|
|||
|
In order to get things off on the right foot, I think it's necessary for there to be a definition of the problem. Now, you're here, you're reading this article, presumably you did a topic search for "space travel" or somesuch, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and gamble that you are among the space-interested public. So we can argue about the why and wherefore if we like--Manned or robotic? Government or private? Mars or the moon?--but ultimately we'll get nowhere if I'm driving to Seattle and you keep asking, "So, when do we get to Tampa?" And when we finally stop talking past each other and I say, "Tampa? We've been in Oregon for the last hour," somebody will end up angry.
So let's see if we can't nail down a definition of the problem first, shall we? I submit that all our other questions--manned missions versus unmanned missions, government versus the private sector, men on Mars or men on the moon (again)--are all relevant only in our current space exploration climate. Which is to say, the only reason they matter is that we are still in the trireme era of space flight. Once we have a true oceangoing galleon at our disposal, these kind of questions will become unimportant. Consider: had the Romans sent an expedition of thirty-two triremes westward through the Strait of Gibraltar and into the Atlantic, and periodically half the triremes had transferred supplies to the other half and then turned for home, they would have created a staging approach that would ultimately have allowed a single trireme to reach the New World. Well, yay for the Romans. The analogy is obvious. Our current level of technology--and more importantly if you ask me, the current economics of the launch industry--place us in precisely that sort of bind. Hypothetically just about anything is possible if you have enough time and resources. That's the thinking that keeps the Chinese investing in their Navy. But at some point, the mathematics of the situation dictate that you will reach a limit to which, given infinite time, you may draw infinitely closer--but which you will never reach. What is necessary at those crucial junctures is a paradigm shift that redefines the problem entirely and allows the progression to begin anew. Thirty-two triremes can be replaced by a single galleon. This is why I think that the primary roadblock preventing the conquest of space from proceeding is economic. Right now our rocket triremes send payloads into orbit at exorbitant prices; as a result, we have to husband our resources carefully. And that's just where government space programs are concerned; at current prices, the private sector will never do anything but launch communications satellites, because the return on investment simply isn't there for any other activity. Fortunately, this will not always be the case. Space is actually an environment filled with commerical opportunity--pharmaceuticals, optics, tourism. It's just that there's no money to be made until the cost of entry drops.
The copyright of the article Disposable Volkswagens in Outer Space is owned by . Permission to republish Disposable Volkswagens in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Robert Davis's Outer Space topic, please visit the Discussions page. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||