Hacker News Reader

Comment by netcan | Hacker News Reader

What we need is a good, practical economic reason for any of this.

I wonder how far space tourism can take us? It's a good place to start because it'll put a lot of pressure on making it easy. Training periods, prices, competence levels will have some downward pressure.

If a decent little space tourism industry evolves, it'll be a great base to build on.

View on HN

I guess that solar energy will offer economic reasons at some time. Also I suppose that the unique properties of space (like less gravity, no earthquakes, no weather) will be of interest for some industries one day. But probably space exploration will only really take off once we have the space elevators.

The other part of the equation is Bigelow habitats. These will likely be used for a space hotel.

I think Mr. Bigelow has the right idea. And Vectran is a great material for space-inflatables.

http://www.google.com/search?q=bigelow+vectran

Historically, people have colonized just for the change of scenery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamestown,_Virginia

The moon isn't too rich in breathtaking views and beautiful flora and fauna... not to mention the lack of oxygen :P

Isn't the view of Earth breathtaking?

I guess the argument is that you can see that from space anyway.. But The view of Earth from the moon would be better than any hotel on the planet!

Freespace is easier to get to and from, and offers full-g, zero-g and everything in-between.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_habitat

Freespace also can offer low data latency -- low-enough even for realistic telepresence (e.g. sub 400 ms) (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22400+ms%22+conversation+lat...).

The moon probably would not be very popular, except for mining crews.

What about mineral mining, fur hunting, cotton growing & all the rest?

Jamestown was a money-hole until John Rolfe developed a special, sweet strain of tobacco that became the basis of an export economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamestown_Settlement

Due to the aristocratic backgrounds of many of the new colonists and the communal nature of their work load, progress through the first few years was inconsistent, at best. By 1613, six years after Jamestown's founding, the organizers and shareholders of the Virginia Land Company were desperate to increase the efficiency and profitability of the struggling colony.

The investors had been tricked into believing that it would be a profitable venture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Company#The_London_Com...

To the disappointment of its investors, the Virginia Company of London failed to discover gold or silver in Virginia.

So you were being sarcastic? The incentive was gold, silver, farming & the other normal colonisation incentives.

There were colonists, and there were investors. These were not the same people. There was no more economic opportunity for the colonists in the new world than there was back home. There was the opportunity to die prematurely and painfully. Perhaps that was an attraction to the adventurous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamestown,_Virginia#Challenges_...

The settlers who came over on the initial three ships were not well-equipped for the life they found in Jamestown. In addition to the "gentlemen", who were not accustomed to manual or skilled labor, they consisted mainly of English farmers and "Eight Dutchmen and Poles" hired in Royal Prussia.[6] Many suffered from saltwater poisoning which led to infection, fevers and dysentery. As a result of these conditions, most of the early settlers died of disease and starvation.

"opportunity to die prematurely and painfully" Was presumably not the reason they gave to their wife when convincing them to go.

Glassmaking was one of the reasons given. Is it more likely that in their hearts of hearts the colonists believed that:

1. They were going to be able to manufacture, and export to Europe, glass from the New World at a lower price/quality than that from European glass manufacturers.

2. They wanted to believe that, while possessing deeper motives involving change-of-scenery.

Do you believe that you would have been able to make and ship glass cheaper in the New World than to make the same in England? Does nothing sound fishy to you about that?

Do you believe you would have gone to the New World if you would be hungry?

Maybe the idea of danger, excitement, etc. appealed. Maybe it was the motivator. But either way, people went because they thought life would be better.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com