4 ms·
To be clear, I'm not making the case that humans aren't "meant" to be in space. I'm referring to the practical obstacles to us both getting to space and survivi
by lukifer 12y ago
To be clear, I'm not making the case that humans aren't "meant" to be in space. I'm referring to the practical obstacles to us both getting to space and surviving there for more than short periods, which is orders of magnitude more difficult thermodynamically relative to airplanes.
If someday we can create enclosed self-sustaining ecosystems in space, maybe I'll eat my words, but as it is, we have to send along huge fixed quantities of bio-support materials, using an exponential proportion of fuel (thanks to the tyranny of the Rocket Equation). It simply doesn't scale. And that's to say nothing of the prospect of decades-long interstellar journeys, or living off-planet permanently.
- goodcanadian 12y agoSure, and I am not arguing against robotic exploration which is incredibly valuable, but I also consider human exploration to be incredibly valuable both from a strict scientific point of view and from the point of view that sometimes there is an intangible value in attempting and accomplishing incredibly difficult things.
- greglindahl 12y agoThe cost of fuel is a trivally-small cost in today's launches. Contrast your thinking with Elon Musk's: he wants to drive down the cost of launches by 99% to facilitate putting a colony on Mars.
- DominikR 12y agoYou cannot know what Musk is actually believing. I'm sure that he is very passionate about enabling colonies on Mars and so on but he is also a businessman selling a product while having to deal with competition.