Author Topic: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?  (Read 47191 times)

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #40 on: 09/11/2012 07:46 pm »
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.
I'd point out that, (as is being noted in the Griffin-Gripe thread under Space Policy :) ) given how government (and politics) dictate HOW a government "space program" is going to be run the idea of "government" EVER lowering the "price" of exploration is totally out of the question. It has to be because a "goal" orientated program, (as the majority of government programs must be in order to gather political funding and support) MUST be focused on the GOAL leaving considerations of "how" and "why" far, far below "secondary" levels.

We have seen this time and time again. Need to put a man on the Moon and return him safetly to the Earth in under a decade? Put three men and mostly aluminum foil lander on a big honking rocket and throw everything away except the men and the crew cabin. Tada! "Goal" achieved...

Is the Goal to build a spaceplane capable of going from Earth to LEO and then back again? Now here we have the "politics" come in because that isn't a "goal" so we have to add in getting "input" and "buy-in" from all the possible other users. (Which "politics" says is going to be "everybody" no matter what the reality actually is)
Hello Space Shuttle... Tada! "Goal" achieved so on to the next "goal"...
(What? New Shuttles? New Vehicles? Shuttle-II??? No way in hell, we said "goal-achieved" now go away...)

The "goal" isn't really the issue as much as the most expedient method that usually shakes out of the process in getting to that goal.

Put people on Mars and return them to the Earth as a "goal"? Remembering for a moment that colonization is NOT a "politically-acceptable" goal in and of itself, which method would make more "senes" for a government program?
A slow, incrimental build up of infrastructure and capability to make multiple trips to Mars and just about any other destination in the Solar System...

Or a BFR and mission which puts a couple of people on Mars and brings them back while throwing the majority of equipment away for a couple of flights?

One "enables" colonization the other does not...

On the other hand we must consider that while the government "program" would preclude direct investment in reducing costs, there is a somewhat indirect incentive in that once the government program tends to "demonstrate" a capability that allows "private" users to find profitable ventures.
In general this can be seen as the "trend" of colonization on Earth, however this hasn't happened in space. The "reason" being fairly obvious in that few (if any really) economic operations in space actually REQUIRE humans, other than those in support of Humans in space.

This is the "opposite" problem from our historic experiance on Earth where sending humans to do the job was always the "cheaper" alternative. (Until very recently at any rate) Add in how expensive access is and fact that the only "viable" Human presence required in space is in support of government Human Space Flight and pretty much the only "justification" left for advocating Human Colonization of Space is rhetorical.

Yet there is the situation as it stands. Support of Government Human Space Flight is currently the only "viable" economic driver for private space, yet because of the political factors which surround that type of specific, goal oriented program there is only going to be limited availability to cash in on that economic situation. And the strictly limited customer base means that when push comes to shove that availablity will be strictly politically controlled.
(I mean come on, is there ANYBODY here who seriously doubts that if it came down to a direct decision to support COTS OR SLS as an either/or choice what the political desicion would be?)

Eventually cost of access has to have SOME effect on the situation, and it will/does, but it begins to look more and more likely that the cost of "human" access will not be a deciding factor in the equation. Reusablity is all well and good but to truely "shine" there has to be a requirement for many more flights than are foreseen today. And for that to happen there has to be an economic driver.

55-years after Sputnik we're STILL looking for that "driver" for a real "Space Age" and until we find it, make it, or fake it, (at this point I'm willing to think in those terms :) ) we are going to continue to face the same problem over and over again.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline thydusk666

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • I see dead pixels in the sky!
  • Europe
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #41 on: 09/11/2012 07:51 pm »
When: Not in this century
The rest: I have no idea, probably if there will be some pro-science dictatorship in some country they could start own colony
Interesting idea!
If such a genius form of dictatorship will ever exist, it would probably guarantee the most advanced nation on Earth. And way beyond.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2012 07:56 pm by thydusk666 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #42 on: 09/11/2012 08:23 pm »
When: Not in this century
The rest: I have no idea, probably if there will be some pro-science dictatorship in some country they could start own colony
Interesting idea!
If such a genius form of dictatorship will ever exist, it would probably guarantee the most advanced nation on Earth. And way beyond.
The Soviet Union was sort of such a dictatorship, though they were pretty poor the whole time (and still kind of are). They worshipped science and communism (which they thought were kind of one and the same... there are all sorts of weird theories about communism that people studied as if it was a sort of exact science...). They thought communism and science would conquer everything (this is, according to some people, why Lenin was preserved... they thought science/communism would advance enough to revive him!), including the stars. Early on during the beginning of the Soviet Union, a lot of Soviet science fiction was very, very supportive of the idea, that it was essentially inevitable. This is partly why the Soviets were so gung-ho about space exploration. The Russians still have this ingrained in their culture.

