This conversation is closed.

Space Exploration or Armageddon for Everyone?

I saw a presentation today that was promoting a technology that would allow the poorest nations (even marginally rich individuals) to put people and satellites into space. (Bringing them back down would be another matter and yes this is a real functioning product)

The point is, should this technology be made available to every nation through the private market?

Keep in mind that this technology would allow the poorest nations in the world to deliver atomic warheads to any point on the globe. Obviously, this technology is already heavily controlled and will remain controlled, but should it be?

Should it be released at all?

  • thumb
    Aug 27 2011: wow...nuclear warheads and all wmds should have never been developed for any country good or bad...and who is to say what country is worthy of having them. NO COUNTRY IS!
    ABSOLUTE POWER is very dangerous.
    Privatization of putting people in space travel is very important since governments around the world are going broke. We are destroying our own planet with no end in sight...its time to find a new home.
    • Aug 29 2011: I think the main problem comes from people who want all the great technologies such as cheap space travel but they quickly change their minds when the technology is used against them.

      Imagine if any country such as Iraq under Hussein or Libya with the arsenal to launch a large attack against developed country. (even with conventional bombs) A lot of people would not think it was so great that the technology was privatized.

      I'm willing to suffer the consequences of inexpensive and powerful new technologies but some will not after a bit of bad news.
  • thumb
    Aug 26 2011: What can be done, will be done. Controlled or not, somewhere eventually it will happen. That's what I think.
    • Aug 29 2011: True enough but is it not sad that nation and people be held back because they fell victim to the fear of a outcome that never was or might never be?

      Right now the United States is sending astronauts up into space at roughly the cost of 63 million per person when that price can be cut down to around 10 million. That is money that will not be going to research even better technologies and that loss is happening TODAY.
  • thumb

    E G

    • +1
    Aug 28 2011: I don't see too good reasons for which a rich nation would have nuclear warheads and a poor one not ........... in fact , I see one : control (but not a democratic one ...laugh...).
    • Aug 29 2011: Well the difference is that a poor nation can often not afford special protections against private groups from stealing sensitive and dangerous materials and using them against their enemies.

      With the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian military and its nuclear sites were not as secure and there were documented instances where the now poor scientists and soldiers were trying to sell nuclear secrets.

      It is true that a rich country may misuse weapons, but at least a rich country is stable enough to be consistent in its wrongdoings.
      • thumb

        E G

        • +1
        Aug 29 2011: you make an assumption : a rich country = a stable one , this is not a rule .
        • Aug 30 2011: I meant rich countries tend to be more stable. A country with a good credit rating and a strong GDP can have more flexibility in dealing with unexpected circumstances.

          It is true that rich does not always equal stable.
  • thumb
    Aug 26 2011: It should be released, but not until the safety of the people can be promised. Apart of living is advancing, and you aren't living if you're not.. So lets take it to the moon baby! Power to the people!
    • Aug 29 2011: Safety can never be promised. That is a fact of life.

      That is why this technology is controlled and regulated to such a degree by the government. The government can't promise the safety of the people if the technology was available to every nation on the open market.
  • thumb
    Aug 26 2011: PyrE to the people
  • Aug 31 2011: Even though few specifics were mentioned, I thought it was good to bring this to the attention of people as I want people to ask what the price of their security really means... not only in the abstract sense but also in terms of advancement and cost to their nation.

    In a world of absolute safety, everyone would have a tracking chip implanted in their body and live in a padded room with no sharp objects.

    I think the role of a democratic government (or a government for the people) has become muddled over the years from a point where governments were supposed to safeguard the rights and freedoms of the people to the point now where governments intervene daily to protect the health of people regardless of individual desire.

    Is that the majority vote? To be coddled?
  • Aug 30 2011: Great question, is it by chance hypothetical?

    Yes, primarily because if all knowledge was publicly accessible we would have a smarter public, sure some extremists might use it to destroy a chunk of us... but it would also mean they have other options and only the most extreme would approach such methodology.

    Secondly because everybody should be building a rocket in there back yard (safety first ;) ) the more do it, the more become better at it, and eventually we can increase our species odds of survival exponentially.
    • Aug 31 2011: "but it would also mean they have other options and only the most extreme would approach such methodology."

      Exactly. Imagine all the technologies exist to end world hunger and energy problems but people are too fearful to use the technology because of the few bad people.

      In the end, this is rule by the minority and the minority are angry pissed off people bent on destroying lives regardless.