Author Topic: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?  (Read 47199 times)

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
Colonization:  Where, when, who, what, why, and how?

[How, being a pesky detail pointed out by Jim Davis below...]

A search on this forum, using the words "colony colonies colonization", and the terms "match any word", and "search in topic subject only" and "show earliest threads first", results in a good number of hits.  For me this is not surprising, since colonization is the appropriate end game of the law calling for a permanent human presence in space.

YMMV, as always.

As we know, NASA isn't currently in the business of enabling colonization; some hold fervently that it shouldn't be in that business, rather that an NGO should make the attempt.  There are well known private efforts to both colonize Mars, as well as to bring back minerals from asteroids, possibly as an industrial approach, paving the way for a colonization effort.

Some recent observations:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26163.msg951411#msg951411

Quote from: Jim
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 did
2.  The off earth colonies will have their own gov't
3.  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".

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26163.msg951424#msg951424

Quote from: Martijn
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?

Some older observations:

"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. ... 

My earliest public outline of an approach:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17652.msg428814#msg428814

Quote from: JF
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...

A partial list of the first page of that search I mentioned above, for convenience:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29245.msg921624#msg921624

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29217.msg920258#msg920258

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29070.msg910808#msg910808

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29074.msg910971#msg910971

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26834.msg809021#msg809021

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27819.msg852683#msg852683

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18503.msg465985#msg465985

Part of my earlier narrative:

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.

So the topic is: Colonization:  Where, when, who, what, and why?  Admitting that some will hold the opinion "No-way, No-how".
« Last Edit: 09/10/2012 08:45 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline IRobot

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Portugal & Germany
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why?
« Reply #1 on: 09/09/2012 05:54 pm »
When?
As much as I like Elon Musk, colonization will not happen before we come up with something cheaper and more reliable than chemical propulsion.

Where?
Moon L1

Why?
Stagnant economy due to over competitiveness. We are already feeling it. May peak before 2050.

Who?
Private companies will dominate, not governments. Similar to oil drilling platforms, highly payed workers that can sustain long term confinement.

What?
Mining, zero G factories, tourism, old people retirement (good for the heart and limbs)

Offline Quindar Beep

  • Member
  • Posts: 46
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why?
« Reply #2 on: 09/09/2012 07:53 pm »
I maintain that we won't see permanent colonies in our solar system before we see the colonization of Antarctica. The most-southerly continent has a number of advantages over Mars or the Moon:

- There's breathable air.
- There's drinkable water right outside the door, just bring a bucket and apply some heat.
- The cost of getting there is much lower.

The current treaty putting claims in abeyance elapses in 2048. If we get a gold rush of settlers into Antarctica after that, then I think we'll see off-world colonies some time later. But if the world situation at the time is sufficiently prosperous to allow us to leave its resources frozen in the ice, then there'll be no economic pressure to move off-world either.
« Last Edit: 09/09/2012 07:54 pm by Quindar Beep »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why?
« Reply #3 on: 09/09/2012 08:27 pm »
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?

And if you are talking about beyond Leo. We already have such technologies in very widespread commercial use.

There are also ways of combining chemical propulsion to suborbital then capturing with a non-chemical propelled rotating tether. (with existing, non-exotic materials)

So why the hate of chemical? The problem is the throwing away of the vehicle, not what propellant it uses (directly).
« Last Edit: 09/09/2012 08:28 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

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why?
« Reply #4 on: 09/09/2012 08:39 pm »
As much as I like Elon Musk, colonization will not happen before we come up with something cheaper and more reliable than chemical propulsion.

For launch or for in-space transport? I don't think your assertion is true for the former, and only partially true for the latter. We don't really need, but probably do want something with higher Isp than chemical propulsion, but not as a replacement, but in addition to chemical propulsion. And we already have it too: solar electric propulsion. Right now only for small or easily divisble payloads such as propellant, but that conveniently makes up the bulk of IMLEO.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why?
« Reply #5 on: 09/10/2012 11:31 am »
Where: the usual places, Moon, Mars, asteroids.

When: unless there is a remarkable unforeseen change, not before the end of this century. (I'm not ruling out an unforeseen change by definition of course: for example, the fall of the Soviet Union was not expected even 10 years before it happened.) This doesn't rule out the establishment of bases on other Solar System bodies much earlier.

Who: private groups and individuals with very large financial backing.

What: I'll pass on that, too many possibilities.

Why: The long term survival of intelligent life in the Solar System and beyond would be my reason. The settlers would probably have many different reasons.
Douglas Clark

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why?
« Reply #6 on: 09/10/2012 02:31 pm »
Where, when?

Moon, Mars, NEAs. Chemical fuel can get people to these places in the next 50-100 years.

Who?

Anybody that has enough funding to make it work. This might mean collaborations of billionaires or it could mean changing the laws of a country to pour public money into the pursuit.

What?

A space colony is somewhere people can live, have families, build stuff and create economic opportunities beyond the earth. The less dependency on Earth the better, getting mass to LEO will always be expensive.

Why?

This planet is getting smaller every day. It's been explored all the way around. Every piece of land has been claimed by one country or another either for it's resources or to protect it's natural wilderness.

If people want to form new nations it must be done off world. I think we'll be waiting a long time for any government to embrace space colonisation but they will play an important role in developing the hardware that will get people out there onto the frontier.

Economic output is always the defining benchmark over the long term. They will all eventually fail if they can't produce enough to survive. Begging isn't gonna cut it, people will be left to die if they don't abandon doomed colonies.

Where will that "place to be" colony form at?

Wherever the resources are more easily accessed. On Mars there is water on the surface but you have a big gravity well and thin atmosphere in your way. Need to look around a bit more I think.

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, and why?
« Reply #7 on: 09/10/2012 03:23 pm »
It seems to me that governments will never push for colonization. It will always be too expensive and too many will argue against it. So I'm moving my hopes to the private industry. Las Vegas-kind of tourism in the Inner Solar System is going to be possible.

Where: first LEO, Moon then NEA, Mars

When: 2030-2050's. When there will be a huge revenue potential. Space will become much more financially viable when re-usability will be as common as here on Earth; when we will stop discarding expensive equipment as space junk.
Possibly when nuclear fusion technology matures (ITER, 2030's+) and the need of He3 will drive the need of Moon mining.

Who: Private companies, for sure. Earnings will be the biggest (and possibly the only) drive. We are not in shortage of "greedy" companies, so I'm confident that as soon as it's worth it, the Space rush will start.

What: Mining, construction, tourism, fuel production, food production, transport systems, maintenance... A whole set of industries, like here on Earth.

Why: $$$$! As much as we like to think, nobody will invest a dime (except for a handful of governments doing space exploration and research) as long as there's no investment return. The Cold War is over, there's no Space Race anymore. Governments are whining about financial crisis and are visibly delaying any projects.

So, to conclude, here's my optimistic scenario: by 2030's we'll have a much cheaper, faster and reliable launch system (maybe SpaceX, Armadillo or others). That will allow for Moon ISRU, a permanent Lunar outpost and fuel depots/gateways to be much cheaper. Tourism and many other industries will follow shortly. There's plenty of $$$ here on Earth just waiting to be spent by potential tourists.
By that time the Earth population will get to ~10Billion. Enough customers, if you ask me :)

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why?
« Reply #8 on: 09/10/2012 06:05 pm »
So 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.

Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

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, and why?
« Reply #9 on: 09/10/2012 07:51 pm »
So 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.

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?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why?
« Reply #10 on: 09/10/2012 08:20 pm »
There is quite a continuum between bases and full-on, independent colonies. A base could be only part-time, could be full-time with 3-4 year rotations, could be decade-long rotations, then some of the researchers/technicians could just decide not to leave. All these options could be done with the same base structure, and the difference between them is merely how long people decide to stay and how often supplies are sent. And very likely, the very first base will use ISRU of some sort. Power will be produced in-situ, which is more than you can say for Antarctica research bases (which are usually powered by diesel... though of course oxygen is simply ISRU produced in antarctica...). Water, air, power, and probably rocket propellant, fuel for rovers (could be just electricity), and maybe even some food would likely be ISRU produced at the very first Mars base. And perhaps even the first Mars surface mission...


And remember, the lowest delta-v budget mission is also a long-stay mission, which means you need to stay on the surface for about a couple years... at which point you practically have some sort of base already, though not all the infrastructure needed necessarily.

And, such a base would already need some tools for fixing stuff, perhaps even a small machine shop (large ocean-going ships, especially battleships and large nuclear subs, etc, often are equipped with machine shop), perhaps even a small 3d printer. You already have many of the tools needed for making stuff last a long time. And, with the capability to melt and cast iron (using the quite plentiful meteoric iron which is already refined for you), you can produce new tools and equipment and even structures (and you can make cast iron parts for a forge using the meteoric iron, etc, with which you can produce pressure vessels and thus the capability to expand, etc... though there are a LOT of details missing, there). You'd still receive shipments from Earth, of course... it takes a lot of infrastructure (or tech development...) to produce high quality materials, though if you can produce sugar, you can ferment it into lactic acid and catalyze that into useful plastic. But even so, there are all sorts of stuff you'd want to get from Earth.

But at what point does it become a colony? Only once it becomes 100% self-sufficient? In that definition, almost nowhere on Earth nowadays would fit that description... We wouldn't claim America isn't colonized just because it trades a lot with Europe and Asia.
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 Jim Davis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why?
« Reply #11 on: 09/10/2012 08:21 pm »
Colonization:  Where, when, who, what, and why?

John, I don't want to make too much of what was clearly intended to be an attention getting title but surely the question of "how" is more important than where, when, who, what, and why?

Are you implicitly assuming "how" is a solved problem or one that is well on the way to solution?

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 #12 on: 09/10/2012 08:45 pm »
Pesky detail.  Edited OP.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline scienceguy

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 836
  • Lethbridge, Alberta
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 279
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #13 on: 09/10/2012 09:03 pm »
Where? Mars.

How? With a space elevator, as soon as someone comes up with carbon nanotubes.

By the way, I have been researching nanotubes myself...
e^(pi*i) = -1

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why?
« Reply #14 on: 09/10/2012 09:11 pm »
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'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.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline IRobot

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Portugal & Germany
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why?
« Reply #15 on: 09/10/2012 09:21 pm »
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).
I see SpaceX attempts to recover stages. They are doing exciting stuff, it might just cut price per Kg, but as a rule of engineering, KISS!

Portuguese Kings would send 2-3 ships to explore new lands in the 15th and 16th century. One year after, the expedition would have 17-30 ships! 30 years after, a steady stream of colonist would follow. 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.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why?
« Reply #16 on: 09/10/2012 09:50 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.
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 #17 on: 09/10/2012 10:53 pm »
Where:
Initially in LEO, then Lunar poles, with support facilities between, those support facilities will outgrow LEO and Lunar destinations to become the true colonies.
 
when:
Hundreds of tourists/yr to LEO (2030)-> Hotels in orbit (2040)-> increased numbers push costs/hd down -> the rich adventure tourist get board with LEO and see the Moon (2045) as the REAL adventure, substantial infrastructure is built in space to support tourism, colonization is just the people living there, cooking the meals and keeping the power and water running.

who:
Private capital, airlines, hotel chains, aerospace. Eventually all the organizations, firms and occupations in your typical 2050 town.

why:
Tourism is big business, but there will be stuff mined or made in space that'll sell on Earth. Our biggest resource is people, and a lot of our brightest and most resourceful people will end up living in space, they'll create high value products - electronics, chemicals, medical systems and treatments.

How:
Stratolaunch with a fully reusable passenger carrying upper stage (may as well call it a spaceplane), then Stratolaunch with a fully reusable upper stage to tether, then far larger air launch systems to tether.
« Last Edit: 09/10/2012 11:07 pm by Andrew_W »
I confess that in 1901 I said to my brother Orville that man would not fly for fifty years.
Wilbur Wright

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, and why?
« Reply #18 on: 09/10/2012 11:00 pm »
 
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'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!"

There is a clear conceptual difference with colonization off planet.  Mankind (and daughterkind) will have to make an admission that we have choice and free will.  Even tho I'm not a millionaire, I continue to voice the certainty that we have these things, and that the money we might have is not some sort of indictment that our goals and wills may be misplaced.   That is, if you don't mind me getting a mite philosophical.

Don't get the silly part, still.  Without further clarification, MSL must be considered "silly", given the hunger, ignorance and poverty back home.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why?
« Reply #19 on: 09/10/2012 11:08 pm »
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.
Then let me offer you this "We shall go to the moon/mars/uranus for the natives and beautiful beaches!". Good luck getting widespread support.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #20 on: 09/10/2012 11:21 pm »
I say first LEO,and the Moon then Mars and the asteroids.

It'll probably begin in 2020s to 2030s with the first permanent residents possibly being a combination of people who work in space and billionaire types.

Space hotel workers could very well be the first people who may choose to live in space if stations with AG are built.
« Last Edit: 09/10/2012 11:22 pm by Patchouli »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why?
« Reply #21 on: 09/10/2012 11:40 pm »
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).
I see SpaceX attempts to recover stages. They are doing exciting stuff, it might just cut price per Kg, but as a rule of engineering, KISS!

Portuguese Kings would send 2-3 ships to explore new lands in the 15th and 16th century. One year after, the expedition would have 17-30 ships! 30 years after, a steady stream of colonist would follow. 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.

So your argument is an analogy? That's fine, I was wondering if it was anything specific. I don't think SpaceX is the end-all, be-all of spaceflight. If they fail, that doesn't mean chemical rockets don't work. There are others, such as Blue Origin, which are taking a slightly different approach. I don't claim advances aren't necessary, I'm claiming we can use chemical propulsion to do so.

BTW, as others have spoken, the Vikings could travel upwind (by rowing and also, actually, by sailing a little against the wind), and they colonized Iceland (and Greenland) long before Columbus.
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 thydusk666

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • I see dead pixels in the sky!
  • Europe
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why?
« Reply #22 on: 09/10/2012 11:59 pm »
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.
Then let me offer you this "We shall go to the moon/mars/uranus for the natives and beautiful beaches!". Good luck getting widespread support.


Don't underestimate the potential of the tourism market.
If you manage to bring the tickets at reasonable prices, you will have troubles meeting the demand!

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why?
« Reply #23 on: 09/11/2012 12:02 am »
Don't underestimate the potential of the tourism market.
If you manage to bring the tickets at reasonable prices, you will have troubles meeting the demand!
Yes, colonizing moon with tourists is an entirely viable plan. Just don't tell them in the travel brochure.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

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, and why?
« Reply #24 on: 09/11/2012 12:21 am »
Don't underestimate the potential of the tourism market.
If you manage to bring the tickets at reasonable prices, you will have troubles meeting the demand!
Yes, colonizing moon with tourists is an entirely viable plan. Just don't tell them in the travel brochure.

Hah-Hah that's a good one :)
Colonization will follow naturally, I don't plan to trap them on the Moon from the first flight ;)

But once you have a constant flow of tourists (hundreds to thousands/year), with infrastructure and industry built around it, then you will begin to have permanent staff working there. It will take time, probably a few generations, for a such outpost to grow into a true colony. And it will.

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, and why?
« Reply #25 on: 09/11/2012 12:26 am »
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.

C'mon.  No one's saying that about the natives....
Then let me offer you this "We shall go to the moon/mars/uranus for the natives and beautiful beaches!". Good luck getting widespread support.

C'mon.  No one's saying that about the natives...
« Last Edit: 09/11/2012 12:26 am by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why?
« Reply #26 on: 09/11/2012 03:27 am »
But once you have a constant flow of tourists (hundreds to thousands/year), with infrastructure and industry built around it, then you will begin to have permanent staff working there.
Which is actually exactly the point i made above. Substitute tourism for mining ops, or any other activity that man might find useful or profitable at large in space, and some sort of settlement is likely to be a byproduct of that.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #27 on: 09/11/2012 05:08 am »
Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?

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, and it could be a failed colony, or it could colony to add to ISS, moves ISS to direction location, or a series ISS end and begin but are continuum. So ISS isn't a failed colony, yet and is one at the moment.
So where is LEO, when was decade ago, and etc. One could argue the Mir was start of LEO colony, which continue in form of ISS.

So I suppose the question where will next colony be and/or will ISS continue or instead become a failed colony.
Another related question is where will colony begin that is unlikely to become a failed colony- somewhere where colony remains and expands for thousands of years. Somewhere less dependent on a NASA continuing budget spent on it- which has been and could be fickle.

It seems to me that to have a colony beyond LEO, one needs way to make rocket fuel. And it seems to me the best place to start to make rocket fuel is mining lunar water. And that once one starts lunar mining operation, it will continue. It may go bankrupt, but this doesn't mean it can't continue- it means someone has loss some money and/or assets go to someone else. This assume mining is involves minable ore [water] and some other way mining is found that makes pointless to mine lunar water.
Warpdrive is invented or something.

It does seem possible that NASA could start human settlement on Mars, which continued in some fashion for thousands of years and that any lunar settlements start after this. But it seems if have Mars settlements, lunar settlement will begin shortly afterwards. Or Lunar settlement can have part of their market [export] Mars settlements.
It seems for Mars settlements be before lunar settlements, would require NASA to be a different a organization than it is today- not an organization that take more than decade to build a rocket.

I would like NASA to explore the Moon to determine if there is minable lunar water, and then stop exploring the Moon, shiftgears and send crew to Mars. If NASA was different organization it could manage to do this before any commercial lunar water miner got to the Moon. But like I say, NASA would have to be a different organization.

Who. If NASA doesn't go to the Moon, then the Chinese will go to the Moon- and Chinese won't be in a hurry to go to Mars. Though Chinese lunar water mining could enable or encourage the US to go to Mars.

What. Well, with Mars you have research type settlement, which will first need to make rocket fuel on Mars [other than research], and it will also need farming, and then other types of mining, etc.
With Moon, starts with rocket fuel. Allows tourism, lunar research- private and government e.g. Telescopes and labs- lunar samples studied on lunar surface and exported off surface. Mining things like iron and aluminum, glass, silicone to be used on lunar surface.
First exports of moon would be lunar samples, and rocket fuel.
Advanced kinds of stuff exported could be solar arrays. And perhaps nuclear fuel.
Why. Why not?
How. need to start more markets in space- first market probably should be rocket fuel.

More said: Why. Why not?
A common argument against going into space is that it's expensive to go into space. And sort a law written in stone.
JFK said "we do it because it is hard". Which could mean we do it because is is a challenge. Sort of like we climb a mountain because it is there.
So one call that a somewhat romantic notion. But one also see in terms of cold economics. We do something hard so that it will become easier.
A real simple example is climbing mount Everest. Once the mountain was climbed more people climb it and something 50 people do it a year these days.

So one could say the reason we should go into space is because it is expensive- not forgetting, we want to make it less expensive.
And there very good reasons why we should want getting into space less expensive.

There two main reasons getting into space is expensive. Both are related to fact that we live in a somewhat deep gravity well.
It's expensive to leave earth's gravity well.
And there is a limited market in space [though we have a satellite market].
Or it be could said to one reason, there simply isn't enough market.
Or if there a market for human labor in space which paid say 10 million per year, there would be no problem with getting into space.
100,000 people getting paid 10 million per year to work in space would be large a simplified market [not getting into details what they are doing].
But the two aspects are need enough rocket launches [enough market volume].
And need something worth doing in space- something which has a large enough market value.
Or simply CATS is not enough. One has the assumption that cheap launch cost of say $100 per lb or less it might allow some market to develop, such as SPS.
So idea is cheap launch only works because it suppose to encourage more markets in space.
But it's more likely driven the other way, more market in space will lower launch costs.
And this seems to me to be an already proven fact, namely I would contend that the satellite market has already lowered launch costs.
And what is needed is more market.
The satellite market wasn't caused or driven by lower launch costs- rather it was driven by the need of various satellites for various needs- a market demand.


So we go to space because it's expensive, is a reason to do it. Having going space being expensive is stopping us from doing many things. It's inhibiting our freedom. It's stopping us doing some big things, like get all the energy earthling need from space environment. Making it less expensive is like past efforts developing air travel or like making lots of cheap steel which enabled the industrial revolution.

So how is this done. The make getting to space cheaper one has to have capitalism/free markets/competition/free people.
But can be also include some form of socialism/marshal plan/government investment? I think some socialism might work, but problem enters when it's considered The Solution- when it's dominating everything. Government simply do not lower costs- look at any government. They run from idea of lower costs- it means lowering budgets- who wants that!! They turn everything upside down, and spend huge amounts of money in the name of lower costs. It's a hopeless case.
Government can do some stuff well, but to bring down costs you need the pros- you need private enterprise and competition.
If you are in hurry a government can burn money to cause people to move, it can be Adrenaline. And of course there is a problem with using Adrenaline- it's not the answer to life. But if space aliens are going to invade earth, I am all for socialistic solutions- let's kill some bugs!
But we have lots socialism/government spending- NASA getting around 20 billion a year, should enough to do the job. It needs to directed at doing the right things- explore for useful resources and constantly improve our ability to operate in space [fuel depots included in this].



« Last Edit: 09/11/2012 11:56 am by gbaikie »

Offline IRobot

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Portugal & Germany
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why?
« Reply #28 on: 09/11/2012 09:45 am »
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.

But if you want to pick on Leif Ericson, good, it strengths my point of view. He managed to reach the "new world" but without upwind sailing, charting and navigation skills, he could not reliably return to the same settlement over and over, therefore, no colonization.

Offline spaceStalker

  • Member
  • Posts: 91
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #29 on: 09/11/2012 12:23 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.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2012 12:24 pm by spaceStalker »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #30 on: 09/11/2012 12:42 pm »
Colonization, interesting concept… “So we talking of taking an inhabitable world and make it a habitable one and meanwhile taking a habitable one, Earth and do our best to make it inhabitable.” Perhaps we are the wrong species to consider propagating ourselves on other worlds…
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

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 #31 on: 09/11/2012 01:24 pm »
But once you have a constant flow of tourists (hundreds to thousands/year), with infrastructure and industry built around it, then you will begin to have permanent staff working there.
Which is actually exactly the point i made above. Substitute tourism for mining ops, or any other activity that man might find useful or profitable at large in space, and some sort of settlement is likely to be a byproduct of that.

Which point I do not dispute.  The idea and the historical precedence that colonization in historical times came about after an economic draw was created.  In the case of the New World, they initially applied the PRI model of today: There's gold in them thar "asteroids", so we shall cross the great ocean and help ourselves.  Eventually, in the case of Cortez and all, they found the gold; the economic draw had been created; colonization happened as a matter of necessity, since the mines needed management for one thing.  Soon after, indentured servants came over, drawn by the promise of land grants after their period of servitude, or at least economic freedom after servitude.  And here we sit.

Before that, in prehistoric times, colonization also happened.  As you suggest, it may not have been deliberate; perhaps nomadic tribes discovered a particularly fertile valley or some other desirable location, and never came back to the traditional lands.  In the case of islanders, perhaps some got blown off course, others island hopped, and so forth.  Clearly people have wanderlust even today, and many keep looking for the perfect place to settle down and establish "roots".

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.

Thinking a moment about "how" an interplanetary colonization effort should be undertaken:  The knee jerk reaction is to bring up the half century debate between RP-1/LOX or LH2/LOX.  Or the new knee jerk debate topic of SEP vs. chemical rocketry.  Which is fine, but rocketry is not the only aspect of "how" a colonization effort could be attempted.  The other aspect of "how" would be how such a large effort could be undertaken; with or without government, or some combination of private and governmental enterprise.

Under the "who" category, proponents of private enterprise are stacked up against the very few proponents of a government attempt.  I wonder if the East India Company model could be considered; a sort of public/private collaboration.  The East Luna Company?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

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 #32 on: 09/11/2012 01:31 pm »
Colonization, interesting concept… "So we talking of taking an inhabitable world and make it a habitable one and meanwhile taking a habitable one, Earth and do our best to make it inhabitable." Perhaps we are the wrong species to consider propagating ourselves on other worlds…

As an aside, well, yeah. 

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.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

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 #33 on: 09/11/2012 01:33 pm »
ISS is a space based laboratory.

It cannot be realistically considered anything other than that.  Sometimes you can save a lot of time by considering the assumptions before reading the argument.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why?
« Reply #34 on: 09/11/2012 02:18 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.
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 savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why?
« Reply #35 on: 09/11/2012 02:43 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.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2012 02:44 pm by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline IRobot

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Portugal & Germany
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why?
« Reply #36 on: 09/11/2012 02:52 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.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #37 on: 09/11/2012 03:15 pm »
I am sorry, but pretty much all what you just said is wrong and probably based off a 20th century high school textbook. I'll leave it to you to correct that.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

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 #38 on: 09/11/2012 06:49 pm »
Colonization, interesting concept… “So we talking of taking an inhabitable world and make it a habitable one and meanwhile taking a habitable one, Earth and do our best to make it inhabitable.” Perhaps we are the wrong species to consider propagating ourselves on other worlds…
Not sure who you're "quoteing" but I believe it's incorrect :) You seem to have missed the "un"-s

"So we're taking an UN-inhabitable world and make it a habitable one and meanwhile taking a habitable one, Earth and do our best to make it UN-inhabitable"

habitable/inhabitable = Means you can live there :)

As for the idea that "Perhaps we are the wrong species to consider propagating ourselves on other worlds" I can only say that as far as we KNOW we are the ONLY species currently capable OF "considering" it and what's more we appear to be the only one with the capability of doing so :)

Anti-humanism aside, (and yes I know well it's out there and thriving) perhaps we should consider that from our current knowledge and perspective that for all intents and purposes the REST of the "Universe" is DEAD and as the one and only KNOWN species with the aformentioned capabilities we might do well to consider that we actually have the power to change this situation. Forever.

Something to think about anyway :)

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 baddux

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 141
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #39 on: 09/11/2012 07:29 pm »
One thing you must keep in mind is that long before colonization is possible a visit to that place to be colonized is routine and boring, not cool. Going to Antarctica or crossing the Atlantic or flying in the air was cool and new 100 years ago but not anymore (cool and new for mankind I mean).

So if for example the moon would be colonized, before that an average person could easily afford to visit the moon, it would not be cool adventure anymore. So there still be a reason to establish the colony even though there is no "cool factor" anymore. So far there have not been colonies in antarctica, Middle of the Atlantic Ocean, bottom of the ocean or floating in the air, even though these would be technically and financially possible.

Back to the question:
Where: I think the first place to be colonized will be Mars because you cannot go there for short trip. When the mars travel happens it will be more or less start for a longer term presense.
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

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 »

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 #60 on: 09/14/2012 03:04 pm »
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.

I certainly agree in general about your observation regarding the political danger of succumbing to the "giggle factor".  For example, when Newt Gingrich mentioned a lunar colony as a 51st state, I think there is a reading where his could have been a deliberate mocking of the idea of colonization, perhaps to take that issue out of consideration in this election.  I am not above applying a cynical interpretation to the motives of our politicians.

A lunar base, perhaps starting with four occupants, and maybe growing to a dozen might be politically feasible.  It  would provide the underpinnings for creating the infrastructure for a cis-lunar economy, if tourism were allowed from the very beginning.  This would bring ordinary capital into the construction of the base.

There would also be the economic argument of selling propellant.  This would be dependent on developing the actual capability of manufacturing it on Luna, as well as delivering it to an EML-1 depot facility.

The political phrase "permanent human presence in space" would do double duty for the early stages of a colonization effort.  As to the "motherland", "fatherland", and all that "czarist" nomenclature, I wouldn't touch those phrases with a ten foot pole.

Of course, there's plenty still to learn about Luna, from a scientific viewpoint.  The political constituencies which argue that less is known about more distant destinations end up with only robotic missions.  From a viewpoint of inspiring an interest in the STEM technologies, it seems intuitively clear that having an opportunity to actually travel oneself would be far more inspiring than to merely send a droid.

Different international partners, and consortia of universities could sponsor individual "wings" of the base, and it could gradually grow.  Over time, the various problems of ISRU food production and manufacturing could be developed and grow along with the base's population.  There would be no pressing need to make an "Apollo effort" to solve the closed life support problem.  Rather, just like on Earth, develop a new economy by encouraging and enabling two way travel.

I really think you and I could be very close to being on the same page.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

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 #61 on: 09/14/2012 03:06 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


There won't be many seats for the colonists at the beginning, anyway. If Mars One succeeds (and I seriously doubt it), they will send what, 4-6 people every 2 years? Plenty of volunteers to choose from!
And yes, once tourism starts ramping up, we'll see dramatic changes in how space travel works. Or rather viceversa? :)

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #62 on: 09/15/2012 01:42 am »
More why.
Why in terms of big picture.
We are spending most of our wealth on wrong things.
An argument against space exploration was we have better
things to spend our money on. And we don't. It's a lie.

What are the things that America or other citizens
spending the most amount of money on?
For US the big items are Education, health care, and Defense.
It hard to argue we need to spend more on these major elements- most argue we spending too much on them- or need to lower their costs.
Another large broad item is Energy and food- these are pretty cheap
and cost saving in them is unlikely in terms of increasing efficiency- they
are efficiently produced. Whereas the same thing can't be said about Education, Healthcare, and Defense, though Defense might be said to
be being more efficient, based upon goals associated with it.

Another item is general idea of doing something regarding poverty- the solution to this problems generally don't work very well, and seem to cause more problems then solve problems. It seems rather undeniable, though many people wish to deny it, that economic growth is the best solution to poverty. China should providing all the evidence one should need that economic growth is best solution to poverty. Though not much spent on poverty- welfare or foreign aid type solutions, more money spent on these types program will not result in very good results.

We seem to have president who does favor increasing economic growth- rather his view seems to be that if US had have less economic growth, America would have been a better country- having too much economic growth is a problem.
I don't think the is much of problem with having too much economic growth, whereas I might agree that say 10% yearly economic growth could have some problems, these problems that rather insignificant compared to economic growth of less than 3%. And 1% and 2% economic growth 90% people would agree is bad- and what Mr O has given us, though some think it's just fine and less growth might be improvement. Meanwhile the lower and middle economic class in America are suffering and increasing worsen as in terms of a trend. The rich and those in government have so far have had insignificant hardships due this stagnant growth- but I think it probably will eventually will be noticeable by them. The benefits of having low economic growth [or not overheating the economy] can argued about- about it's irrational argument- it's as silly as arguing that Soviet Union was basically on the right track- which some idiots still do.

So global and local poverty is a very large problem, and it's one things which said should be priority over any spending of Space exploration.
And I think that space exploration could lead to economic growth,  potentially an enormous amount of economic growth, and therefore could easily do more solve poverty than any government programs have from the the beginning of time ever done [not a high bar] but possibly as much for poverty that the last 100 year of economic growth have achieved.
So, that is enough of a why.
But there is more. Space exploration should lead starting more markets in Space- additional markets to the satellite market. The satellite market has done and is doing critical things needed by our civilization. Satellite are recognized by the US military as critical. This means in terms of dollars to do it's military task it would need twice or more the size and expense of US military and more US soldiers would die.
Again that alone is enough of a why for why one needs satellite market.
But in dollar amount more saving and add capability is given for non military purposes- communication, global monitoring [including weather], GPS, and, etc.
Most rational people would see the absolute need of satellites.
And I say in future most rational people would see the absolute need of other markets in space. Once it gets beyond the giggle factor.
If we get to the beyond the point of suborbital travel being more a joyride straight up- which no doubt will be quite fun- and begin extend distance horizontally, we could reach the technology level of flying suborbital for more reasons than just joy. So this could become an absolute need we wondered how could have lived without. 
The other thing in the nearer future is the space rocket fuel market. People in future will scratch their heads trying to figure out what people were thinking about in terms plans of going to the Moon or Mars without there being a rocket fuel market. They will also see how a rocket fuel market increased the capability of the satellite market.

So the suborbital market and/or just the rocket fuel market may not have a huge effect upon economic growth and therefore much affect upon poverty, but it's what these will lead to which could begin to have significant effect.
A rocket fuel market will lead to NASA sending crew to Mars and lunar water to be commercial mined- and that would a have a bigger effect.
When you both these things- NASA going to Mars [not as just flags and footprints but as being Maritain settlement AND you mining on the Moon- water and other stuff. That will cause some excitement- it will change people's perception, it will shift attention. Not as a circus show, but a different view of the future. As example, Iran will not regard having a nuclear weapon as important- in terms nation goal it will seen as the waste of money it is, instead an Iranian space program will be seen as important [because it is]. It will have more effect upon global politics, if the Superpower is doing something in space- more so than if China or Japan, or Europe were doing this.
The fact the US has large interest in the Israel/middleeast, means it's important, and if US has 1/10th of interest in space, will make space important [though it's what US currently doing in ISS, at the moment, has more interest outside the country than in US].
Doing things on the Moon, will include other nations, currently a lot are interested and this will increase- whether Manned Mars is international in nature is not particularly important, international business will be involved on the Moon, and of course so will international space agencies- doing something.
And so after couple decades it will become more economical significant, large telesopes might built on Moon, or built form lunar material, or built NEO material, as will some parts things useful for satellites in GEO. Some sort mass driver could built on Moon, and large plans to harvest sunlight in space to beam power to earth, perhaps doing things which Russian have had some interest in- adding sunlight to large regions in during winter periods. And lots of things.

Offline BobCarver

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #63 on: 09/15/2012 03:08 am »
For those who think we have plenty of resources left on Earth, try taking Chris Martenson's Crash Course: http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse
This was all predicted 40 years ago with the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth, which has been very accurate in its prediction of trends:
http://www.bobcarver.net/img/LimitsToGrowth.png.

Don't forget the developing crisis at the North Pole. We will see the loss of summer ice there by 2015, more than 50 years ahead of the predictions made in IPCC 2007. The models were wrong, the situation is far more dire than any climate change "alarmist" ever claimed. The Northern Hemisphere's weather system is driven by the energy differential between the equator and the Arctic Ocean. As the temperature differential winds down, weather systems tend to elongate, Rossby Waves slow down, the jet stream slows down and weather systems become stuck, leading to cold and hot spells that last an entire season. See http://e360.yale.edu/feature/linking_weird_weather_to_rapid_warming_of_the_arctic/2501/.

Evidence is the devastating series of extremes recorded, along with record-setting droughts. NCAR predicts that most of this planet will be suffering from almost permanent drought conditions by the end of the century. And, they may be the optimists, just as many climate studies have tended to be too optimistic compared to reality.

And, governments are doing nothing to stop the problem. They have been subject to regulatory capture by those whose assets in the ground are highly valued. No significant reduction in greenhouse gases will happen before the major impacts are felt. There are going to be millions who will want to emigrate to colonies (which I believe will be very large habitats rather than planetary surfaces). A lot of them will be the very wealthy.

I agree with Gerard K. O'Neill that planetary surfaces are not the best place for humanity. We were extremely lucky to have a planetary surface so hospitable in Earth, but we will need to make our own habitats off-Earth. Oh, there will be those who choose to live on Mars and perhaps other surfaces in the solar system. But, I think large habitats are going to be much more viable than planetary surfaces.

The big challenge in the future? Terraforming Earth back into a livable habitat.

Offline Jim Davis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #64 on: 09/15/2012 04:05 am »
And I think that space exploration could lead to economic growth,  potentially an enormous amount of economic growth, and therefore could easily do more solve poverty than any government programs have from the the beginning of time ever done [not a high bar] but possibly as much for poverty that the last 100 year of economic growth have achieved.

You're merely asserting your own personal convictions.

Quote
So, that is enough of a why.

I'm sorry but "Someone called 'gbaikie' on the internet thinks space exploration will lead to many wonderful things" is not enough of a "why".

I'm not trying to be cruel or dismissive but no one is taking the word of people like Spudis, Zubrin, Greason, and Musk that space development is a great idea. Why would they take yours?

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #65 on: 09/15/2012 10:35 am »
And I think that space exploration could lead to economic growth,  potentially an enormous amount of economic growth, and therefore could easily do more solve poverty than any government programs have from the the beginning of time ever done [not a high bar] but possibly as much for poverty that the last 100 year of economic growth have achieved.

You're merely asserting your own personal convictions.

Quote
So, that is enough of a why.

I'm sorry but "Someone called 'gbaikie' on the internet thinks space exploration will lead to many wonderful things" is not enough of a "why".

I'm not trying to be cruel or dismissive but no one is taking the word of people like Spudis, Zubrin, Greason, and Musk that space development is a great idea. Why would they take yours?

Right they should look at all sides of the issue.
So we some people like Spudis, Zubrin, Greason, and Musk saying that space development is great idea.
Obviously space development may be only a fairly good idea. And of course it's also possible that space development is not good idea at this time. And also that space development may always be very poor or evil idea.
Everyone should examine it.
But one could call using satellite as space development and I am not aware of anyone making an argument against using satellites.
Perhaps one could limit it opposition to settlements anywhere in space.
So what could wrong with say settlements on the Moon?
Zubrin has argued that the Moon lack the resources for self-sustaining human settlement, but probably isn't the kind argument we want.
It seems that biggest argument is that it would cost a lot money- it cost a lot tax payers money. One could also say that it a lot money being paid by US tax payer and that they are not benefiting very much from all these monies being spent.
Problem with such an argument is I would agree with it. I don't think NASA should build a human settlement on the Moon.
I do think NASA should explore the Moon and I think this should done without a large increase in NASA yearly budget. So if you aren't favor decreasing NASA budget, then exploring the Moon has to do with what other priority NASA should spending tax dollars as compared to exploring the Moon.
This could lead to idea that NASA should not do human spaceflight, and instead should only focus on various robotic missions. One idea could to keep budget around same level and instead use more funding for non-human related projects. One could also have idea that one could save 6-8 billion per year spent on human spaceflight and have NASA spend less tax dollars just on robotic missions.
But frankly don't think there would much political support for either of these options. Nor is there any political support cancel the NASA agency- first it's not a lot money. Second there are better agencies to cancel. And any political party which caused NASA to be cancelled would probably end that political party- whereas something like the EPA might get lot happy citizens. One also probably kill dept Education and get even some teachers that like you. The dept Energy doesn't do much- you cut it without too much heat. Etc.
So canceling NASA is not really options- perhaps if really against it, you straggle it for year after year, maybe you will get lucky.
Generally one probably can assume that NASA will more less continue what it's generally doing for at another 20 years- or spend another 400 billion dollars in total during these couple decades- or about 200 billion on stuff other than human space flight.

So we trying make the argument that space development isn't great idea- and that development means Lunar or Mars exploration. And I guess I need some help with some ideas.
« Last Edit: 09/15/2012 10:43 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 #66 on: 09/15/2012 02:53 pm »
This was all predicted 40 years ago with the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth, which has been very accurate in its prediction of trends...

Just as an aside, I bought their book the day it came out.

The Club of Rome has not completely accounted for new discoveries of resources.  Take oil for example.  True, eventually we'll run out, but that depends on the actual amount of oil in the ground, which we think we know to some accuracy, but which we do not actually know.  Look at natural gas too.  I found it astonishing to learn that the US C02 output has declined to what, 1995 levels?, since the new natural gas deposits have started coming on line.

On that chart that Bob posted, note how the solid line has a shallower slope than the dotted line.  While the food line appears to be going up faster, not surprisingly, the population line is also going up faster, while the industrial output line is going up slower.  The confluence of those lines is not where the dotted line projects.

Also, the Club of Rome chart does not make an attempt to model climate change, nor disease outbreaks and viral mutations.  In addition, they do not make an effort to predict political and cultural unrest, which seems to be increasing per a casual observation of news headlines.  Syria's current food output, for example, must be falling rapidly.

Point is, the "Non-renewable resources remaining" line is not a "fact"; it is an opinion.  If that curve should become shallower, then that "economic collapse" point will become later in time.  (The typical politician will see to it that his family would survive, and that the actual collapse would not be during his tenure, but that's just my cynicism.)

The Club does not factor in a widespread change in humanity's behavior either.  If there should come to be a widespread economic collapse, behavior could also change rapidly.  Within a year, for example, people could start gardens, which would ameliorate some food related problems.  Weather permitting, of course.

Even so, the principle of the chart is irrefutable.  Eventually the poop will hit the fan.  Since the rich and powerful control the policies of the world's governments, it seems clear that they will survive, in general, an economic collapse of the scale predicted by the Club.

But pragmatically, the timescales of that hypothetical collapse would be far, far sooner than anything but a nascent off planet colony.

Quote
Evidence is the devastating series of extremes recorded, along with record-setting droughts. NCAR predicts that most of this planet will be suffering from almost permanent drought conditions by the end of the century.

I took a peek at the NCAR website, but did not find this exact prediction, so a link would be appreciated.

Quote
I agree with Gerard K. O'Neill that planetary surfaces are not the best place for humanity.

Unfortunately, this statement has no bearing on reality, since humanity only exists on one planetary surface.  Nor does it offer a solution for humanity at large, other than the possible construction of a genetic repository for a select few individuals.

Quote
The big challenge in the future? Terraforming Earth back into a livable habitat.

I'll say.  And that in the not too distant future, BTW.

I'm not trying to be cruel or dismissive but no one is taking the word of people like Spudis, Zubrin, Greason, and Musk that space development is a great idea.

You raise an excellent point.  For example, I find fault with the publicly stated colonization theories of all four of those experts.  For example, Spudis and Zubrin are, well, worlds apart.  Until the time when all four of them, not to mention the other important but unnamed players, agree on the pragmatic application of a strategy to attempt off-world colonization, its undertaking will be delayed, perhaps too much delayed to be implemented.

Naturally, for a nominal monthly sum, I can help.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Joel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Wisconsin
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #67 on: 09/15/2012 02:56 pm »
There won't be many seats for the colonists at the beginning, anyway. If Mars One succeeds (and I seriously doubt it), they will send what, 4-6 people every 2 years? Plenty of volunteers to choose from!

Mars One is either a joke or a scam. So far they have not done anything worthy of any attention. But, let's assume that there were another small scale colonial effort to Mars, one which actually is able to find the required funding and has a realistic time frame. Is there any reason to believe that this colonization effort would survive or grow? The Viking colonies on Greenland and Canada that was mentioned certainly did not survive... Climate turned out to be too harsh and all colonies were all but forgotten for centuries.

Offline BobCarver

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #68 on: 09/15/2012 03:46 pm »


Evidence is the devastating series of extremes recorded, along with record-setting droughts. NCAR predicts that most of this planet will be suffering from almost permanent drought conditions by the end of the century. And, they may be the optimists, just as many climate studies have tended to be too optimistic compared to reality.


