🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6907@eos.UUCP> woody@eos.UUCP (Wayne Wood) writes:
>In article <9855@pt.cs.cmu.edu> gerry@cive.ri.cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>>Who needs man in space?  The cost is astronomical (pun intended)
>>and the return minimal.  

	I tend to agree with this statement.  The cost of putting men 
	in space is far greater than the cost of unmanned probes, and while
	there are still hundreds of questions that can be answered by 
	unmanned probes, it seems we can make effective use of our resources
	by concentrating on this practical, unglamourous, and incredibly
	useful aspect of space exploration.

>*WE* need men in space.   Mankind cannot stay on this planet and hope to
>survive forever.  We are already starting to feel the population pressures
>and also the economic pressures from the constant drain on non-renewable
>resources.

	The population pressures and economic pressures are not likely to
	go away when we can begin to exploit space.   As a matter of fact, 
	I tend to believe (speculation hat on) that population will always
	be a problem as long as the speed of light remains a barrier.
	Growth is inherently geometric in nature, and there just aren't that
	many nice places to go within your lifetime.  The only cure for our
	lack of non-renewable resources is to conserve them, not to find 
	other places to pillage them from.

	Your statement about mankind not surviving forever is also 
	melodramatic.   If you mean we can't all drive Cadillac's and chop
	out the Amazon Basin to build a parking lot while dumping crude
	oil in the ocean and breeding like flies, you are correct.  One might
	hope that we will gain in wisdom enough to prevent such catastrophes.


>Granted, there are many things a robot can do which man is not necessarily
>needed for.  The deep-space probes we have been sending up over the
>past few years are prime examples, as are the planetary probes.  But only
>man can colonize.

	And it is not yet feasible and cost effective for mankind to 
	colonize space.  We are not talking about moving to an environment
	that is good for colonization.  We are talking about moving to 
	an environment that is 100% deadly to mankind.   The risks and hence
	the costs are high, and the payoff is relatively small, at least in 
	the current state of technology.

>One might well have asked if the was a need for a permanent human presence on
>the high seas in the 15th century (and earlier).  That frontier was every
>bit as alien and hostile as the one we currently are exploring.

	The number of adventurers was certainly small compared to the 
	population of the world, and it was many hundreds of years before
	travel by ship became reliable and relatively safe.  It required
	solving problems of food storage, nutrition, navigation, ship
	design and propulsion.  The problems associated with making a lasting
	presence is space make each of these look like child's play.

>You say there may someday be a need for a manned presence in space, but not
>now.  I say, if not now, when?

	Very simply, when it makes economic sense to have men in space.
	I am unaware of any venture in space that requires manned probes.
	When we have licked various problems with space travel, and it becomes
	as feasible as say aircraft travel, with comparable risks, then it
	will be time for man to colonize space, and use it for commercial
	benefit.

Mark