How to succeed or fail on a frontier
unenumerated.blogspot.com
unenumerated.blogspot.com
Bad extrapolation into modern space exploration. Also, there's an artificial distinction between publicly funded space tech. and publicly funded military space tech.
Military spec tech. is funded from our taxes just like the shuttle is. And while it may serve as a deterrent, there also may be much cheaper ways to get the same peaceful results. Like for example changing foreign policy to be less interventionist.
I think it's important to remember that Columbus was funded by the Queen of Spain, so it wasn't all private efforts.
It's also important to remember the modern day trade restrictions on space tech and flight restrictions imposed due to military needs.
And that's what's common between us and ancient China, it's not the public funding, it's the public restrictions.
The kingdoms and the city states of 15th century Europe were like competing family owned businesses (large property owning and managing businesses). The two keys for building a scalable success are competition and the profit motive. By definition, profitable means you get out more resources than you get in. Thus anything that is scalable must be profitable. The Chinese ran the missions for reasons of glory, so they did not concentrate on profit. As a result, the missions did not scale and were cut back when new rulers came to power. The same goes for NASA. But the monarchs of Europe were trying to make a profit so their exploration strategy was far different and far more cost effective.
I resubmitted it with this title, which is the original title of the article, hoping that it would be called to the attention of a few more readers. Empirically, this title seems to have worked better.
What title would you suggest?
What a ridiculous statement!
If done for a profit, going to the moon would be economic growth, but as it was, it was essentially a program to build a legacy for Kennedy and Johnson, at which it was immensely successful! After all, people associate those two with the space program more than with the Vietnam War, now, as far as I can tell.
The town where my wife is from south of Padova is actually fairly new in Italian terms (16/17th century). Why? Because it was originally mosquito-infested swamp land. It got cleared out when the Venetians turned 'inwards' to try and make better use of the land they had when their trade fortunes started to decline. Or so goes the story, at least...
http://www.amazon.com/Nathaniels-Nutmeg-Incredible-Adventure...
But I think humans-off-Earth will never be a large percentage of all people, even after/if people-off-Earth are an overwhelming majority. Meat isn't suited for space.
Mars has a nearly 24 hour day/night cycle and solar flux suitable for growing plants. Mars has also had the same sorts of geologic processes that created many of the mineral deposits on Earth. Basically, Mars is a treasure trove of resources to enable the cost-effective human settlement of the rest of the Solar System.
And the rest of the solar system will get settled. There is simply too much military advantage to be gained from being up there as opposed to down here. Ultimately, the amount of resources and energy that a solar system-wide space-faring civilization will be able to control will be a couple of orders of magnitude larger than what we can easily acquire on Earth. Therefore, some Earthside societies will try to settle Mars and exploit the resources up there, and it's only a matter of time until at least one succeeds.
However, these attempts of Earth societies to colonize space will ultimately fail to create good copies of their parent societies and will instead give rise to an entirely new society, which will generate many new innovations much as the American colonies failed to remain under Britain and eventually gave rise to much of the innovation of the Industrial Revolution.
Whether or not we're mostly made of meat by that time -- I'm not sure how relevant that is, really.