Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership
Message-ID: <1989Jan20.184633.8392@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <6145@thorin.cs.unc.edu> <1989Jan15.095906.18357@utzoo.uucp> <92@beaver.cs.washington.edu> <1989Jan18.043708.27547@utzoo.uucp> <93@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 89 18:46:33 GMT

In article <93@beaver.cs.washington.edu> szabonj@right.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>Uh, discoveries?  Leading to settlements?  Can you please explain this?
>
>Every major settlement in human history has been preceded by 
>exploration.  Settling in an unexplored area is dangerous, dead-end ...
>and totally unecessary given modern technology...

Quite true.  However, near-Earth space, which is where most space-colony
proposals envision initial settlement, is quite well explored already.
This cannot be said of the Moon as a whole (Carl Sagan et al notwithstanding),
but certain small patches of it can safely be considered well-explored.	

>What if we build our $100+ billion dollar lunar base, and then find out
>there is nothing worthwhile there?* ...

I thought you supported space science, or are you not considering exploration
of the lunar surface to be "worthwhile"?  Please explain what is found on,
say, Mars to have made the Viking landers "worthwhile".  I doubt that anyone
right now can confidently expect a lunar base to be financially profitable,
especially if you assume it is built by the government (which is the only
way it would ever cost as much as you suggest).  Most supporters of space
settlement consider it worthwhile for reasons other than short-term profit.

>... In fact, both the Moon and Mars might turn out to be terrible 
>places to build space industries and settlements or to provide material
>for same.

They almost certainly are terrible places for space industry; open space
is far superior for industry.  They are so-so places for settlements,
with both advantages and disadvantages.  Likewise they are so-so places
for providing materials.  Please explain how new discoveries could make
these assessments *worse* (it is easy to see how they might get *better*).
I don't think any serious space enthusiast is making more favorable
assumptions than the above.

>* Lunar materials to support other space industries (eg LOX) are not
>worthwhile until such industries generate the $100+ billion/yr plus   
>demand needed to pay for such a base, and  such materials can be made 
>and transported cheaper than from Earth or asteroids...

The notion that industry would need $100+ billion to set up a lunar
mining site is laughable.  Only the government could make it that
expensive.  (I note also that the capital cost has suddenly become
a yearly demand; please explain.)  Also, the relevant competition is
Earth, not the asteroids -- I have no objection to mining the asteroids
instead of the Moon.  The cost of lifting stuff from Earth is not too
hard to beat.
-- 
Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
toast to comrade Van Allen!!"  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu