Gurdur

Missing the point, no ?
Since most actual risks to mankind are manmade, you'ld only be exporting the source of the problem with space colonization.

wdog

Ivank,

I think that misses the point, no one is looking for trouble, and as far as solving all the problems here, that will never happen. Your idea was equally applied to things like what maxwell or einstein did. Some would scoff that basic science is a waste of time when we have bigger worries, but that is very narrow minded. The human quest for knowledge and exploration is what brought us out of the caves in the first place and i would submit to you that it gives our lives more meaning than we would have otherwise.

Gurdur,

simply saying that humans will be humans also in space also misses the point. we do these things to elevate ourselves and enrich our lives. cynicism is never a useful policy

Gurdur

heh, not guilty.

For a start, I'm not being cynical, though I am teasing the hell out of some.

Secondly; I'm still waiting for someone to make the very obvious counter-argument ---- about space exploration being worthwhile combined with more human cultural evolution.

Do I have to do everything myself around here ?

Loren Pechtel

Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Especially one with a 7mi/sec target painted on it.

FairFiend

Some more interesting articles:

Space yes, shuttle no

Critics say space shuttle should be scrapped

Shuttle Diplomacy

Here's another article that gives a good assessment of both sides of this issue. I was surprised by not only how similar the title's article was to the title of the thread, but also how similar the points that have been made.

Is human space travel worth the risk?

Also found these articles:

Should we be up there at all?

Value Of Space Science?

Obviously, this isn't an easy question to answer. At the very least discussion should be carried out so that when a decision is made, it is made after exploring the issue fully instead of a knee-jerk response. Hopefully, everyone contributing to this post (with the possible exception of the ones that got sidetracked on the asteroid discussion) has had a chance to see this issue from both sides and make an informed opinion.

Friar Bellows

That would be a good description of your response.

And I covered that with ... "You don't avoid human problems by space colonization..." You should read more carefully.

But surely you do understand the point of (as Loren put it) not putting all your eggs in one basket? It is such a blindingly obvious thing.

IvanK

From Paul Krugman's Feb. 4 column in the New York Times (free registration required):

And even the Hubble thing was avoidable; the problem was that the mirror was ground incorrectly -- on Earth.

Hear, hear.

Trouble is, the single most important catastrophic event that can occur in space is that you run out of air to breathe really, really quickly and then you die. There currently are exactly zero planets other than the Earth that have been shown to be able to sustain human life. Overcome that objection, please, before you talk about saving humanity from asteroids by colonizing other presumed habitable worlds.

Recommended reading: Norman Spinrad, Riding the Torch.

IvanK

Precisely. Has that penny dropped for you yet?

No, the important differences being that neither Maxwell nor Einstein would have accepted dozens of preventable, spectacular, fiery deaths in pursuit of the knowledge they uncovered; and that that knowledge was much more valuable than most of the things -- I would say all of the things -- that the manned space program has so far accomplished.

I have no beef with the human quest for etc. I do have a beef with sacrificing our best and brightest at immense taxpayer expense for (to repeat myself) a little illusion of hope, which is about all I've seen put forward here in defense of NASA's manned space program. I still think it should end.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by IvanK
Trouble is, the single most important catastrophic event that can occur in space is that you run out of air to breathe really, really quickly and then you die. There currently are exactly zero planets other than the Earth that have been shown to be able to sustain human life. Overcome that objection, please, before you talk about saving humanity from asteroids by colonizing other presumed habitable worlds. [/QUOTE]

What's the big deal? Take plenty of plants along! You'll need them anyway to grow food.

Without plants we would run out of air here on Earth, also. It would take longer because there is so much reserve but it would happen.

Shadowy Man

What do you consider "immense taxpayer expense". Have you ever calculated what the NASA manned program costs the individual taxpayer? NASA only gets about 0.5% of the national budget. If you are worried about "immense taxpayer expense" there are a lot better places to start cutting.