Spacetravel is going to be a race again, since upcoming economies as China, announce their plans to head for manned missions and possible moon missions, and also other nations are upcoming as spacetraveling countries (like India).

The american plans head for the moon again, set up permanent bases on the moon, and maybe in the long time we might have a manned mission to mars.
Apart from all the unmanned far solar missions, seems we are heading for some more exciting times at this front, where new frontiers are met.

But, for the point of discussing this, the purpose of this post is to derive to the question of what is the purpose of space travel. There are a number of goals to be met, like scientific exploration and the expansion of knowledge, etc.

There is in itself nothing wrong with investing money into sciencific exploration, without reaons of budget and other needs.
There are also economic goals of course. Part of the spacefaring activity serves for economic goals, like communication, GPS, weather forecast, etc.
However these direct economic goals are restricted to earth orbit satelites only.

Recently though, in the perspective of upcoming space travel events, a number of reasons have been lay out for grounding space travel at the basis of economic goals.

Like for instance there are the statements that on the moon and other celestial bodies, we may find new resources, which are valuable. That might be true, but to what extend can we harvest such resources at acceptable price levels? Shipping goods to earth is very expensive, for example, even if there are unlimited quantities to find. So only resources for self sustainance come into the picture, but will that ever be self sufficient?

What we have today is just some 100 kg of extraterrestial rocks. Consider the prices of that rock in terms of the money invested to get them. It turns out, those rock are priced astronomically (just try to calculate that!). As technology advances, the price will sink of course (and in the first place, we didn't harvest these rocks and other materials for economic purposes, but purely for scientific goals), but to what extend? Can resources of space ever compete with earth resources?

What resources do we need what we can not get on earth?

Can a space colony be ever self sustained, even survive without any investments or goods from earth? Is that a goal we must work on, to increase our chance of surviving?

I think in all these aspects, colonization is different from the colonizations of our own world, since we have a livable habitat on earth, and don't have to invest enormous amounts to create a colony that can survive on it's own.

And also recently, Stephen Hawking mixed himself in the discussion, pointing out that space travel is needed in the effort to save humanity. In that statement he mainly mentioned the danger of biologic or other warfare, not even a word about environemental problems and resource depletion and the problems of peak oil or things like that, which seem to me a bigger problem, affecting more people and bigger economic problems, then some isolated acts of terror.
The 'war on terror' is IMHO some fake artefact of an imperialist society, which can only keep it present status as ruler of the world, at the basis of the exploitation of others and to deny others the rights to use our common natural resources; every resistance to current 'world order' is ranked as 'terror', in order not to change the current dominating status of the imperialist countries, even though this denies then in principle other nations and people to have a standard of living comparable to ours.

Regarding these aformentioned grounds for space travel:
I have tried to figure out wether such reasons are grounded. What problems of humanity can in fact be solved by space travel? Problems, for instance related to resource depletion, danger of major catastrophies (natural or otherwise) that might wipe out humanity, the environemental issues, etc.

My reasoning started out from the fact that - apart from the economic effects of some part of it,the commercial satelites and the economic services they provide - space travel as such is just costing huge economic resources.

Further I reason that no matter how our technology might evolve, the establishing of colonies in space, which can be self supporting (produce on average enoough economic value to enable their support), seems to me only a dream if at all likely.
Without costy space travel connections for supplies and goods, those colonies can never be self supporting, and even if there are returns (valuable alloys or other resources), they won't come in such quantities that it can pay off. Although of course the price mechanism will predict that such resources would be very costy.

And even it that DOES become plausible after many decades or centuries, we have to realise that such colonies have to become very large to be productive at all, and all that time and during that time, they will cost valuable resources on earth.

Currently the earth population doubles every 25 years or so. Resources, and esp. energy resources are already becoming depleted (gas and oil reserves for sure will not be sufficient for decades, and if we don't have the technology to supply enough energy, we will head for a major catastrophy) and we can already see the end of the oil area.

Growing economies of former third world countries, which demand their share of the global resources, will enlarge the upcoming problems.

In the perspective of that, how grounded is the appeal and call for space travel, under the claim that it can solve earths problems.

I mean, even if we could build a colony on mars and inhabit it with the same number of people as earth currently has, this would only help for 25 years, as long as the rate of population growth is at this level.
The growth level is reducing within 50 years or so, and perhaps stabilizing, but the earth will be dominately be populated with rather poor people, which will also want their (justifiable) share of consumer goods and earth resources.

