Author Topic: Solar system population projection  (Read 20058 times)

Offline mikelepage

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1218
  • ExodusSpaceSystems.com
  • Perth, Australia
  • Liked: 855
  • Likes Given: 1358
Solar system population projection
« on: 03/14/2014 01:03 pm »
Hi All,

I must admit I'm new here and still getting to know you all, so I'll just pre-empt this by saying that I'm not trying to make this an overly political discussion so much as a starting point for some semi-educated guesses.  Obviously I personally believe that environmental degradation/climate change/peak oil is going to cause some major issues for us in the medium term (next 100-150 years or so), but I think this graph shows I am an optimist about what manned space exploration will do for the resource base of the human population in the long term.

From top to bottom the lines are:
Main belt
Sun-Mars Lagrange points
Mars orbits and Moons
Mars
Near Earth Objects (+ Amors, Apollos and Atens)
Sun-Earth Lagrange points
Earth-Moon Lagrange points
Moon
Earth orbits
Earth

Interested to hear what you think:

« Last Edit: 03/14/2014 01:50 pm by Chris Bergin »

Offline IRobot

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Portugal & Germany
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #1 on: 03/14/2014 01:18 pm »
"Assuming we can achieve single-digit millions of people living sustainably in space by 2040..." <-- wow, that starts really BAD. I would be happy with 50 people, but a couple of millions by 2040 is way, way off.

Offline K-P

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 202
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #2 on: 03/14/2014 01:48 pm »
Eeh... say what...?

"Single-digit millions of people living in space by 2040"

Erase "millions".
Maybe erase the entire sentence/assumption.

By 2040 we will not have millions, not even thousands of people living in space.
We are lucky to have even some hundred scientists, millionaires, visionaries up there.
And "sustainably"? Well, that is even more unlikely...

Predicting the size of human population in space for 300 years into the future is... fiction to put it politely.
Especially if the starting points and assumptions are so fictional.

All this depends on so many things.
You can not even predict the politics beyond next elections / few years.
You can not predict natural disasters in the near future.
You can not foresee major wars or economical downfalls.
All these sort of things have major impact on spaceflight funding and progress in that area.

And these habitable places in your chart then...

What makes it necessary for humans to colonize every single L-point and/or every main belt asteroid?
Why we have to live on any other planet at all?
If we create technology advanced enough, we should not be forced to land on these deep gravity wells at all and waste our resources and energy on that. We can create artificial "home planets", meaning large space stations with gravity. And those ships can do interplanetary journeys as well and serve as our permanent space bases. Only short sorties and maybe fully automated robots are needed on planetary surfaces to satisfy our need for scientific discoveries.

And by achieving that sort of technological level, I hope that by then we have managed also to stop polluting our own planet and it is a pleasant place to live for everyone and there is no need to "escape" from it to some faraway Xanadu.

How many people live today in Antarctica? Millions? Why not?
Because after all, we are hugely more advanced race now than back in 1911. More advanced ships, even airships! And also our population has multiplied. And knowledge about Antarctica. And it is million times more hospitable place to live with all that water and oxygen than let's say Mars. So why there hasn't been such a boom in Antarctica as predicted also in your charts about inner solar system?

300 years is too long time to predict anything today. Maybe in 50 years we are all artificial lifeforms with quantum-processors in our head, or we have unlocked the secrecy of hyperspace, nanobotics, other dimensions, anti-gravity etc... And that could mean that by 2075 there is no single human entity in this solar system left. Because of reason x or reason y.

Our current tin-can architecture just does not allow interplanetary "sustainable" civilization.
It would be same as trying to conquer space with zeppelins. Or Americas by row-boats.
We can do small scale exploration. Yes. Even permanent moonbase for small group of scientists. Maybe even permanent small Mars base if stars align correctly. But that's a stretch.

What we need now is a total revolution in rocket technology. And by that I mean such a revolution compared nothing less than a steam engine, or an airplane as it was back on its days.

And with that revolution, everything will be totally open once again.
Maybe we have interstellar capabilities right away because of it. Maybe it is totally unnecessary to stop to Mars or Europa anymore. We can go all the way to Epsilon Eridani. Who knows...

But with your chart, I guess your chart is as good as any chart predicting something for 300 years in the future. Fiction at best. And your assumption about 2040. Well... it's only 20+ years till that. From the dawn of space age 60 years ago, our "space population" has gone from 0 all the way up to 6 at the ISS today.

So, my prediction here. In 2040 we have a dozen space stations in LEO/GEO... with total population of 200. We have few scientific and permanent moon bases with total population of max. 20 people. And we have done few Mars flyby missions and few Mars orbital missions to Phobos/Deimos. Maybe one mission to some small asteroid on the side. That's about it. Robotic exploration has done much more of course. And telescopic observations revealed even more. But this is the way it goes unless something dramatic happens in society and in technology.

And any prediction beyond 2040 is totally useless and serves no any purpose because it would be only guessing and anybody can guess as much as they want.

« Last Edit: 03/14/2014 01:58 pm by K-P »

Offline mikelepage

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1218
  • ExodusSpaceSystems.com
  • Perth, Australia
  • Liked: 855
  • Likes Given: 1358
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #3 on: 03/14/2014 02:18 pm »
"Assuming we can achieve single-digit millions of people living sustainably in space by 2040..." <-- wow, that starts really BAD. I would be happy with 50 people, but a couple of millions by 2040 is way, way off.

Haha I assumed I would have to defend that  ;D

The way I figure it is the most optimistic interpretation of the way private space is taking off.  I'm arguing that what SpaceX is doing now in terms of reusable rockets is equivalent to the development work by the Wright brothers from 1902-1907.  Just 21 years later (1928) Boeing was mass producing its model 80 which could fly 17 people at a time. I can't seem to find worldwide figures for the 1930s but here are some tidbits I found in the search: By 1930 Qantas alone (a tiny airline at the time) had carried 10,000 passengers. In 1932 (26 years after the Wrights), 3000 people flew on British Airways alone in one year.  2040 is the same difference in time (26 years) from now.  If SpaceX can reach $1000/kg in the next few years that means a BA330 will only cost $20 million to launch.  Given the much larger population I see it as a bit of a stretch, but not by any means impossible.

Offline K-P

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 202
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #4 on: 03/14/2014 02:27 pm »
I'm arguing that what SpaceX is doing now in terms of reusable rockets is equivalent to the development work by the Wright brothers from 1902-1907.  Just 21 years later (1928) Boeing was mass producing its model 80 which could fly 17 people at a time.

This example just does not apply here.

Air travel is not space travel. It isn't really.
Space travel has far more technical obstacles and challenges (and costs) than air travel had to overcome during its first years.
Air travel was basically possible once you managed to get airborne somehow. And every layman could then build their machineries in their barns and test fly them.
Space travel is not that simple. You just don't build heatshields and life support systems in your barn. Or store hypergolics at your garage.

We also live in safety society today. Those body count numbers of early aviation just are not accetable in today's world. Never. So that adds safety costs, redundancies, escape systems, certifications, bureaucracy etc etc etc etc.

That's why there is no any kind of analogy between early aviation and private space travel.

Offline IRobot

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Portugal & Germany
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #5 on: 03/14/2014 02:40 pm »
"Assuming we can achieve single-digit millions of people living sustainably in space by 2040..." <-- wow, that starts really BAD. I would be happy with 50 people, but a couple of millions by 2040 is way, way off.

Haha I assumed I would have to defend that  ;D

The way I figure it is the most optimistic interpretation of the way private space is taking off.  I'm arguing that what SpaceX is doing now in terms of reusable rockets is equivalent to the development work by the Wright brothers from 1902-1907.  Just 21 years later (1928) Boeing was mass producing its model 80 which could fly 17 people at a time. I can't seem to find worldwide figures for the 1930s but here are some tidbits I found in the search: By 1930 Qantas alone (a tiny airline at the time) had carried 10,000 passengers. In 1932 (26 years after the Wrights), 3000 people flew on British Airways alone in one year.  2040 is the same difference in time (26 years) from now. 
SpaceX is not the starting point. Of course if you calculate growth from zero, it seems a lot, but SpaceX is not equivalent to the start of flight.


