From people attempting to leave it:

While these ventures have a futuristic outlook, what no one questions is whether the planet, already inundated with harmful emissions, needs yet more of them from space vehicles that serve no other purpose that to give rides for people with money to burn for a brief personal adventure.

Planes provide needed transportation and scientific rockets hopefully will benefit humankind. But do we really need to unload more fuel emissions into the skies with tourist rockets while we haven’t yet brought the Earth’s present overload of toxic gases under control? Just wondering.

Sigh...

This is what's so disturbing about so many journalists. OK, "just wondering," does it occur to you to get out a pencil and paper and actually run a few numbers to see how this compares to all of the other "fuel emissions into the skies"?

Of course not. They probably wouldn't even know how to start to do so, and would be concerned that they'd screw it up, making themselves look even more foolish. Besides, numbers and reality aren't what's important; what's important is expressing thoughtful, deep-frowned concern for the planet.

One could write a lengthy response as to how ultimately, space could help save the planet, by providing new resources, and moving polluting industries off of it, and how the first step in doing this would be to reduce the cost of space access by, yes, flying rich people into space. But I suspect that it would be a waste of time. Particularly since no matter how many times one does it, most people won't read it, and they'll simply continue to "wonder," as though no one has ever asked such questions, or thought about it, until the day it occurred to the brave editorial writer.

Those darn rockets! They're poisoning the air with DHMO!

And some have the gall to wonder why I became a conserative. I gurantee you it was no conservative that wrote that screed.

And some have the gall to wonder why I became a conserative. I gurantee you it was no conservative that wrote that screed.

Another thing is that space colonies are far more likely to explore advanced environmental technologies. After all, if a city on Earth can't recycle most of its waste stream, then it's no big deal. But space colonies require near 100% recycling of everything that isn't plentiful locally.

And I recently ran across another example where rich people blazed a trail for everyone. The wealthy were a key force in the early conservation movement that lead to creation of the US's national park system (and I gather equivalents in most countries). For example, in the early 20th century Stephen Mather, an industrialist from Chicago, lobbied for the creation of the National Park Service (and became the first director). Among other things, he went on a series of tours of US parks (like Yellowstone and Yosemite) inviting large groups of other elites (rich people, artists, journalists, etc) to travel with him.

The rich also pioneered tourism to national parks. A lot of their activities are considered terrible ideas today (eg, feeding the wildlife, minature zoos, hunting down predators or aggressively fighting any forest fires), but a lot of the reason we have large portions of the US set aside is because rich people got it started back then. Further, the modern environmental movement owes a lot to these people, even if the proponents today have little in common with the rich conservationalists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Yes, I've camped at Mather Campground, just outside Yosemite, off Highway 120. I hadn't realized at the time who it was named for.

Complaining about ignorant journalists is like complaining about rain.

Yes, but rain is actually useful. The best hope for a green future is space based solar beamed back down to earth, isn't it? How does anyone expect for us to get there except for through rich people? Early adopters always pay absurd amounts for the privilege of being first. The fact that now a civilian can go into space for money is such an awesome sign for the future of our species that I can't read this type of stuff without going a little nuts from the ignorance.

"CONCLUSION: Their market would be the wealthy out for a one of a kind experience, but does the planet, already under stress from an overload of toxic emissions, need more of them from tourist rockets?"

A sad mixture of pseudo-marxist class warfare combined with neo-luddite ignorance. In other words, the conventional wisdom of the establishment news media.

Now now, if the reporter actually included some context with the story, we might disagree with the foregone conclusion...

I thought the space-based solar power was a great idea myself, but now I'm liking the idea of wind power from facilities tethered in the jetstream--it seems like it could really happen in a reasonable amount of time compared to how long we're likely to wait for space based solar power. Of course, increasing our use of nuclear power by a lot seems like a good idea to me too.

Although I think promoting space mainly on a technological spin-off basis is not a great promotional technique ("look! We wouldn't have tang if it wasn't for NASA!"), it sure seems to me that having some kind of frontier has always been good for society for many different reasons. And there's always people who think the frontier is a waste of time and effort--and dangerous, to boot.

To take a slight side track, is space really the big frontier right now? It seems to me that medicine, nanotechnology, and biochemical engineering might be really where it's at right now. If we all live three hundred years, and if we don't have to spend most of our time producing goods, we have a lot more time to be farsighted about developing space hardware. If we can deal with any other issues that come out of living three hundred years, that is.

Rand,

As you know... but many of your readers may not... the REAL IRONY of this stupid editorial is that the author bashes the company (XCOR) that exclusively develops and utilizes NONTOXIC propulsion systems.

Pretty stupid.

- Jim

Rand,

As you know... but many of your readers may not... the REAL IRONY of this stupid editorial is that the author bashes the company (XCOR) that exclusively develops and utilizes NONTOXIC propulsion systems.

Pretty stupid.

- Jim

To take a slight side track, is space really the big frontier right now? It seems to me that medicine, nanotechnology, and biochemical engineering might be really where it's at right now.

Only for a metaphorical definition of "frontier". The literal definition of a frontier is a new place where you can build a home and live and raise your children.