Author Topic: Colonization: Where, when, who, what, why, and how?  (Read 14019 times)

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3869
  • Liked: 43
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: 20632
  • Liked: 2469
  • Minnesota
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: 139
  • Liked: 7
  • I see dead pixels in the sky!
  • Europe
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: 3223
  • Liked: 266
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: 139
  • Liked: 7
  • I see dead pixels in the sky!
  • Europe
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: 9084
  • Liked: 556
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
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: 3223
  • Liked: 266
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: 1453
  • Liked: 36
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: 930
  • Liked: 99
  • Portugal & Germany
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: 88
  • Liked: 2
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: 5012
  • Liked: 693
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”...
~Robert

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9084
  • Liked: 556
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
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: 9084
  • Liked: 556
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
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: 9084
  • Liked: 556
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
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: 20632
  • Liked: 2469
  • Minnesota
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: 3223
  • Liked: 266
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: 930
  • Liked: 99
  • Portugal & Germany
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: 3223
  • Liked: 266
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: 3929
  • Liked: 550
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
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

Offline baddux

  • Member
  • Posts: 93
  • Liked: 0
  • Finland
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

Tags: