Off world colonies are not the same as off continent colonies. The scifi depiction of lunar and mars from the 50's-70's is not going to happen. I never said that "off Earth settlements" wouldn't benefit humanity. They won't benefit nations and their gov't because 1. They won't return resources back to the homeland unlike terrestrial colonies did2. The off earth colonies will have their own gov't3. The USA is not going to establish colonies.So, yes, I can say that they would be "no benefit to the USA as a nation".
How confident are you that off-world settlements will happen at all? Will there ever be true colonies, where people will spend their whole lives? And what about lunar resorts, or ISRU facilities where people might work for several years of their lives? How far in the future is all this? Decades, centuries, a thousand years or more?
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 03/10/2009 04:52 pm"Non-Plausible, too many assumptions" I ... was hoping to make only three assumptions [about lunar colonization], but I kept on going to see just what it would take. So I hear the plausibility argument. But the technical argument is still mine. We coulda done it if we wanted to.The technical argument is not valid. ...
"Non-Plausible, too many assumptions" I ... was hoping to make only three assumptions [about lunar colonization], but I kept on going to see just what it would take. So I hear the plausibility argument. But the technical argument is still mine. We coulda done it if we wanted to.
One of the big objections to colonies, as opposed to outposts, is about what people do on them.The idea of "what people do on the outpost" is intended to stimulate discussion about the economics of an effort such as this, on both sides of the balance sheet.To me, you start with:1. Flags and footprints.2. Land a habitat module for 3 or 4 people to stay and study the area....9. The population is doubled to 48...
My feeling is that if we plan for this eventuality, then nobody will lose money, and nobody will throw rocks. In other words, there won't be a violent revolution when the time for independence has come.In general, my position is that we should accelerate our use of chemical rocketry to get to the Moon and Mars, and to stay there. ...The time frame for this to happen would be between forty and a hundred years. The technical and cost and even chemical rocketry objections to this idea are surmountable, as a brief discussion in the "Lunar colony in 1969" thread suggests.As always, it is political will which seems to be the insurmountable problem, but the strenuous objections raised surprise me in their ferocity. My suggestion that political will can be influenced by a better public education system here in the US is seen as being fruitless.
As much as I like Elon Musk, colonization will not happen before we come up with something cheaper and more reliable than chemical propulsion.
So the topic is: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why? Admitting that some will hold the opinion "No-way, No-how".
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/09/2012 02:53 pmSo the topic is: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why? Admitting that some will hold the opinion "No-way, No-how".I'm of the opinion that colonization as an explicit goal is actually pretty silly, as rarely in human history have things happened like that. People have set out in search for new lands mostly for other reasons, and settlement, often planned to be temporary, has always been sort of a side effect.
Colonization: Where, when, who, what, and why?
I understand "No-way, No-how", as a choice. I'm struggling with "silly", when considering that humans have done a lot of colonization over the millenia on Earth. And considering the New World effort, colonization wasn't considered to be "temporary" in the least.Maybe you could clarify?
I don't see why people are so against chemical propulsion… It clearly isn't about the cost of fuel. And we certainly use similar fuels every day and to fly aroUnd the world. What's wrong with chemical?...So why the hate of chemical? The problem is the throwing away of the vehicle, not what propellant it uses (directly).
This was only possible after a technological breakthrough: upwind sailing. Sure, sailing had been around for millennial, but it took a propulsion change to make it happen.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/10/2012 07:51 pmI understand "No-way, No-how", as a choice. I'm struggling with "silly", when considering that humans have done a lot of colonization over the millenia on Earth. And considering the New World effort, colonization wasn't considered to be "temporary" in the least.Maybe you could clarify?I'm not sure i can clarify much better, but to restate that humans have colonized a lot, but rarely, if ever, with explicit stated intent of doing so. Again, the fact that people stay and settle is often a side effect of some other goal that brought them there.
Well, I see what you're saying in part. "We came for the gold and spices, but we stayed because of the natives and the beautiful beaches!"...Don't get the silly part, still. Without further clarification, MSL must be considered "silly", given the hunger, ignorance and poverty back home.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/09/2012 08:27 pmI 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.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/10/2012 11:00 pmWell, 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!
Quote from: thydusk666 on 09/10/2012 11:59 pmDon'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.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/10/2012 11:00 pmWell, 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.
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.
