were telling schoolchildren to hide under their desks instead of seriously trying to protect our future. And just writing these words, I am starting to sound like a survivalist crackpot!
Why is it so much easier for us to justify an enormously difficult, expensive, and failure prone attempt at survivalism in space when we do it so much better, faster, and cheaper here on Earth?
Martin
Parent
Oh, come on, mods! (Score:5, Insightful)
Whichever way you look at it, whichever way it works, finding the mysterious #2 in this case IS our best case to getting into space. Space tourism is risky and expensive, but it's only a start. If we could come up with some good, financial, bottom-line-friendly reasons to get into space, we could get some serious money - and effort - behind it.
Parent
Re:Missing the Point (Score:4, Interesting)
Your arguement is almost like saying that a one year old shouldn't try to walk because they'll be inefficient at it, it will be expensive (energy and time wise), and that they should wait until the technology (their musulature and nervous system) is more developed.
Parent
Re:Got it Backwards (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent