My fear is that if realising the dream of space travel was ever achievable, we may have blown it by having placed the fate of humankind for far too long in the hands of the ideology of neoliberalism. This has ensured humankind's endowment of natural resources has been largely wasted to satisfy the shortsighted greed of the world's elite.

There may not be enough fossil fuels and other non-renewable resources left over to make possible the required effort to establish a self-sustaining human presence in space. If there are it may be politically difficult to safeguard these resources for space travel in the face of other demands for those resources.

Some arguments against the feasibiity of space travel which have been put to me are:

1. Any civilisation capable of creating the technology that would get us into space was bound to go mad due to its necessary complexity. (This is being sadly borne out as I speak, in spite of the best efforts of many of us.),

2. In the confined space of space colonies it would not be possible to sustain the kind of culture that would prevent the colonists from gong mad as is possible on earth.

3. The cost to the planet's environment of sustaining space travel on top of the othe demands of industrialised civilistion may be too great.

All of this is on top of the technological difficulties which need to be overcome.

Space exploration is just the eternal adolescent fantasy of "indepenndent" western boy/man extended into the "heavens".

The extension of cow-BOY "culture" always looking for a new frontier and opportunity while trampling the living-breathing beings, both human and non-human,that get in the way under foot.

Chop it down and shoot it if it moves.

Rape and trash the planet first and then extend the psycho-pathology else-"where".

By adolescent fantasy I mean the delusion never-ending "growth" as a means of avoiding cooperative responsibilty for the pattern of relationships in which we now exist. Family, the non-humans, community, region, state, country, planet.

Lets not forget the Holy Bible boys! It MAY JUST BE! that there is, as the Bible says, a great invisible war on earth between God and the now evil arch angel, Lucifer and his third of the angels (Ephesians 6:12-18 for this war). Christians believe because The Holy Spirit living in them confirms the Holy Bible truth. The war is so establishyed that nothing can really interfere with it including man and his adventures out into space. We are too far from Mars and the resources of the earth are simply not there. God is letting nothing interfere with the conclusion of the conflict. NASA isnt so dumb as not to know this...there are born again christians amongst them...they are just being apostate to the Word of God with their scientific goofing off and wasting money while people starve on USA streets.

re:
"That's just plain silly: did we fix Europe before embarking for the Far East and the Americas?"

No, I guess not.

By the same token, getting across the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans, under sail, was vastly less energy-intensive than sending payloads into space. Let alone maintaining them in orbit. I don't expect space colonies would quickly become self-sustaining, in energy, materials or gene pool.

The assumption that we can "invent" our way out of population and resource problems by sending a few brave souls into space has always struck me as dubious. Invariably, the promoters are convinced that they, too, will be in the vanguard - and it will be the others who are left behind, paying the taxes.

I am interested in sustainability, down here, ASAP.

My preference is to leave the space exploration for a few centuries, and concentrate on balancing the energy and materials budgets here on earth.

Praise to the author! Yep, this lad’s got the answer – infinite growth is God.

That whiskery old Darwin didn’t have it right after all. But that was one and a half centuries ago – we’ve got smarter since then. And it does seem a pity that mathematicians also are not up to the current speed demonstrated by the author. They are like that physicist, Professor Bartlett from Boulder Colorado, who has been sending out messages for yonks about the impossibility of infinite exponential growth. Surely, the simple maths he uses is out of date.

We have conclusively demonstrated that it is possible to have six and a half billion people occupying this planet at the one time – we are doing it now, and the world hasn’t come to an end. What more proof is needed? Not having proved the capacity for more, what a brilliant concept – export the excess, just in case!

Be cautious, hold those numbers! Get cracking straight away, send the modern-day Chritopher Columbus and Ferdinand Magellan types on their journey immediately. Through the wide-blue yonder into the blackest of the dark unknown for some planet new and green, replete with enthusiasm for human arrival. Ah, the enthusiasm and excitement that Homo sapiens exhibits in relation to exploring new frontiers.

And we can’t delay – 6.5 billion, just perhaps, might be our limit here. Get them moving now – 80 million per year to be shifted; twenty-two thousand per day. Move those queues along at the launch pads; ensure the rocket fueling procedure is hunky dory. Set up the kiosks at their space-launch-ports to sell them their bottles of Perrier Water and DVDs for their (?) of lightyears journeys.

Oh, the sadness for us billions left behind to continue overconsuming the capital from the planet’s bank of resources – for ourselves, and for export as cabin luggage with those 80 million each year. Waving them off, teary-eyed to the tune of "will ye no come back again?"

I'm with Sir Vivor. I am all in favour of space exploration, and indeed without our first baby steps in that direction we would know a whole lot less about our planet and ourselves.

The concern of some posters here that launching things into space is too much of a drain on our terrestrial resources is not particularly well-founded. Yes, it's expensive, but it isn't inherently depleting of anything but the materials sent away (and in the very long term we might even bring as much back as we export). It is most expensive in terms of energy, but our local energy resource is limited only by the lifetime of the Sun, which we expect to outlast, and eventually destroy, the Earth itself if something isn't done to prevent it. I expect that well before that time we will have evacuation plans in place -- perhaps just for the population, or maybe we'll move the whole planet for heritage reasons.

But colonising space is just not a priority right now. Present practices on Earth *are* unsustainable, and a whole lot of human suffering is going to result before we get our priorities and our resource use straight. We are, after all, children of the universe; looking after one another and the planet of our birth is very much worthwhile.

The odds against anyone on this planet leaving it and surviving in space must be... er, astronomic.

There simply isn't sufficient time left to do the work necessary to make a real and sustainable stab at it. At most, I suspect, some enterprising souls might make an outbound voyage of some kind, and perish as soon as their four-score-and-ten is up.

I'd hate to be on that trip. It only takes one unbalanced brain in the ship's complement, and it would quickly become a living hell. Nope, not for me.

But the assumption in the article appears to be just that. That space exploration needs to have the overall objective of transporting mankind to continue our species, somewhere else.

I'm inclined to believe the opposite. That it is the task of a space programme to push the boundaries of science and knowledge, in order to extend our stay on this planet.

Plus, I have to say, if humankind decides that exploration for exploration's sake is a bad thing, simply because the cost-benefit analysis shows too much cost and to little benefit, then quite frankly we don't deserve to survive.

It would signal the end of imagination. And with the end of imagination, all the little things that make life worth living - music, art, all that soft stuff - would disappear also.

And that would be very sad.

re Pericles:
" ...I have to say, if humankind decides that exploration for exploration's sake is a bad thing, simply because the cost-benefit analysis shows too much cost and to little benefit, then quite frankly we don't deserve to survive."

"It would signal the end of imagination. And with the end of imagination, all the little things that make life worth living - music, art, all that soft stuff - would disappear also."

Which may help explain the demise of all the hornpipe tunes and sea shanties that brightened the days of sailors on sailing ships, back when the wind provided transport power. The demise of exploration-fired imagination?

Maybe all the office folks who developed, launched and monitor the progress of SIGINT and video surveillance satellites can dance a few new jigs, inspired by their space frontier explorations.

Meanwhile, the rest of us get the offcasts - oops, I meant spinoffs - eg Google Earth, the internet and taxpayer-subsidised oil and nuclear electricity. Hooray!

Space colonisation –not just exploration –is the most important next for humanity –everything else is just a sideshow.

Address climate change, find cures for disease, help the poor, yes– but not at the expense of space.We should be putting more money into space exploration –not less.

There is always going to be some segments of humanity which are below par.Scratch below the surface of the greatest civilisations -the most bountiful of times.There were always in the lower echelons, down & outs. Diversity of this sort–while cruel on the individual level – motivates humanity .

And short of an authoritarian world govt, you’re not going to be able to control peoples life styles.
There are sectors of humanity who are saying to us now :
Give us aid –cancel our debt–but don’t tell us how many children we should have.
There are individuals who say :
Give me food & lodging –but don’t tell me to get off the couch & do something to find a job or upgrade my education.

Space exploration fulfils humanity’s need for an inspirational dream, it provides us with a safety net , it provides us with lebensraum and it will provide us with things we haven’t yet dreamed of .

Authoritarian world government is coming Horus. They are building it now. A charismatic world leader who kills millions is near the world stage; and in his wicked little ticker is an enforced microchip for either the right hand or forehead (Revelation 13:16-18) which the Holy Bible says we are not to take (Revelation 14:9-11).
As for the lower life forms and wanting to make them disappear for the sake of the "elite dream" well thats not "love your neighbour" is it.
The great NASA vision is a dead vision.
Wars and disasters are going to grow to the level that NASA collapses (read Luke chapter 21 about endtimes events. Revelation chapter 6 onwards is interesting also).
Do any of you chaps ever stick your noses into the Bible? The safest place in the future is in church on our knees praying. Jesus Comforts all who genuinely go to Him to be saved!

Australia should develop its own space program.

A recent MMMradio comedy skit suggested Scientists have asked Howard for $100million to send an Aussy unmanned craft crashing into the sun as a world first data collection experiment. Its not so comic. The greatest 'thermodynamic-gradients', you know, those things that are responsible for ALL life and growth, exist between Mercury and Venus(Heliospace). The gradients are violent and unpredictable but advanced NEXTEL and Magnetic shielding can overcome that to create ultra prosperous colonies, because the energy capture/storage/usage potential is so great (11X Earths radiance). This is why a solar data collection shot is MORE important to space exploration than anything NASA/EuropeanESA have ever considered. It would make Australia a leader in Space.

Australia is in a curiously unique position to follow this precept.

* We lead the world in SCRAMJET technology

* We can afford it. We can be one of the richest nations on Earth by supplying value added Pebble Bed Nuclear Reactors and fuel to the rest of an energy uncertain planet.

* We are just a stone's throw from the BEST Equatorial 4500 Mtr mountaintop launch pad in the world - Mt Wilhelm in New Guinea.

* We have some of the best heavy infrastructure capability in the World as evidenced by the construction of Sydney's Light Horse Exchange and the Woronora Incremental Launched High-top Bridge.

The Technology to be used is unmanned, semi robotc GPAL (GUN launch (to 4.2 km/sec), PACKET-SWITCHED, scramjet ASSIST(to 9.7km/sec), INCREMENTAL launch).

Continued..

Continuing..

Essentially GPAL will SCREW one ton packets of materiel packaged in the standard 7 layer OSI data model to Low Earth orbit interactively through 7 sensitive atmospheric pressure zones. The details are obviously secret but I can say that 20 standard packet types could autonomously and remotely build power stations, human habitats, manufacturing facilities and scientific data collectors anywhere between Mercury and the Moon(Heliospace). Any destination further out has insufficient solar energy to power GPAL or other initiatives. NASA is yet to comprehend this and lament upon it. NASA's Mars/Moon initiative is a thermodynamic catastrophe in progress. The Cold reaches of Mars have negative thermodynamic gradients that will ultimately suck the life out of any proposed mission that uses much more than a rover's 60Watts of power.

Australian's don't so much need to navigate our way into Heliospace but rather SCREW our way through it via a gettable mastery of unmanned, off-the-shelf, inexpensive GPAL technologies.

Being modular, packet switched, CAD/CAM computer oriented and off-the-shelf-manufactured, most of the research/development and design will take place with GPAL software programmers. And with a GPAL language compiler, even Aussie university/high school students would eventually be able to design and implement space applications all the way to the SUN.

Interesting post, KAEP.

It seems like a cost effective way to conduct a useful space exploration program.

Australia did have a space program at Woomera until the Hawke Labor Government closed down in 1983 - one of he earlier victims of the neo-liberal 'small government' 'revolution' of the past decades.