And arguably, we wouldn't have been motivated to do space exploration ourselves if the Soviets didn't do it first, so a pro-science (somewhat weird idea of science, granted) dictatorship is exactly how space exploration started in the first place.

It might eventually happen again with China (who are much wealthier and probably at least as capable industrially as the Soviets), but they don't have quite as great of a love-affair with space travel that the Soviets had. China is more engineering-oriented (and mercantilist). (This isn't to say China doesn't have her own problems...)
« Last Edit: 09/11/2012 08:24 pm by Robotbeat »
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 gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #43 on: 09/11/2012 09:42 pm »

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


ISS 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.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2012 09:46 pm by gbaikie »

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #44 on: 09/11/2012 10:34 pm »
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:

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.

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.

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, powersats, scientific endeavors of searching for ET life or who knows ) will probably get you to your end goal of a permanent human settlement faster than trying to build the case for colonization directly - for a multitude of practical reasons.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Andrew_W

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 754
  • Rotorua, New Zealand
    • Profiles of our future in space
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #45 on: 09/11/2012 11:14 pm »

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


ISS 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.
I confess that in 1901 I said to my brother Orville that man would not fly for fifty years.
Wilbur Wright

Offline Andrew_W

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 754
  • Rotorua, New Zealand
    • Profiles of our future in space
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why?
« Reply #46 on: 09/11/2012 11:50 pm »
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.
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.


Having square rig didn't stop Napoleonic era ships sailing up wind.
I confess that in 1901 I said to my brother Orville that man would not fly for fifty years.
Wilbur Wright

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why?
« Reply #47 on: 09/12/2012 12:23 am »
Having square rig didn't stop Napoleonic era ships sailing up wind.
Don't confuse the man with facts, while he is armed with his high school maths. Nevermind the long history of sailing, or the very fact that Columbus sailed to New World in square-rigged ships.
This entire argument is so ridiculous ( not to mention off topic ) that its not worth further debate here, let him do some basic research or even practice sailing and maybe redact his posting.
« Last Edit: 09/12/2012 12:23 am by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #48 on: 09/12/2012 03:24 am »
Quote
Colonization:  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.

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #49 on: 09/12/2012 06:10 am »

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


ISS 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.

Yes that could be one way to see it. But people that go into space may not favor such a life.
So rather than individuals staying someplace all there lives, or even for decades, I instead define a presence of human activity as definition of colony.
Or people in our civilization, tend to move around more then they use to, they buy new house in similar area or they move to different cites and regions. If you only counted human population as those people staying their whole life in one small region- humans which are "colonizing" earth would significant less they people living on Earth.

"American home owners sell and move, on average, every five to seven years. Why do home owners move? People who have lived in the same home for the past 30 years have a hard time understanding this phenomena. They are shocked that people move so often, but I know one thing for certain: Their day to sell and move will come as well.

Here are the top 15 reasons why people sell and move: "
http://homebuying.about.com/od/sellingahouse/qt/0207WhyMove.htm

So rather than revert to feudal society, it seems people living in space could significantly increase this modern tendency.

Earthlings vs Spacers:
Earthlings are stuck in a deep gravity well. Earthlings have finite amount of cheap energy. Earthling have long tradition of traveling rather slowly- below the speed of 1000 mph. Whereas Lunatics and Martians may be more accustomed to traveling over 1000 mph.
And the idea of having just one home, and staying there, might appear to them as an odd or primitive idea.
A Lunatic who travels similar to an Earthling frequent flier would tend to see little difference between going somewhere else on lunar surface [long distance trip] and leaving the Moon.

One reason to leave earth, rather humans remaining only on Earth hundreds of centuries into the future, is Space has the potential of cheap energy. Anywhere on the lunar surface has twice the solar energy as anywhere on Earth. Free space has 4 or more times the solar energy as anywhere on earth. And if you want closer to sun, one gets more solar energy. Mars distance with it thin atmosphere gets about same solar energy as people do on Earth- or more solar energy than any people living in the UK or Germany. Trivia: German government has spend about 100 billions dollar subsidizing the weird concept that Germans should use solar panels in order to get electrical energy.

