Author Topic: Which is the more feasible mode of human colonization?  (Read 39957 times)

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
RE: Which is the more feasible mode of human colonization?
« Reply #80 on: 08/05/2007 12:13 pm »
Terraforming Mars, or Venus & the Moon for that matter, would cost quadrillions of dollars and take centuries at best. If an unoccupied, Earthlike planet were seen within a 'reasonable' travelling distance from us (less than 20 light years) with fusion or anti-matter propulsion technology, I'd say build starships and go there instead -- it'll be quicker and cheaper. But if a planet-finding telescope system saw no Earthlike planets 'nearby', then by all means Terraform Mars and use some of that technology to refurbish the Earth.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Which is the more feasible mode of human colonization?
« Reply #81 on: 08/05/2007 12:45 pm »
Mattblak, using the fusion/antimatter propulsion in the vast scales required for interstellar travels requires extraterrestrial resource utilization, just for energy reasons already.
It's probably much easier to toss comets to Mars and have super greenhouse gas factories there.

Offline ryan mccabe

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Which is the more feasible mode of human colonization?
« Reply #82 on: 08/05/2007 03:30 pm »

Quote
MATTBLAK - 5/8/2007  7:13 AM
Terraforming Mars, or Venus & the Moon for that matter, would cost quadrillions of dollars and take centuries at best.

I agree with the time estimate, but not with your price tag.

Cost is influenced by the price of raw materials and labor. I would advocate that the path to terraforming a planet is to establish a massive automated industrial base on the Moon. Raw materials on the moon are free, and if we have an army of robots doing our bidding, there are no wages to pay either. If we can make the lunar industry entirely self-sufficient, the only costs are research and development. Engineers would design our spacecraft and vehicles on Earth, then radio the CAD files up to our construction robots on the Moon. A few months/years later, our product is ready.

It would still take billions to trillions to establish self-sufficient lunar industry, but it's an order of magnitude more reasonable than doing all vehicle processing at the VAB...  


Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
RE: Which is the more feasible mode of human colonization?
« Reply #83 on: 08/07/2007 05:32 am »
Quote
MATTBLAK - 5/8/2007  5:13 AM

Terraforming Mars, or Venus & the Moon for that matter, would cost quadrillions of dollars and take centuries at best. If an unoccupied, Earthlike planet were seen within a 'reasonable' travelling distance from us (less than 20 light years) with fusion or anti-matter propulsion technology, I'd say build starships and go there instead -- it'll be quicker and cheaper. But if a planet-finding telescope system saw no Earthlike planets 'nearby', then by all means Terraform Mars and use some of that technology to refurbish the Earth.

My take is that the only way such a planet would exist is if some how the planet already had Terran (or just Terran-safe) life on it. I see that only happening if someone terraforms the planet, doing the work for us. Otherwise, I simply don't see such a world being significantly easier to transform than Mars or Venus. At least with those two planets, they would be near an industrial civilization and hence have access to resources that an interstellar colonization effort wouldn't have.
Karl Hallowell

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: Which is the more feasible mode of human colonization?
« Reply #84 on: 08/10/2007 01:33 pm »
Quote
ryan mccabe - 5/8/2007  6:30 PM
 I would advocate that the path to terraforming a planet is to establish a massive automated industrial base on the Moon. Raw materials on the moon are free, and if we have an army of robots doing our bidding, there are no wages to pay either. If we can make the lunar industry entirely self-sufficient, the only costs are research and development. Engineers would design our spacecraft and vehicles on Earth, then radio the CAD files up to our construction robots on the Moon. A few months/years later, our product is ready.
The only problem could be the robots sending back "Shut up guys with your CAD files, we're busy here." :)


Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0