I took a peek at the NCAR website, but did not find this exact prediction, so a link would be appreciated.


Aiguo Dai of NCAR authored a review paper entitled Drought under global warming: a review, WIREs Clim Change 2011 2 45–65 DOI:10.1002/wcc.81
http://wires.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WiresArticle/articles.html?doi=10.1002%2Fwcc.81

I did find on the web this article from 2010 which discusses some of the work: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/10/20/206899/ncar-daidrought-under-global-warming-a-review/.
« Last Edit: 09/15/2012 03:48 pm by BobCarver »

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #69 on: 09/15/2012 03:59 pm »
The Viking colonies on Greenland and Canada that was mentioned certainly did not survive... Climate turned out to be too harsh and all colonies were all but forgotten for centuries.
It was far warmer when the Vikings colonized Greenland than today.  A good example of how if there is some warming, it is far better for everyone, including most members of the biosphere, than cooling.  Not very relevant to discussing offworld colonization in my opinion.  For example, any part of the world (including endolithic structures or subaqueous), whether it cooled or warmed, would be far more habitable at lower expense than anything in outer space.  Climate change (weather in the good direction or in the cold direction) will not be a significant driver for colonizing space.

Yes, there will be some economic restructuring.  I see it as more of a tool for strong-arming political agenda's by the few individuals who own nearly all of the central banks (i.e. centralizing political power further still).  Anyway, the result on colonizing could be very significant if wealth redistribution programs (taxes) continue to bog down economic freedom.  It takes some excess money to buy a ticket of course (and to build and test rockets). 

Luckily, Peter Theil is on the bilderberg steering committee. 

Bob, I'll refer you to this site:  http://wattsupwiththat.com/
« Last Edit: 09/15/2012 04:01 pm by go4mars »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

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 #70 on: 09/15/2012 04:00 pm »
There won't be many seats for the colonists at the beginning, anyway. If Mars One succeeds (and I seriously doubt it), they will send what, 4-6 people every 2 years? Plenty of volunteers to choose from!

Mars One is either a joke or a scam. So far they have not done anything worthy of any attention. But, let's assume that there were another small scale colonial effort to Mars, one which actually is able to find the required funding and has a realistic time frame. Is there any reason to believe that this colonization effort would survive or grow? The Viking colonies on Greenland and Canada that was mentioned certainly did not survive... Climate turned out to be too harsh and all colonies were all but forgotten for centuries.

If you keep the flow of people and supplies from Earth, I believe you can.
It would take time to become self sustainable so you will have to send provisions as soon as you can.

Eventually, if they were able to  establish ISRU, obtain energy, produce food, build launch/land pads etc, for any future manned missions it would be much more attractive for them to land there, build and live nearby. Sharing infrastructure, facilities and services is crucial when so far away from Earth.

The biggest problem I see (hope I got the numbers right) is that the launch window is once every 2 years. Add the duration of travel (~6 months) and you got yourself with only 4 trips in a decade.

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #71 on: 09/15/2012 04:36 pm »
Climate change (weather in the good direction or in the cold direction) will not be a significant driver for colonizing space.
Just wanted to note my previous exception, where the belief that CO2 is the cause for climate change may throw a lot more money at developing technology that can function beyond earth, for example solar and nuclear power, batteries, and bio-oil.

Offline BobCarver

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #72 on: 09/15/2012 05:03 pm »
Climate change (weather in the good direction or in the cold direction) will not be a significant driver for colonizing space.

There is nothing net positive to warming. Alan Watts has been discredited. Sorry to say, the effects of warming are to dramatically reduce our ability to feed the population (droughts and lack of water, plus temperatures which directly kill crops even with adequate water---this almost happened this crop year in fact). Migration to areas unaffected by severe droughts is likely to lead to conflicts and widespread war. That will drive the wealthy to off-world colonization to avoid the wars.

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #73 on: 09/15/2012 05:10 pm »
BTW, have there ever been any good documentaries on space colonization?
I quite liked the mars underground one. I just watched "The Universe. Colonizing space" 4-parter and I think it was really bad. For example the only mention of asteroids was a suggestion that you could use their iron to help colonize mars in some unspecified way.

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 8807
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #74 on: 09/15/2012 05:29 pm »
Climate change (weather in the good direction or in the cold direction) will not be a significant driver for colonizing space.

There is nothing net positive to warming. Alan Watts has been discredited.

That *is* puzzling ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts

In what way is he connected to climate change?

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #75 on: 09/15/2012 08:37 pm »
Climate change (weather in the good direction or in the cold direction) will not be a significant driver for colonizing space.

There is nothing net positive to warming. Alan Watts has been discredited.

That *is* puzzling ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts

In what way is he connected to climate change?

Someone meant, Anthony Watts.
He blogs about climate issues.
The Zubrin of climate is Al Gore
:)
The people think the world is going to melt, and generally favor massive global taxation of carbon dioxide.
It's a strange cult- many world leaders generally have something to say
about global warming or more current term, climate change.
Ted Turner said within 20 to 30 year we would 10 degree warming and we all would be cannibals- Ted Turner being guy who started CNN news.
Ted said that a few years ago, so the end to world is near.
Another "famous" end of the world guy recently recanted and thinks everything will be ok now.
Though some are mad enough to think warming will bake us, more of them are worried about sea level rising- the Al Gore and the flooded NYC.

Tragically it been a hard sell- as few scared of less than 1 meter rise in century- but generally the scare is idea that *if* Greenland were to have all it's glacier ice melt or somehow fall into the ocean, one could have ten meters or more rise in sea level.

It's all quite silly, but politicians generally favor any idea of increasing taxes- and millions of people clamoring for massive increases in taxes. Of course it's very rewarding to politicians.

Of course the Moon has surface temperature of about 120 C in the day- almost twice hot as surface temperature on Earth. And Mars is freezing hell, any global warming on Mars would generally be thought to be very good thing.
So if you worried Earth temperature and/or a meter rise in the ocean, colonizing of space must be somewhere in the realm to leaping from the frying pan into the fire [or cryogenic freezer] .
« Last Edit: 09/15/2012 10:41 pm by gbaikie »

Offline BobCarver

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #76 on: 09/15/2012 10:50 pm »
Climate change (weather in the good direction or in the cold direction) will not be a significant driver for colonizing space.

There is nothing net positive to warming. Alan Watts has been discredited.

That *is* puzzling ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts

In what way is he connected to climate change?

Sorry, I meant Anthony Watts, the blogger for http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/about2/

Offline BobCarver

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #77 on: 09/15/2012 10:56 pm »
The people think the world is going to melt, and generally favor massive global taxation of carbon dioxide.
It's a strange cult- many world leaders generally have something to say
about global warming or more current term, climate change.

Actually, no. Taxing the burning of fossil fuels is a 20th century thing. The situation has gone well beyond the point where that would actually work. We're passing the tipping point now and we have to adapt to the warming. We have to think about what we can actively do to slow and then reverse the warming. Taxes are not a consideration for anyone who understands the problem.

Like I said, terraforming should be the real problem we're addressing.
« Last Edit: 09/15/2012 10:57 pm by BobCarver »

Offline Joel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Wisconsin
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #78 on: 09/15/2012 11:53 pm »
Eventually, if they were able to  establish ISRU, obtain energy, produce food, build launch/land pads etc, for any future manned missions it would be much more attractive for them to land there, build and live nearby.

Now, there's we we disagree. I think we need to solve these issues before even contemplating colonizing the place. If colonization is attempted and fails, it will take a very, very long time before it will ever be attempted again.

It is not necessary to have a Martian colony before developing ISRU on Mars. At most you would need a sample return mission, but I'm not sure you would even need that.

For the Moon, there is a business case in the near future. Wealthy people travel there and spend, say, a lunar day there, then go home. Eventually, people will settle there to support the tourism industry. Shorter travelling times there will spur the development of reusable space transportation technologies.

In the much longer term, people might choose to settle on Mars. Or build floating cities in the Venus clouds. Or live in underwater habitats on Europa. I doubt that any of that will happen in our lifetimes though.

Offline BobCarver

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #79 on: 09/16/2012 12:17 am »

For the Moon, there is a business case in the near future. Wealthy people travel there and spend, say, a lunar day there, then go home. Eventually, people will settle there to support the tourism industry. Shorter travelling times there will spur the development of reusable space transportation technologies.

The Moon's business case is stronger for transient populations, but not permanent colonists. The huge gravity well at Earth will always be a stumbling block in terms of cost. Space tourism would be the basis for the Moon's colonization in the long run as loonies start preferring their environment to Earth (see Heinlein's short story about the couple who served a tour on the Moon, then came back to Earth and quickly found they preferred the Moon).


In the much longer term, people might choose to settle on Mars. Or build floating cities in the Venus clouds. Or live in underwater habitats on Europa.

Or, space habitats, which are likely to be more popular than planetary surfaces. That's where a mix of tourism and permanent residents should be appealing. It also would make for a more sustainable colony because it would not depend upon constant Earth support activities (Moon-based colonies will likely depend upon Earth support for years, of course).

Space habitats in the Martian region would also support trade with Mars, making the Mars-based economy more vibrant. This would, of course, apply to other locales in the solar system.

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #80 on: 09/16/2012 01:45 am »
Remember guys, we don't do climate change here. Never ends well, so let's not continue that.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #81 on: 09/16/2012 01:47 am »
Lol.  Fun stuff.  Let's continue the thread, but leave behind our thoughts of climate change from this point.  Unless you really deeply believe that hoards of starving displaced masses are likely to build or buy rockets and colonize the solar system; acting as the driving force for an interplanetary exodus. 
Edit:  ah.  Thanks Chris!
« Last Edit: 09/16/2012 01:51 am by go4mars »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #82 on: 09/16/2012 01:48 am »
The people think the world is going to melt, and generally favor massive global taxation of carbon dioxide.
It's a strange cult- many world leaders generally have something to say
about global warming or more current term, climate change.

Actually, no. Taxing the burning of fossil fuels is a 20th century thing. The situation has gone well beyond the point where that would actually work. We're passing the tipping point now and we have to adapt to the warming. We have to think about what we can actively do to slow and then reverse the warming. Taxes are not a consideration for anyone who understands the problem.

Like I said, terraforming should be the real problem we're addressing.

Well I would agree that we [most of world] have moved on from the idea of taxation as a solution. Though it does depend what you call a tax. Australia is still clinging to this so called 20th Century solution. Nor would count out the idea of some swinging back to the idea.

But I don't think it was ever the solution- and we could say some people coming to same conclusion- mainly due reality impinging on their dull consciousness. And I suppose taxation seemed like a fresh concept to them.

As for your view that terraforming should be the focus instead. I think that the larger community should become aware of solutions possible with space based terraforming ideas. Not this this new idea or anything- the idea controlling the weather or climate from space is almost old fashion- things mentioned in the 1970's or earlier.

I have been concerned about connecting the pseudoscience of climate alarmism with anything related to space, but there is some barely legitimate concern about possible climate disruption in the future. Or perhaps better said, in terms of science, it is difficult to rule out future climate events, particularly when climate science is so immature in terms fully understanding even basic mechanisms of climate.
Generally, I would say the real problem is cooling rather than warming- 1 C degree drop in global temperature could have serious consequences.

And there are periods in the past [centuries- millions of years ago] where there has sudden drops in global temperature [and also more gradual changes into more cooler periods- several of these during the latest interglacial period]. Whereas instance sudden rise in warming are related to being cooler conditions- such having large ice caps in North America- and warming up to temperatures at or below current global temperatures.
There is period would characterized as being global highly volcanic- which today such level would be characterized as the end the world type mayhem which in terms recent [less than 50 million year] was quite warm, but there is fair amount of uncertainly of regarding factors involved with causing this past event.
Anyways point is there uncertainly in terms Black Swan/Dragon King events:
http://www.er.ethz.ch/teaching/dk_paper_final_revised_2.pdf
And mitigating these types of events could said to have some value.
And some people have argued that reducing CO2 could lessen the chance of Black Swan/Dragon King events.
What that effectively does increase cost of total risk cost. Say damage number is 2 trillion dollars it could bump it up by 2 to 10 trillion. But there not good numbers on it, that I know of.
But in very simple terms, if you had less trillion dollars spend- one could many things in regard solar shades and/or solar reflectors.
More insignificantly, the metric of CO2 is pay cost up front to save disaster in future, whereas with space related one pay relatively small cost up front, and chose at later date, to use some mitigation idea.

Or the idea of it's too late to do something is turned on it's head- we get an increasing ability to deal almost scale global disaster- and being able to do this is secondary benefit, not primary benefit. It give us options.
But even if our current capability the cost benefit would seem to me to the better addressed from space based option.
Example:
If you want cooling, it seems one could make Sun/Earth L-1 have more dust in it. It would require a lot of dust, but there is no shortage of dust in space [or rocks to grind up].
A large shade constructed from ultra light material could more costly. And the actual level dust per cubic km is quite low- less dust than in Earth atmosphere because talking much larger volume of area- basically almost undetectable level of dust unless you looking thru 50,000 km of it.

Warming would more costly, but no one else very good ideas of how else to warm the Planet.

Offline Joel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Wisconsin
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #83 on: 09/16/2012 02:13 am »
I still don't see any significant motivation for large populations of people living on Mars. Once the charm of novelty is gone, the colonies will either go stagnant, or disappear. And even if a strong "business case" for Mars were to be found (say, by having self-replicating machines covering the whole surface, using Mars' cheap real-estate prices and raw materials to mass produce something useful), it might be just as easy to run it remotely from Earth.
« Last Edit: 09/16/2012 02:29 am by Joel »

Offline BobCarver

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #84 on: 09/16/2012 03:21 am »
I still don't see any significant motivation for large populations of people living on Mars. Once the charm of novelty is gone, the colonies will either go stagnant, or disappear. And even if a strong "business case" for Mars were to be found (say, by having self-replicating machines covering the whole surface, using Mars' cheap real-estate prices and raw materials to mass produce something useful), it might be just as easy to run it remotely from Earth.