Some people have argued that humans will not go to other planets to live and instead live in L-5 types colonies. But I see going into space as
having more choices. Or going into space is expensive now, but if we go into space, it will become less expensive. So Earth will still have a deep gravity well but getting out of it will cost less. And obviously the moon or Mars with their smaller gravity well will be more easy then leaving Earth.
Or if someone wants to leave Earth, why if they living on Mars, wouldn't they want to leave Mars? So don't see us exchanging being trapped by Earth gravity and being replaced by being trapped by a Mars gravity well. Instead Mars will be easier to leave than Earth.
The only preventing this is if living in space the cost of energy was higher than on Earth. Which it is at the moment, but that only applies to situation where we not making rocket fuel on such places as the Moon and Mars

So a question one could ask is what the soonest we could have electrical energy and water to make into rocket, which is around the same cost in space as on Earth?
I think that could be possible within 50 years [starting from the time when rocket fuel is first sold in space at market price].
And possible because market forces [free market and competition] will drive down costs.
So rocket fuel at thousand times the price of earth is a good deal at the present. But could get to only 100 times the price of earth within a short period time (about a decade). At 100 times earth prices, you "are giving it away". Or the rocket fuel cost is an insignificant cost- it's like on earth- the cost of rocket fuel on earth has nothing to do with cost of launching a rockets- it's insignificant. But just because "you are giving it away" at dirt cheap price of only 100 times earth prices, does not mean it can't get even cheaper. Nor is there anything stopping rocket fuel in space from becoming cheaper than rocket fuel on earth surface.
But the biggest and most significant cost reduction will not be when it's less than cost on earth, but rather when it's only 1000 times the price on earth.
When there is more demand for rocket fuel in space, then you can get rocket for less the 100 times it's cost on earth. Whereas at 1000 or more what paying on earth, such a large demand is not needed for this price- you need make it as cheap as possible and always trying to get more of market, and get in position where one can deliver more product, if a significant increase in demand is in the near future.

« Last Edit: 09/12/2012 06:17 am by gbaikie »

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: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #50 on: 09/12/2012 07:33 pm »
We are still living in a world where some people are born and die in the same general region world.

Fixed that for ya...

Quote from: Savuporo
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, ...

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.  I quite agree that tourism and resource exploitation can be economic drivers up to a point.  But at the moment, our government should build the infrastructure.

You know.  What Mr. O. said in the speech:  "You didn't build that infrastructure."
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #51 on: 09/13/2012 01:24 am »
Quote
Colonization:  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.

I think SpaceX and other companies are flying cargo and crew to ISS, one get more science happening at ISS.
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 usage
on Earth. And lunar settlements may lead to different technology which also may of use on Earth.
It seems the main driver to get to settlements in space would the lack of dumbness.
But assuming the continuation of being stupid, the other element which could lead to space settlements is the suborbital market which we could start seeing within a few years.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #52 on: 09/13/2012 02:01 am »
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.
Personally, i wouldn't have a problem with it either, but i'm sure you could come up with plenty of good reasons why, for example, a president of the US would have a problem announcing space colonization as part of his agenda. And its much more than just the so called "giggle factor".

The problems would have to do with local and global politics, individual and mass psychology, historical connotations carried with the term colonization, the value proposition for the "motherland" and its people and so on.

Even if you actually were building towards the exact same goal, say a permanently manned lunar base with substantial population, stating that you are building it for "economic development of space" rather than "colonization of space" would go down much better with general public.
« Last Edit: 09/13/2012 02:05 am by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #53 on: 09/13/2012 02:26 pm »
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 usage
on 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 city
renewable energy investment on rise
Peak water
Forgetting 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.

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #54 on: 09/13/2012 07:15 pm »
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 usage
on 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.
Yes, we are spending a lot more money on solar energy on Earth than compared what we spending on solar power in space. Or more money than NASA entire budget, more money than total of all the world's space agencies including US military space [which more than NASA's budget]. And you also throw in every dollar spend related satellite market- and still less money.
If you then had lunar settlement one also be spending more money on earth relate solar energy than it's entire cost lunar settlement and all other space related activity.
Keep in mind some people think doing things in space is expensive- Germany could established lunar colony for less cost than it's already spent on solar energy- and couple lunar colonies or Martian colony if count what going to spend in total.
Germany is one of the worse places on Earth to harvest solar energy and:
"Germany is one of the world's top photovoltaics (PV) installers, with a solar PV capacity as of 2011 of almost 25 gigawatts"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany

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 energy- this is incorrect.
Even if the hundreds billions of dollars spent had lower the price of a solar panel [a doubtful proposition] that is a small portion of the total costs.

Quote
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.

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.

If were to develop space, it could lead to new technology. We could have "hybrid" rockets as one example. Or we could develop technology of partially boosting a rockets using electrical power [Mag Lev boost assist]. Such a "hybrid" could probably cut costs and therefore be more practical than "hybrid cars"- another huge waste of money.