Are we going into space, just to evade the major consequences of this?

In some or other way, I think the call for going into space, to help forward and maintain human existence, sounds somewhat like the captain's call on a sinking ship to abandon ship.

And if the reason to go into space are such, and not well grounded, we might want to re-evaluate the resources we spend on them, and think for more realistic measures to be taken to realy help forward the progress and well being of all of mankind.

If we can think we can inhabit the moon and mars on the basis of space technology, how much less effort would it be to make earth's dessert inhabitable again for the well being of people on earth??

Please note that desserts can in the near future be profitable when we harvest large scale sun energy there, and also can transform salt water into drinkable water, which would for many reasons help forward humanity much more as creating those habitats on the moon or mars, at much lesser costs and much more return on investment. Wouldn't it be much more wise to first try to make those wastland into farmland and apply large scale solar technology to also reduce the real problems of climate change, environment pollution, and depletion of oil, not to mention the problems related to peak oil?

I don't make an argument against space travel as such, or against human space travel, not even against trying to concur the universe and create livable and possible self sustaining habitats outside of earth.

But for the near future I would think, when balancing the investments against the time it will pay-off and the amount of expected return, the global economy would benefit more if for example the australian desserts, the sahara and the gobi deserts would become inhabitable by means of harvesting huge scale solar energy and irrigations for producing energy and agricultural goods desperaly needed for people on earth. The same investment in space can never return that much that quick and have such good benefits for people on earth, so why not first make these investments and solve some real problems before we head into space?

Not that I am against any human space mission as such, but in this moment of time, there are no other real grounds for doing it then scientific endavour and increasing knowledge, which is good I think, but the scenario of helping to avoid or solve some real problems, seems to be based on fiction, at least for the near future. We may think of that on the long term, but we must also and with even more effort think for the near future of humanity (all of humanity, not just the wealthy /rich people, earth is dominated with people who don't have a reasonable standard of living), which is in desperate needs for more living space, energy resources, water (!) and farmland and such. We have that here, we don't have to go to mars or to the moon to turn unliveable dessert like areas onto liveable and productive habitats, with much less effort and much more benefit we can do such projects on earth.

If human space exploration is done under the terms of the desperatedness of not being able to solve the real problems on earth, and merely deals with the scenario that those problems are not going to be solved but end up in real chaos, war and other catastrophes, and our only chance would be to survive to get into space and start again somewhere else (with the disadvantage of not having a biosphere that was active for billions of years!) I think that such grounds are totaly false and dillusive. They are the thoughts of mad man, who can not help himself and is desperate and thinks in 'solutions' that even worsen the problems (space exploration costs huge resources desperately needed somewhere else!), instead of solving them!

Opinions anyone?

My personal vested interest in Space Travel is a desire to get off this planet. I recognize that space exploration and colonization with primarily be a project of power elites and corporations, so I think it's vitally important for free humans to be involved and perhaps even beat them to it.

I do agree completely that the money being spent on space projects would be better spent on projects here on Earth -- but the fact of the matter is, people don't starve in Africa because there's not enough food, just like people don't go homeless here in the United States because there is not enough shelter. Simple human cruelty and selfishness are the real reasons for our "social ills", not a lack of abundant natural resources -- and I would agree with anyone who questions if that's a virus we really want to send out into the cosmos.

Ultimately, as with any other technology, moral concerns are a luxury and beside the point -- space travel, just like genetic engineering, AI and nanotech, will come to pass. All we can hope to do is wield the double-edged sword with some degree of intelligence and forethought.

we explore space because it's there, and it's what we do.
we are a nomadic species by nature.
but governments might do it for reasons of national security- the nation that controls the high ground has a strategic advantage, and there is no "ground" higher than space.
there is also the economic benefits of space exploration- hundreds of thousands of jobs are created to support it, and every penny spent is spent here on earth. and the lessons learned and technology developed as a result eventually trickles down to everyone.

__________________
"blacker than the blackest black... times infinity."- Nathan Explosion
The.. Best.. Thread..Ever...

Thanks for your input.

I agree about the nature of these "social ills", although I think they must be attributed to the social system in concern, and could in principle be overcome with sociale transforms and social changes being made.

Hunger and homelessness as are not the consequence of shortages of food or shelter, but this otherwise does not mean that in a situation of growing population AND a growing demand for resources, likely we meet some day and acc. to some scenarios not very long from now, some real problems, when oil or gas reservoirs are nearing depletion.

That is, the economic effects will begin to be seen quite soon, as (see for example the peak oil scenario) already when oil and/or gas are half way gone, we face the situation of decreasing global production of these resources, while the demand increase continues.

What will the likely outcome be in economic terms if demands continues to raise like 3% per year (don't know if that is realistic global growth rate) while production is decreased with 2-6% a year.

We know from other examples that even small deficits can have large impacts on the economy: prices in California have risen to double the normal levels, due to an electricity shortage of just some 5%. Now imagine that we have to face a growing shortage of 5% EACH year, and that on a global scale!

This what we face then is a lot of trouble, even if the predictions were half the scenario predicts.

In terms of trying to avoid this and take adequate measures, wouldn't it be more beneficial to provide enough measures (reducing the energy use, use energy more economically, increase the effective energy of energy sources, etc.) and alternative energy resources, before it is too late and prices are become staggering high in a short period of time?

Water also is a real problem for a lot of countries. Some countries might face inundation due to rising sea levels, other countries face depletion of water resources.

Tackling such problems globally is a huge project, but might be doable.
It could be foreseen that creating drinking water from saltwater and farmland from deserts and use the vast reserevoirs of electricity from the sun in those regions, could become a very profitable business, as electricity and water prices are rising.

Anyways, I think it is a better goal of creating a stable and renewable global economy in which the standard of living could be reasonable high for every person on earth, is a better goal then trying to inhabit mars or the moon.

There isn't a satisfying ground for building large habitats on the moon or mars at this moment, since the money is better spend on building those habitats on earth. Which does not contradict that some money spent on scientific exploration, not excluding manned moon or mars missions, would still be possible.

But then, why not involving more countries, to spread the costs and resources needed and also the scientific and technolgical benefits over more countries. Like a worldwide space program to go to the moon and beyond, with participation of the US, Russia, Canada, Europe, Brazil, Inda, China and Japan, and perhaps some other countries.

A mars mission without a very substantial global cooperation, as it involves huge budgets, would not be a logical thing to do.

But as of yet, the US even dispermits the Chinese to join the ISS.
It's a waste of resources if every country has to built it's own space habitat.

The way the US proceeds is more about global domination and prestige then about setting realistic goals that are beneficial for all of humanity.

Who says it is a race? That is language from 50 years ago. It's about time we came up with a new metaphor.

Jon

The argument about creating jobs is a bit flawed I think, because without large government support, there would not be space travel at all.

Well except from one private firm that has now reached the 100 km barrier of space with a private financed craft.

We could create that jobs as well in wellfare, bureacracy, education, other fields of science, healthcare, etc.

Suppose you would invest the money that now goes into space travel on new energy technologies, I think it creates more jobs, it reduces green house gases and avoids rising price levels because of reaching oil depletion/peak oil problems, etc.

So please compare that.

Do you have any suggestions then?

It dosent need one.

Manifest Destiny, Part Deux

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

well, a good part of the budget for space exploration IS dedicated to finding cheap, reliable, lightweight means to power space craft on long duration flights. that would cover the "new energy technologies' part of your question.
i like to think of the space program as a publicly funded r&d department that develops things that are to expensive for any one company to do on their own.
isn't a job at NASA one of the things that every scientist wants to have on their resume, because of what they do and the way they let the free thinkers actually think and bring their ideas into reality?
i don't have any numbers to back it up, but i've heard it said that every dollar that gets put into NASA gets returned to the economy 100 times over as a result of what is learned and how to apply it. i think that would make it possibly the only government agency that is profitable.
well, except maybe for the defense department, what with all those contracts to build tanks and guns and what not..

__________________
"blacker than the blackest black... times infinity."- Nathan Explosion
The.. Best.. Thread..Ever...

Since Apollo 11 there hasn't been any space race. That's nearly 40 yars ago. What we have seen is a wide range of activities in space, some independent, some complementary, others cooperative or competitive. Global human space actrivities have moved well beyond the simplistic "space race" metaphor, and did so decades ago. Not that it was ever a completely accurate, independent, complementary, and cooperative activities have occurred in space since the IGY. Continued usage by the media of the expression is counter productive, portraying space exploration and development in naive and incorrect terms. It is past time "space race" was retired.

Jon

Manifest to whom?

Why is space exploration our destiny?

