Wanna get into space? Raise the price of oil.

[tomnackid]

In an industrial society the only thing that matters is energy. If energy is abundant enough all the other problems go away (with the possible exception of what to do with the waste heat.) The only reason to go into space in the long run is for energy. "Space tourism" (really "space barnstorming") is a fad that will be over in less than a decade (but it can be a useful fad just as the barnstormers of the '20s got people interested in air travel.) The only resource that matters is energy. If mining asteroids is cost effective we'll do it, or we may just drill into the Earth's core, or mine the solar wind--the point is the basic resources are always there for the taking its just a matter of having the energy to make it worth while.<br /><br />The best thing that could happen to expand space travel is for oil prices to go up to over a hundred dollars a gallon, or even for oil production to stop completely! Back in the 70s we thought that this scenario was about to take place at any minute. That's why people like Gerard O'Neil could propose with a straight face space based solar power stations the size of manhattan and habitats housing thousands of workers (complete with hang gliders and backyard barbecues and built before the millennium no less! "L5 by '95 was the rallying cry.). People laugh at these ideas now that we got fat and happy again in the 80s and 90s, but I can tell you that pessimism spurred by "no gas" signs, overpopulation, pollution, runaway crime and all that other fun 70s stuff can be a real inducement for radical technological change. (Of course the other side of the coin was the "small is beautiful" crowd who wanted to change technology by eliminating it and taking us back to a pre-industrial society--very few of them actually volunteered to be among those billions who would die of starvation or disease though.) <br /><br />So, the next time you complain about gas being 3+ dollars a gallon (still cheap by world standards) just remember every penny extra

 

[dan_casale]

There are a number of truths to what you state. We are an energy based economy. However, there is a lot of available energy on the Earth's surface. But I would be willing to raise the price of oil to fund the space program rather than funding oil companies.

 

[paleo]

How would sending more U.S. dollars out of the USA and slowing the remaining economy help the space program?<br /><br /> Your country owes around 8 trillion dollars. You don't have wiggle room for increased money for space or anything else.<br /><br /> As for the original poster talking about oil running out in the 70's. ????? I was a petroleum geologist back then and there was no imminent exhaustion of oil supplies. What planet were you living on?

 

[paleo]

Alternative energy sources may have less impact on the environment but they will not be cheaper than using oil at $100/barrel.

 

[tomnackid]

Well, if you include the cost of repairing the environment or the cost of living with the damage then it becomes more competitive. Actually I just pulled $100 a barrel out of the air. The point I was trying to make is that pressure--most likely for energy--will push us into space.<br /><br />As for running out of oil in the 70s, go back and look at the popular literature. We were being told that oil was running out. Does anyone remember the horrible John Ritter movie "Americathon" . I think it projected a petroleum depleted world in the mid 80s.

 

[paleo]

I appreciate your reference but I'm a scientist and don't look towards 'popular literature' for info on basin resevoir management and exploration. I study biostratigraphy and we create our own assessments. No one can know anything about supplies without physically going out in the field and doing the research. The answers aren't in Time Magazine but in the rocks. <br /><br />We are not running out of petroleum or other fossil fuels anymore than we are running out of any other mineral or metal. The issue, as you rightly point out, is at what point does the energy produced from a barrel of oil or a ton of coal exceed the cost of energy derived from some other source. So far there is no other practical source and the world will be lined up to buy oil at 70/barrel and will be line up to buy it at 100/barrel. I don't envision any alternatives. <br /><br />I agree about the 'real' cost of using a product. The back end costs to the environment should be taken into account. A gallon of gas should cost $5 and not $2.<br /><br /> Back to space. Space keeners may get a wake up call if real attention to environmnetal degregation becomes a reality. Nobody will be flying on joyrides into space if grandma is restricted as to how high she can turn up her heating pad. Real action on global warming, etc. will put a damper on private space exploration. <br />

 

[tomnackid]

I'm a scientist also (biologist). my point is that as a child in the 70s I did not have access to petroleum geologists. All I or most people knew was what was in the popular press and in the 70s that was mostly doom and gloom predictions about the "energy crisis" (remember that term?), overpopulation, the ecology, yadda , yada, yadda. This spurred a lot of creativity in the area of space exploration. These were the days of Gerrad O'Neill and 10'000+ population "space colonies". Solar power sats. Space factories, etc.<br /><br />My main point is that only a crisis will get us into space quickly and permanently. Portugal invented (for europeans anyway) long distance ocean travel because they were cut off from the trade routes across asia. Germany invented the ballistic missile because they were barred from experimenting with traditional artillery after WWI. The Soviets invented the ICBM because they had no bombers capable of striking America and too few deep water ports for an extensive navy. <br /><br />Without some kind of crisis (and believe me I don't like living through crisis! The 70s sucked big time!) we will have to accept slower progress.