Off world colonies are not the same as off continent colonies. The scifi depiction of lunar and mars from the 50's-70's is not going to happen. I never said that "off Earth settlements" wouldn't benefit humanity. They won't benefit nations and their gov't because 1. They won't return resources back to the homeland unlike terrestrial colonies did2. The off earth colonies will have their own gov't3. The USA is not going to establish colonies.So, yes, I can say that they would be "no benefit to the USA as a nation".
How confident are you that off-world settlements will happen at all? Will there ever be true colonies, where people will spend their whole lives? And what about lunar resorts, or ISRU facilities where people might work for several years of their lives? How far in the future is all this? Decades, centuries, a thousand years or more?
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 03/10/2009 04:52 pm"Non-Plausible, too many assumptions" I ... was hoping to make only three assumptions [about lunar colonization], but I kept on going to see just what it would take. So I hear the plausibility argument. But the technical argument is still mine. We coulda done it if we wanted to.The technical argument is not valid. ...
"Non-Plausible, too many assumptions" I ... was hoping to make only three assumptions [about lunar colonization], but I kept on going to see just what it would take. So I hear the plausibility argument. But the technical argument is still mine. We coulda done it if we wanted to.
One of the big objections to colonies, as opposed to outposts, is about what people do on them.The idea of "what people do on the outpost" is intended to stimulate discussion about the economics of an effort such as this, on both sides of the balance sheet.To me, you start with:1. Flags and footprints.2. Land a habitat module for 3 or 4 people to stay and study the area....9. The population is doubled to 48...
My feeling is that if we plan for this eventuality, then nobody will lose money, and nobody will throw rocks. In other words, there won't be a violent revolution when the time for independence has come.In general, my position is that we should accelerate our use of chemical rocketry to get to the Moon and Mars, and to stay there. ...The time frame for this to happen would be between forty and a hundred years. The technical and cost and even chemical rocketry objections to this idea are surmountable, as a brief discussion in the "Lunar colony in 1969" thread suggests.As always, it is political will which seems to be the insurmountable problem, but the strenuous objections raised surprise me in their ferocity. My suggestion that political will can be influenced by a better public education system here in the US is seen as being fruitless.
As much as I like Elon Musk, colonization will not happen before we come up with something cheaper and more reliable than chemical propulsion.
So the topic is: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why? Admitting that some will hold the opinion "No-way, No-how".
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/09/2012 02:53 pmSo the topic is: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why? Admitting that some will hold the opinion "No-way, No-how".I'm of the opinion that colonization as an explicit goal is actually pretty silly, as rarely in human history have things happened like that. People have set out in search for new lands mostly for other reasons, and settlement, often planned to be temporary, has always been sort of a side effect.
Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why?
I understand "No-way, No-how", as a choice. I'm struggling with "silly", when considering that humans have done a lot of colonization over the millenia on Earth. And considering the New World effort, colonization wasn't considered to be "temporary" in the least.Maybe you could clarify?
I don't see why people are so against chemical propulsion… It clearly isn't about the cost of fuel. And we certainly use similar fuels every day and to fly aroUnd the world. What's wrong with chemical?...So why the hate of chemical? The problem is the throwing away of the vehicle, not what propellant it uses (directly).
This was only possible after a technological breakthrough: upwind sailing. Sure, sailing had been around for millennial, but it took a propulsion change to make it happen.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/10/2012 07:51 pmI understand "No-way, No-how", as a choice. I'm struggling with "silly", when considering that humans have done a lot of colonization over the millenia on Earth. And considering the New World effort, colonization wasn't considered to be "temporary" in the least.Maybe you could clarify?I'm not sure i can clarify much better, but to restate that humans have colonized a lot, but rarely, if ever, with explicit stated intent of doing so. Again, the fact that people stay and settle is often a side effect of some other goal that brought them there.
Well, I see what you're saying in part. "We came for the gold and spices, but we stayed because of the natives and the beautiful beaches!"...Don't get the silly part, still. Without further clarification, MSL must be considered "silly", given the hunger, ignorance and poverty back home.