Commercialization of space definitely of those two - which of course we have already started with satellites.
And including sending robots, e..g the Google Lunar X-Prize I think definitely way to go. And also supporting science settlements, similarly to Antarctica. And space mining eventually - though with care - and perhaps solar energy from space as microwaves beamed back to Earth.
And the new space kickstarters.
It's got to the point where we can actually crowd fund interesting space projects.
There have been quite a few interesting ones.
If you haven't come across it yet, check out this UK project to drill ice at the lunar poles. It's one of the most interesting places to go in our inner solar system, and they plan to dig 20 meters, possibly as deep as 100 meters - layered deposits of ice probably - which may tell us a lot about the early solar system, sort of like Antarctic ice cores, but going back billions of years. As well as finding out about ice that may be of use to humans on the Moon.
Then they plan to leave a time capsule at the bottom of the hole after they drill it, where it will last for millions of years undisturbed probably. And you can add your own data to the capsule - so that's what their kickstarter rewards mainly centre around.
LUNAR MISSION ONE: A new lunar mission for everyone.
Just short of 50% funded after 2 days, just short of £300,000 of their £600,000 goal for this stage of the project - seems pretty likely that it will succeed, backed by many people including Brian Cox, and also Stephen Hawking posting about it on his facebook page and such like.
And then the pong sats, by JP Aerospace
1000 Student Projects to the Edge of Space
They've done many of these. Their end goal though is to build orbital airships that leave high platforms floating in the upper atmosphere (reached by ordinary airships from below) - and gently accelerate in the increasingly thinning atmosphere until they reach orbital velocity - that will let you travel to orbit in a leisurely way over several days using ion thrusters, most innovative idea, that they've been working on now for several decades and remain convinced that they can take it all the way. Not in a rush like the other space projects, going in their own good time but they might surprise us.
I think robots are most exciting for the near future myself .
Outright just going into space to "colonize" with no other objective, I see as a distraction at present. Nothing there is worth colonizing, as in our solar system you'd always choose the Earth as the place to colonize.
Given choice of these three places to live, say in some exoplanet solar system, which would you choose to colonize?
Keep in mind that Mars is actually far colder than it looks. It would be a completely white planet if it hadn't lost most of its ice long ago.
Average temperature in the equatorial regions similar to Antarctica. At midday can get warm - but much wider variation in temperature - at night is so cold that it gets below the temperatures at which dry ice forms from CO2 even in equatorial regions.
And no atmosphere, pressure is a tenth of the Armstrong limit - which is the limit at which the moisture on your eyeballs, lining of lungs etc starts to boil - if spacesuit torn you'd die as surely as if you were in the vacuum of space outside of the ISS.
Humans don't only prefer the Earth - they also have preference, strong preference for the more accessible places in the Earth. Where I live, we have small islands just a few miles from here, West coast of Scotland, as the crow flies, that are uninhabited just because there is no regular postal service or boat or easy way to get to them. Nobody wants to live in places like that any more, not permanently - even though they are paradises for humans compared to the Moon or Mars.
As for SpaceX Dragon and the Virgin Galactica tourist flights and even "tourist" flights to the ISS - I'm concerned myself about the idea of sending private citizens into space - that the dangers are played down too much, that it's too soon.
Even sending "tourists" to the ISS - though by far our safest human spaceflights ever - it's not nearly as safe as a drive in a car or a plane. Can't be.
Only had about 120 flights of the Soyuz, including 4 astronauts killed - in early models of it admittedly.
All recent flights have been successful and it is indeed thought to be the safest way to get to space by far.
But few except test pilots and extreme sports type adventurers would fly in an airplane with that safety record - which is one of the most reliable of all the spacecraft. Not saying that a Soyuz is likely to crash - but it is hardly as safe as flying in an airplane or a car.
How - with just a few flights - can the SpaceX Dragon be made safe for passengers, or the Virgin Galactica sub orbital?
With aircraft, often a plane has been flying for years, thousands of flights, before some important flaw is turned up and one of them crashes.
So - my biggest concern there is - that as space flights increase with human passengers - then surely we will have a big high profile accident with passengers on board in the near future. Hard to see how that could be avoided.
But it's being presented as if it could be made pretty much 100% safe. It can't be. Not yet. Not without thousands of test flights first, which would make the flights too expensive for anyone to afford.
It would probably be best for the private sector therefore to focus more on satellites and cargo, and robotic exploration.
And - for passengers, to label it clearly as risky, attract wealthy adventurers rather than celebrities who have, perhaps, starred in a sci. fi. movie or some such.
Then - they will still have accidents, of that I'm sure. But at least they are people who have chosen to take the risks, and know what they are doing.
I'm not sure if that is enough. But better than marketing it as safe.
As for colonization - as I've said in my other answers here, don't see that working long term, unless they have some other reason for being there.