If SpaceX can reach $1000/kg in the next few years that means a BA330 will only cost $20 million to launch.  Given the much larger population I see it as a bit of a stretch, but not by any means impossible.
Zenit already achieves a similar value. Do you see more than 6 people in space right now?

Offline mikelepage

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1218
  • ExodusSpaceSystems.com
  • Perth, Australia
  • Liked: 855
  • Likes Given: 1358
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #6 on: 03/14/2014 02:43 pm »
Eeh... say what...?

"Single-digit millions of people living in space by 2040"

Erase "millions".
Maybe erase the entire sentence/assumption.

By 2040 we will not have millions, not even thousands of people living in space.
We are lucky to have even some hundred scientists, millionaires, visionaries up there.
And "sustainably"? Well, that is even more unlikely...

Predicting the size of human population in space for 300 years into the future is... fiction to put it politely.
Especially if the starting points and assumptions are so fictional.

....

But with your chart, I guess your chart is as good as any chart predicting something for 300 years in the future. Fiction at best. And your assumption about 2040. Well... it's only 20+ years till that. From the dawn of space age 60 years ago, our "space population" has gone from 0 all the way up to 6 at the ISS today.

So, my prediction here. In 2040 we have a dozen space stations in LEO/GEO... with total population of 200. We have few scientific and permanent moon bases with total population of max. 20 people. And we have done few Mars flyby missions and few Mars orbital missions to Phobos/Deimos. Maybe one mission to some small asteroid on the side. That's about it. Robotic exploration has done much more of course. And telescopic observations revealed even more. But this is the way it goes unless something dramatic happens in society and in technology.

And any prediction beyond 2040 is totally useless and serves no any purpose because it would be only guessing and anybody can guess as much as they want.

Hence the use of "semi-educated guesses" in my opening paragraph.  Thank you for putting the effort into replying.

I encounter a lot of people who (back in the day) got all excited by the moon landing and assumed we would have bases on Mars by now, etc.  It obviously hasn't happened because of the cost of space.  If the cost of space is now coming down because of reusability (which in turn couldn't happen before the computer revolution - try landing a rocket manually every time), then it's not unreasonable to speculate that such exponential growth can now happen - reusability is the key breakthrough required to settle these regions I've speculated about, but doesn't help us go interplanetary or to the outer solar system. 

The reason I have included these bodies is precisely because there's no reason to expect the fundamental energy equation of space travel to change in the next few hundred years (until we master fusion/technology x).  Manned spacecraft will have to stay close to the sun.  Manned spacecraft need resources.  Civilisation tends to stick to those places where there are resources, or where there are "cross-roads" between places that have resources (hence the inclusion of the lagrange points).  While I accept my estimates may be on the high side, I don't think it's unreasonable (barring any whiz-bang technology that physics currently can't explain) to think humanity might spread out to the inner solar system.

Maybe something will come completely from left field, but you don't do extrapolation exercises without those kind of caveats - I just think it's a fun exercise to take what you know will probably happen and follow it through its logical conclusion. 

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #7 on: 03/14/2014 02:44 pm »
The way I figure it is the most optimistic interpretation of the way private space is taking off.  I'm arguing that what SpaceX is doing now in terms of reusable rockets is equivalent to the development work by the Wright brothers from 1902-1907.

No, Sputnik was more than 60 years ago, shuttle was more than 30 years  and DC-X is most 15.  Spacex hasn't done anymore than the three yet.

Offline mikelepage

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1218
  • ExodusSpaceSystems.com
  • Perth, Australia
  • Liked: 855
  • Likes Given: 1358
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #8 on: 03/14/2014 02:55 pm »
"Assuming we can achieve single-digit millions of people living sustainably in space by 2040..." <-- wow, that starts really BAD. I would be happy with 50 people, but a couple of millions by 2040 is way, way off.

Haha I assumed I would have to defend that  ;D

The way I figure it is the most optimistic interpretation of the way private space is taking off.  I'm arguing that what SpaceX is doing now in terms of reusable rockets is equivalent to the development work by the Wright brothers from 1902-1907.  Just 21 years later (1928) Boeing was mass producing its model 80 which could fly 17 people at a time. I can't seem to find worldwide figures for the 1930s but here are some tidbits I found in the search: By 1930 Qantas alone (a tiny airline at the time) had carried 10,000 passengers. In 1932 (26 years after the Wrights), 3000 people flew on British Airways alone in one year.  2040 is the same difference in time (26 years) from now. 
SpaceX is not the starting point. Of course if you calculate growth from zero, it seems a lot, but SpaceX is not equivalent to the start of flight.


If SpaceX can reach $1000/kg in the next few years that means a BA330 will only cost $20 million to launch.  Given the much larger population I see it as a bit of a stretch, but not by any means impossible.
Zenit already achieves a similar value. Do you see more than 6 people in space right now?

No of course it isn't.  The essence of the counter-argument I understand: space isn't easy.

I'm not arguing the SpaceX will have an easier time of it.  I'm arguing that they're the first to design so as to solve those problems in a manner fit for mass production.  I'm no expert, but it seemed to me that Zenit achieved those costs by cutting corners.  Time will tell if SpaceX lives up to the hype, but I don't think its unreasonable to speculate by extrapolating from the current trajectory.


Offline chrisking0997

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
  • NASA Langley
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #9 on: 03/14/2014 03:04 pm »
Im curious what event you see in the next 50 years that will result in the loss of 3 billion people over a 50 year timeframe?
Tried to tell you, we did.  Listen, you did not.  Now, screwed we all are.

Offline mikelepage

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1218
  • ExodusSpaceSystems.com
  • Perth, Australia
  • Liked: 855
  • Likes Given: 1358
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #10 on: 03/14/2014 03:11 pm »
I'm arguing that what SpaceX is doing now in terms of reusable rockets is equivalent to the development work by the Wright brothers from 1902-1907.  Just 21 years later (1928) Boeing was mass producing its model 80 which could fly 17 people at a time.

This example just does not apply here.

Air travel is not space travel. It isn't really.
Space travel has far more technical obstacles and challenges (and costs) than air travel had to overcome during its first years.
Air travel was basically possible once you managed to get airborne somehow. And every layman could then build their machineries in their barns and test fly them.
Space travel is not that simple. You just don't build heatshields and life support systems in your barn. Or store hypergolics at your garage.

We also live in safety society today. Those body count numbers of early aviation just are not accetable in today's world. Never. So that adds safety costs, redundancies, escape systems, certifications, bureaucracy etc etc etc etc.

That's why there is no any kind of analogy between early aviation and private space travel.

I really think this is underselling the difficulties the early aviators faced.  Aside from the fact that none of the people involved could be called "laymen", everyone forgets that people like Sir George Cayle were developing the theory of heavier-than-air flight for a century before the Wrights.  IIRC Even the Wright patent wasn't for the glider - it was for the wind tunnel.  They were conceptually treading new ground, but they stood on the shoulders of those that went before.

I think if SpaceX nuts out the reusability concept, it will be a game changer - and game changers tend to enable exponential growth of some kind. 

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #11 on: 03/14/2014 03:29 pm »
Im curious what event you see in the next 50 years that will result in the loss of 3 billion people over a 50 year timeframe?

I thought the reduction was a bit steep... but I'm guessing maybe it's the predicted decrease in family size as more countries move from developing to developed??? This has happened on every continent except Africa so far and many western european countries, net of immigration, are shrinking, as their family sizes are below replacement values.

Personally I see little or no reduction, just a cessation of the upward trend.

As for the rest, the curve shapes seem reasonable enough but I'd change the timescales somewhat, sadly. I'd put 2100 as a more likely point to see the first million non Terrans rather than 2040.  (that's just as much of a guess as all the rest of this thread, mind you)
« Last Edit: 03/14/2014 03:30 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline K-P

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 202
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #12 on: 03/14/2014 03:32 pm »
Im curious what event you see in the next 50 years that will result in the loss of 3 billion people over a 50 year timeframe?

If you ask me what event I see,

Well, let's say, technological singularity for one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

Another one could be something found in microcosmos a'la Cern.

I don't think of a Terminator-style war of machines or other Hollywoodish end of human race.

There is a possibility that there would be no humans in this solar system by then. This can be interpreted in many ways.
And what I meant by this, is that maybe we should look with a bit wider scope what would happen to our race as a whole if we discover new exotic technologies, multiverses, dimensions, or integrate artificial and exponentially developing intelligence with us.

It would most likely mean that we as "humans" would no longer exist anymore. We would be some sort of half-human, half-machine species with ever growing artificial portion of ourselves. And that is not necessarily bad thing or unwanted thing. Just saying that we would not be categorized as Homo Sapiens anymore by then. Or not even Hominidae.

Other road could be, that after finding some "passage" to exotic universes etc. we would be travelling there in numbers for some reason and leave the Earth for good. Again, no homicide, no Hollywood-demolition, no forced actions.

This was just pure speculation. As was the original posting with 300 year -chart. But I think our capabilities and advances with medicine, particle physics and computer technology are far greater in this time window and with far far far more bigger consequences than in space travel, so I think they are the ones changing our lives before interplanetary travel does. And these major changes could happen within our lifetime (unless "lifetime" also changes considerably during our lifetime). :)

edit: ok, you asked from the original poster, but anyway, here's my explanation of my "2075 no humans left" -argument. :)
« Last Edit: 03/14/2014 03:39 pm by K-P »

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #13 on: 03/14/2014 03:47 pm »
Ok,

Utilizing current trends in economics, resource management, technological development and politics, I can start to make the following predictions of Solar System population.

Assuming current political, technological and economic trends continue for the next 20 years, Off world population will number approximately 25 people, including a single use Mars base, a lunar scientific outpost and a replacement ISS built by commercial vendors.

This is based on the projected primary reliance on EELV's and lack of reusable infrastructural systems.
This also projects the current politcal and legal trends to oppose operations and technologies that place private citizens as personal risk.  (Nanny State mentality)
Due to this practice, while fuel costs and reusable spacecraft (full stack) are available, due to insurance constraints, only EELV's are permitted to be flown as the risk factor is more "managable" for single use systems versus airline type operations.  This plus, the excessive costs of personal insurance for non-professional space farers, exacerbates the already overpriced costs of launches to only multi-billionaires could afford private flights into space.  For some, this would be an attractive vacation, lasting upwards of a month, but due to the lack of infrastructure, lack of resources from space, being used in space, and a complete inability to go BEO due to even higher risk factors (Insurance rates even Billionairs would balk at).  No further development is possble, as there is no funding available from any source Public or Private. Earth population will break approximately 8.5 Billion by this time.


Projected off world Population in 50 years; 0

Due to the previous trends and resources reaching critical levels of expenditure, no funding, other than for basic telecommunications, Weather monitoring and espionage is available.  All concepts of off world manned bases or colonies have been religated to possible future generations.
Projected Earth population 9.5 Billion


Projected offworld population in 100 years; 0
As both resources have fallen to below critical levels, war and population crashes worldwide have become regular occurances, limited nuclear exchanges have occured from nilist and doomsday cults, further damaging and reducing both the population base and technological base.
Projected Earth population; Approximately 2.5 billion.


Projected offworld population in 250 years; 100 On the Moon, Mars and scouting NEO asteroid and comets.

Having spent nearly 200 years rebuilding with both scavenged and recycled resources, it has become more than apparent that any form of sustainable population on Earth will require an active prescense in Space, retreiving what resources are required to re-terraform the planet and to expand to other worlds to prevent the very thing that nearly lead to the extermination of the Human Race.  Unfortuanately, for much of the Biosphere, it is already way too late as nearly 75 percent of flora, fauna and fungi have either directly or indirectly been driven to extinction.  Biotechnic and gene alteration is, however, due to the forced research on genetic repair, allowing many of those said extinct species to be reconstructed or a similar species have been adapted to the open ecological niches.  Some mistakes are being made, but overall, progress is happening.

Projected Earth population; 750,000,000


Projected Offworld population in 500 years; 4.5 billion, Floating colonies in upped Venusian atmosphere, alteration of planetary rotation and atmsophere projected in 1000 years.  Mars is terraformed with a northern american rainforest type of worldwide environment.  Many asteroids and comets have been combined to provide interplanetary cycler habitats.  Resource mining has gotten as far as Neptune while plans are in the works to start harvesting Kupier belt objects and materials.  Some Humans have been altered for long term hibernation and will soon be sent of a 500 year journey to another starsystem some 60 plus lightyears away that has been found to have a terrestially similar world.

The terrestial biosphere is unlike anything we have today as both biogenetically and tecnologically integrated systems have become the norm.  Living buildings, techno-organic vehicles and smart clothes made of both living and non living materials are but a few developements forced upon the world.
Mankind's shortsighted behavior in the early 21st century lead to the near extinction of all life on Earth and the near extinction of the Human race.  While the Earth is still recovering, and we inhabit other worlds both semi-natural and artificial, it was for the lack of what equated to a fairly insignificant portion of several nations budgets that a near erasure of human kind occured, many ancient treasures were lost to both war and time, and much of our history is now, once again, unknown due to the loss of much of the data that had been collected over the centuries, as the new Dark Age had decended upon the planet.

Projected Earth population; 3 billion and steady.

I do not mean to insult anyone here, but this is my honest, best estimate of what will most likely occure if current trends continue.

jason
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline mikelepage

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1218
  • ExodusSpaceSystems.com
  • Perth, Australia
  • Liked: 855
  • Likes Given: 1358
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #14 on: 03/14/2014 03:49 pm »
Im curious what event you see in the next 50 years that will result in the loss of 3 billion people over a 50 year timeframe?

No single event or cause.  But my training is in molecular biology.  I've seen what happens when bacteria grow exponentially in a closed system (not just me - google bacterial growth curves).  The exponential phase ends when bacteria are forced to make use of resources that are metabolically more expensive to digest, but these resources become economical because all the good stuff is gone.  They can maintain this (stationary) phase until all those resources are gone too, then they die unless they find a new pool of resources. 

To put on my greenie hat for a second: Think of all the reasons (all the new sources of shale oil/gas from fracking) people bring up when meaning to say peak oil is a myth - is there a single one of them that would have been economical while oil was $20/barrel?  No, of course not.  The good stuff is more than half gone.

Add to that there is a timing ratio between the time point when the bacteria start exponential phase and the inflection point of maximum growth, and the start of exponential phase and the start of the death phase.  I'm sure it varies from strain to strain, but in the strain I was using it was 7:10.  The back of the envelope logic which led to this projection was ~1750 (start of industrial revolution/exponential human population growth): to ~1960 (point of maximum worldwide population growth) = 210.  10/7*210 = 300.  1750+300 = 2050s.

All of this is assuming Earth is closed system.  This is why I think sustainable manned space travel and opening up the resources of the solar system is so important.  I guess it's also part of why I think the migration to space would take place so fast.  In most migrations, the majority of people are not saying "I want to go there", they are saying "I don't want to be here."

Perhaps that's a little bit gloomy.  I'd be happy to be wrong.
« Last Edit: 03/14/2014 06:09 pm by mikelepage »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #15 on: 03/14/2014 03:55 pm »
I guess it's also part of why I think the migration to space would take place so fast.  In most migrations, the majority of people are not saying "I want to go there", they are say "I don't want to be here."


There isn't the money to support it that fast

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #16 on: 03/14/2014 03:56 pm »

I really think this is underselling the difficulties the early aviators faced.  Aside from the fact that none of the people involved could be called "laymen", everyone forgets that people like Sir George Cayley were developing the theory of heavier-than-air flight for a century before the Wrights.  IIRC Even the Wright patent wasn't for the glider - it was for the wind tunnel.  They were conceptually treading new ground, but they stood on the shoulders of those that went before....