Not to mention that it is a very US-centric expression with negative historic associations of aggression, conquest, disposession, and oppression. Imperialism in all but name.

Jon

Where else is there left for us to go?

That was simply a tag applied to a mentality that had been active in the New World since before there were Americans. European colonials of various stripes were much worse than we ever were. Secondly, we're leading this expansion, so if you don't like the Americentric name, get Europe off its duff and turn the ESA into a space program with a manned element. Pretty pictures and reams of data are fascinating and educational, but they're the exploratory equivalent of spinning the wheels.

Now that the rant it done, lets answer this question: Why is space exploration our destiny? The short version is, humans are at their worst when they fail to expand. Rome's major degeneration occurred in the years following the end of its expansion. Some of the darkest days of US history followed in the wake of hitting the Pacific. We build to the limits of our available lebensraum, then the inevitable decay sets in due to disinterest. Look at US cities, built to the hilt, and becoming ever expanding realms of urban sprawl with expansion strictly because of disinterest in investment in already urbanized areas where decay has set in. The expense of building over old areas is a constant thorn in the side of new investment. Not that this is the best mindset to have, but its the mindset in play, so its what we've got to work with. You do not change the course of civilization, you simply guide it along the path of least devastation, if you can. Expanding offworld, as it becomes more practical, could offer an avenue of less damaging expansion to the rather atavistic business community. Planetside governments can convince themselves of their relevance when this starts happening, but the day the critical threshold is crossed in terms of human survival in space, new governments will form, and a new frontier in human expansion will be opened, and maybe, just maybe, this planet might get a little relief from its most precocious offspring. We're trashing the cradle, its time to get out of it.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

Yes, but then why space?
Neither do we at the moment inhabit the Antarctic or the large desserts, so we have a lot of places to expand into.
Not to mention the oceans.

To my knowledge they are easier and less expansive to expand into, and can even be made into profit i.e. self supportive.

Is it our destiny or our fate?

Can we survive in space?

Can we ever set up a colony outside of our planet, which can support itself?

It is the nature of civilizations to explore and expand. When they stagnate, they start to feed off themselves and collapse. There are plenty of signs of it happening already in the US and Europe. Look at the USSR. Without a goal to strive for, people get ugly. Well, some do anyway, but the ones who count still need a destination.

Ehm, the last sentence is intended to be instructive. "We're trashing the cradle, its time to get out."

We can't even cruise on the surface of the oceans without causing major headaches for sea life (literally, read up on the new US Navy sonar project). Despite my feelings that climate change is simply something life on Earth is going to have to learn to cope with or face extinction, there are plenty of direct signs that human civilization's footprint is causing massive damage to the planet. The more we expand here, the more life we destroy. Not worth the price on our collective conscience.

In space, our worst enemy is the environment itself. At the very least, the choices we make in the means by which we'll learn to cope with its challenges won't be killing anything but ourselves should we succeed or fail. Staying here on Earth and continuing to grow is causing geometrically greater collateral damage with every passing century. Even the most ardent anti-tree hugger can see this.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

It is wise not to mention it; it is not true much less germane.

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?

Although you make some sense, the point is that in space we somehow do not less damage to the planet, because we live somewhere else.
All our equipment and resources, to some extend, still are derived from earth.
In fact, we need far more out there, then we need here.

That is the point I am trying to make. Unless in a very far future we can in principle have an independend existence (i.e. self sustainable existence) on some other planet, we keep depending on resources of earth.

So, the goal we set for is imho contrary to the grounds for doing it.

If we decide to and strive for the goal of doing less damage to the earth itself, for sure there are better options.
Replace fossil fuels with renewables on a massive scale, and recycle all materials we ever use.
To achieve such a long time goal, which is in my point of view essential to our survival, we would involve far more technological achievements and implement that on a far bigger scale as technologies derived from or aimed at space travel/space colonization.

What is weird / illogical is that some possible transformations (from our current wasting economy to a durable and renewable economy) are not undertaken at the basis of arguments which, when applied to space travel, would lead us to never go into space in the first place.
For example building a home which does not depend on any outside energy resource, makig use of all available energy resources in the environment, from wind to solar to biofuels to thermal energy underground, etc., and that on a massive scale, is prohibited, since the nondurable fossil energy price is still less expensive (on the short term).
While we know, the prices are going up rapidly once we enter the peak oil scenario, and can't escape from it then, so we need to take action on before hand.
Why don't we spend more resources on things of which we know they are necessary in the long run.