The justification for most colonists on Mars (and also on large habitats) is going to be leaving Earth behind and starting a new world where the decisions will be made by colonists. In other words, it will be similar to the colonization of the New World. Most emigrating colonists were actively rejecting the Old World for the benefits the New World offered, such as land ownership gained after indentured servitude of a year or two. That was a huge incentive. The reason that North America was so successful was due to that inducement (in South America, the King of Spain granted land to nobles, but the grant was of the natives' labor, not the land itself, which remained a property of the government). In North America, the servant could become a landowner and that ownership transferred to his descendants.
« Last Edit: 09/16/2012 03:23 am by BobCarver »

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #85 on: 09/16/2012 04:27 am »
I still don't see any significant motivation for large populations of people living on Mars. Once the charm of novelty is gone, the colonies will either go stagnant, or disappear. And even if a strong "business case" for Mars were to be found (say, by having self-replicating machines covering the whole surface, using Mars' cheap real-estate prices and raw materials to mass produce something useful), it might be just as easy to run it remotely from Earth.

My guess for strong business case for Mars is farming.
And I would consider a million people on Mars to be a large population, but of the million less than 10% are in business of farming.
It's conceivable that some kind of farming could be done without greenhouses. But I tend to think of using greenhouses, and the cost of making greenhouse is a limiting factor- there are globs of land available.
Mars has land area of 144.9 million square km. Earth has around 148.8 million square km of land.
There might some reasons for preference, but there no reason I know if one using greenhouse, for equatorial or polar region preference. So has large area land which could be used- more than earth. In terms growing seasons [other than dust storms] it's equal or better than Earth. Plants get as much solar energy and maybe more. With greenhouse farming will use less water [which is good thing because compared Earth, Mars makes earth deserts seem water rich].
So other than needing a greenhouse, Mars is better place to grow crops than on Earth. Of course exporting much food to earth seems unlikely, but earth exporting food to space seems as unlikely.
So Mars farming market will be limited to number of people in space- though people living in LEO, probably use Earth food simply because it's quicker to get it.
So since Earth can feed 7 billion people, Mars could at least match that, and if million on Mars, probably billion or less in space. Unless it a very distant future.

As on the Moon, it seems unique parks could be made Mars- you could ancient extinct earth life on Mars- such as dinosaurs. So if billionaire buy earth land [Ted Turner is largest land owner in US] one expect similar hobbies of billionaires in the future- they buy or get a chuck of land the size Australia and make a different world- it could be just a tropical rainforest or something. Obviously such greenhouse is more exotic than what used by normal martian farmers. It could be just 30 meters high or maybe it's 1 km high. It seems however one makes the cheapest greenhouses would be big business on Mars.
Mars as with the Moon, allows more underground living than is possible/practical on Earth- one could live 100 km below the surface- not really possible on Earth. There could be large natural underground caves on Mars [or the Moon]. Exploring Earth isn't really finished, Mars could have centuries of exploration [particularly if population is only about a million people or only about 1 million people doing this kind of stuff- and especially when you consider the possible 3 dimensional aspect of the place.
« Last Edit: 09/16/2012 04:30 am by gbaikie »

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #86 on: 09/16/2012 06:09 am »
I still don't see any significant motivation for large populations of people living on Mars. Once the charm of novelty is gone, the colonies will either go stagnant, or disappear. And even if a strong "business case" for Mars were to be found (say, by having self-replicating machines covering the whole surface, using Mars' cheap real-estate prices and raw materials to mass produce something useful), it might be just as easy to run it remotely from Earth.

You only need a few hundred people to begin the process. We will never have  problems finding that many volunteers from a population of 6 billion or so. I don't think mars does have any industrial value for earth, and by the time we can run any self reproducing industry remotely humans will probably be surplus to requirements on earth also :)

Offline Joel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Wisconsin
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #87 on: 09/16/2012 11:03 am »
The justification for most colonists on Mars (and also on large habitats) is going to be leaving Earth behind and starting a new world where the decisions will be made by colonists. In other words, it will be similar to the colonization of the New World.

It is naive to think that the colonization of the New World was mainly due to some desire for self-determination. Most people left for economic reasons. I don't see how that could happen on Mars.

No, Mars is a distraction and colonization efforts should focus on the one destination which is within out reach, the Moon. This ultimate destination could easily attract many thousands of tourists annually, which in turn would spur further development.

Offline greengoreironcore

  • Member
  • Posts: 18
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #88 on: 09/16/2012 02:31 pm »
I see colonizing space as a socialist housing project in space and that the only reason people really want to it is because its cool. Everything else is rationale that is not rational. Space can't compete with Earth economically so it would have to depend subsidized as government program. Its really a catherdal in space for the worship of humanism now that God is dead. Worshipping ourselves, what we arce collectively capable of.

These rationales  can easily apply to colonizing other places on Earth that are orders of magnitude easier to do. Yet hardly anyone is advocating colonizing these places because it doesn't have science fiction cool factor that allures fans to space. All the treaths to Earth that could wipe out humans have solutions that would cost much less than science fiction fantasy approaches.


The real value of space has been established and it doesn't involve humans. Comm Sats, Weather Sats and GPS give down to Earth benefits that actually add value ot the economy.

 

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #89 on: 09/16/2012 02:37 pm »
The real value of space has been established and it doesn't involve humans. Comm Sats, Weather Sats and GPS give down to Earth benefits that actually add value ot the economy.
You are forgetting about the resources.  Platinum group metals as a 'for instance'.
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline greengoreironcore

  • Member
  • Posts: 18
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #90 on: 09/16/2012 02:39 pm »
i am not forgetting that. even there was brick of PGMs in space waiting to be collected, it would still make no sense to collect them. Collecting them in Ocean floor would be easier.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #91 on: 09/16/2012 02:41 pm »
Mars as with the Moon, allows more underground living than is possible/practical on Earth- one could live 100 km below the surface- not really possible on Earth. There could be large natural underground caves on Mars [or the Moon]. Exploring Earth isn't really finished, Mars could have centuries of exploration [particularly if population is only about a million people or only about 1 million people doing this kind of stuff- and especially when you consider the possible 3 dimensional aspect of the place.
Yes, 100 km into the moon might be possible. Probably not on Mars based on some thread on creating greater atmospheric pressure in this way and I vaguely recall generalities about heat flux.  Probably 20 km deep on Mars though.  I expect some deep drilling missions should clear that up in 20 or 30 years.

Of course, a lot of the undergroud types of ideas would be vastly less expensive to prototype here on Earth.  Like geothermal robotic farms deep beneath Svalbard or something.  Useful too if a lot of Earth's crops could be grown in tubes below the surface, a lot of farm-land could be reconverted to natural habitat (or dirt-bike courses). 
« Last Edit: 09/16/2012 02:45 pm by go4mars »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #92 on: 09/16/2012 02:42 pm »
i am not forgetting that. even there was brick of PGMs in space waiting to be collected, it would still make no sense to collect them. Collecting them in Ocean floor would be easier.
Your assumptions about launch costs are soooo  2012ish.     ;)     

You are currently correct of course.
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

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 #93 on: 09/16/2012 02:43 pm »
I know, we don't do climate here, but ya gotta admit, "The Zubrin of climate is Al Gore", is pretty darn good.

*****************************

The Moon's [initial] business case is stronger for transient populations, but not permanent colonists.

"Initial" the modification I would add.  If I were to be the moderator of this thread, I would insist that the intial conditions be discussed, rather than the futuristic and in no way predictable endgame.  What better transient population than the tourist one?  Well, the miner, for example.  The hotel service provider, for another.  The mechanic.  There's a relatively short list of high paying service jobs that could be created during the early years of a lunar base.  By the "early years", I would think a span of two decades, as the population grew from four or six to between fifty and a hundred.

I still don't see any significant motivation for large populations of people living on Mars. Once the charm of novelty is gone, the colonies will either go stagnant, or disappear. And even if a strong "business case" for Mars were to be found (say, by having self-replicating machines covering the whole surface, using Mars' cheap real-estate prices and raw materials to mass produce something useful), it might be just as easy to run it remotely from Earth.

Again, I urge the consideration of the initial conditions, not the endgame.  While I have a theory that in forty years, we could have built a colony of 100K souls on Luna, this would still not be a "large population of people", when compared to the current situation of overcrowding here.  Should a lunar colony become self sufficient, people of a certain means will have an opportunity to choose to emigrate.  It will necessarily be a small group of people, a subset of the group of theoretical volunteers, and their success could pave the way for others. 

Over time, the cost of passage would be reduced, but there will never be, in the foreseeable future of forty to fifty years, space liners carrying thousands of people and their belongings up to Luna.  Plus, the costs of passage will be very much based on the mass that an emigrant would take with him, as well as the legal structure allowing the personal ownership of real property.

Transient visitors to the hotel would pay a different cost of passage, as would employees of those corporations making work up there.  Obviously, the mass of their carry-on baggage would be much less than a homesteader.

As to the idea of there ever being a remote control economy:  Not gonna happen.  Economies are run by people on site, and in this discussion, would not be limited to the manufacture of a useful gadget, and not much else, mostly because there couldn't ever be that gadget, even in principle.

As Bob pointed out, "Most emigrating colonists were actively rejecting the Old World for the benefits the New World offered, such as land ownership gained after indentured servitude..."  In the case of Luna, there would be no indentured servitude, unless the corporations framed an labor agreement with some workers, granting them acreage, sustainable habitat, and guaranteed passage.  Without these three things, unless you had a substantial income, you could not afford to emigrate.

Of course, the way I see it, martian colonization only has a chance after lunar colonization.  Certain billionaires and doctors of philosophy might pound their chests in indignation, but you can't get from point 'a' to point 'c' without going thru point 'b'. 

I see colonizing space as a socialist housing project in space...

Thank you, and have a nice Cadillac.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline greengoreironcore

  • Member
  • Posts: 18
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #94 on: 09/16/2012 02:52 pm »
It won't win me many fans here but I had to call a spade a spade.

Offline Joel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Wisconsin
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #95 on: 09/16/2012 03:08 pm »
In addition to not posting more nonsense about climate change, please no more posts containing the word "socialist".

Offline greengoreironcore

  • Member
  • Posts: 18
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #96 on: 09/16/2012 03:13 pm »
In addition to not posting more nonsense about climate change, please no more posts containing the word "socialist".

Thats exactly what is. They are paying government money to keep alive and house people in space rather than it sustaining itself by being productive. Colonisation would be a massive expansion of this technowelfare program.

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 #97 on: 09/16/2012 03:15 pm »
It won't win me many fans here but I had to call a spade a spade.

I wouldn't worry about the fans.  I certainly don't.

Your biggest mistake is that most of the posters here are considering that probably the government builds the initial base, but that the colonization effort would be a private enterprise.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Joel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Wisconsin
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #98 on: 09/16/2012 03:20 pm »
In addition to not posting more nonsense about climate change, please no more posts containing the word "socialist".

Thats exactly what is. They are paying government money to keep alive and house people in space rather than it sustaining itself by being productive. Colonisation would be a massive expansion of this technowelfare program.

There is no need to embarrass yourself in front of the 50 % of your countrymen who don't share your political views. And 100 % of people not living in your country who consider this to be just laughing matter.

Offline greengoreironcore

  • Member
  • Posts: 18
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #99 on: 09/16/2012 03:20 pm »
It won't win me many fans here but I had to call a spade a spade.

I wouldn't worry about the fans.  I certainly don't.

Your biggest mistake is that most of the posters here are considering that probably the government builds the initial base, but that the colonization effort would be a private enterprise.
Oh i have heard of the business models for this being government created markets that are later capitalized on by private entities. But I doubt any private entity that is rational, biting. There are areas of Earth that are much easier to colonize and develop economically that are not inhabited. People study these extreme enviroments but that is all. They have far superior resources that are easier to access too.

I think the space between LEO and GTO is where the real business case lies and its been proven to by rational actors

Offline Joel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Wisconsin
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #100 on: 09/16/2012 03:29 pm »
Of course, the way I see it, martian colonization only has a chance after lunar colonization.

Agree completely. For now, we should keep sending robotic science missions to Mars and focus human spaceflight efforts on the Moon. Footprint and camping missions to Mars are a waste of resources.

Offline greengoreironcore

  • Member
  • Posts: 18
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #101 on: 09/16/2012 03:34 pm »
Of course, the way I see it, martian colonization only has a chance after lunar colonization.

Agree completely. For now, we should keep sending robotic science missions to Mars and focus human spaceflight efforts on the Moon. Footprint and camping missions to Mars are a waste of resources.

Doing it all with robots would waste even less resources by orders of mangnitude. Robots and Computers are thing that are getting better and smaller every day but rocket technology is virtually stagnant.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #102 on: 09/16/2012 03:37 pm »
It won't win me many fans here but I had to call a spade a spade.
No problem.  I just think that the future will take your spade, melt it down, and build a rocket nozzle out of it. 

To get back to the thread title,
Depending on how loose we are allowed to define "colony",

Where:  Mars, Moon, EML, LEO.  I don't know the order.  Then NEO's (mining stations) and elsewhere.

When:  5-8 years after the first flight of Elon's reusable gigagram BFR.  Moniker "colonist" applicable 20 years from today would be my guess.

Who: People who can pay at least 9 figures (current-day money).  Prices will gradually drop after that. 

What: Initially, the primary driver will be the cool factor.  Unless there are tax loop-holes.  For example, if someone creates a stock exchange on the moon and has no Earthly address or plans on returning there... or something.    I also firmly believe that if the big mining companies had access to a fully reusable gigagram launcher, that they would do their best to absolutely expand supply of metals and dominate the price.  They are mining lower and lower grade deposits amidst increasing regulatory issues.  In 20 years, if we have such a launcher, mining the sky will seem like an obvious idea to many of us.  I'm a professional geologist with significant reserves evaluation experience.  In this case, I truly believe that if you build it, they will come (the big mining companies).  "Planetary Resources" will be a long-timeframe "gold mine" for the early investors.  When they have optical interferometry working, and a catalogue of reasonably good mining prospects, they will 'practically mint money'.  The risk to this is that technological step-change in mining on Earth could postpone this.  As to the relationship with colonization: It depends whether you count a mining ship as a colony or not.  I actually think these are likely to be minimally manned.  Some of the journey's could be for up to 10 years (better have a good internet connection ;).

Why: Kind of got to that in "What".       Perceived profit potential from the side of the hardware suppliers.  Cool factor or utility (tax breaks or equipment/infrastructure maintenance/creation or resource collection) in the case of the colonists. 