There are things that we could do in space as humans. But we can also do a huge amount with robots also. And the Moon - it is close to Earth - it is almost absurd that we have sent so many robots elsewhere in the solar system and never once returned to the lunar surface except for the Chinese missions.
It's an obvious place for commercial space flight, because it is so close, easy to get to, and - two way communication with just seconds delay. Drive vehicles on the Moon with near real time communication with Earth. Major challenges also but it is a natural place to go to from Earth.
Micro sats also - I'm sure we will see microsats and nanosats sent to the Moon and elsewhere in the solar system in the near future.
As for humans - I think we are a fair bit away from being able to send humans routinely into space likes of celebrities or whatever unless they are extreme sports types, or so keen on space they are okay with the level of risk involved. And a long way from colonization, don't see the point indeed at present.
But we can have settlements for scientists, eventually tourists. And can have work on artificial gravity, and on closed system habitats in space, all of which will make it easier to build settlements eventually anywhere in the solar system. If we can manage closed system habitats, with no resupply - and we can manage to have artificial gravity, spinning habitats, research into what is needed there - then yes can have human settlements anywhere in the solar system - because you don't have the supply problem any more. But will be a good few decades I think before that is practical. Mainly because of the human factors and life support which I think optimists way underestimate - the issues to be solved there.
Whenever we get to the point where we get people living long term in a settlement in space - say - in the L2 position at far side of the Moon - for a few years on end - not having to come back to Earth after a few months - and not having to be resupplied every few months - that would be a major breakthrough for human exploration.
The ISS is not even a stepping stone towards that really - they are totally dependent on supplies from Earth every few months and then burning up tons of wastes in the Earth's atmosphere every few months. If they didn't burn their wastes they would have probably several copies of the ISS in orbit next to them, just filled with the trash they have accumulated so far occupying space.
See also many other answers I wrote here
and my Science20 articles
etc.
And including sending robots, e..g the Google Lunar X-Prize I think definitely way to go. And also supporting science settlements, similarly to Antarctica. And space mining eventually - though with care - and perhaps solar energy from space as microwaves beamed back to Earth.
And the new space kickstarters.
It's got to the point where we can actually crowd fund interesting space projects.
There have been quite a few interesting ones.
If you haven't come across it yet, check out this UK project to drill ice at the lunar poles. It's one of the most interesting places to go in our inner solar system, and they plan to dig 20 meters, possibly as deep as 100 meters - layered deposits of ice probably - which may tell us a lot about the early solar system, sort of like Antarctic ice cores, but going back billions of years. As well as finding out about ice that may be of use to humans on the Moon.
Then they plan to leave a time capsule at the bottom of the hole after they drill it, where it will last for millions of years undisturbed probably. And you can add your own data to the capsule - so that's what their kickstarter rewards mainly centre around.
LUNAR MISSION ONE: A new lunar mission for everyone.
Just short of 50% funded after 2 days, just short of £300,000 of their £600,000 goal for this stage of the project - seems pretty likely that it will succeed, backed by many people including Brian Cox, and also Stephen Hawking posting about it on his facebook page and such like.
And then the pong sats, by JP Aerospace
They've done many of these. Their end goal though is to build orbital airships that leave high platforms floating in the upper atmosphere (reached by ordinary airships from below) - and gently accelerate in the increasingly thinning atmosphere until they reach orbital velocity - that will let you travel to orbit in a leisurely way over several days using ion thrusters, most innovative idea, that they've been working on now for several decades and remain convinced that they can take it all the way. Not in a rush like the other space projects, going in their own good time but they might surprise us.
I think robots are most exciting for the near future myself .
Outright just going into space to "colonize" with no other objective, I see as a distraction at present. Nothing there is worth colonizing, as in our solar system you'd always choose the Earth as the place to colonize.
Given choice of these three places to live, say in some exoplanet solar system, which would you choose to colonize?
Keep in mind that Mars is actually far colder than it looks. It would be a completely white planet if it hadn't lost most of its ice long ago.
Average temperature in the equatorial regions similar to Antarctica. At midday can get warm - but much wider variation in temperature - at night is so cold that it gets below the temperatures at which dry ice forms from CO2 even in equatorial regions.
And no atmosphere, pressure is a tenth of the Armstrong limit - which is the limit at which the moisture on your eyeballs, lining of lungs etc starts to boil - if spacesuit torn you'd die as surely as if you were in the vacuum of space outside of the ISS.
Is it not clear which is the best for humans?
Only reason for pause for thought would be if the other ones could be "terraformed" quickly in a few centuries - but turns out - that Mars would take at least 1000 years and still it would have no oxygen, only CO2, enough for trees, but humans need air breathers like aqualungs to survive - you'd still choose Earth - and that's on very optimistic projections.
