3 ms·

I tend to think of it from an economic standpoint. It takes a great deal of economic capital to put things into space. Until space is returning a reciprocal amo

by ghotli 15y ago

I tend to think of it from an economic standpoint. It takes a great deal of economic capital to put things into space. Until space is returning a reciprocal amount of value to earth then the equations don't match up. Humans love warring, clicking links the internet, eating, fucking, and arguing instead. Intellectuals and idealists still have to abide by economics. Convince a large swath of the populace that a moon base is a good idea via some means of propaganda or figure out how to extract real tangible value from space. What's on the moon that is immediately valuable? That's the ticket right there. Upon coming to this conclusion, I have found that I've just straight up given up on space. Someday some species may colonize another planet. I just don't think it'll be the homo sapiens, at least not while I'm around. Leave it up to the foundation of the long now. They're the ones I have any semblance of hope in. At least they've got the right mindset.

jonnathanson 15y ago
"What's on the moon that is immediately valuable? That's the ticket right there." There's an old joke that, if we'd found oil on the moon, we'd have colonized it in a heartbeat. Putting aside the absurdity of finding large stores of organic material on the moon, the point is still valid. People usually need an economically viable return on investment before funding such big outlays. It's actually pretty remarkable that our government funded manned space exploration to the extent that it did. And, absent the space race with Russia -- and its military motives -- I wonder if it ever would have. At the end of the day, I'm perhaps a tiny bit more optimistic than you are about the future of space exploration. But let me reemphasize "tiny." I don't think anything dramatic is going to happen in our lifetimes. And, cynically, I don't think anything short of a tangible ecological disaster of epic proportions, or a second militarized space race with, say, China, is going to get us off our butts. It's telling that even Star Trek, that most optimistic of sci-fi series, didn't set the dawn of serious space exploration until after a World War 3.
- gaius 15y ago
  Once someone builds a fusion reactor then there is "oil" on the moon - He3.

by ghotli 15y ago

jonnathanson 15y ago

"What's on the moon that is immediately valuable? That's the ticket right there." There's an old joke that, if we'd found oil on the moon, we'd have colonized it in a heartbeat. Putting aside the absurdity of finding large stores of organic material on the moon, the point is still valid. People usually need an economically viable return on investment before funding such big outlays. It's actually pretty remarkable that our government funded manned space exploration to the extent that it did. And, absent the space race with Russia -- and its military motives -- I wonder if it ever would have. At the end of the day, I'm perhaps a tiny bit more optimistic than you are about the future of space exploration. But let me reemphasize "tiny." I don't think anything dramatic is going to happen in our lifetimes. And, cynically, I don't think anything short of a tangible ecological disaster of epic proportions, or a second militarized space race with, say, China, is going to get us off our butts. It's telling that even Star Trek, that most optimistic of sci-fi series, didn't set the dawn of serious space exploration until after a World War 3.

gaius 15y ago
Once someone builds a fusion reactor then there is "oil" on the moon - He3.