How:  Got to that too.  This is all contingent on a big fully/cheaply/quickly reusable rocket.  Like Elon's dream machine.  I think it will need to be in the gigagram to LEO range (but optimized for BEO).  Probably a cross-fed dealy with stages each 15+ meters in diameter.  Rocket factory will probably be near the pad for ground handling.  Even if the stages fly themselves to the launch pad (noise and fuel cost factor in).  It will be somewhere with a cheap and plentiful supply of methane.   

Of course, how is an almost fractal question with many elements and sub-elements, and it is too preliminary to get down into the weeds very far.  Or maybe it isn't.
« Last Edit: 09/16/2012 03:46 pm by go4mars »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline greengoreironcore

  • Member
  • Posts: 18
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #103 on: 09/16/2012 03:40 pm »
No problem.  I just think that the future will take your spade, melt it down, and build a rocket nozzle out of it.
Hopium is the religion of the people

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #104 on: 09/16/2012 03:41 pm »
They are paying government money to keep alive and house people in space rather than it sustaining itself by being productive. Colonisation would be a massive expansion of this technowelfare program.
Who is "they" and why would "they" do that?  I don't think I see your scenario as remotely likely (government colony for welfare recipients). 
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline greengoreironcore

  • Member
  • Posts: 18
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #105 on: 09/16/2012 03:45 pm »
They are paying government money to keep alive and house people in space rather than it sustaining itself by being productive. Colonisation would be a massive expansion of this technowelfare program.
Who is "they" and why would "they" do that?  I don't think I see your scenario as remotely likely (government colony for welfare recipients). 
No its not a government colony for welfare recipients. Those are the people that the government want to take money away from. Its to keep alive an elite of astronauts, the costs of sustaining these people in an unhospitable enviroment all paid for by the tax payer. They are doing hardly anything that would pay for the expense of putting them there in the first place, therefore I think its just unproductive technowelfare and a religious exersize.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #106 on: 09/16/2012 03:50 pm »
Hopium is the religion of the people
Um...  Not sure what you mean.  People 100 years ago "hoped" that they could inexpensively survive diseases that were killing them.  Or travel to distant continents inexpensively.  Or geostationary satellites.  Society progresses.  We have all kinds of things that our grandparents just didn't have.  Like the high-5.     Hopium is a good religion.   Join us! 
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

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 #107 on: 09/16/2012 03:51 pm »
Your biggest mistake is that most of the posters here are considering that probably the government builds the initial base, but that the colonization effort would be a private enterprise.


Oh i have heard of the business models for this being government (1) created markets that are later capitalized on by private entities. But I doubt any private entity that is rational, biting. There are areas of Earth that are much (2) easier to colonize and develop economically that are not inhabited. People study these extreme enviroments but that is all. They have far superior resources that are easier to access too.

I think the space (3) between LEO and GTO is where the real business case lies and its been proven to by rational actors

(1) Well, you have only followed part of the colonization narrative, of which this thread is a miniscule part.  My requirement of my government is that it allow privitization and enable it.  Right now, it does not allow privitization.  The ISS is strictly a government facility.

An analogy might be the New Orleans levies.  They are an infrastructure which enables economic activity to take place in the city, and are financed by the country at large. Before you stretch the analogy to the breaking point, it's quite clear that a lunar base and the levies are quite different things, for one thing, the levies have a more immediate use.  The costs involved are not that far apart.

We just found $14B to repair the levies.  The Constellation program cost "only" $11B, up to the point it was cancelled.  This government program is not the only rocket program to have been undertaken in the last decade.  SpaceX developed their rocket from the back of an envelope to a flight tested article docking at the ISS for a tenth of this cost.  Our Bush and Obama gifts to the financial industry were about $700B each.  We've spent $1T in elective war over the last decade as well.

Point is, cost is really not the problem.  I do not know if our government can enable a new economy.  Both canditates flat out do not care about the issue, and forty years of politics has not made any headway whatsoever in establishing the first lunar base.

You may be of the viewpoint that we have enough problems here on Earth, thus our government shouldn't mess with space.  Personally, I understand that argument, but still reject it, as it does not accomodate the future.

It is something that could be done, however, and that with good reason.

(2) This is an old argument, which is logically sound, but which quietly rejects the idea of humans getting off planet, which is a different type of colonization.  There are different motives.  The corporate head of SpaceX probably does not want to colonize the Sahara, or else he would have built a different type of vehicle to get there.

(3) This argument is also used by a number of "realists" on this forum, but also rejects in entirety, the idea of off planet colonization.

Any economy which could possibly happen up there will have to be demonstrated empirically, and will not be demonstrated in advance on a spreadsheet.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline greengoreironcore

  • Member
  • Posts: 18
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #108 on: 09/16/2012 03:52 pm »
Hopium is the religion of the people
Um...  Not sure what you mean.  People 100 years ago "hoped" that they could inexpensively survive diseases that were killing them.  Or travel to distant continents inexpensively.  Or geostationary satellites.  Society progresses.  We have all kinds of things that our grandparents just didn't have.  Like the high-5.     Hopium is a good religion.   Join us! 
Hope is good once its not misguided or the only thing you have. Wishful thinking seems to have an infinite ISP on these forums.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #109 on: 09/16/2012 03:54 pm »
Those are the people that the government want to take money away from. Its to keep alive an elite of astronauts, the costs of sustaining these people in an unhospitable enviroment all paid for by the tax payer. They are doing hardly anything that would pay for the expense of putting them there in the first place, therefore I think its just unproductive technowelfare and a religious exersize.
I'm a little confused here.  If you are asserting that government is unlikely spearhead a colonization effort, then I agree.  If you think that government will use tax money to send an elite force of superior humans to somewhere in space for reasons you have not defined, then I am skeptical of your scenario. 
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline greengoreironcore

  • Member
  • Posts: 18
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #110 on: 09/16/2012 04:02 pm »
Those are the people that the government want to take money away from. Its to keep alive an elite of astronauts, the costs of sustaining these people in an unhospitable enviroment all paid for by the tax payer. They are doing hardly anything that would pay for the expense of putting them there in the first place, therefore I think its just unproductive technowelfare and a religious exersize.
I'm a little confused here.  If you are asserting that government is unlikely spearhead a colonization effort, then I agree.  If you think that government will use tax money to send an elite force of superior humans to somewhere in space for reasons you have not defined, then I am skeptical of your scenario. 
Oh the reasons are the same old bad reasons that are used to justify every time. To say we have been there done that and took the photos. Its spiritual execrize to the cult of technology and humanism. Sending humans to an asteroid is a terrible idea when robots would be cheaper and better.

The goverment already uses tax money to send elite humans somewher in space. Its called the ISS and its frakked over 100 Billion down the drain.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #111 on: 09/16/2012 04:06 pm »
Wishful thinking seems to have an infinite ISP on these forums.
And in human nature.  Otherwise we would all still be using stone tools to mash tubers.  Many many technologies that we have today were first written about in science fiction.  Ideas are potent.  Someone reads these ideas (or independently comes up with them) and thinks, gee, I think I might be able to build that...     Then a few pencils later (or some time on their computer), they 3D print their prototype.   Then maybe find some investors if they can't do it themselves.  Progress is quick and getting quicker.
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline greengoreironcore

  • Member
  • Posts: 18
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #112 on: 09/16/2012 04:10 pm »
Wishful thinking seems to have an infinite ISP on these forums.
And in human nature.  Otherwise we would all still be using stone tools to mash tubers.  Many many technologies that we have today were first written about in science fiction.  Ideas are potent.  Someone reads these ideas (or independently comes up with them) and thinks, gee, I think I might be able to build that...     Then a few pencils later (or some time on their computer), they 3D print their prototype.   Then maybe find some investors if they can't do it themselves.  Progress is quick and getting quicker.
Rocket technology hasn't progressed very far from where it was with the Soyuz 60 years ago and there is no amount of hope that will change that. Computers and Robotic are progressing all the time and have much more room to improve in the future. Thats a hope not based on blind optimism

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 #113 on: 09/16/2012 04:14 pm »
Of course, the way I see it, martian colonization only has a chance after lunar colonization.

Agree completely. For now, we should keep sending robotic science missions to Mars and focus human spaceflight efforts on the Moon. Footprint and camping missions to Mars are a waste of resources.

Doing it all with robots would waste even less resources by orders of mangnitude. Robots and Computers are thing that are getting better and smaller every day but rocket technology is virtually stagnant.

You don't seem to acknowledge that to the "stay on planet at all costs group" we are wasting an incredible amount of resources on pictures of barren planets, when the money could be better spent on popular saturated fat delivery programs, such as food stamps.

You may personally be happy with watching pictures of robots taking pictures of planets.  Colonization is about people using resources for life support.  It is not about some mathematical assessment of "efficiency".

Where:  Mars, Moon, EML, LEO.  I don't know the order.

Let me be of some assistance:  Moon, EML-1, EML-2, Mars, NEO.  There.  Now you can say that you know the order.

Hopium is the religion of the people.

Not bad.  Promptly commandeered for my own use.  Can I call you Karl?  As an aside, this exact drug got our current president elected the first time.  We've now got an 8.2% hangover rate, however.  Which, BTW, the Bush tax cuts didn't solve, but I digress.

Its to keep alive an elite of astronauts, the costs of sustaining these people in an unhospitable enviroment all paid for by the tax payer.

Funny.

This is exactly what I say they should have been doing for the last forty years, and is exactly what they haven't been doing.  See my first post on the forum.

The goverment already uses tax money to send elite humans somewher in space. Its called the ISS and its frakked over 100 Billion down the drain.

Which is one of the reasons I argue we should get out of the OST, so that we can start a new economy, and a new government, at least in principle.  But you are completely new to the discussion, and have not yet considered many of the pro and con arguments.

As to ISS, it is a peaceful program.  Are you in favor of elective war?  If so, you're in the majority and that's where the money is.  Come to think of it, what are you for?  Right now, you're playing Destructo.

Rocket technology hasn't progressed very far from where it was with the Soyuz 60 years ago and there is no amount of hope that will change that. Computers and Robotic are progressing all the time and have much more room to improve in the future. Thats a hope not based on blind optimism

You're going to have to argue better than this.  Do you believe that Curiosity is an advanced robot?  Why would they launch such an advanced robot on sixty year old technology?

I gotta go out in the garden and mash some tubers.  Not at all clear if you have a larger point to make.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline greengoreironcore

  • Member
  • Posts: 18
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #114 on: 09/16/2012 04:19 pm »
I think it would be cool if there were bases on the Moon and Mars.

But that is the same way I think its cool that people climb Everest. I can hardly justify making a government agency for stunts.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #115 on: 09/16/2012 04:21 pm »
To say we have been there done that and took the photos.
Why learn about anything heh?  Humans can monitor experiments, quickly zero in on which rocks to examine (and how to examine them), problem solve with hands and tools.  We're pretty darn versatile.  Yes there is a robot that can now fold laundry, but I don't think he's quite ready to be a field geologist on Mars.

Its spiritual execrize to the cult of technology and humanism.
Define your terms please.  Sounds kinda wishy washy to me. 

Sending humans to an asteroid is a terrible idea when robots would be cheaper and better.
When something breaks on your mining robot ship, it might be handy to have a space-man who knows how to use his space welder.  When a micrometeorite breaks a critical part, maybe he can affix a spare.  When something is going wrong, you don't have significant lag time until you even know about it much less respond. When something unexpected is encountered, you can get eye witness opinion from someone.  Better yet, real-time hands on the controls or whatever.  Of course, space monkeys only make sense when there is a large and fully reusable rocket.  In fact, the whole mining venture idea needs this.  So if we are talking about mining asteroids, presumably it is fairly cheap to get lots of equipment and fuel to orbit.  So having wrench monkey (probably with PhD) and his/her full toolbox is not going to be incrementally as big of a deal as you make it out to be.  Then again, robots might improve considerably in the next 20 years too.  Where's Noonian Soong when you need him?

The goverment already uses tax money to send elite humans somewher in space. Its called the ISS and its frakked over 100 Billion down the drain.
I don't see ISS as the most likely model for a "colony".  I also wouldn't define ISS as a welfare colony. 

Are you thinking along the lines that a research base can serve national interests while a colony cannot?
« Last Edit: 09/16/2012 04:38 pm by go4mars »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #116 on: 09/16/2012 04:28 pm »
Rocket technology hasn't progressed very far from where it was with the Soyuz 60 years ago and there is no amount of hope that will change that. Computers and Robotic are progressing all the time and have much more room to improve in the future. Thats a hope not based on blind optimism
It seems that you are stuck thinking along the lines of well-defined expendable chemical propulsion systems.  That would be like a computer guy a while back thinking, if only we could feed these punch cards through just a bit faster.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.  It doesn't have to be a slightly higher gear on the currently state-of the art cat plucker.  So to speak. 
« Last Edit: 09/16/2012 05:03 pm by go4mars »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #117 on: 09/16/2012 04:36 pm »
I can hardly justify making a government agency for stunts.
The government just needs to remove restrictions and allow incentives.  Why did railroads get built across North America?  Incentive which had essentially no immediate cost to gov't.  Was it worth giving away vast swaths of land for that purpose?  Well, as someone living in Calgary, I'd have to say "Yup".   
Extrapolate. 

I like the Ron Paul "in space tax incentive" idea too. 

Zubrin's transorbital railroad idea is interesting.

There are things that could be done which would cost tax payers relatively little.  A space station built and operated (coordinated?) by several different governments can get pricy.  I think a colonization effort done in a similar way would be an inefficient way to colonize the solar system.  Perhaps the most inefficient way to do it.  Though perhaps that's the way it will happen.  Many governments seem to like controlling things closely.
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline greengoreironcore

  • Member
  • Posts: 18
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #118 on: 09/16/2012 04:39 pm »
Why learn about anything heh?  Humans can monitor experiments, quickly zero in on which rocks to examine (and how to examine them), problem solve with hands and tools.  We're pretty darn versatile.  Yes there is a robot that can now fold laundry, but I don't think he's quite ready to be a field geologist on Mars.  Maybe uranus. 
Humans are versatile and thats why we have 100's of experts at the control panel back on Earth. Keeping humans alive is horrendously expensive and bad value for money. We can learn about these things without humans having to go to the actual places. Its not as cool, I will admit.

