Our government's current throwaway exploration paradigm doesn't inspire confidence that the price of exploration will ever come down. In fact, the outright antagonism expressed by some of the "players" on this forum, to the idea of reusability, seems to be an expression of the government's intent to keep spaceflight expensive, and thus limit the possible economic utility of space to the private citizen.
When: Not in this centuryThe rest: I have no idea, probably if there will be some pro-science dictatorship in some country they could start own colony
Quote from: baddux on 09/11/2012 07:29 pmWhen: Not in this centuryThe rest: I have no idea, probably if there will be some pro-science dictatorship in some country they could start own colonyInteresting idea!If such a genius form of dictatorship will ever exist, it would probably guarantee the most advanced nation on Earth. And way beyond.
Quote from: gbaikie on 09/11/2012 05:08 amA failed colony is one that people go somewhere, live for some time, then stop living there.It seems to me, that ISS is a colonyISS is a space based laboratory. And this is where I stopped reading your post. IMO.
A failed colony is one that people go somewhere, live for some time, then stop living there.It seems to me, that ISS is a colony
There is a clear conceptual difference with colonization off planet. Daughterkind will have to make an admission that we have choice and free will, and our governments, I think, will have to support our choices. This type of colonization, ignoring directed panspermia, would be the first time that humanity would decide to go and colonize a distant destination. This is the difference that you realize:Quote from: savuporo on 09/10/2012 09:11 pmI'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.What you didn't say, but which I assumed you were implying, is that since mankind has not historically and explicitly stated an intent to colonize yet, then that would stand as some sort of proof that we should not state an intent to colonize. Hopefully, that is not what you're implying.
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.
Quote from: spaceStalker on 09/11/2012 12:23 pmQuote from: gbaikie on 09/11/2012 05:08 amA failed colony is one that people go somewhere, live for some time, then stop living there.It seems to me, that ISS is a colonyISS is a space based laboratory. And this is where I stopped reading your post. IMO.We are still living in a world where some people are born and die in the same general region. And it's possible people consider a colony has to include an element some people continually spending their entire lives in a general location.Therefore one could have human activity on the Moon involving say as much as million people over a period of a century spending some time on lunar surface, but one could consider that if people are not continuously staying on the moon that there isn't a colony on the Moon.Whereas I would regard colony the beginning of continual presence of human beings [or even robots] at a location [a location which be could constantly moving as in an orbit].One could have many different requirements for what some may regard as colony. A cemetery may be one of this elements. Children being born at a location may be another.But my point was if ISS continues [even if entire structure is replaced] then that could regarded as colony. And if ceases then people in future could regard it as a failed colony.
Quote from: savuporo on 09/11/2012 02:43 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 09/11/2012 02:18 pmQuote from: IRobot on 09/11/2012 09:45 amQuote from: savuporo on 09/10/2012 09:50 pmQuote from: IRobot on 09/10/2012 09:21 pmThis 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.Huh ? Viking ships were able to sail upwind. Nevertheless, Leif Ericson's name is not widely recognized. Viking ships had square rig, it can't sail upwind. But they could row....No, they could also sail slightly upwind.Actually pretty well. I happened to be on a replica one two weeks ago. And square rigging has an impact, but does not prevent sailing upwind. Upwind sailing ( and fore-and-aft rigging by the way ) has been around for ages, it wasn't "invented" in europe in 15th century. Portugese carracks were not a "fundamental technological breakthrough in propulsion"EDIT: and sorry, this is wildly off topic.Portuguese Caravel (not the carrack) was the first large ship with latin sails, which can sail upwind. Latin sails existed since roman times, but they were not used on large ships because of structural issues.And no, squared rig boats cannot sail upwind, their shape becomes deformed due to lack of luff tension and they just sail sideways. They can reach maybe 60º apparent wind, which might be around 80º true wind, but they lose all ground because of leeway. So yes, you can "point" them upwind but you gain zero ground doing it.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/11/2012 02:18 pmQuote from: IRobot on 09/11/2012 09:45 amQuote from: savuporo on 09/10/2012 09:50 pmQuote from: IRobot on 09/10/2012 09:21 pmThis 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.Huh ? Viking ships were able to sail upwind. Nevertheless, Leif Ericson's name is not widely recognized. Viking ships had square rig, it can't sail upwind. But they could row....No, they could also sail slightly upwind.Actually pretty well. I happened to be on a replica one two weeks ago. And square rigging has an impact, but does not prevent sailing upwind. Upwind sailing ( and fore-and-aft rigging by the way ) has been around for ages, it wasn't "invented" in europe in 15th century. Portugese carracks were not a "fundamental technological breakthrough in propulsion"EDIT: and sorry, this is wildly off topic.
Quote from: IRobot on 09/11/2012 09:45 amQuote from: savuporo on 09/10/2012 09:50 pmQuote from: IRobot on 09/10/2012 09:21 pmThis 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.Huh ? Viking ships were able to sail upwind. Nevertheless, Leif Ericson's name is not widely recognized. Viking ships had square rig, it can't sail upwind. But they could row....No, they could also sail slightly upwind.
Quote from: savuporo on 09/10/2012 09:50 pmQuote from: IRobot on 09/10/2012 09:21 pmThis 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.Huh ? Viking ships were able to sail upwind. Nevertheless, Leif Ericson's name is not widely recognized. Viking ships had square rig, it can't sail upwind. But they could row....
Quote from: IRobot on 09/10/2012 09:21 pmThis 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.Huh ? Viking ships were able to sail upwind. Nevertheless, Leif Ericson's name is not widely recognized.
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.
Having square rig didn't stop Napoleonic era ships sailing up wind.
Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
Quote from: gbaikie on 09/11/2012 09:42 pmQuote from: spaceStalker on 09/11/2012 12:23 pmQuote from: gbaikie on 09/11/2012 05:08 amA failed colony is one that people go somewhere, live for some time, then stop living there.It seems to me, that ISS is a colonyISS is a space based laboratory. And this is where I stopped reading your post. IMO.We are still living in a world where some people are born and die in the same general region. And it's possible people consider a colony has to include an element some people continually spending their entire lives in a general location.Therefore one could have human activity on the Moon involving say as much as million people over a period of a century spending some time on lunar surface, but one could consider that if people are not continuously staying on the moon that there isn't a colony on the Moon.Whereas I would regard colony the beginning of continual presence of human beings [or even robots] at a location [a location which be could constantly moving as in an orbit].One could have many different requirements for what some may regard as colony. A cemetery may be one of this elements. Children being born at a location may be another.But my point was if ISS continues [even if entire structure is replaced] then that could regarded as colony. And if ceases then people in future could regard it as a failed colony. It's a colony if people move there with the intent of living their lives there.
What i'm guessing and implying, is that advocating and supporting some other large scale space development effort ( i dont know what it could be, tourism, resource exploitation, ...
QuoteColonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?Most space advocates can tell you that colonization involves two critical steps(1) To actually put someone on Mars.(2) Underpants.Actually it involves a thousand more moderate and sensible achievements, and the destination is actually not that significant because although Martian and Lunar ISRU may be totally different, they are only a fraction of the problem.Finally, when enough of these problems are solved, one organization may decide to colonize space.. but who, how or why does not matter much. What will really matter is the 90% that happens before then, though this 90% may well be forgotten by history.Therefore I think the question of when, how and why is really about what changes in our priorities so that we actually start solving relevant problems. Putting people on other worlds and waiting for these problems to be solved is an incredibly inefficient and risky way to do this.I think actual technology development will happen in three prongs:(0) Experience with vacuum and zero-g.LEO, eg ISS. ISS tends to get a bad rap for its lack of achieving anything. I suspect there is something rotten there, but the fact is, the ISS is only just now getting a chance to achieve something.(1) Self sufficiency.As earth's natural resources run out, we are going to be forced to master alternate energies like solar and nuclear; we will become much better at recycling; we will grow food more efficiently and often closer to home, perhaps in multistory farms. We will take full control of our life support systems. Our cities will become more and more like moon bases. We will learn to build them in places that were previously considered uninhabitable. At some point the question will cease to be why and become why not.(2) The other stuff, like ISRU and teleoperation.I think we are headed for a robotic lunar trailerpark 'colony' focusing on ISRU. Multiple countries and organisations are now looking at precursor missions. They are interested in ISRU, the poles and there is also interest in repeat business. Being closer to home the lunar poles are a good place to advertise your industrial maturity.The details may be wrong, and if we ever get such a trailer park it may well quickly become a manned base, but the point is that if you have something like these three points you will be making steady progress towards the point where a single or multiple groups can decide to begin calling what they do colonization.