That might be true, but it's not the point. Spaceflight and aviation are different modes of transport. The history of aviation does not have to reflect or predict the development of space flight. There are some analogies you can draw, but not many. Compare the number of people who flew in the first 50 years of aviation with the number who have flown in the first 50 years of space flight. It's apples and oranges. I suggest that the history of the Wrights tells you nothing about SpaceX's future progress.

Quote
I think if SpaceX nuts out the reusability concept, it will be a game changer - and game changers tend to enable exponential growth of some kind.

I think it will give them an advantage, but how much remains to be seen.
Douglas Clark

Offline IRobot

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Portugal & Germany
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #17 on: 03/14/2014 03:59 pm »
I'm arguing that they're the first to design so as to solve those problems in a manner fit for mass production. 

Pronto rocket launches: 390
Delta rocket launches: +300
Ariane rocket family: 215

That seems mass production.

Offline mikelepage

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1218
  • ExodusSpaceSystems.com
  • Perth, Australia
  • Liked: 855
  • Likes Given: 1358
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #18 on: 03/14/2014 04:01 pm »
Ok,

Utilizing current trends in economics, resource management, technological development and politics, I can start to make the following predictions of Solar System population.

Assuming current political, technological and economic trends continue for the next 20 years, Off world population will number approximately 25 people, including a single use Mars base, a lunar scientific outpost and a replacement ISS built by commercial vendors.
...
Projected offworld population in 250 years; 100 On the Moon, Mars and scouting NEO asteroid and comets.
...
Projected Offworld population in 500 years; 4.5 billion, Floating colonies in upped Venusian atmosphere, alteration of planetary rotation and atmsophere projected in 1000 years.  Mars is terraformed with a northern american rainforest type of worldwide environment.  Many asteroids and comets have been combined to provide interplanetary cycler habitats.  Resource mining has gotten as far as Neptune while plans are in the works to start harvesting Kupier belt objects and materials.  Some Humans have been altered for long term hibernation and will soon be sent of a 500 year journey to another starsystem some 60 plus lightyears away that has been found to have a terrestially similar world.
...

Fair enough - no offence taken.  I just wanted to be cheeky and point out that, aside from delaying it 250 years, your exponential curve of off world population increases just as sharply as mine.  Your technology curve is probably sharper.

Not that I think it's impossible - we've basically gone from one to seven billion in 200 years and have technology they wouldn't have dreamed of.  That's what's possible when conditions for exponential growth are there.

I'm just more interested in the exponential growth that's possible with the technology we have now.

Offline mikelepage

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1218
  • ExodusSpaceSystems.com
  • Perth, Australia
  • Liked: 855
  • Likes Given: 1358
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #19 on: 03/14/2014 04:04 pm »
I'm arguing that they're the first to design so as to solve those problems in a manner fit for mass production. 

Pronto rocket launches: 390
Delta rocket launches: +300
Ariane rocket family: 215

That seems mass production.

Tell that to the CEO of GM  ;)  But seriously, SpaceX are gearing up for making 40 stages in one year.  And with room to expand.

Edit: not 400, 40 - 400 is the number of engines he said. But still.
« Last Edit: 03/14/2014 04:06 pm by mikelepage »

Offline Hop_David

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1656
  • Ajo, Arizona
    • Hop's Gallery
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #20 on: 03/14/2014 04:07 pm »
The reason I have included these bodies is precisely because there's no reason to expect the fundamental energy equation of space travel to change in the next few hundred years (until we master fusion/technology x).

The energy expense is a small part of spacecraft. If I remember right oxygen and kerosene is about 3% of a Falcon's expense.

The big expense is throw-away vehicles. However reusability is related to energy expense. Spaceship 1 was reused within two weeks to win the X-prize. But Spaceship 1's delta V budget was only a fraction of what's needed to achieve orbit.

Fusion technology isn't needed to break the tyranny of the rocket equation. Extra-terrestrial propellent sources could break the exponent in the rocket equation. Two possible propellent sources are the cold traps at the lunar poles or carbonaceous near earth asteroids.

Given orbital propellent sources, interplanetary vehicles could have delta V budgets closer to Rutan's Spaceship 1 than the ~20 km/s Apollo needed to go to the moon and back.

By the way, I think this is the most important issue facing humanity. Decades ago the Club of Rome noted exponential growth wasn't sustainable given a finite planet's resources. How do we address this? People like Dennis Wingo advocate expanding our resource use to the solar system. People like Tom Murphy say space is impractical and we must learn to live within our present limits.

The above cartoon by Johnny Robinson can be found at this NSS page.
« Last Edit: 03/14/2014 04:10 pm by Hop_David »

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #21 on: 03/14/2014 04:08 pm »
Ok,

Utilizing current trends in economics, resource management, technological development and politics, I can start to make the following predictions of Solar System population.

Assuming current political, technological and economic trends continue for the next 20 years, Off world population will number approximately 25 people, including a single use Mars base, a lunar scientific outpost and a replacement ISS built by commercial vendors.
...
Projected offworld population in 250 years; 100 On the Moon, Mars and scouting NEO asteroid and comets.
...
Projected Offworld population in 500 years; 4.5 billion, Floating colonies in upped Venusian atmosphere, alteration of planetary rotation and atmsophere projected in 1000 years.  Mars is terraformed with a northern american rainforest type of worldwide environment.  Many asteroids and comets have been combined to provide interplanetary cycler habitats.  Resource mining has gotten as far as Neptune while plans are in the works to start harvesting Kupier belt objects and materials.  Some Humans have been altered for long term hibernation and will soon be sent of a 500 year journey to another starsystem some 60 plus lightyears away that has been found to have a terrestially similar world.
...

Fair enough - no offence taken.  I just wanted to be cheeky and point out that, aside from delaying it 250 years, your exponential curve of off world population increases just as sharply as mine.  Your technology curve is probably sharper.

Not that I think it's impossible - we've basically gone from one to seven billion in 200 years and have technology they wouldn't have dreamed of.  That's what's possible when conditions for exponential growth are there.

I'm just more interested in the exponential growth that's possible with the technology we have now.

I'm talking serious die off of the Human Race due to too many people and not nearly enough resources.  Dropping from a hight of 9.5 billion to about 750 million reduces the overall population to less than 1/12th of the max.  That's 1 person in every 13 or 14 to survive.  Pretty grim, but unfortuantely, all too likely.
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline mheney

  • The Next Man on the Moon
  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 780
  • Silver Spring, MD
  • Liked: 398
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #22 on: 03/14/2014 04:11 pm »
First off, I'd like to see your numbers happen - expanding human civilization beyond Earth is something I've been supporting and working for for a long time.

That said, I think your timeline is way too optimistic.   One of the biggest flaws in comparing space transportation systems to air transportation systems is the fact that a transportation system exists to get you from Point A to Point B - and in space, there is no Point B.  You have to carry your destination with you - and that does not lead to a large ramp-up of population.

Unless there are significant technological advances that significantly reduce travel times throughout the solar system, I think you'll see humanity diffuse, rather than explode, outward over the next couple centuries.

Offline mikelepage

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1218
  • ExodusSpaceSystems.com
  • Perth, Australia
  • Liked: 855
  • Likes Given: 1358
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #23 on: 03/14/2014 04:34 pm »
First off, I'd like to see your numbers happen - expanding human civilization beyond Earth is something I've been supporting and working for for a long time.

That said, I think your timeline is way too optimistic.   One of the biggest flaws in comparing space transportation systems to air transportation systems is the fact that a transportation system exists to get you from Point A to Point B - and in space, there is no Point B.  You have to carry your destination with you - and that does not lead to a large ramp-up of population.

Unless there are significant technological advances that significantly reduce travel times throughout the solar system, I think you'll see humanity diffuse, rather than explode, outward over the next couple centuries.

Well as it happens the train of thought that led me to this was a significantly more modest goal.  I was thinking "Let's stop aping JFK's *where* question... where doesn't matter no so much any more if we're not doing the flag planting thing.  The goal should be *who* and *how many*."

So my version of the JFK goal was that by 2040 we should aim to have 4 million people visit space (including sub-orbital, point to point), and 40,000 living there sustainably, and I still think that is absolutely doable.  I just got to thinking - what are two things that America has done really well in the past? mass production and space.  If they combine... well.  Who's to say you can't put as many habitats in orbit as you can construct houses or put cars on the road? 