Please bear in mind, I am not an anti space travel fanatic. I think we should explore the universe, at least spend some of our resources on it, within reason, mostly for scientific reasons, and the technology that comes out of it and the jobs it creates, only makes that more worthwhile.
But we don't need to expect that our problems might be solved by going into space, at least not in any short timeframe, and maybe never.

Problems on earth, related to global warming and climate change, polution, the problems of poverty and social welbeing of many poor, should not stop us from doing space travel, but neither can we ground arguments for going to space on such matters.

So I am just arguing against some false grounds of doing spacetravel.

Neither would I welcome a 'privatization of space'. I think space travel, and esp. the far missions, should be undertaken on a worldwide scale based on international cooperation, and for the benefit of all mankind.
Private corporations are already very much involved in space travel, they built the space crafts and equipment. So why would there need to be private corporations utilizing space crafts or conduct their own missions?

Part of the next phase of space exploration will hopefully start making strides in eliminating some of the need to come back to Earth for resources. Its one of the BIG reasons we're trying to find locations with water already present. Early build up will require support from home, but if you can put the right pieces in place, the need to come back to Earth for resources is mitigated. Complete independence is probably a far future accomplishment, but it does not make taking the steps before total self sufficiency less worth taking.

We've got to start somewhere. We can't just sit here on Earth spinning our wheels until we're ready to launch a fully self sufficient colony from day one to the Moon or wherever. A much too massive and complicated undertaking. Piecemeal build up is much more logical, because it prevents a massive overcommitment of resources that may not address the specific needs of a colony in any given situation. Resource availability may entail tailoring the post-colonial supplies from Earth to a colony's specific needs until such needs can be addressed locally through sufficient supply recycling or a local source can be found.

To this I will ask you to understand the corporate mentality. Suppose you were to discover and sell to a manufacturing corporation a means to make their product with a hundredth the level of environmental impact that the current process does. How do you think a corporation will respond to this? Will they maintain their current production levels as limited by the amount of pollution they're legally allowed to cause, or will they take this new expanded limit and increase production until they're right back where they started from in terms of environmental impact?

Creating energy sources and technologies that are less damaging to the environment do not mitigate the impact to the environment because the nature of industry is to expand productivity. Any "clean" technology will not result in an iota of reduced environmental impact, because the old limits will likely not be changed in response given the way global politics works. Corporations will remain right at the very limit of the level of damage they can do in order to preserve their bottom line and its eternal demand for growth.

That stance requires a certain level of assumption about the kinds of creative adaptation that people can make given the opportunity to try. It would be dangerous to assume nothing can improve by investing in space technologies and growth beyond Earth without actually seeing what can be done in a practical sense. Its also why you don't simply go full throttle and suddenly up and do everything in space simply because its there as the potential benefits are as yet undefined. Piecemeal development and expansion based on evolving needs of industry will get the job done in the manner which it needs to be done. All that needs to be allowed is the opportunity to try, succeed or fail. The rest will be driven by the market.

Environmental damage cannot be a factor driven by the markets because environmental responsibility is more often damaging to the bottom line. That's really a job for the legislature to limit the impact by telling industry when enough is enough.

Poverty and social wellbeing are strawmen, because even under ideal circumstances, some people just plain suck at life and fail miserably. That's simply a reality we're going to have to learn to cope with. Too much is made of ridiculous levels of charitable sympathy.

Which is a respectable undertaking. Space expansion isn't the cure all anymore than any other single aspect solutions. It will likely be a part of the answer, though, not the sum totality.

I don't personally buy much into the tear evoking symbolic nonsense about doing things for "all mankind", but I do see the need to reign in privatisation of space. Corporations aren't the most humanitarian beasts when they can get away with it, so some level of socially conscious control will have to be placed, most likely some level of government oversight. However, private space will be a part of the coming reality. Governments fund themselves through socially acceptable robbery (i.e. taxation and fees), corporations actually generate money through creation of a market, so they will have a more efficient ability to finance themselves in their endeavors and should be given a little slack on the leash.