I agree with other posters who are against indefinite growth of human numbers and who warn against the danger that embarking on a major space program might divert humankind away from achieving the goal of beng able to live within the constraints of this planet.

Nevertheless, an appropriate space progarm on an appropriated scale might be one means to to help humankind through the looming environmental crises.

Keep using billions of dollars fighting in wars and we will get Star Wars or use it to get Star Trek. Our choice is war or explore.

Perhaps the salvation of the planet will be to use networks of floating space stations or satellite vacuum cleaners capable of cleaning up the atmosphere and syphoning the harmful gases that cause global warming from Earth to outerspace.
Every product in the world could have a carbon tax that goes to a global organisation that helps to pay to keep our planet clean.
I'd much rather use renewable energies, but if I knew that nuclear waste could be shot off into space and buried on the Moon or Mars, I'd rather that, than knowing it's sitting on our home planet Earth.

Further to my previous comment about space science, consider this article:
“Concentrating on the Solar Energy Space Race”,
http://www.carbonfree.co.uk/cf/news/wk41-07-0001.htm

noting major backing by the USA National Security Space Office of the Department of Defense.

To put this organisation in perspective, I provide the following, from:
http://nationalsecurity.oversight.house.gov/documents/20070523162721.pdf

Statement of
Major General James Armor
Director, National Security Space Office of the Department of Defense
(snip)

”Weaponizing Space: Is Current U.S. Policy
Protecting Our National Security”
May 23, 2007

Chairman Tierney, Congressman Shays, Members of the Subcommittee, it is my distinct honor to appear … as the Director of the National Security Space Office to discuss the National Space Policy and the policy implications of China’s counter space developments [including] its January 11, 2007, anti-satellite test. … “

“ … The current National Space Policy … , is the product of the first post 9-11 assessment of American space policy … . It continues to provide the vision and direction for the conduct of U.S. space activities and is based on a longstanding U.S. commitment to peaceful uses of outer space that allow defense and intelligence-related activities in support of national security.”

The Carbon-Free article notes:

“The Space Solar Alliance for Future Energy (SSAFE), a new organization advocating investment in space-based solar power technologies to address the planet’s future energy needs, was announced this week at the National Press Club.”

“The coalition of thirteen leading research organizations and space advocacy groups focused their inaugural event on the announcement of a new study of space-based solar power led by the National Security Space Office (NSSO).”

“The new Space Solar Alliance for Future Energy (SSAFE) will promote the findings of the NSSO-led study, and seek to communicate the benefits of the technology to business, government and the general public.”

Many of the comments above show muddled thinking, arguably the result of 50 years of glorious propaganda.

Dear Mr Da Silva, what evidence is there that satellites or space travel will eventuate in net energy gain, in the next 50 years, to address our concurrent, earthly energy problems?

Vivor,

It is possible that the new Global Space Race will not be between America and China but between Australia and America.

Have a read of this NYTimes forum post.

http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/science/humanorigins/index.html?offset=107221&fid=.f56c6bd/107221

Believe it or not!

Not sure if this thread is still on, but give it a shot.
Found some remarkable responses. KAPE approach gets my two cent.
But what's the deal with GPAL? You mention it subliminal so much that subliminal it feels subliminal ;-)

I am all for Au space leadership if it is about fixing climate right now. (The 'glorious' human mission wouldn't be put on hold if it gained a timely purpose.) So what do you mean by "details are obviously secret but I can say that 20 standard packet types could autonomously and remotely build power stations .. and scientific data collectors anywhere"

I mean I like the sound of it but why exactly would you build those stations in space? I can't see the rationale. If anywhere you would build them in the upper atmosphere and the troposphere where the problem is.

And the problem of course is urgent. If we leave on shelf a sensible solution for too long, we WILL get geo-engineering from NASA, you can bet your hat on it. And I don't like the sound of that if it comes from an organisation that is admittedly and proudly about "weaponising space."

Right now, that's insane squared.