Quote
Define your terms please.  Sounds kinda wishy washy to me.
Its not wishy washy. They are doing things to "inspire", to go where no man has gone before. These are essentially about spiturality, to see what humans are capable of. Same as climbing everest or the Oympics.

Quote
When something breaks on your mining robot ship, it might be handy to have a space-man who knows how to use his space welder.  When a micrometeorite breaks a critical part, maybe he can take affix the spare.  When something is going wrong, you don't have significant lag time until you even know about it much less respond. When something unexpected is encountered, you can get eye witness opinion from someone.  Of course, space monkeys only make sense when there is a large and fully reusable rocket.  In fact, the whole mining venture idea needs this.  So if we are talking about mining asteroids, presumably it is fairly cheap to get lots of equipment and fuel to orbit.  So having wrench monkey (probably with PhD) and his/her full toolbox is not going to be incrementally as big of a deal as you make it out to be.  Then again, robots might improve considerably in the next 20 years too.  Where's Noonian Soong when you need him?
Send robots to fix the broken robot. It would still be cheaper than sending humans.
Quote
I don't see ISS as the most likely model for a "colony".  I also wouldn't define ISS as a welfare colony. 
No its not the like the ISS, that only cost Billions. Its much worse A space colony would likely cost trillions. Even if the legal regime was changed to allow for them, no one but the goverment would willing or able to build one.

Quote
Are you thinking along the lines that a research base can serve national interests while a colony cannot?
i believe Antartica is a more likely model for humans in space than settling the "new" frontier of the Americas. They were landing in simlar enviroment as Earth, not the deserts of space. To achieve scientific interests in space, we don't need humans to be physically there. If you are hoping for colonies, you will be waiting a long time.


The government just needs to remove restrictions and allow incentives.  Why did railroads get built across North America?  Incentive which had essentially no immediate cost to gov't.  Was it worth giving away vast swaths of land for that purpose?  Well, as someone living in Calgary, I'd have to say "Yup".   
Extrapolate. 

I like the Ron Paul "in space tax incentive" idea too. 

Zubrin's transorbital railroad idea is interesting.

There are things that could be done which would cost tax payers relatively little.  A space station built and operated (coordinated?) by several different governments can get pricy.  I think a colonization effort done in a similar way would be an inefficient way to colonize the solar system.  Perhaps the most inefficient way to do it.  Though perhaps that's the way it will happen.  Many governments seem to like controlling things closely.
In the word of Mitt Romeny

“I spent 25 years in business. If I had a business executive come to me and say they wanted to spend a few hundred billion dollars to put a colony on the moon, I’d say, ‘You’re fired!’

Removing restrictions and giving incentives is not going to make any rational business person bite.
« Last Edit: 09/16/2012 04:44 pm by greengoreironcore »

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #119 on: 09/16/2012 05:02 pm »
Humans are versatile and thats why we have 100's of experts at the control panel back on Earth. Keeping humans alive is horrendously expensive and bad value for money.
Again, you are assuming 2012 launch cost/capability.  This thread is forward looking.  I'm asserting that some time in the future (before colonization) that sustaining someone in space will cost less than paying hundreds of robot operators.

Its not as cool, I will admit.
You're not so bad afterall.  ;)

They are doing things to "inspire", to go where no man has gone before.
Fast forward 45 years.  I'm a wealthy old man, in good health, and can buy a ticket for a price I can afford.      My decision is not connected to "inspiring" anyone.  In fact, my grand kids would probably say unkind things about their absentee gramps squandering their inheritance. 

Send robots to fix the broken robot. It would still be cheaper than sending humans.
Orbital mechanics.  It can be a very very long time between opportunities to get at a mineable NEO.  And to a big mining company, time most assuredly is money. 
If you are willing, I'd like you to tell me what you believe my position is on future launch costs required for colonization, so that I know you understand what I'm getting at there. 

Even if the legal regime was changed to allow for them, no one but the goverment would willing or able to build one.
There lies the rift between our expectations. 

i believe Antartica is a more likely model for humans in space than settling the "new" frontier of the Americas.
Antarctica has only research bases.  No colonies there.  I tend to think that past colonies are a closer approximation to future colonies than something else entirely.

To achieve scientific interests in space, we don't need humans to be physically there. If you are hoping for colonies, you will be waiting a long time.
Look at the thread title again.
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #120 on: 09/16/2012 05:08 pm »
In the word of Mitt Romeny

“I spent 25 years in business. If I had a business executive come to me and say they wanted to spend a few hundred billion dollars to put a colony on the moon, I’d say, ‘You’re fired!’

Removing restrictions and giving incentives is not going to make any rational business person bite.
His response was not to what Newt postulated.  Newt proposed using chump change to offer prizes which have a huge multiplier in productivity and ideas and only need to be paid if someone can give you what you need (at a price far less than doing it yourself).  A good idea.       

If the response had instead been to a "Battlestar Galactica" approach, well, I agree with him.  But it wasn't.

Business people are ALL ABOUT removing restrictions and collecting incentives.
« Last Edit: 09/16/2012 05:10 pm by go4mars »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #121 on: 09/16/2012 05:29 pm »
I really fear for people who price tag everything to work out justifications and motivates. And I do mean fear, cause they do tend to sound utterly miserable.

We'd still be in the dark ages if such people ruled the roost.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline BobCarver

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #122 on: 09/16/2012 06:07 pm »
There's a great deal of an assumption of reliance on Earth-based government to "do things in space." This has got to end. First of all, no Earth government owns any part of the natural solar system except their portion of the third rock from the sun. No government on Earth will ever invest in assets in the solar system off-Earth in a serious way unless those assets can be brought back to Earth to serve those governments, be taxed and controlled by them. But, they know that if those assets do become valuable to those who work those assets, colonists will demand independence from the mother government and will assert ownership of those assets. History tells us this is so.

If we are going to have colonies in the solar system, we have to recognize that it will only happen in the private sphere, with no ownership by Earth-based governments.

And, if Earth governments try to assert ownership, they are going to find that trying to assert control from the bottom of a gigantic gravity well is a losing proposition.

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #123 on: 09/16/2012 09:18 pm »
I see colonizing space as a socialist housing project in space and that the only reason people really want to it is because its cool. Everything else is rationale that is not rational. Space can't compete with Earth economically so it would have to depend subsidized as government program. Its really a catherdal in space for the worship of humanism now that God is dead. Worshipping ourselves, what we arce collectively capable of.

Space settlement as housing project, will not work. Mainly because political dynamics. Which some idiots think are easy to overcome- and they are not.

People will settle in space, because their are jobs in space, and because they will have access to space. Or in other words there are markets in space.
We need to start with a rocket fuel market in space.


Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #124 on: 09/16/2012 10:42 pm »
I think it would be cool if there were bases on the Moon and Mars.

But that is the same way I think its cool that people climb Everest. I can hardly justify making a government agency for stunts.

A stunt is about PR/Promotion/Adverting. Most companies realize there is limit to amount resource [money] they put into such things- and have limited and specific uses. The idea of repeating a Apollo stunt as somehow useful for NASA or the nation is wrong. Just look at from this point of view, how many other government agencies need to spend billions if not hundreds of billions dollar doing a stunts?
In terms of PR this is not a selling point to US citizens- rather it's a strong negative- if anything.
The way I look at it, in terms PR, what NASA is doing [exploring space] has zillions of tons of goodwill or public support- that isn't NASA's problem- managing the existing PR, that NASA has, is a completely different matter- that needs attention and is currently being wasted or frakked away, drip by drip.
Said differently, the US Military is doing something important- maybe people don't realize how important. The military doesn't need stunts- it does need to do what we spend hundred billions dollar per year so it can do what we want it to do [defend nation from threats]. It too has built in vast amounts of goodwill- which it increases or decreases by what it does- how well it does it's job.

So what NASA needs to do, is what it was designed and created to do- basically, open the space frontier.
To do this, NASA needs to find resources in space which are worth the effort to mine or whatever. Space has a valuable resource- water. The water in space isn't something needed on the Earth surface, but is valuable in space. Finding minable water is the beginning. It's a start.
Finding PGM would something else, and that might be exportable to Earth.
But without rocket fuel being fairly cheap in space, PGM are [probably] not minable.

A loose analogy is water [in space] is the river that will allow you to bring the gold from some distant region. Without the river and without knowing some stuff about the river, the gold may have some value in distant future if one can find some other way to transport it.

You know, when Apollo discovered that there was no water on the Moon- that wasn't just some interesting trivia. It was, oh darn.
It was argument against lunar settlements.
Water has been something NASA was looking for, and we probably have some in the polar region of the Moon.
Hello? You guys in NASA are you sleeping?
It's like they dropped their brains somewhere.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2012 12:23 am by gbaikie »

Offline Joel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Wisconsin
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #125 on: 09/16/2012 11:10 pm »
I see colonizing space as a socialist housing project in space and that the only reason people really want to it is because its cool. Everything else is rationale that is not rational. Space can't compete with Earth economically so it would have to depend subsidized as government program. Its really a catherdal in space for the worship of humanism now that God is dead. Worshipping ourselves, what we arce collectively capable of.

Space settlement as housing project, will not work. Mainly because political dynamics. Which some idiots think are easy to overcome- and they are not.

People will settle in space, because their are jobs in space, and because they will have access to space. Or in other words there are markets in space.
We need to start with a rocket fuel market in space.



I see. And to whom do you plan to sell your rocket fuel?

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #126 on: 09/16/2012 11:58 pm »
There's a great deal of an assumption of reliance on Earth-based government to "do things in space." This has got to end. First of all, no Earth government owns any part of the natural solar system except their portion of the third rock from the sun. No government on Earth will ever invest in assets in the solar system off-Earth in a serious way unless those assets can be brought back to Earth to serve those governments, be taxed and controlled by them. But, they know that if those assets do become valuable to those who work those assets, colonists will demand independence from the mother government and will assert ownership of those assets. History tells us this is so.

If we are going to have colonies in the solar system, we have to recognize that it will only happen in the private sphere, with no ownership by Earth-based governments.

And, if Earth governments try to assert ownership, they are going to find that trying to assert control from the bottom of a gigantic gravity well is a losing proposition.


Colonies in space are a loosing propostion because they have to create everything they need to survive or get it from Earth. Earth has all these things we need naturally and ready for the taking. Every possible thing a colony will need can be made cheaper on Earth. Its a total fantasy.

So to rephrase. "Colonies in space are a loosing proposition because they have to create everything they need to survive or get it from Earth. "
Colonies have to trade with earth for space colonies to exist.
A NASA lunar base could be too expensive. Mainly a lunar base could be too expensive because NASA might think that making bigger and better base is a good idea. In other words, NASA thinks mining water is something it can to do, in order to lower costs, and it won't be something it can do to lower cost- mining lunar water is expensive and difficult, as is mining anything on Earth.
But what could call a lunar base could be small and not be particularly expensive if it has a limited purpose and exit strategy.
So idea is not start with small base and make a bigger and better base.
This base is where one explores the Moon for a few years- upper limit one decade, though 4-5 years could goal.
So NASA job is not lower costs of having Lunar base- it's job is to explore the Moon. Well actually very small portion of the Moon- and of course needs determine what small area [areas] it needs to explore.

In terms of organization management, NASA needs to explore the Moon, then explore Mars. Or roughly the way to Mars is by first by exploring the Moon.
In future we could have lunar mining which exports rocket fuel to L-1- having lunar rocket at L-1 lowers the cost of getting to the Moon. But NASA is not going to do this, instead it going to determine whether something like this is possible. And one part of this is determining whether *minable* water exists on the lunar poles.
NASA will need rocket fuel on the lunar surface. It should ship the rocket fuel needs from Earth. It paid some companies to ship it, or NASA can ship it. Wiser for NASA paid to have someone else ship it. It be wiser to have Japanese space agency ship it than compared to having NASA do it, but better for America launcher providers to do it. It one less thing NASA has to do- granted it could easier be than landing crew on the surface. Having other involved isn't just about some friendly relations of some sort, it paying someone to do something. It's shopping.
A private company may invest money and time to deliver rocket fuel to the lunar surface in best way it can do this. It could thinking doing the same thing in the future for some other customer, other than NASA.
Does it matter if they later do same service for some other space agency- like China. Or some private party?
All NASA wants is the rocket fuel to put in right place and at right time- mainly, probably as important as whatever the price tag is. This is called service.
And NASA's total lunar exploration of the Moon budget costs, has little to do with the cost of rocket launches. It's all about the ground support and number NASA employees involved which is the most significant costs- the years of planning and years of execution of the planning. Or NASA going to spend about 3 billion per year- the launch cost something like 1/10th of these costs. Or it spends a year delaying any launches, it still will cost around 3 billion dollar a year. This true of robotic or manned programs.
The upper limit of any near term lunar manned program is 4-8 billion per year- 5 year 40 billion. 10 billion for just launches is far more launches then NASA could ever want. Say 20,000 per lb [it could much less] is 250 tons of rocket fuel- or about 50 return trips- it might need 10 or 20?
Total cost 50 billion for manned aspect of lunar program- would be required, fairly cheap. Tack on 20 billion for robotic part of lunar program, and it's done.
On to Mars.
Which will require decades and may be 200 billion in cost- so NASA regular budget for NASA Manned programs. It may require slightly higher than normal budgets, but if NASA done a good job with Lunar exploration, and one could having private companies mining lunar water, you probably get enough public support for larger budget. And if private companies are mining lunar water this significantly lower costs Mars exploration say ten year into it. Allowing NASA to do Mars manned and perhaps other manned at same time.
 
« Last Edit: 09/17/2012 12:01 am by gbaikie »

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #127 on: 09/17/2012 12:36 am »
I see colonizing space as a socialist housing project in space and that the only reason people really want to it is because its cool. Everything else is rationale that is not rational. Space can't compete with Earth economically so it would have to depend subsidized as government program. Its really a catherdal in space for the worship of humanism now that God is dead. Worshipping ourselves, what we arce collectively capable of.

These rationales  can easily apply to colonizing other places on Earth that are orders of magnitude easier to do. Yet hardly anyone is advocating colonizing these places because it doesn't have science fiction cool factor that allures fans to space. All the treaths to Earth that could wipe out humans have solutions that would cost much less than science fiction fantasy approaches.