Quote from: IRobot on 09/10/2012 09:21 pmThis was only possible after a technological breakthrough: upwind sailing. Sure, sailing had been around for millennial, but it took a propulsion change to make it happen.Huh ? Viking ships were able to sail upwind. Nevertheless, Leif Ericson's name is not widely recognized.
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
Quote from: thydusk666 on 09/11/2012 12:21 amBut 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.
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.
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…
ISS is a space based laboratory.
Quote from: savuporo on 09/10/2012 09:50 pmQuote from: IRobot on 09/10/2012 09:21 pmThis was only possible after a technological breakthrough: upwind sailing. Sure, sailing had been around for millennial, but it took a propulsion change to make it happen.Huh ? Viking ships were able to sail upwind. Nevertheless, Leif Ericson's name is not widely recognized. Viking ships had square rig, it can't sail upwind. But they could row....
Quote from: IRobot on 09/11/2012 09:45 amQuote from: savuporo on 09/10/2012 09:50 pmQuote from: IRobot on 09/10/2012 09:21 pmThis was only possible after a technological breakthrough: upwind sailing. Sure, sailing had been around for millennial, but it took a propulsion change to make it happen.Huh ? Viking ships were able to sail upwind. Nevertheless, Leif Ericson's name is not widely recognized. Viking ships had square rig, it can't sail upwind. But they could row....No, they could also sail slightly upwind.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/11/2012 02:18 pmQuote from: IRobot on 09/11/2012 09:45 amQuote from: savuporo on 09/10/2012 09:50 pmQuote from: IRobot on 09/10/2012 09:21 pmThis was only possible after a technological breakthrough: upwind sailing. Sure, sailing had been around for millennial, but it took a propulsion change to make it happen.Huh ? Viking ships were able to sail upwind. Nevertheless, Leif Ericson's name is not widely recognized. Viking ships had square rig, it can't sail upwind. But they could row....No, they could also sail slightly upwind.Actually pretty well. I happened to be on a replica one two weeks ago. And square rigging has an impact, but does not prevent sailing upwind. Upwind sailing ( and fore-and-aft rigging by the way ) has been around for ages, it wasn't "invented" in europe in 15th century. Portugese carracks were not a "fundamental technological breakthrough in propulsion"EDIT: and sorry, this is wildly off topic.
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…
Our government's current throwaway exploration paradigm doesn't inspire confidence that the price of exploration will ever come down. In fact, the outright antagonism expressed by some of the "players" on this forum, to the idea of reusability, seems to be an expression of the government's intent to keep spaceflight expensive, and thus limit the possible economic utility of space to the private citizen.
When: Not in this centuryThe rest: I have no idea, probably if there will be some pro-science dictatorship in some country they could start own colony
Quote from: baddux on 09/11/2012 07:29 pmWhen: Not in this centuryThe rest: I have no idea, probably if there will be some pro-science dictatorship in some country they could start own colonyInteresting idea!If such a genius form of dictatorship will ever exist, it would probably guarantee the most advanced nation on Earth. And way beyond.
Quote from: gbaikie on 09/11/2012 05:08 amA failed colony is one that people go somewhere, live for some time, then stop living there.It seems to me, that ISS is a colonyISS is a space based laboratory. And this is where I stopped reading your post. IMO.
There is a clear conceptual difference with colonization off planet. Daughterkind will have to make an admission that we have choice and free will, and our governments, I think, will have to support our choices. This type of colonization, ignoring directed panspermia, would be the first time that humanity would decide to go and colonize a distant destination. This is the difference that you realize:Quote from: savuporo on 09/10/2012 09:11 pmI'm not sure i can clarify much better, but to restate that humans have colonized a lot, but rarely, if ever, with explicit stated intent of doing so.What you didn't say, but which I assumed you were implying, is that since mankind has not historically and explicitly stated an intent to colonize yet, then that would stand as some sort of proof that we should not state an intent to colonize. Hopefully, that is not what you're implying.
Quote from: spaceStalker on 09/11/2012 12:23 pmQuote from: gbaikie on 09/11/2012 05:08 amA failed colony is one that people go somewhere, live for some time, then stop living there.It seems to me, that ISS is a colonyISS is a space based laboratory. And this is where I stopped reading your post. IMO.We are still living in a world where some people are born and die in the same general region. And it's possible people consider a colony has to include an element some people continually spending their entire lives in a general location.Therefore one could have human activity on the Moon involving say as much as million people over a period of a century spending some time on lunar surface, but one could consider that if people are not continuously staying on the moon that there isn't a colony on the Moon.Whereas I would regard colony the beginning of continual presence of human beings [or even robots] at a location [a location which be could constantly moving as in an orbit].One could have many different requirements for what some may regard as colony. A cemetery may be one of this elements. Children being born at a location may be another.But my point was if ISS continues [even if entire structure is replaced] then that could regarded as colony. And if ceases then people in future could regard it as a failed colony.
Quote from: savuporo on 09/11/2012 02:43 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 09/11/2012 02:18 pmQuote from: IRobot on 09/11/2012 09:45 amQuote from: savuporo on 09/10/2012 09:50 pmQuote from: IRobot on 09/10/2012 09:21 pmThis was only possible after a technological breakthrough: upwind sailing. Sure, sailing had been around for millennial, but it took a propulsion change to make it happen.Huh ? Viking ships were able to sail upwind. Nevertheless, Leif Ericson's name is not widely recognized. Viking ships had square rig, it can't sail upwind. But they could row....No, they could also sail slightly upwind.Actually pretty well. I happened to be on a replica one two weeks ago. And square rigging has an impact, but does not prevent sailing upwind. Upwind sailing ( and fore-and-aft rigging by the way ) has been around for ages, it wasn't "invented" in europe in 15th century. Portugese carracks were not a "fundamental technological breakthrough in propulsion"EDIT: and sorry, this is wildly off topic.Portuguese Caravel (not the carrack) was the first large ship with latin sails, which can sail upwind. Latin sails existed since roman times, but they were not used on large ships because of structural issues.And no, squared rig boats cannot sail upwind, their shape becomes deformed due to lack of luff tension and they just sail sideways. They can reach maybe 60º apparent wind, which might be around 80º true wind, but they lose all ground because of leeway. So yes, you can "point" them upwind but you gain zero ground doing it.
Having square rig didn't stop Napoleonic era ships sailing up wind.
Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?
Quote from: gbaikie on 09/11/2012 09:42 pmQuote from: spaceStalker on 09/11/2012 12:23 pmQuote from: gbaikie on 09/11/2012 05:08 amA failed colony is one that people go somewhere, live for some time, then stop living there.It seems to me, that ISS is a colonyISS is a space based laboratory. And this is where I stopped reading your post. IMO.We are still living in a world where some people are born and die in the same general region. And it's possible people consider a colony has to include an element some people continually spending their entire lives in a general location.Therefore one could have human activity on the Moon involving say as much as million people over a period of a century spending some time on lunar surface, but one could consider that if people are not continuously staying on the moon that there isn't a colony on the Moon.Whereas I would regard colony the beginning of continual presence of human beings [or even robots] at a location [a location which be could constantly moving as in an orbit].One could have many different requirements for what some may regard as colony. A cemetery may be one of this elements. Children being born at a location may be another.But my point was if ISS continues [even if entire structure is replaced] then that could regarded as colony. And if ceases then people in future could regard it as a failed colony. It's a colony if people move there with the intent of living their lives there.
What i'm guessing and implying, is that advocating and supporting some other large scale space development effort ( i dont know what it could be, tourism, resource exploitation, ...
QuoteColonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?Most space advocates can tell you that colonization involves two critical steps(1) To actually put someone on Mars.(2) Underpants.Actually it involves a thousand more moderate and sensible achievements, and the destination is actually not that significant because although Martian and Lunar ISRU may be totally different, they are only a fraction of the problem.Finally, when enough of these problems are solved, one organization may decide to colonize space.. but who, how or why does not matter much. What will really matter is the 90% that happens before then, though this 90% may well be forgotten by history.Therefore I think the question of when, how and why is really about what changes in our priorities so that we actually start solving relevant problems. Putting people on other worlds and waiting for these problems to be solved is an incredibly inefficient and risky way to do this.I think actual technology development will happen in three prongs:(0) Experience with vacuum and zero-g.LEO, eg ISS. ISS tends to get a bad rap for its lack of achieving anything. I suspect there is something rotten there, but the fact is, the ISS is only just now getting a chance to achieve something.(1) Self sufficiency.As earth's natural resources run out, we are going to be forced to master alternate energies like solar and nuclear; we will become much better at recycling; we will grow food more efficiently and often closer to home, perhaps in multistory farms. We will take full control of our life support systems. Our cities will become more and more like moon bases. We will learn to build them in places that were previously considered uninhabitable. At some point the question will cease to be why and become why not.(2) The other stuff, like ISRU and teleoperation.I think we are headed for a robotic lunar trailerpark 'colony' focusing on ISRU. Multiple countries and organisations are now looking at precursor missions. They are interested in ISRU, the poles and there is also interest in repeat business. Being closer to home the lunar poles are a good place to advertise your industrial maturity.The details may be wrong, and if we ever get such a trailer park it may well quickly become a manned base, but the point is that if you have something like these three points you will be making steady progress towards the point where a single or multiple groups can decide to begin calling what they do colonization.
Well yeah. You and I may not be on the same page, but I think we're in the same book, and not that far from one another.The biggest difference is that I have no conceptual problem with suggesting colonization.
As for earth going out of resources- don't see that happening soon.If we get to situation of not enough resources on Earth it will be about a century in the future, and don't see such state to cause us to go into space. The shortage or abundance of resources is somewhat subjective- one could argue we have had already had shortage for decades- $100 barrel oil suggest this, but could "live with" $200 barrel of oil, or $1000 per barrel. And if have $1000 barrel oil, it will not make solar energy more viable in Germany. The shortage of resource will drive some technology, but it's doubtful it will affect whether we leave Earth.It seems more likely that lunar settlement would drive solar energy usageon Earth.
Quote from: gbaikie on 09/13/2012 01:24 amAs for earth going out of resources- don't see that happening soon.If we get to situation of not enough resources on Earth it will be about a century in the future, and don't see such state to cause us to go into space. The shortage or abundance of resources is somewhat subjective- one could argue we have had already had shortage for decades- $100 barrel oil suggest this, but could "live with" $200 barrel of oil, or $1000 per barrel. And if have $1000 barrel oil, it will not make solar energy more viable in Germany. The shortage of resource will drive some technology, but it's doubtful it will affect whether we leave Earth.It seems more likely that lunar settlement would drive solar energy usageon Earth.Investment in space is tiny compared investment on earth, so even a mediocre increase in solar energy for earth would dwarf investment in solar energy from the space budget.
Not sure about the germany reference, but I thing an order of magnitude increase in oil prices would make a very large difference in investment in alternate energy such as solar, nuclear and wind.
Im not discussing something extreme, like exhausting earth and moving for greener pastures. It is just one factor which will encourage investment in alternate energy and recycling.
The stuff I am discussing, I think is happening right now.Rise of the carbon neutral cityrenewable energy investment on risePeak waterForgetting all the scare stories, I think these sorts of things are all becoming more topical and I think interest will grow from here on out rather than fade away as a fad. Rather than a negative thing, to me it feels like technology is finally beginning to get funding and accelerate, for example new ideas for cheaper solar panels.
We are still living in a world where some people are born and die in the same general region world.Fixed that for ya...
But at the moment, our government should build the infrastructure.
Quote from: KelvinZero on 09/13/2012 02:26 pmInvestment in space is tiny compared investment on earth, so even a mediocre increase in solar energy for earth would dwarf investment in solar energy from the space budget.Many people are suffering from the delusion that the massive amounts of money that the German public spent on solar energy has significantly lowered the cost of solar energyQuoteNot sure about the germany reference, but I thing an order of magnitude increase in oil prices would make a very large difference in investment in alternate energy such as solar, nuclear and wind.This is wrong on couple levels. Oil is used for transportation. Solar and nuclear and wind isn't used in transportation [to any significant degree].Second thing, lower costs in oil makes doing anything [including making Solar and nuclear and wind] less expensive. Higher cost of oil- means higher costs of everything.
Investment in space is tiny compared investment on earth, so even a mediocre increase in solar energy for earth would dwarf investment in solar energy from the space budget.
Allow me to redraw my previous thoughts and to make a prediction:3D printing technology is expected to play a major role in manufacturing in near-medium term future, massivly lowering the production costs, especially where manual labor and complex assembly process is involved.By the time RLV technology matures, 3D manufacturing will allow building of complete parts and subassembly and later on, ultimately a complete rocket, from top to bottom.These two combined (reusability and lower production costs) will enable human spaceflight as we dream of today. Further more, using 3D printing, you will be able to manufacture on-site, as long as you have the energy and the right materials (let's call them 3D printer tonner), be it plastic, metal, glass and so on.I'm putting my hopes in 3D printing more than into Reusability. However, both technologies cumulated should enable a much brighter future.When: I dare to say 15-20yearsFeel free do debate on this.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/12/2012 07:33 pmYou 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.
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 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
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.
Quote from: gbaikie on 09/15/2012 01:42 amAnd 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. QuoteSo, 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?
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...
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 agree with Gerard K. O'Neill that planetary surfaces are not the best place for humanity.
The big challenge in the future? Terraforming Earth back into a livable habitat.
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.
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!
Quote from: BobCarver on 09/15/2012 03:08 amEvidence 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.Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/15/2012 02:53 pmI took a peek at the NCAR website, but did not find this exact prediction, so a link would be appreciated.
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.Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/15/2012 02:53 pmI took a peek at the NCAR website, but did not find this exact prediction, so a link would be appreciated.
I took a peek at the NCAR website, but did not find this exact prediction, so a link would be appreciated.
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.
Quote from: thydusk666 on 09/14/2012 03:06 pmThere 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.
Climate change (weather in the good direction or in the cold direction) will not be a significant driver for colonizing space.
Quote from: go4mars on 09/15/2012 03:59 pmClimate 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.
Quote from: BobCarver on 09/15/2012 05:03 pmQuote from: go4mars on 09/15/2012 03:59 pmClimate 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_WattsIn what way is he connected to climate change?
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 sayabout global warming or more current term, climate change.
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.
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.
Quote from: gbaikie on 09/15/2012 08:37 pmThe 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 sayabout 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Moon's [initial] business case is stronger for transient populations, but not permanent colonists.
I see colonizing space as a socialist housing project in space...
In addition to not posting more nonsense about climate change, please no more posts containing the word "socialist".
It won't win me many fans here but I had to call a spade a spade.
Quote from: Joel on 09/16/2012 03:08 pmIn 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.
Quote from: greengoreironcore on 09/16/2012 02:52 pmIt 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.
Of course, the way I see it, martian colonization only has a chance after lunar colonization.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/16/2012 02:43 pmOf 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.
No problem. I just think that the future will take your spade, melt it down, and build a rocket nozzle out of it.
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.
Quote from: greengoreironcore on 09/16/2012 03:13 pmThey 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).
Hopium is the religion of the people
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/16/2012 03:15 pmYour 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
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.
Quote from: greengoreironcore on 09/16/2012 03:40 pmHopium is the religion of the peopleUm... 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!
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.
Quote from: greengoreironcore on 09/16/2012 03:45 pmThose 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.
Wishful thinking seems to have an infinite ISP on these forums.
Quote from: greengoreironcore on 09/16/2012 03:52 pmWishful 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.
Quote from: Joel on 09/16/2012 03:29 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 09/16/2012 02:43 pmOf 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.
Where: Mars, Moon, EML, LEO. I don't know the order.
Hopium is the religion of the people.
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.
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.
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
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.
I can hardly justify making a government agency for stunts.
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.
Define your terms please. Sounds kinda wishy washy to me.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Its not as cool, I will admit.
They are doing things to "inspire", to go where no man has gone before.
Send robots to fix the broken robot. It would still be cheaper than sending humans.
Even if the legal regime was changed to allow for them, no one but the goverment would willing or able to build one.
i believe Antartica is a more likely model for humans in space than settling the "new" frontier of the Americas.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: greengoreironcore on 09/16/2012 02:31 pmI 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.
Quote from: BobCarver on 09/16/2012 06:07 pmThere'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.
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.
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.
pfft.. that's not colonizing space.. that's colonizing another planet.Now, O'Neill Cylinders and Stanford Torii.. that's colonizing space.
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.
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.
there is no substitute for going for walks in a forest, or along the beach, and the natural world in general
Quote from: Joel on 09/14/2012 02:30 pmI 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.
I simply don't believe that there are that many people who would really want to move to Mars.
Quote from: BobCarver on 09/17/2012 02:39 amThe 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.
...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.
Remember, when the New World was colonized, the vast majority of Europeans stayed home.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/17/2012 01:30 pmRemember, 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.
Amazing isn't it?
Quote from: gbaikie on 09/16/2012 09:18 pmQuote from: greengoreironcore on 09/16/2012 02:31 pmI 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?
{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.
Quote from: gbaikie on 09/18/2012 08:29 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?
Ahem, it might also enable... um... robotic... colonization. Is that the time?!