I recently attended a discussion about the colonization of the solar system. The discussion took place in the forum of a German political party, the Liberal Democrats (FDP), who were the small coalition partner of the previous German government. The discussion was initiated by somebody else, and I felt obliged to defend the idea of space exploration and expansion into space. Only a few people participated, but probably a lot of people read the contributions. In the meanwhile the discussion has been erased from the forum as a consequence of the general rule of the forum, when no new contribution was added for more than two weeks.
During the discussion Michael Martin-Smith helped me a lot with his profound knowledge. The atmosphere during the discussion was in many cases quite tough; I think that this is probably due to the conflict between technology on one side and ecology and peace on the other. This latter viewpoint expresses the spirit of the present time, which relegates space travel to the period of superficial belief in unlimited progress of the 1960s and '70s. Today the promotion of space travel versus the disapproval of it is often viewed as a confrontation between ideologies, and consequently the discussion becomes emotional very easily.
The main points of the discussion were as follows:--
(1) Building a permanent station on the Moon -- what are the benefits? The supporting arguments were:--
(2) Colonies in space make resources available which may be needed for the prevention of asteroid impacts. In this context the probabilities of asteroid impacts were hotly and extensively debated. The opponents did not believe that the probability for a civilization-threatening impact would be as high as 1/1000 in a century.
(3) The intense exploration of Mars by humans would make permanent settlements highly desirable, or actually would be the beginning of such settlements.
(4) Is it necessary to send humans into space or can space exploration be done better and cheaper by robotic spacecraft? The opponents of human spaceflight said that people are mainly a source of errors and that robots are better and cheaper. I said that the task of exploration soon becomes so complex that humans are superior to robots. Humans have creativity and are much more flexible, because they can adjust the mission objectives according to the findings made during the mission.
(5) What was the value of the Apollo project? Its opponents maintained that Apollo was a waste of money and only good as a political demonstration. I said that despite its political motivation, a lot of important scientific results were achieved. Experience for future manned missions was obtained. It was extremely important to demonstrate that the Moon, as an example of a celestial body, was within the realm of humanity, unlike during the centuries and millenia before. The Apollo period saw many unmanned interplanetary missions initiated which would not have been carried out otherwise, or only much later.
(6) Can the large costs of colonizing the solar system be justified in view of the problems on Earth? The opponents said that colonization would demand too many resources which would be better used for applied research on Earth. Before colonizing space we should first colonize the oceans, because this is not so expensive. [This is actually Marshall Savage's plan: to colonize the oceans in order to raise the money to begin private space colonization missions! See his book The Millennial Project -- Editor.]
(7) Is the colonization of the solar system good or bad for the development of humanity? Its opponents said that the increased technological capabilities increase also the risk of mankind's self-destruction. A scenario of planetary wars to achieve dominance, independence wars fought by rebellious colonies, and a brutal, unrestrained economy would be the most likely outcome. They compared it with the bad example of colonization in previous centuries.
I said that the large and expensive goal of expansion of humans into space forces nations to collaborate and to overcome their enmity. The risks of enhanced technological capabilities discipline the people and force them to change their attitudes. I referred to the example that the threat of nuclear war led to a treaty about nuclear weapons, the threat of the ozone hole also led to an international treaty. The increased technological capabilities promote globalization, which makes conflicts less likely.
(8) What are the practical benefits of space exploration? Here are several examples:--
(9) Space exploration helps us to find out what our role in the cosmos is, what our identity is. It is essential for the search for life in space. The formation and development of the solar system is very important in this context. Each celestial body of our solar system is a case study and enlarges our horizons, showing what we may expect outside the solar system. Space exploration is a cultural task.
By Dr Andreas Heidenreich, August 1999.
The material on this page may be copied and redistributed freely, providing that the original author is acknowledged. Thank you.
Last revised 30 September 1999 / 30th Apollo Anniversary Year