Well yeah. You and I may not be on the same page, but I think we're in the same book, and not that far from one another.The biggest difference is that I have no conceptual problem with suggesting colonization.
As for earth going out of resources- don't see that happening soon.If we get to situation of not enough resources on Earth it will be about a century in the future, and don't see such state to cause us to go into space. The shortage or abundance of resources is somewhat subjective- one could argue we have had already had shortage for decades- $100 barrel oil suggest this, but could "live with" $200 barrel of oil, or $1000 per barrel. And if have $1000 barrel oil, it will not make solar energy more viable in Germany. The shortage of resource will drive some technology, but it's doubtful it will affect whether we leave Earth.It seems more likely that lunar settlement would drive solar energy usageon Earth.
Quote from: gbaikie on 09/13/2012 01:24 amAs for earth going out of resources- don't see that happening soon.If we get to situation of not enough resources on Earth it will be about a century in the future, and don't see such state to cause us to go into space. The shortage or abundance of resources is somewhat subjective- one could argue we have had already had shortage for decades- $100 barrel oil suggest this, but could "live with" $200 barrel of oil, or $1000 per barrel. And if have $1000 barrel oil, it will not make solar energy more viable in Germany. The shortage of resource will drive some technology, but it's doubtful it will affect whether we leave Earth.It seems more likely that lunar settlement would drive solar energy usageon Earth.Investment in space is tiny compared investment on earth, so even a mediocre increase in solar energy for earth would dwarf investment in solar energy from the space budget.
Not sure about the germany reference, but I thing an order of magnitude increase in oil prices would make a very large difference in investment in alternate energy such as solar, nuclear and wind.
Im not discussing something extreme, like exhausting earth and moving for greener pastures. It is just one factor which will encourage investment in alternate energy and recycling.
The stuff I am discussing, I think is happening right now.Rise of the carbon neutral cityrenewable energy investment on risePeak waterForgetting all the scare stories, I think these sorts of things are all becoming more topical and I think interest will grow from here on out rather than fade away as a fad. Rather than a negative thing, to me it feels like technology is finally beginning to get funding and accelerate, for example new ideas for cheaper solar panels.
We are still living in a world where some people are born and die in the same general region world.Fixed that for ya...
But at the moment, our government should build the infrastructure.
Quote from: KelvinZero on 09/13/2012 02:26 pmInvestment in space is tiny compared investment on earth, so even a mediocre increase in solar energy for earth would dwarf investment in solar energy from the space budget.Many people are suffering from the delusion that the massive amounts of money that the German public spent on solar energy has significantly lowered the cost of solar energyQuoteNot sure about the germany reference, but I thing an order of magnitude increase in oil prices would make a very large difference in investment in alternate energy such as solar, nuclear and wind.This is wrong on couple levels. Oil is used for transportation. Solar and nuclear and wind isn't used in transportation [to any significant degree].Second thing, lower costs in oil makes doing anything [including making Solar and nuclear and wind] less expensive. Higher cost of oil- means higher costs of everything.
Investment in space is tiny compared investment on earth, so even a mediocre increase in solar energy for earth would dwarf investment in solar energy from the space budget.
Allow me to redraw my previous thoughts and to make a prediction:3D printing technology is expected to play a major role in manufacturing in near-medium term future, massivly lowering the production costs, especially where manual labor and complex assembly process is involved.By the time RLV technology matures, 3D manufacturing will allow building of complete parts and subassembly and later on, ultimately a complete rocket, from top to bottom.These two combined (reusability and lower production costs) will enable human spaceflight as we dream of today. Further more, using 3D printing, you will be able to manufacture on-site, as long as you have the energy and the right materials (let's call them 3D printer tonner), be it plastic, metal, glass and so on.I'm putting my hopes in 3D printing more than into Reusability. However, both technologies cumulated should enable a much brighter future.When: I dare to say 15-20yearsFeel free do debate on this.