4 ms·
Whether space tourism is frivolous or not is question of personal taste and values. But this opinion piece is definitely very frivolous indeed, in that it miss
by dreamweapon 12y ago
Whether space tourism is frivolous or not is question of personal taste and values.
But this opinion piece is definitely very frivolous indeed, in that it misses (by light years) the main argument against space tourism -- the amount of energy and resources needed (both in flight, and in on-ground support), is far greater than that of land-based travel, and will necessarily always be so (whatever improvements may be seen in terms of industrial efficiency, a gravitational well is still a gravitational well).
The article doesn't even mention carbon footprint, in fact. As if the author is unaware of the fact that even regular air travel is seen by many experts as an essentially unsustainable industry, in terms of carbon impact (on the scale that it exists, and in the unrestricted, no-penalties sense as we know it today).
- pavel_lishin 12y agoCan't space tourism be seen as an investment? Sure, the carbon footprint is huge, but the money spent on space tourism is going towards the space industry, which could result in cleaner sources of energy. (Imagine huge solar collectors beaming power down to surface collectors in the desert. Doesn't get much cleaner than that, after everything is manufactured and launched - unless I'm grossly underestimating the maintenance.)
- dreamweapon 12y agoYeah, one can imagine various piggybacking effects or other tradeoffs by which luxury space travel might be more feasible. But what got me was the the opinion piece didn't consider environmental impact at all. It was just "C'mon, it's the human spirit! Ya gotta believe!"
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]