Can I ask someone to rebuttal my argument against human space flight?

[Ken Fabian]

Most people, when they really think about it aren't as pro-Utopian, as pro-entropy in an enclosed space / system / world, as pro-death , as some anti-Frontier universe types are.

That sounds like Lead Us To The Promised Land style religio-prophetic rhetoric to me, with the unbelievers being chastised for their lack of faith. And set up to be scapegoats to blame when the prophecies don't work out.

Humanity does live in an enclosed space/system/world for the foreseeable future and the health of this world is essential to the continuing technological advancements that might make space colonisation achievable. I don't see my doubts that colonising space is achievable without extraordinary technological advances as "pro-death" or that I am anti-frontier, just realistic about what is achievable and opposed to wasteful expenditures based on overhyped and unrealistic expectations.

There are good Earth based goals and reasons to advance space technology, including very ambitious ones, such as meteorite defense that could be widely supported despite no innate profitability. Asteroid minerals for Earth use have commercial potential, although we appear way short of being able to do so, but if it can be done I don't doubt there will be large scale investment.

As I see it further advances is space tech do not depend on grand long term goals like colonising space but if the tech that can support them does emerge there won't be a shortage of interest.

I think making human colonisation of space a high priority is premature. I think if it happens it will be an emergent outcome of activities in space for other more pragmatic reasons and getting ahead of ourselves won't make it happen sooner.

 

[Pogo]

I just don’t see mining anywhere being cost effective, what with the cost of launching not much of anything into LEO, let alone getting substantial equipment, people, etc to some asteroid. Then there’s how to get this stuff back to Earth, and then landing it somewhere. Crash it in the ocean, you’ll lose it; crash it on land . . . Well, no comment needed.

 

[Ken Fabian]

I just don’t see mining anywhere being cost effective, what with the cost of launching not much of anything into LEO, let alone getting substantial equipment, people, etc to some asteroid.

Asteroid mining is something with commercial opportunities to aim for.

Nothing apart from Near Earth for uses with Earth based customers is cost effective in space and the ones that are income positive without taxpayer support don't include people. Nothing blows out the costs like including people. Worse for colony attempts than asteroid mining, which at least has material commodities of high value in great abundance to repay the investments.

If we can't do asteroid mining for PGM rich taenite nickel-iron that is worth above US$10's of thousands per ton raw and unrefined just for the nickel then colony attempts that have no financial return are a non-starter. And nickel-iron, especially the nickel rich varieties, are where the Platinum Group Metals are, at 10's of ppm, up to (going by some meteorites) 100ppm - ie up to 100g per ton.

Dropping ingots on remote land safely is probably doable. My point is it has - if only potentially - a commercial basis, which is a requirement for attracting necessary investment.