Quote
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.
Well, hybrid cars probably encourage recycling batteries- at least it will make a large potential market of used batteries of a certain type.
But the only thing encouraging alternative energy is government subsidies and forcing electrical comsumers to pay a higher cost for electrical energy.
" “This is a mechanism with a high degree of market intervention, by setting tariffs artificially high and making users shoulder the cost,” said Masami Hasegawa, senior manager of the environmental policy bureau of Keidanren, the most powerful Japanese business lobby, which counts Toyota Motor and Nippon Steel as members. “We question the effectiveness of such a scheme.”

Utilities will pay ¥42, or about 53 cents, per kilowatt-hour for 20 years to solar power producers, almost twice the rate in Germany, the world’s biggest market by number of installations. The solar tariff was among incentive rates for clean energy announced Monday by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/business/global/japan-poised-to-become-second-biggest-market-for-solar-power.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www

Quote
The stuff I am discussing, I think is happening right now.
Rise of the carbon neutral city
renewable energy investment on rise
Peak water
Forgetting 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.

One thing about a space program such as NASA, they keep track [somewhat] of the costs that citizens are paying. The amount money spent on alternative energy, global is staggering, and people are not aware of these costs. And the fact there are many hidden costs, is not an accident, as much as a plan. The whole effort is to force consumers to pay for it.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #55 on: 09/13/2012 08:46 pm »
We are still living in a world where some people are born and die in the same general region world.

Fixed that for ya...
Actually he had it right, (though I get YOUR point just the same) but more to the point we still have people who are born, live their entire lives and die all within a few dozen miles of the spot they were born...

Quote
But at the moment, our government should build the infrastructure.
But the "government" doesn't want to, and in fact despite "declaring" that colonization IS supposedly the "goal" of our space program they have consistantly gone out of their way to AVOID doing anything towards achieving the goal....

So how do we change that? Or can we?

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #56 on: 09/13/2012 10:40 pm »

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.
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 energy

Quote
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.

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.


This just points out that developing new technology is very expensive, and that oil has many uses that permeate our society. Sure, even if the cost of petroleum increased a thousand fold we could not drop it over night. We need to develop solutions for lubricants and plastics as well. Solutions exist, such a bio-oil, but they will cost more than oil today. Sure, governments are using things like incentives to encourage development in technologies that businesses would by themselves never begin because payoffs might be decades away.

The examples you make simply underline how petroleum strangles our investment in alternative technologies that we need in order to colonize planets without petroleum and free oxygen.

Besides, petroleum and free oxygen are a product of solar power :)
« Last Edit: 09/14/2012 03:43 am by KelvinZero »

Offline thydusk666

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • I see dead pixels in the sky!
  • Europe
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #57 on: 09/14/2012 08:27 am »
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 15-20years

Feel free do debate on this.

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #58 on: 09/14/2012 09:45 am »
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 15-20years

Feel free do debate on this.

It seems if one had such technology the main cost saving would occur in regards to fabrication of parts on the Moon [or Mars or anywhere in space] rather than in making rockets to leave Earth.
It would nice if such technology were available and it would transform many aspects on Earth.
But I don't see waiting for it to occur making any sense, and one doesn't need "space related funding" to make it occur. As there much market need for it in other markets.
And what you essentially describing is nano technology.

It's possible that such things are possible within 20 years, but fusion was suppose to be possible within 20-30 year, more than 40 years ago. And it's possible that one encounters various unknown problems implementing such things.
But it's possible it will turn out to be a surer path then continuing what NASA has been doing for last 50 years.

But in the context of US spending about 20 billion on NASA, and it thousands of employees, it seems a better course is for NASA to begin getting serious about exploring space [particularly, the moon in regards to finding minable deposits of lunar water].

Perhaps such short horizons on developing such 3D printing would be an argument against spending 15 years to make some rocket, but there other arguments to such an idea.

The simple fact is we haven't needed new technology in order to open the space frontier, and there has been no advantage in delaying doing this for last 10 or 20 or 30 years and we will not benefit if we wait another 10 to 15 years- though because incompetent leadership and bureaucratic inertia we may be waiting another 10 or 50 years.
So perhaps rather NASA doing what it should be doing, we will end up actually needing to wait for such technology as 3D printing to be developed.
Then I guess "garage built rockets" could lead the way to opening up space.


Offline Joel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Wisconsin
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #59 on: 09/14/2012 02:30 pm »
I simply don't believe that there are that many people who would really want to move to Mars. Personally, I think I'd like to see at least a couple of Martian craters turned into giant greenhouses and good communications with Earth before even considering it. The place is cold and barren.

No, the logical destination for human space flight is the Moon and the economical driving force would be space tourism.

Looking forward to booking a room at the Lunar Hilton:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120712-where-is-hiltons-lunar-hotel
« Last Edit: 09/14/2012 02:35 pm by Joel »

Tags:
 

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