Corporate spacecraft do exist. Currently mostly LEO satellites. Very few, if any, are involved in extraplanetary exploration, simply because there's no raw dollar return on the investment. Pure knowledge is more in the realm of the academic than the industrial, so its of no use or interest, except as contractors to build spacecraft for the academics. Give them the license to actually exploit what can be found in space, and you'll see that mindset turn on the proverbial dime.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

My grounds for space exploration are simple, and probably unsatisfying for anyone besides myself: because it's space exploration. Personally, I've never been terribly impressed with arguments for economic resources, or even for seeding the human race off-world; to me, such things are secondary to learning about other worlds, and our place in the cosmos. I support a manned Moon or Mars mission in principle not because I want us to spread outward, but because I feel that for some tasks humans can teach us more than machines.

I think knowledge is a good in and of itself, regardless of any potential use. For instance, we'll almost certainly never use Element 114, but I think the knowledge gleaned about atomic physics from synthesizing it is a good.

In short, I support space exploration because I'm a curious individual, and I--and many others--want to know about what's out there. I've asked questions about the world my whole life, and space is just one more avenue for answering said questions.

__________________
"Call me old-fashioned, but I think fire is magic. And it scares me a lot."

--The State

Even that has practical applications down the line, if we ever find a way to synthesize an atomically stable isotope of it. All knowledge has practical application when used properly, its simply a matter of giving someone a chance to make it work.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

Of course it's still a Space Race! Pay attention. The US Military still speaks perfectly frankly about the need for "space dominance" -- that's a strategic nescessity as far as they're concerned. Don't kid yourself about a "new age" of global co-operation.

Dunno, the footrace is over, as near as I can tell. We're coming up on the St. Augustine/Roanoake period of spaceflight. We've got a foothold in the Canary Islands (the ISS) and we've had a few touch and go arrivals in Hispaniola (the Apollo program), and we're coming up on the first tenative long term landfalls.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

^^Don't you think 2-D metaphors fall a little bit short for an omnidirectional, unprecedented exploration effort?

I guess to an extent we're speaking different languages, since most of the DoD/DARPA push is to weaponize space, which is mostly unmanned sattelites.

Exploration of the New World was quite unprecedented in its day. The analogy stands.

Since the DoD and DARPA represent a small fraction of overall spaceflight dollars per annum, and precise none of the policy aspects of it, I'll sleep without worry tonight. Weaponizing space hardly turns the entirety of the sky above into a battlefield. Military planners are delusional to think even a thousand satellites in orbit with weapons represents any form of dominance, the volume of territory we're talking about is unbelievably large. A series of satellites, even with the kind of englobement that the GPS net represents is an insignificant overall threat. The effective range of the weapons currently available for use cannot cover sufficient volumes of space to make them even a minor threat. Consider the recent post that went over the energy requirements for relocating the Hubble space telescope from its current orbit to an ISS compatable orbit. The level of complexity and the timeframe involved in such a transit renders any conventional mode of ballistic attack virtually pointless, because the average tracking resolution of ground based radar can detect inbound threats and the intended target can easily dodge anything coming for it. Explosive require a medium of transfer (i.e. an atmosphere) to impart damage through overpressure, so area effect weapons aren't going to impress anyone either. Directed energy weapons have headaches with beam attentuation and available power generation capabilities in the satellite to give it enough punch.

The antiballistic intercept system being developed in the US is something of a gauze wall because even when deployed, it will not be able to stop a saturation effect series of launches of hostile ICBMs.

Warfare in space for the forseeable future is going to be a LOT like naval warfare in the age of sail. I wouldn't expect Star Wars/Star Trek level battles for quite some time.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

^^all excellent points, thanks for the brainfood

No, the US was just as bad as the rest. For that reason using it as a justification is morally unacceptable. "Manifest Destinity" was used to justify some of the most shameful events in US history.

Last time I looked this is not a discussion restricted to how the US should explore space. Nore is space exploration a US-exclusive activity. Therefore even legitimate US-centric appeals will not have broader application.

Sarcasm aside, "pretty pictures and reams of data" are exploration.

Lebensraum arguments will evoke memories of people with delusions of the master race. Not a good image to convince people that we should explore space.

Saying that the darkest days in US history occurred after the US reached the Pacific is erroneous. Many of the darkest events in US history occurred before then.

"We're trashing the cradle, its time to get out" simply means exporting our problems onto a different stage.

We need positive multi-faceted arguments, not failed slogans from past eras and fallacious historic parallels.

Jon

It is true, although a detailed discussion is beyond this thread. It is germane because to a great many people phrases like "Mainfest destiny" will conjour up images of of the worst excesses of imperialism, regardless of nationality or ideology. If we want to to see space exploration we want to avoid using slogans that have such negative connotations.

Jon