4 ms·
Where's the rush? Wait a few decades, let it be profitable and the Moon will be colonized. This timeframe is tiny in the grand scheme of things. The human race
by iwwr 16y ago
Where's the rush? Wait a few decades, let it be profitable and the Moon will be colonized. This timeframe is tiny in the grand scheme of things.
The human race has never been in a better position to ensure its survival and the chances are increasing. I would guess that even a dinosaur-killer (20km) asteroid, while devastating, would not end the human race itself. Thinking about events that happen every few millions of years is not very productive for human beings.
Even if you start spending $1tn. per year, it's doubtful that space exploration can be made profitable; in fact it could be the opposite (public money crowding out private investment).
With that in mind, get NASA to actually search for the multi-km size asteroids that could threaten the Earth.
- eiji 16y agoIn my opinion this is what is holding us back in the grand scheme of things: Only do things which are profitable. Let's just step back for a second and consider the following questions: Do we have the raw materials to start space colonization? Do we have the human resources (manpower and knowledge) to start such a program? I think the answer to both questions is yes. Unfortunatly materials and the manpower are too expensive in the current industrial world.
- iwwr 16y agoIf there's no incentive to make it profitable, there would be no critical mass to move the technology and industry forward. There's only so much public money that can be spent and it's fairly obvious that it won't be spent efficiently. The space shuttle: $500bn, ISS: $100bn., is humanity closer to colonizing space for that money? Governments have an incentive to spend money, not to be frugal and industrious.