You hit upon another of my convenient assumptions that went into this graph - what if the destination was there? What if there was a slow, simple and reliable method for a ~500kg robot to go out and build something out of asteroid regolith that would serve as radiation protection and an initial resource depot.  The one thing I didn't put in is that I'm assuming the number of robots being sent out mirrors the numbers of offworld humans in the initial graph, just preceding them by 10-20 years or so.

Offline Celebrimbor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 414
  • Bystander
  • Brinsworth Space Centre, UK
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #24 on: 03/14/2014 04:42 pm »
Awesome thread.

To Jim, the point is the money is out chasing the 'good stuff'.  When that runs out there will be plenty of money to find the 'next best thing'.  If that is genuinely in space then expect to see big investment. 

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #25 on: 03/14/2014 04:51 pm »

So my version of the JFK goal was that by 2040 we should aim to have 4 million people visit space (including sub-orbital, point to point), and 40,000 living there sustainably, and I still think that is absolutely doable.  I just got to thinking - what are two things that America has done really well in the past? mass production and space.  If they combine... well.  Who's to say you can't put as many habitats in orbit as you can construct houses or put cars on the road? 


There is no reason to, no economic driver.  Much like the underwater cities that were predicted.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #26 on: 03/14/2014 04:53 pm »

Tell that to the CEO of GM  ;)  But seriously, SpaceX are gearing up for making 40 stages in one year.  And with room to expand.



Boeing built a factory that could do that back in 2001 or so
« Last Edit: 03/14/2014 04:54 pm by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #27 on: 03/14/2014 04:55 pm »
Awesome thread.

To Jim, the point is the money is out chasing the 'good stuff'.  When that runs out there will be plenty of money to find the 'next best thing'.  If that is genuinely in space then expect to see big investment. 

Not by governments.

Offline darkbluenine

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 208
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #28 on: 03/14/2014 05:45 pm »
Quote
Assuming we can achieve single-digit millions of people living sustainably in space by 2040

If by "living" you mean maintaining one's health for a natural, multi-decade lifespan and successfully reproducing and raising children, then no homo sapien can hope to "live" in space, sustainably or otherwise, at any foreseeable point in the future.  The cumulative, year-after-year radiation damage will be debilitating and shorten lifespans by decades.  Although the radiation from a couple-year deep space trip is on par with other risky behavior (like smoking), we have no proven solution for long-term, multi-decade space radiation exposure short of burying subjects underground, which isn't exactly living in space.  Radiation is even more of an issue for reproduction, but even setting that aside, reproductive experiments using lower lifeforms in LEO are not promising.  The resulting embryos are almost always deformed, often fatally.

Maybe someday we'll be able to modify our biology or put our consciousnesses into artificial bodies such that we can live out decades and reproduce in various space environments.  But there's no clear path scientifically or technologically to that future, and it has nothing to do with rockets, reusability, NASA, SpaceX, etc.  For the foreseeable future, the best we can hope for in terms of space colonization is the extent of colonization we see in extreme environments on Earth.  No one lives out their lifetime or has children at an Antarctic research station, sea-based drilling rig, or mountaintop.  But small groups of researchers, miners, and adventurers may work, live, or vacation in those locales for months to a year or two at a time.  And that's the extent of what's foreseeable in space.

Anything else is science fiction.

Offline mikelepage

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1218
  • ExodusSpaceSystems.com
  • Perth, Australia
  • Liked: 855
  • Likes Given: 1358
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #29 on: 03/14/2014 06:05 pm »
Quote
Assuming we can achieve single-digit millions of people living sustainably in space by 2040

If by "living" you mean maintaining one's health for a natural, multi-decade lifespan and successfully reproducing and raising children, then no homo sapien can hope to "live" in space, sustainably or otherwise, at any foreseeable point in the future.  The cumulative, year-after-year radiation damage will be debilitating and shorten lifespans by decades.  Although the radiation from a couple-year deep space trip is on par with other risky behavior (like smoking), we have no proven solution for long-term, multi-decade space radiation exposure short of burying subjects underground, which isn't exactly living in space.  Radiation is even more of an issue for reproduction, but even setting that aside, reproductive experiments using lower lifeforms in LEO are not promising.  The resulting embryos are almost always deformed, often fatally.

Maybe someday we'll be able to modify our biology or put our consciousnesses into artificial bodies such that we can live out decades and reproduce in various space environments.  But there's no clear path scientifically or technologically to that future, and it has nothing to do with rockets, reusability, NASA, SpaceX, etc.  For the foreseeable future, the best we can hope for in terms of space colonization is the extent of colonization we see in extreme environments on Earth.  No one lives out their lifetime or has children at an Antarctic research station, sea-based drilling rig, or mountaintop.  But small groups of researchers, miners, and adventurers may work, live, or vacation in those locales for months to a year or two at a time.  And that's the extent of what's foreseeable in space.

Anything else is science fiction.

Emphasis mine

The radiation is bad, I'll give you that - worse than I would have ever believed.  But it's nothing 2 metres of regolith can't reduce to levels that are manageable.  If you think that means living underground, I'd say you lack imagination.  Have you never been in a rammed earth house? They're great.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #30 on: 03/14/2014 06:34 pm »
It seems quite likely to me that even if all-magical Elon is fully successful in his million-person Mars colony by, say, 2050, we still may not reach a billion off-planet until hundreds of years from now. It's really unknowable right now, though, since we can't really imagine the state of technology in 100 years with any kind of reasonable accuracy. And we also can't predict culture that far in advance, either, except perhaps to note that those cultures which reproduce more will, in the long-term, out-number those that don't until the population reaches its limits via lack of food (and we have much, MUCH more food now per person in the Western world than at any point in human history). Population expansion on Earth is far easier than in space, even if you can make a go at self-sustaining colonies.

I think we'll see the Earth's population at around 9-10 billion when it starts to level off. But again, at some point cultures which tend to reproduce more will develop in spite of the anti-reproductive effects of modern city living (i.e. television, internet, children as a burden rather than an asset like they are in rural life, job pressures that make having children very difficult for women since they're sometimes subtly punished for it, to say nothing of birth control and declining testosterone levels), simply because that's how life works.

And it's possible these cultures may develop on, say, a Mars colony where the advantage of another helping hand is just as well-received as it is in rural areas on Earth.

Interesting report, by the way: https://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

All the talk about over-population on Earth is starting to sound really funny, and will be a farce in 15 years when declining populations in the developed world lead to stagnating economies and begging for immigrants.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #31 on: 03/14/2014 06:36 pm »
Peak oil will not be a problem in 100 years.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline darkbluenine

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 208
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #32 on: 03/14/2014 06:52 pm »
The radiation is bad, I'll give you that - worse than I would have ever believed.  But it's nothing 2 metres of regolith can't reduce to levels that are manageable.

You're the one making wild projections about populations at/on the "Sun-Mars Lagrange points
Mars orbits, Near Earth Objects, Sun-Earth Lagrange points, and Earth-Moon Lagrange points".  Not me.

Quote
Have you never been in a rammed earth house? They're great.

We don't live out our lifespans in a house.  Even on Earth, no one spends more than days to a year in a cave or under a couple meters of water or in an arctic habitat or even on a cruise ship.  Forget another planet or moon.  And even if we could, that doesn't solve the problem of reproduction outside of a 1g environment.

Our species and every other Earth species is the result of billions of years of adaptation to a 1g, low radiation environment.  Absent unpredictable and radical changes in our biology or technology, none of us are capable of living out multi-decade lifespans and successfully reproducing outside that environment, nevertheless millions of us.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #33 on: 03/14/2014 07:24 pm »
In Minnesota, we spend nearly the entire winter inside. In January, you limit time outside to the VERY minimum, maybe single digit minutes per day.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #34 on: 03/14/2014 07:35 pm »
We don't live out our lifespans in a house.  Even on Earth, no one spends more than days to a year in a cave or under a couple meters of water or in an arctic habitat or even on a cruise ship.  Forget another planet or moon.

Until a few thousand years ago, our ancestors were all hunters and gatherers.  By your logic, it would be impossible for them to change their lifestyles to become farmers.  But they did.

And even if we could, that doesn't solve the problem of reproduction outside of a 1g environment.

We don't really know what the gravity requirements are for human reproduction.  Anyway, it's irrelevant for large-scale settlements that are in microgravity anyway, because it's easy to just spin them for apparent gravity.  The larger the settlement, the easier it is to have it rotating.  And once something is rotating, it keeps rotating until a force is applied to it, so it doesn't require continuing energy input to keep it going.

Our species and every other Earth species is the result of billions of years of adaptation to a 1g, low radiation environment.  Absent unpredictable and radical changes in our biology or technology, none of us are capable of living out multi-decade lifespans and successfully reproducing outside that environment, nevertheless millions of us.

When we colonize space, we can simply set up environments that are suitable for us.

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #35 on: 03/14/2014 08:07 pm »
The radiation is bad, I'll give you that - worse than I would have ever believed.  But it's nothing 2 metres of regolith can't reduce to levels that are manageable.

You're the one making wild projections about populations at/on the "Sun-Mars Lagrange points
Mars orbits, Near Earth Objects, Sun-Earth Lagrange points, and Earth-Moon Lagrange points".  Not me.

Quote
Have you never been in a rammed earth house? They're great.

We don't live out our lifespans in a house.  Even on Earth, no one spends more than days to a year in a cave or under a couple meters of water or in an arctic habitat or even on a cruise ship.  Forget another planet or moon.  And even if we could, that doesn't solve the problem of reproduction outside of a 1g environment.

Our species and every other Earth species is the result of billions of years of adaptation to a 1g, low radiation environment.  Absent unpredictable and radical changes in our biology or technology, none of us are capable of living out multi-decade lifespans and successfully reproducing outside that environment, nevertheless millions of us.

I find, while, to an extent, you do have a point, overall I can't agree with your premiss.  It is entirely possible to construct enclosed biospheres that are largely self supporting and are large enough to simulate an outdoors environment.  Selective use and filtering of optically cable piped in sunlight would likewise go a long ways to alleviating the "cabin fever" many may at first feel.

     Of course, there would be times where going outside of the enclosed environment will be required. Current radiation shielding technology can assist in handling limited doses of radiation and recent developments in radiation treatment would go a great deal of the way to neutralizing most of the deliterious effects.  (Up through and including the majority of radiation incduced cancers) For those times where longer or higher radiation exposures mabe required, there are hardsuit designs that would provide sufficent radiation protection for extended missions or less limited protection in case of Solar Storms.

     In Canada, there are entire underground segements of some cities that go for mile underground where people rarely leave during the wintermonths and some hardly ever leave during the summer months either.

     There is evidence that indicates that sexual conception in lower ravity environments is not only possible, but may, in fact, be medically less stressful on the mother, due to the lower gravity.  Conception in microgravity appears to have its' own difficulties, which I will avoid pointing out but should be redally apparent to anyone who understands the issues involved with basic Newtonian physics and docking maneuvers.

Jason
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #36 on: 03/14/2014 09:08 pm »
Large indoor spaces is how Minnesotans deal with the long winters. In fact the first ever large fully enclosed shopping center (i.e. "mall") was invented in Minnesota:
http://interactive.wttw.com/tenbuildings/southdale-center


 The free Como Zoo and Conservatory are great, and the Minnesota Zoo is even better (yay, tropics exhibit!), and the Mall of America provides big open spaces with trees and the like to keep us sane in the winter. The downtown areas of both Minneapolis and St. Paul are each totally interconnected with skyways and tunnels, so that you don't need to step foot outside. You can walk from one end of downtown to the other without once going outside. My University has all the campus building connected by skyways and tunnels, too. Living life nearly entirely inside is not only possible but is done for several months of the year every year in places like Minnesota and Toronto.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline ciscosdad

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 169
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 179
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #37 on: 03/14/2014 09:16 pm »
As I understand it predictions are invariably ambitious for the short term and conservative for the long term.
That would mean the 2040 figures are far too high (if we're lucky, there will be hundreds to a few thousand off Earth)
For 2300, maybe several times more off Earth  than the stay at homes.
My 2c.
Wonder what Elon would say?

Offline scienceguy

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 836
  • Lethbridge, Alberta
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 279
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #38 on: 03/14/2014 11:24 pm »
I think this is a fascinating thread. I guess it centers on whether we will have cheap access to space. How long till we have carbon nanotubes on a macro scale for the material for a space elevator? 10 years? 30 years?

There are other ways to have cheap access to space. If high temperature superconductors are achieved, then you could get into space using the Earth's magnetic field. How long will this take? 10 years? 30 years?
e^(pi*i) = -1

Offline Remes

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 434
  • Germany
  • Liked: 246
  • Likes Given: 142
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #39 on: 03/14/2014 11:47 pm »
I'm arguing that they're the first to design so as to solve those problems in a manner fit for mass production. 

Pronto rocket launches: 390
Delta rocket launches: +300
Ariane rocket family: 215

That seems mass production.


No. Your are talking about the production on three continents over several decades.

4 Ariane 5 last year with two variants (I guess somewhere between 6 and 7 is the average).

Just imagine that:
- 4 pieces LOX turbopumps produced by one company
- 4 pieces LH2 tp produced by another company
- 4 Main Lox valves
- 4 obc produced
- ...
more than 100 suppliers for ariane 5 I think.

This is not mass production.

Soyuz was once massproduced. Albeit this rocket is not optimized for high rate production and in that time technology was not very sophisticated.

Offline Akhenaten

  • Member
  • Posts: 30
  • Hull UK
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #40 on: 03/15/2014 12:11 am »
I doubt if any of the few families who came "Out of Africa" 100,000 years or so ago would have considered the hellish conditions of North Eastern Siberia and Beringia compatible with human life- let alone imagined that less than 20,000 years after this was achieved, the result would be  two new humanised continents with a total population approaching one billion! Remember too that for 99% of the past 100 millennia sci-tech was minimal at best

Likewise, in 753 BC a few hundred straggling peasant soldiers reached the Tiber in Italy and set up base camp on a hill, as Virgil tells us. Their descendant, Caesar Augustus, ruled an Empire of 100 million people over three continents less than 800 years later.
 Even more recently, 1,300 convicts sent to Botany Bay by we Brits laid the foundation of Sydney, Australia with its sophisticated urban culture of 4 millions
Economic rocketry, in situ resources development, 3 D printing and nanotech will surely accomplish as much or even more in the resource and energy rich solar system into which we will expand.

Man belongs wherever a Keen Eye, Quick Wits, and a Strong Right Arm will take Him!
"Humanity belongs wherever a Keen Eye, Quick Wits, and Intelligence can take Us!"

Offline darkbluenine

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 208
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #41 on: 03/15/2014 01:28 am »
In Minnesota, we spend nearly the entire winter inside.

Inside our houses.  Inside our cars/public transportation.  Inside our offices/stores/factories/schools.  Inside our gyms.  Inside our theaters/restaurants/bars/indoor stadiums.  (I also grew up in the upper Midwest.)

Except for a handful or Antarctic researchers, no one spends an entire winter locked up in a single habitat.

And one winter (or even multiple winters) is not representative of a lifespan.

Until a few thousand years ago, our ancestors were all hunters and gatherers.  By your logic, it would be impossible for them to change their lifestyles to become farmers.  But they did.

Changing occupations is not the same thing, by a long shot, as adapting your biology to a non-terrestrial environment.

Quote
We don't really know what the gravity requirements are for human reproduction.

We know that embryo development doesn't proceed normally in other mammals, lower animals, and plants in a microgravity environment.

We also know that sperm and ovary follicles drop in number in other species with micro-g exposure lengthens.

It would be foolish to think that it will be any different for our species.

Quote
Anyway, it's irrelevant for large-scale settlements that are in microgravity anyway, because it's easy to just spin them for apparent gravity.  The larger the settlement, the easier it is to have it rotating.  And once something is rotating, it keeps rotating until a force is applied to it, so it doesn't require continuing energy input to keep it going...

When we colonize space, we can simply set up environments that are suitable for us.

O'Neill cylinders, terraforming, and the like are science fiction.  Even if they weren't, they're not on the timescale of the OP, by a long shot.

Quote
I find, while, to an extent, you do have a point, overall I can't agree with your premiss.  It is entirely possible to construct enclosed biospheres that are largely self supporting and are large enough to simulate an outdoors environment.

For a couple years on Earth (e.g., Biosphere 2).  Not decade after decade after decade on another planet.

Quote
There is evidence that indicates that sexual conception in lower ravity environments is not only possible, but may, in fact, be medically less stressful on the mother, due to the lower gravity.  Conception in microgravity appears to have its' own difficulties, which I will avoid pointing out but should be redally apparent to anyone who understands the issues involved with basic Newtonian physics and docking maneuvers.

The issue isn't conception.  It's embryo development.

Living life nearly entirely inside is not only possible but is done for several months of the year every year in places like Minnesota and Toronto.

We're (or at least I'm) talking about entire lifespans lasting multiple decades.  Not 90-120 days.

I think this is a fascinating thread. I guess it centers on whether we will have cheap access to space.

Even if we could teleport to Mars for a penny, it wouldn't change the fundamental limitations imposed by our biology.  When discussing actual space colonization -- you, your children, and your children's children living out entire lifespans in a non-terrestrial environment -- the issue is not space access.  It's controlled speciation.

I doubt if any of the few families who came "Out of Africa" 100,000 years or so ago would have considered the hellish conditions of North Eastern Siberia and Beringia compatible with human life- let alone imagined that less than 20,000 years after this was achieved, the result would be  two new humanised continents with a total population approaching one billion!

Anything is possible given enough time.  But the OP was projecting out to the year ~2040AD, not ~204,000AD.

Offline NovaSilisko

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1828
  • Liked: 1440
  • Likes Given: 1301
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #42 on: 03/15/2014 03:41 am »
Do we have any real data on embryo development of relatively large animals in between 0g and 1g?

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #43 on: 03/15/2014 01:20 pm »
I think it will be much more weighted toward Mars, O'Neil terrariums, and the moon.  The number living out in the asteroid belt and beyond will be modest for at least 200 years.  But that's just my guess.  Technology breakthroughs are difficult to predict.  Oh, and my descendants probably will have a secret lair on Vanth in 80 years or so; populated mostly by robots and cloned extinct plants and animals, starting with Elasmotherium.  You heard it here first.  ;)
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #44 on: 03/15/2014 01:25 pm »
Also, with multi-century projections, the premise of Idiocracy needs a visit.  Consider this your reminder to have your 2.3 plus extras to replace non-fecund siblings, etc.
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #45 on: 03/15/2014 01:27 pm »
Also, with multi-century projections, the premise of Idiocracy needs a visit.  Consider this your reminder to have your 2.3 plus extras to replace non-fecund siblings, etc.

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

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #46 on: 03/16/2014 02:49 am »
On the optimistic outlook side: We have to solve the energy problem. Unlimited economic growth requires unlimited cheap (or almost free) energy. Sure, a new source of power would not automatically solve all problems a growing world population will face, but you can not solve these problems without it. I think that the governments of this world are not appreciative enough of the size of the issue, or otherwise there would be more funding for research on nuclear fusion and nuclear fission reactors (economic ones). ITER is great but it will be difficult to build economical tokamak reactors. Nuclear fission has tons of issues (and I am not talking about environmental ones), many are political and also financial (too little research, too many hurdles, currently not competitive with coal). Either way, you solve the energy problem first, then colonization of the ocean floor and space will come naturally. If we don't solve it, we are heading straight towards collapse and potentially a major population reduction.

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #47 on: 03/16/2014 07:19 am »
The graph shows a huge dip in earth population. I think the technologies that allow a space population of any significant size will also result in larger portions of earth being considered habitable, and self-sufficient cities and so on.  IMO The growth of space colonies will be matched by an even faster growth of earth populations, and these population levels will be sustainable by the nature of the technology. They will just be taking renewable energy like solar power and and exploiting materials that are already pretty much at their highest level of entropy.

Offline mikelepage

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1218
  • ExodusSpaceSystems.com
  • Perth, Australia
  • Liked: 855
  • Likes Given: 1358
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #48 on: 03/16/2014 02:02 pm »
...

O'Neill cylinders, terraforming, and the like are science fiction.  Even if they weren't, they're not on the timescale of the OP, by a long shot.

Anything is possible given enough time.  But the OP was projecting out to the year ~2040AD, not ~204,000AD.

Okay.  Some great points in many posts above, too many to respond to one by one.  Just thought I'd add some more food for thought as to why I think the rapid expansion in the graph might actually be somewhat feasible.

The concept I've been working on is "rammed mass ring structures".  I started looking at this in detail in order to research for my science fiction novel "The Hilda Pact" - it ended up becoming its own thing.  It's a way in which a robot might create a series of modules which stack together to form a ring - and simultaneously extract water from the regolith as it does so.

The way I figure it, water ice has one valuable property which is that under pressure it turns into liquid water.  Because this can be done mechanically, my intuition says (I could well be wrong about this) that to extract liquid water from regolith, it's going to be more efficient to squeeze it out using hydraulic force rather than heat it up.  Especially if we have some secondary use for the compression machinery: the creation of rammed earth buildings usually involves having some kind of mould and ramming the earth into shape until it stands up under its own weight.  The great compression strength of the individual modules are usually supported by something with tensile strength like steel cable.

Suppose that there was a method by which an 5-10 ton robot (launch-able by Falcon Heavy to most NEOs) could methodically build a "half" Stanford Torus (800m major diameter, 20m minor diameter, 2m walls. 1.5rpm for 1g) over the course of 20 years out of regolith (this could be done with no more than a sub 100m diameter asteroid by my calculations).  Each segment (720 segments x 0.5 degrees per segment), would require <~208m^3 regolith , completed in ~10 days, and would be assembled out of 72 modules which vary in size depending if they are on the inside or the outside of the torus (averaging ~3m^3/module).  The robot would attach to an asteroid, extract regolith into a compression chamber, compress it, and thread the result onto one or more cables.  The cycle repeats, continuously adding rammed mass modules onto cables just like threading beads onto a necklace (see my youtube series of videos "Settling the Incliptic" for a better idea of what I mean - I'll be presenting this idea in part 4).

When manned craft arrive at the asteroid, all they have to do is seal it, not build it.  Your living space would be 16 metres wide and 2.5km long.  You would have access via elevators to inflatable modules in microgravity, so all the research/games people want microgravity for would still be readily accessible.  As failsafes, inflatable modules such as the BA Olympus would be inflated inside the torus so that people could sleep in them, and have somewhere to evacuate to  in case of catastrophic failure.

Still working on the method itself but I'm fairly sure the mechanics required for this are not that complicated.  Might all be pie in the sky, but I reckon the massive expansion is definitely possible within the lifetimes of people born today, if not by 2040.

Offline mikelepage

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1218
  • ExodusSpaceSystems.com
  • Perth, Australia
  • Liked: 855
  • Likes Given: 1358
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #49 on: 03/16/2014 02:08 pm »
The graph shows a huge dip in earth population. I think the technologies that allow a space population of any significant size will also result in larger portions of earth being considered habitable, and self-sufficient cities and so on.  IMO The growth of space colonies will be matched by an even faster growth of earth populations, and these population levels will be sustainable by the nature of the technology. They will just be taking renewable energy like solar power and and exploiting materials that are already pretty much at their highest level of entropy.

I agree in principle, I just see that dip happening because I don't think the problems those space colonies will be solving are the same as the problems that will be resulting in people dying on Earth.