Humans don't only prefer the Earth - they also have preference, strong preference for the more accessible places in the Earth. Where I live, we have small islands just a few miles from here, West coast of Scotland, as the crow flies, that are uninhabited just because there is no regular postal service or boat or easy way to get to them. Nobody wants to live in places like that any more, not permanently - even though they are paradises for humans compared to the Moon or Mars.
As for SpaceX Dragon and the Virgin Galactica tourist flights and even "tourist" flights to the ISS - I'm concerned myself about the idea of sending private citizens into space - that the dangers are played down too much, that it's too soon.
Even sending "tourists" to the ISS - though by far our safest human spaceflights ever - it's not nearly as safe as a drive in a car or a plane. Can't be.
Only had about 120 flights of the Soyuz, including 4 astronauts killed - in early models of it admittedly.
All recent flights have been successful and it is indeed thought to be the safest way to get to space by far.
But few except test pilots and extreme sports type adventurers would fly in an airplane with that safety record - which is one of the most reliable of all the spacecraft. Not saying that a Soyuz is likely to crash - but it is hardly as safe as flying in an airplane or a car.
How - with just a few flights - can the SpaceX Dragon be made safe for passengers, or the Virgin Galactica sub orbital?
With aircraft, often a plane has been flying for years, thousands of flights, before some important flaw is turned up and one of them crashes.
So - my biggest concern there is - that as space flights increase with human passengers - then surely we will have a big high profile accident with passengers on board in the near future. Hard to see how that could be avoided.
But it's being presented as if it could be made pretty much 100% safe. It can't be. Not yet. Not without thousands of test flights first, which would make the flights too expensive for anyone to afford.
It would probably be best for the private sector therefore to focus more on satellites and cargo, and robotic exploration.
And - for passengers, to label it clearly as risky, attract wealthy adventurers rather than celebrities who have, perhaps, starred in a sci. fi. movie or some such.
Then - they will still have accidents, of that I'm sure. But at least they are people who have chosen to take the risks, and know what they are doing.
I'm not sure if that is enough. But better than marketing it as safe.
As for colonization - as I've said in my other answers here, don't see that working long term, unless they have some other reason for being there.
There are things that we could do in space as humans. But we can also do a huge amount with robots also. And the Moon - it is close to Earth - it is almost absurd that we have sent so many robots elsewhere in the solar system and never once returned to the lunar surface except for the Chinese missions.
It's an obvious place for commercial space flight, because it is so close, easy to get to, and - two way communication with just seconds delay. Drive vehicles on the Moon with near real time communication with Earth. Major challenges also but it is a natural place to go to from Earth.
Micro sats also - I'm sure we will see microsats and nanosats sent to the Moon and elsewhere in the solar system in the near future.
As for humans - I think we are a fair bit away from being able to send humans routinely into space likes of celebrities or whatever unless they are extreme sports types, or so keen on space they are okay with the level of risk involved. And a long way from colonization, don't see the point indeed at present.
But we can have settlements for scientists, eventually tourists. And can have work on artificial gravity, and on closed system habitats in space, all of which will make it easier to build settlements eventually anywhere in the solar system. If we can manage closed system habitats, with no resupply - and we can manage to have artificial gravity, spinning habitats, research into what is needed there - then yes can have human settlements anywhere in the solar system - because you don't have the supply problem any more. But will be a good few decades I think before that is practical. Mainly because of the human factors and life support which I think optimists way underestimate - the issues to be solved there.
Whenever we get to the point where we get people living long term in a settlement in space - say - in the L2 position at far side of the Moon - for a few years on end - not having to come back to Earth after a few months - and not having to be resupplied every few months - that would be a major breakthrough for human exploration.
The ISS is not even a stepping stone towards that really - they are totally dependent on supplies from Earth every few months and then burning up tons of wastes in the Earth's atmosphere every few months. If they didn't burn their wastes they would have probably several copies of the ISS in orbit next to them, just filled with the trash they have accumulated so far occupying space.
See also many other answers I wrote here
and my Science20 articles
- Why We Can't "Backup Earth" On Mars, The Moon, Or Anywhere Else In Our Solar System
- Crew Tether Spin - With Final Stage - On Routine Mission To ISS - First Human Test Of Artificial Gravity?
- Crew Tether Spin For Artificial Gravity On Way To ISS - Stunning New Videos - Space Show Webinar - Sunday
- Trouble With Terraforming Mars
etc.
About the Author
Robert Walker
Writer of articles on Mars and Space issues - Software Developer of Tune Smithy, Bounce Metronome etc.Studied at Wolfson College, Oxford
Lives in Isle of Mull
4.8m answer views110.4k this month
Top Writer2017, 2016, and 2015
Published WriterHuffPost, Slate, and 4 moreHuffPost, Slate, Forbes, Newsweek, Business Insider, and Science 2.0