The real value of space has been established and it doesn't involve humans. Comm Sats, Weather Sats and GPS give down to Earth benefits that actually add value ot the economy.

I think this does describe what many people consider colonizing space: A long expensive project of putting people on (mars/the moon/an asteroid) and keeping them alive, until at some point in an unseeable future space is 'colonized'.

That is the "destination driven" approach. Im more for the "capability driven and demonstrator" approach. This lets us attack several problems at once, without one blocking all the others.

*Develop towards self sufficient "moon bases" on earth. Antarctica is one example. A more extravagant one could be the ocean floor.
*Develop better life support, recycling and zero-g health on the ISS. Most of the problem of getting anywhere is about being confident you can float someone in a box for some months and they will come out healthy.
*Develop fuel depots and exploit these to enable larger missions using commercial-sized launchers.
*Develop inflatable heat shields.
*Figure out how to land bigger masses on mars affordably. Curiosity was the size of a mini-cooper, which aint bad..
*Do a robotic sample return mission, using ISRU to produce propellent to return home from martian atmosphere.
*Experiment with ISRU on a teleoperated robotic base at the lunar poles. (though at first you could experiment with same on ocean floor.. sure wish we had something like that at time of the BP oil spill)

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #128 on: 09/17/2012 12:55 am »
pfft.. that's not colonizing space.. that's colonizing another planet.

Now, O'Neill Cylinders and Stanford Torii.. that's colonizing space.

:)

ps. I love the idea of people doing more self-sufficient, semi-closed-life-support experiments on Earth. It's a shame that we seem to assume people who go off to start new societies these days are crazy or even dangerous.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline BobCarver

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #129 on: 09/17/2012 02:39 am »
pfft.. that's not colonizing space.. that's colonizing another planet.

Now, O'Neill Cylinders and Stanford Torii.. that's colonizing space.

:)


Now, we're talking. Instead of building colonies in space near Earth, it would likely be cheaper to build them close to Mars (I propose Phobos be turned into a factory to build O'Neill cylinders in http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29074.0 and http://www.bobcarver.net/spacecolonies/colonies.html). There's room for Martians to benefit from the process as well. Some ground-based resources could be mined and manufactured by Martians, who then transport them up to the colonies and the factory. This would be the basis for the growth of the Martian regional economy. That economy would benefit from the import-export of material to and from the colonies and nearby asteroids.

The crazy, dangerous people living in space colonies will inherit the Earth after the earthlings destroy it. Terraforming on a grand scale will restore it.

Offline Suzy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • RuSpace - my Russian spaceflight website!
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 187
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #130 on: 09/17/2012 05:02 am »
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.
Mars or the Moon would be fun to visit short-term, but live there for years or for the rest of your life? No thanks! Once the novelty wore off, many people would get extremely homesick for Earth, I should imagine - there is no substitute for going for walks in a forest, or along the beach, and the natural world in general, which we have evolved to live in over millions of years. Perhaps only those eventually born off Earth could adapt to cope.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2012 05:10 am by Suzy »

Offline Suzy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • RuSpace - my Russian spaceflight website!
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 187
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #131 on: 09/17/2012 05:05 am »

The crazy, dangerous people living in space colonies will inherit the Earth after the earthlings destroy it. Terraforming on a grand scale will restore it.
Umm... I hope things won't get that dire?  ??? I'd like to see the environment preserved now, in all its complexity and richness, which I doubt terraforming could reproduce adequately.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2012 05:09 am by Suzy »

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #132 on: 09/17/2012 12:45 pm »
there is no substitute for going for walks in a forest, or along the beach, and the natural world in general
I like walking around in the US Southwest deserts.  Australia has some great deserts too.  I like the beauty and complexity of rock laid bare.  Mars has a lot of that.  I like forests too.  But I also like public parks, and indoor atriums and gardens (which I expect colonists will want too). 

But a lot of people (most?) don't go walking through forests.  Many go to their cubicle at work, then go home and watch TV or pursue other non-forest hobbies, and that is the pattern for much of their lives. 
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

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 #133 on: 09/17/2012 01:30 pm »
I simply don't believe that there are that many people who would really want to move to Mars.

Mars or the Moon would be fun to visit short-term, but live there for years or for the rest of your life? No thanks! Once the novelty wore off ... there is no substitute for ... the natural world in general, which we have evolved to live in over millions of years. Perhaps only those eventually born off Earth could adapt to cope.

Well, different strokes for different folks.  Which tells nothing about my personal preferences on this, BTW.  Remember, when the New World was colonized, the vast majority of Europeans stayed home.  While there may be NSoV for off-world colonists, that's not really the issue, and doesn't pertain in the least to the colonization argument.  What the problem is, is getting there.  For the foreseeable future, only small numbers of volunteers will be able to go, and those will be extremely well trained and vetted.

In the case of Luna, and assuming some quasi-business/philanthropical funding scenario, helped with government construction of the first base, it would take some decades of construction to grow to a base of one hundred people or so.  There would also have to be round trip transportation.  For there to be any hope of a tourist market, there would have to be a hotel and tour guides.  As I see it, of the trained and vetted volunteers, many of them would have a not too surprising homesickness, which may not manifest itself for some years.  Novelty has a different lifespan in different people.  People could deal with the novelty issue for some few years, but it cannot be predicted what percentage of them would decide to stay for a lifetime.

If there should be no two way transportation, then one would be sentenced to live up there, without the availability of the choice to change one's mind.  If it is known that people's choices are to be limited to one way tickets, the number of those psychologically vetted, highly technically trained and motivated individual "volunteers" would be a lower number.  There's no real question about that, even as there's no question that the armchairs of the internets will rise up in opposition and continue to hold that one way trips are certain to work.

Here on Earth, the people who burn, bulldoze, and destroy forests have more say than those who would preserve them.  As long as a few pristine forests are kept for TV viewers, at least until CG forests can be perfected, the life patterns of many people remaining on Earth may not notice the change in our biosphere.  But that's a different issue, and colonization is not likely to result in the timely construction of a Naboo like planet.

There's of course the gravity related health issue.  I don't say this in each of my posts, but it remains a fact that off-world colonization may not work.  I hold that it must be, and can only be empirically determined.  Even so, I think we should attempt off-world colonization.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #134 on: 09/17/2012 01:55 pm »
The crazy, dangerous people living in space colonies will inherit the Earth after the earthlings destroy it. Terraforming on a grand scale will restore it.
Umm... I hope things won't get that dire?  ??? I'd like to see the environment preserved now, in all its complexity and richness, which I doubt terraforming could reproduce adequately.

Lets just hope they don't start terraforming it preemptively.. especially the 'lets bang a few rocks into it" school of terraforming.. :)
..though another way of looking at it is that we are beginning to terraform earth now, in the sense that we are beginning to attempt to manage the atmosphere and reclaim deserts and so on.

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 #135 on: 09/17/2012 02:10 pm »
...though another way of looking at it is that we are beginning to terraform earth now, in the sense that we are beginning to attempt to manage the atmosphere and reclaim deserts and so on.

Hopefully not too little, too late.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Jim Davis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #136 on: 09/17/2012 04:18 pm »
Remember, when the New World was colonized, the vast majority of Europeans stayed home.

Nowadays, of course, everybody is staying home.

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 #137 on: 09/17/2012 04:57 pm »
Remember, when the New World was colonized, the vast majority of Europeans stayed home.

Nowadays, of course, everybody is staying home.

Yeah, but that's only because the cartel has raised the price of rocket propellant again.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Jim Davis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #138 on: 09/17/2012 05:29 pm »
Yeah, but that's only because the cartel has raised the price of rocket propellant again.

That's the only reason?

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 #139 on: 09/17/2012 06:58 pm »
Yep.  Amazing isn't it? 
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Jim Davis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #140 on: 09/17/2012 07:30 pm »
Amazing isn't it? 

I don't know about amazing. Naive, certainly.

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 #141 on: 09/17/2012 08:40 pm »
Naive?  Moi?

See how much fun can be had without using smileys?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Celebrimbor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 414
  • Bystander
  • Brinsworth Space Centre, UK
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #142 on: 09/17/2012 09:35 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.

North Korea?

Offline Celebrimbor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 414
  • Bystander
  • Brinsworth Space Centre, UK
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #143 on: 09/17/2012 09:40 pm »
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.

Ahem, it might also enable... um... robotic... colonization.  Is that the time?!

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #144 on: 09/18/2012 08:29 pm »
I see colonizing space as a socialist housing project in space and that the only reason people really want to it is because its cool. Everything else is rationale that is not rational. Space can't compete with Earth economically so it would have to depend subsidized as government program. Its really a catherdal in space for the worship of humanism now that God is dead. Worshipping ourselves, what we arce collectively capable of.

Space settlement as housing project, will not work. Mainly because political dynamics. Which some idiots think are easy to overcome- and they are not.

People will settle in space, because their are jobs in space, and because they will have access to space. Or in other words there are markets in space.
We need to start with a rocket fuel market in space.



I see. And to whom do you plan to sell your rocket fuel?

I think one good starting point would to sell it to whoever is launching from my launch site. It would an advantage of using my launch site at whatever inclination it was at. Of course if other launch site were at same inclination, then rockets launching from these other launch site could also use it. And if these other launch site built their own fuel depot, and they permitted any one to use their fuel depots, than there would more choice- it would be better for launch customers in general.

If didn't have a launch site, instead of LEO, one could put a fuel depot on the Moon. Since the Moon hasn't been adequately explored, it could difficult to determine where would be the best location for the fuel depot.
As general idea, I think having fuel depot in polar poles and on peaks in which there near constant sunlight, is good starting point. So look for one of these peaks which had best landing conditions, and other features.
So the rocket fuel for these fuel depots would shipped from Earth, but I would want to think of the future- for an area which could make rocket fuel which could supply the fuel depot. And having a fuel depot on the Moon, would probably encourage the first lunar mining in that particular region.
« Last Edit: 09/18/2012 08:37 pm by gbaikie »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #145 on: 09/18/2012 09:27 pm »
{snip}
 
So the rocket fuel for these fuel depots would shipped from Earth, but I would want to think of the future- for an area which could make rocket fuel which could supply the fuel depot. And having a fuel depot on the Moon, would probably encourage the first lunar mining in that particular region.

So the first customers for the propellant are the lunar miners.
Then who are the second set of customers - the ones who pay for both the miners and the depot?

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #146 on: 09/18/2012 11:54 pm »
{snip}
 
So the rocket fuel for these fuel depots would shipped from Earth, but I would want to think of the future- for an area which could make rocket fuel which could supply the fuel depot. And having a fuel depot on the Moon, would probably encourage the first lunar mining in that particular region.

So the first customers for the propellant are the lunar miners.
Then who are the second set of customers - the ones who pay for both the miners and the depot?

If you think that basically what industrial revolution was essentially all about was lowering cost/price, one can think of high price as a kind of opportunity to lower cost/price.
From this prospective, the moon is covered with something which is currently at a very high price- and essentially priceless. Moon dirt, lunar samples, or regolith and rocks.
So a "challenge" or opportunity would be to make lunar dirt on Earth, the same price or cheaper than gold on Earth.
Lunar dirt is rare, but it also has uses- certainly more use than diamonds.

So gold is: $1,773.80 per troy oz at the moment. Or there are 31.1 grams per troy oz, so gold is $57.03  per gram.
And lunar dirt is about somewhere over $1000 per gram. If you can cause
lunar dirt to be worth about $100 per gram, that is better than it being over $1000 per gram, but simply being able to buy a variety of lunar dirt at $1000 per gram is better than what we have now.
If making lunar rocket fuel, one can get lots of rocket fuel at a lower price, and this would lower the cost of shipping lunar dirt to Earth.
The market size for lunar dirt can only be guessed at- perhaps it's around the same as world gold supply [very large amount], but it doesn't really matter- the point it you could get lunar dirt at a cheaper price, and there no "good" possibly associated with at having high prices of lunar dirt.
But if one dealing quantities of 100 tons or less, then it probably will have a market value on earth at higher than price of gold. If lunar samples were as cheap as gold and highly available, in terms quantity and variety, then one market could be schools- a school could have some quantity available for student to merely see, and do something related science in regard to them. Plus of course what one call more serious scientific interest could also have them available, and of course private collector, similar to how there are private collectors of meteorites- it something that they are interested for various reasons.

So lunar regolith, unusual lunar rocks, pristine-like core samples, etc.
is one lunar export market. This of course is not unique to the Moon- asteroids and Mars samples would also be wanted.

The next major lunar export could be rocket fuel- it would exported to high earth orbit, because rocket fuel in high earth orbit is currently expensive- more expensive than LEO. More valuable than LEO, if one is going beyond LEO. Again there is not problem if High earth orbit rocket fuel was cheaper than it is today. By high earth orbit- I am including lunar orbit, all L-points, GEO, and even Mars orbit [or other planet's orbit, or "free space", say, around the various asteroids].

Other things could exported from the Moon or from Asteroids. A simple example is PGMs. But one might want export pure silicon and things made from it- PV panels. To do this effectively one probably wants develop manufacturing techniques in the Lunar environment. So anyone looking at the future, may need lunar laboratories, which may address many different problems to do with this.
So sites in which such things can be done could seen more as investing foreign capital, though one could put them in the "exports" category, though investments in potential future lunar exports could be more exact.
Similar to labs, one could sites for science done on the Moon because the moon is a good location to do them. The Moon is more stable than Earth. The moon always has a night sky- an optical telescope can work fine during a lunar day. The Moon has less gravity- that relates to lot of things of scienific interest- nanotechnology, microbiology, crystal growth, and of course, how do living creatures over the long periods respond to low gravity conditions.
The export of rocket fuel [or water, or other things, shielding or whatever] could make NASA's exploratory of Mars cheaper. Also the simple fact of having any kind commercial activity [regardless of scale] helps sells the whole idea of doing and continuing Mars exploration. There is some point to exploring Mars, if the public can it's possible that in the relative near future there may human settlements on Mars.
I could go on.
« Last Edit: 09/19/2012 12:16 am by gbaikie »

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
« Reply #147 on: 09/19/2012 03:08 am »
Ahem, it might also enable... um... robotic... colonization.  Is that the time?!

I think we will have to take the robots more seriously now that they can shoot frikking laser beams from their head.

Tags:
 

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