Author Topic: Skepticism about space colonization  (Read 26112 times)

Online KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3572
  • Liked: 488
  • Likes Given: 125
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #320 on: 09/28/2017 10:42 PM »

(1) You are aware that for the US to go to Mars ISS within the NASA budget ISS will have to be cancelled?

(2) Pity Trump cancelled ARM, isn't it?

Quote from: KelvinZero
Not all approaches require a perpetually funded outpost.
(2.a) Master everything without leaving home (will take as long as it takes):
 * Master mars bases on earth.
 * Solve reduced gravity health issues in LEO. This might involve a mars gravity space station.
 * Some prospecting information must be gathered from mars (or Ceres, wherever), perhaps robotically.
(2.b) Finally you can take the risk to go to mars with a known tonnage and fixed budget to complete colonisation.

(3) So how does this reduce non fanbois's skepicism about space settlement?

I added (1)(2)(3)

re:(1) First to clarify, I was talking about a DSH in high lunar orbit, not directly Mars related.

ISS to me is not so much about the few hundreds of tons in orbit. All the infrastructure on earth is more important, and the ISS lobbies that fight for commercial crew and at least some of the HSF budget to make it to in-space technology development.

I expect the transfer to be gradual, and for there to always be a LEO presence.

re:(2) No this does not really worry me. ARM was always a tiny project not remotely comparable to moon, mars or even a DSH. ARM was fought against because it did not justify SLS. If the SLS lobby got an SLS-based DSH they would likely instantly resurrect it because it would cost a tiny pittance and give the DSH crew a purpose beyond twiddling their thumbs and soaking up radiation.

re:(3) this needs context. I mentioned a few cases above: Apollo-level government enthusiasm, a million $200k passengers..

Im enthusiastic about space colonisation but not concerned with either of those.

I really want to see Elon Musk move us into an age of reusable rockets, with multiple competitors. That is the concrete thing he is doing. I am also enthusiastic about "mars base on earth" projects like the one you linked to. There is no certain path to colonisation but there is lots of worthwhile progress happening all the time, and it does not even need the driver of an interest in space to keep progressing.



Offline tdperk

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 243
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #321 on: 09/30/2017 12:30 PM »
There is a final option, and that is colonisation without convincing anyone. A partial example would be Elon Musk creating a commercial success of his ITS around earth, paying for it's own development and providing enough to fund an outpost just because he wants to.
That's not actually settlement.

That's having a group of paid SX employees stay somewhere.

If you have to do that then I'd suggest all arguments to get settlers to go to Mars and settle have failed.

And if they are volunteers and the place is 99% or so self sufficient, then those arguments have succeeded spectacularly.

Your presupposition there must be broad multi-party buy in has then failed spectacularly.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6186
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 826
  • Likes Given: 5146
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #322 on: 09/30/2017 09:47 PM »
That's not actually settlement.

That's having a group of paid SX employees stay somewhere.

If you have to do that then I'd suggest all arguments to get settlers to go to Mars and settle have failed.

And if they are volunteers and the place is 99% or so self sufficient, then those arguments have succeeded spectacularly. 
You do get that what you've outlined is completely different to what the OP described, right?

They are the same in the same way that if I added hot water to tea I'd be drinking tea, not coffee.

IOW if you really could get enough people to volunteer and the settlement was big enough (and size, or critical mass for settlement really does matter here) for near complete self sufficiency then you would have gotten "multi-party buy in" already.
Quote from: tdperk
Your presupposition there must be broad multi-party buy in has then failed spectacularly.
Inside your head perhaps.

I can certainly see why some people liken some space settlement advocates to being religious fanatics.

IIRC most places that have been settled by such people tend to get depopulated quite quickly, as they either don't have, or can't acquire the skills necessary to survive in those environments, believing "My $Deity$ will provide."  when said $deity$ fails to deliver it's game over.  :(

I'll say it again.  I want settlement to succeed. That starts by being able to answer reasonable questions asked by ordinary people without hand waving, or mysticism.

What I consider quite despicable is the almost non existent work done on fetal and child growth in sub normal gravity. The long term survival of a settlement where people cannot reproduce is essentially zero. It is a complete waste of resources.

Of course if you're just planning to build a large house to retire to then this is of no consequence.
« Last Edit: 09/30/2017 10:01 PM by john smith 19 »
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4886
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #323 on: 09/30/2017 10:28 PM »
Can people develop a self sustaining civilization?

Will enough people want to live in such a civilization?

These are two separate questions, don't confuse the two, John.
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 tdperk

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 243
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #324 on: 10/01/2017 12:43 AM »
That's not actually settlement.

That's having a group of paid SX employees stay somewhere.

If you have to do that then I'd suggest all arguments to get settlers to go to Mars and settle have failed.

And if they are volunteers and the place is 99% or so self sufficient, then those arguments have succeeded spectacularly. 
You do get that what you've outlined is completely different to what the OP described, right?

How is it different?


They are the same in the same way that if I added hot water to tea I'd be drinking tea, not coffee.

IOW if you really could get enough people to volunteer and the settlement was big enough (and size, or critical mass for settlement really does matter here) for near complete self sufficiency then you would have gotten "multi-party buy in" already.
Quote from: tdperk
Your presupposition there must be broad multi-party buy in has then failed spectacularly.
Inside your head perhaps.

I can certainly see why some people liken some space settlement advocates to being religious fanatics.

IIRC most places that have been settled by such people tend to get depopulated quite quickly, as they either don't have, or can't acquire the skills necessary to survive in those environments, believing "My $Deity$ will provide."  when said $deity$ fails to deliver it's game over.  :(

I'll say it again.  I want settlement to succeed. That starts by being able to answer reasonable questions asked by ordinary people without hand waving, or mysticism.

What I consider quite despicable is the almost non existent work done on fetal and child growth in sub normal gravity. The long term survival of a settlement where people cannot reproduce is essentially zero. It is a complete waste of resources.

Of course if you're just planning to build a large house to retire to then this is of no consequence.


OT bit stricken.

And there is no handwaving or mysticism to this statement--if a settlement of SpaceX employees is 99% self sufficient or so, the settlement has succeeded.  If it is self sufficient, they aren't losing population, they aren't spiraling down a path of irreplaceable losses of any resources.  They have enough tourism dollars coming in or exports going out, that they can buy what they need and can't make.  There is noting in it to imply a penurious religious cult compound either.  It is rather like living in a mall--just with a lot of "service corridors".

To indulge the bit about fetal development, sure, it will have to be done sometime.  It hasn't happened for 50 years or more but does need to happen.  I have no reason to think it won't sometime in the next 10.  I also have no reason to think there will be any problem with primate or really any animal development in so much as a Mars normal gravity field.  I don't think you do either.

BTW, the OP was asking why don't people move to Antarctica, and what does that imply for settling off planet with complete independence?  Answer, because international treaties which are liable to be enforced prohibit territory there, and so likely any private property there as well.  We are fortunately better off in that regard off planet.  If a settlement is largely independent, but does trade for things it has no local source of, this does not mean they cannot be a backup population.  It means if they are cut-off the local sources they have not found economic to develop suddenly assume a higher priority to be developed.
« Last Edit: 10/01/2017 12:52 AM by tdperk »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6186
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 826
  • Likes Given: 5146
Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #325 on: 10/01/2017 11:19 AM »
Can people develop a self sustaining civilization?
We appear to be living in one already so I'd say that question has already been answered.
That means a model already exists that can be studied to do this.
Quote from: Robotbeat
Will enough people want to live in such a civilization?
Depends on what that civilization offers, and of course who it's being offered to.
Quote from: Robotbeat
These are two separate questions, don't confuse the two, John.
I never have.
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Skepticism about space colonization
« Reply #326 on: 10/01/2017 05:19 PM »
Cool. Glad you all came to a broad agreement! ;D

Tired thread is tired. Locked.

Tags: