Neyir Cenk Gokce wrote:
>
> Sure, but do you think we would have so much marine shipping if we insisted
> the monstrous ships to beach on each small bay for offloading? I cannot
> understand how we are so much backwards than most of the old sf writers'
> ideas--the idea is that a spaceship is a *space*ship and does not, er,
> *land* any more than you would expect your Titanic to *beach*. A space
> station [or three] which is in geosyncronous orbit can act both as a weather
> station/maintenance hub for the zillions of sats we have out there/and as a
> stepping stone to the moon. The moon has some resources that technology
> might free so that after the initial investment, the moon colonists can
> become more and more self-sufficient as time goes on.
It's not a question whether after a hundred years or so, an off-world
economy might develop. The problem is identifying an economic reason to
get it started.
You're right if you're talking about "down the road." Zero-g
manufacturing facilities would definitely be a stepping stone in the
emergence of what I call "space exploitation." NASA-built moon research
facilities, Mars exploration missions even the joint space station
project will not create an economy that will lead to tremendous
development of space. You need economic motivation. In order for
corporations to pony up the vast number of dollars required to build and
sustain off-world facilities until they started turning a significant
profit.
The Spanish (and everyone else) explored the world and founded colonies
because there was money to be made. A ship's hold full of gold (or
silver or even spices) was VERY profitable. They didn't do it to see
what was there, they didn't do it because they hoped to benefit mankind.
They did it for money. Space works the same way.
miketotty
|