For instance, the one fireproof way not to be collateral damage in a war, is to not be where the war is.  As interconnected as the global economy is, I see space as the one place people can be truly away from what's happening on Earth.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #50 on: 03/16/2014 11:47 pm »
You wouldn't want to be in near-Earth space in case of another total war, though. Anything in an economically viable communications or surveillance orbit would be probably in more danger than a random spot on the surface of Earth.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #51 on: 03/17/2014 01:17 am »
You wouldn't want to be in near-Earth space in case of another total war, though. Anything in an economically viable communications or surveillance orbit would be probably in more danger than a random spot on the surface of Earth.

LEO ain't the place youwant to be in that case. Either EL L4 or L5, or Geosync would be much safer.  (Actually I'm not too certain about Geosync.  People get kind of crazy and might attack there, even with the fuel cost).
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #52 on: 03/17/2014 01:45 am »
In total war, given the US's reliance on satellites, geosynchronous would absolutely be attacked. So would medium-Earth-orbit (i.e. GPS).
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1693
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #53 on: 03/17/2014 02:10 am »
As an environmentalist myself, I don't understand why many of my peers believe that it will be any easier to sustain human populations off-world than it will be on an environmentally-degraded Earth. We'll always have gravity and a magnetosphere, and unless we really screw up, we should be able to maintain a breathable atmosphere for centuries into the future. The worst-case scenario for Earth is still quite a bit more easily habitable than Mars or deep space.

We may have shortages of food, water, and materials due to environmental damage, but I don't see how things could get so bad on Earth that it would be easier to secure drinking water or grow food on Mars.

Offline NovaSilisko

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1828
  • Liked: 1440
  • Likes Given: 1301
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #54 on: 03/17/2014 04:29 am »
As an environmentalist myself, I don't understand why many of my peers believe that it will be any easier to sustain human populations off-world than it will be on an environmentally-degraded Earth. We'll always have gravity and a magnetosphere, and unless we really screw up, we should be able to maintain a breathable atmosphere for centuries into the future. The worst-case scenario for Earth is still quite a bit more easily habitable than Mars or deep space.

We may have shortages of food, water, and materials due to environmental damage, but I don't see how things could get so bad on Earth that it would be easier to secure drinking water or grow food on Mars.

I don't  think it's about it being "easier", so much as it being about "separated". If there's a nuclear war, or asteroid impact, or enormous plague, or whatever, being in a normal gravity well with a tidy magnetosphere doesn't do you a whole lot of good. The people hopping about on Mars, however, will be unscathed. If that off-earth civilization is already self-sustaining then business will continue more or less as usual for them.

I'm sure there'd be a scattering of people left around on earth after such a catastrophe, but they won't exactly be living the good life.
« Last Edit: 03/17/2014 04:31 am by NovaSilisko »

Offline mikelepage

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1218
  • ExodusSpaceSystems.com
  • Perth, Australia
  • Liked: 855
  • Likes Given: 1358
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #55 on: 03/17/2014 05:14 am »
As an environmentalist myself, I don't understand why many of my peers believe that it will be any easier to sustain human populations off-world than it will be on an environmentally-degraded Earth. We'll always have gravity and a magnetosphere, and unless we really screw up, we should be able to maintain a breathable atmosphere for centuries into the future. The worst-case scenario for Earth is still quite a bit more easily habitable than Mars or deep space.

We may have shortages of food, water, and materials due to environmental damage, but I don't see how things could get so bad on Earth that it would be easier to secure drinking water or grow food on Mars.

My one-word answer is "politics". 

I believe the reasoning of many environmentalists (well, me at least), is that manned space will reach a stage where there are many small groups of people who will be absolutely co-dependent on each other.  It will be the frontier, small-town mindset all over again.  Precisely because the habitats those groups will be living in are fragile is what will make it abundantly clear to everyone involved that you can't f*ck around with the things that keep your ecosystem stable and expect to get off scott free.  In a way, it's the massive capacity of the Earth to tolerate such reckless stewardship by politicians/corporate entities for financial gain that has allowed them to get away with their greed.  Yes the Earth will still be more intrinsically habitable, but I think enough people will want to have more control over the air they breathe, the food they eat and the energy they use that being truly independent in space will have definite appeal.

Moreover, the reality of orbital mechanics means that it will be extremely difficult to set up such empires as have existed on Earth.  Two colonies may get to trade with each other a small number of times, then not encounter each other again for over a lifetime.  If trade routes are constantly shifting like that, there is no consistancy of relationships on which power structures may be based (though one can imagine tv shows/movies and the like being broadcast around the solar system will keep some uniformity of culture/language).  People may choose to subscribe to various political agendas, but the idea of countries/empires trying to enforce "territory" such as what happens on the surface of a body just doesn't make sense if everything is moving in relationship to everything else. 

It will be a social dynamic that has never existed before, because if you think about in pre-industrial times, travel times were long and thus communication was difficult.  In modern times, travel times are short and communication is instant.  We would now have the situation where travel times are long again, but communication is quick (<1 light hour from one side of the main belt to the other), yet it will be nowhere near the instant communcation we're used to today. Not many people can do long-distance relationships, so I think each colony will probably become fairly insular.

Obviously I've spent a ridiculous amount of time thinking about this - a system were (cheap) rocket and ion engines are the main implements of travel, but people are basically the same.  I think most science fiction skips this idea of an era of inner solar-system bound humanity, but I see it as a stage that has to last least a few hundred years.  I mean really - there's a lot of useful stuff between here and Jupiter, then almost nothing at all between Jupiter and Saturn, which is twice as far out from the sun.  The concepts in physics that now suggest the barest possibility of FTL travel will surely take at least a hundred years to actually become anything like reality.  And frankly, with the immense amounts of energy that are supposed to be required by those hypothetical FTL engines (>1% of the output of the SUN for crying out loud), I'd rather be on the other side of the solar system when the first one is tested.

Offline luinil

Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #56 on: 03/17/2014 06:57 am »
I think most science fiction skips this idea of an era of inner solar-system bound humanity, but I see it as a stage that has to last least a few hundred years.  I mean really - there's a lot of useful stuff between here and Jupiter, then almost nothing at all between Jupiter and Saturn, which is twice as far out from the sun. 

There is a Japanese novel series currently under publication (7 of 10 published) where most of human space activity and settlements are in the main belt. (Ogawa Issui's Tenmei no shirube - 天冥の標). It's scale is much larger than the colonization of the main belt, but most of the action is situated in it. I don't know if there are any English translations though.

This topic made me think of those novels directly.

Offline the_roche_lobe

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #57 on: 03/17/2014 07:09 am »
Quote
We have to solve the energy problem. Unlimited economic growth requires unlimited cheap (or almost free) energy.

Quote
I don't understand why many of my peers believe that it will be any easier to sustain human populations off-world than it will be on an environmentally-degraded Earth.

Easy or hard, the only place where a kind of balls-out, exponential energy eating, hairy-chested frontier capitalism might be possible in the long term is space. I dont think that mode of life works in a bounded biosphere.

P

Offline AlanSE

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 153
  • N Cp ln(T)
    • Gravity Balloon Space Habitats Inside Asteroids
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #58 on: 04/01/2014 08:25 pm »
I think most science fiction skips this idea of an era of inner solar-system bound humanity, but I see it as a stage that has to last least a few hundred years.  I mean really - there's a lot of useful stuff between here and Jupiter, then almost nothing at all between Jupiter and Saturn, which is twice as far out from the sun. 

There is a Japanese novel series currently under publication (7 of 10 published) where most of human space activity and settlements are in the main belt. (Ogawa Issui's Tenmei no shirube - 天冥の標). It's scale is much larger than the colonization of the main belt, but most of the action is situated in it. I don't know if there are any English translations though.

This topic made me think of those novels directly.

I really want to read this series.  However, my Japanese is good enough to get enjoyment out of most light comics, and not much of anything more complicated.  Even the Japanese versions are very difficult and expensive to order from the US.

The Next Continent (by same author) did not disappoint.  I'm fairly sure there are no translations of Tenmei no Shirube right now, but that could change sometime relatively soon.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Solar system population projection
« Reply #59 on: 04/02/2014 01:55 am »
To the OP:  About 7B humans in 2014.  The thread has run its course.  Gotta go.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1