Interesting topic subject, on request. Everyone's input, small or large, would be appreciated by the person requesting the thread.To first order: "How urgent is it to develop a self-sustaining off-earth presence?"To second order: "How much time do we have to build a half-sustaining off-earth presence?"This all plays into Elon Musk and Dr Hawking's desire to realize the human race's ability to become multi-planatary.
To first order: "How urgent is it to develop a self-sustaining off-earth presence?"To second order: "How much time do we have to build a half-sustaining off-earth presence?"
I think it is pretty urgent. Not because we are running out of resources on earth, ...But there is a struggle going on between people that want to see mankind reach for the stars, and people that want to drag mankind back to the stone age: radical environmentalists, religious fanatics, marxists that are disgusted by mankind because marxism doesn't work, and just plain misantropes. ... They might be able to drag everyone on earth back, but there will be some people that are forever out of reach.
QuoteTo first order: "How urgent is it to develop a self-sustaining off-earth presence?"To second order: "How much time do we have to build a half-sustaining off-earth presence?"This is a question that has preoccupied me for at least the last decade.Not a lot of people appreciate just how interconnected modern technological human society is, or how wide-flung the infrastructure that they rely on for their everyday survival. To within a close approximation, no-one in a developed society has the ability to even survive in the event of a relatively minor disaster. Consider, for example, the effect on a typical urban area of simply suspending all utilities (running water, electricity, communications), without any timely response from aid agencies. Most analyses that I am aware of suggest total loss of law and order within hours and widespread starvation, dysentery and cholera within days. Consider that in the UK, only 35% of the food consumed by the population is produced domestically. Any extensive breakdown in international trade would result in the majority of the population rapidly starving to death....In summary: I cannot think of any more urgent human endeavour; and 50-100 years maximum.
Is it urgent? Relatively speaking, yes.
I think it is pretty urgent.But there is a struggle going on between people that want to see mankind reach for the stars, and people ...[who don't.]
From a larger perspective:We are living at a very unique time in the history of the universe. It is the very first time any lifeform that we know of has even the slightest capability to leave its home planet at will, to make life multiplanetary.
I've posted on other threads already my concern for a small Lunar base to see if we can live outside of Earth. With that I would say now is the time to fund or foundations to get us to EML1/2 and Lunar ... If all works out then Mars base followed by colony...End of World stuff, so what! It's more about being allowed to leave. ...
Not a lot of people appreciate just how interconnected modern technological human society is ... Most analyses that I am aware of suggest total loss of law and order within hours and widespread starvation, dysentery and cholera within days.
“The Bank Account” that we have been drawing on, is coming close to being empty, unless we find a fundamentally new source of energy, new resources and ways to feed and cloth the 9 Billion people that will inhabit this planet in 39 years...
Sorry, but space won't save us.
If water and oxygen were the only needs on Mars/Moon...Based on these requirements, it is 100% impossible to recycle the human exhaust products to put a large population (1 million people) on the moon / Mars. Take the average human water consumption down an order of magnitude, it is still 100% impossible to do this.
Is our current industrialized civilization on planet Earth in danger of collapsing? Absolutely, and acutely, for all the reasons expressed above (overpopulation, resource depletion, conflict, over-dependancy on technology) but also due to a generalized feeling of disillusionnement about technology and civilization and the rise of both left- and rightwing antiscience movements.
{snip}The moon might be a different story except maybe at the poles, since it has a 14 day light, 14 day night cycle. Plants would either have to adapt or be grown near the poles where there would be more light.
There is no crisis. That said, the window when we have the economic and natural resource wherewithal to conduct a major push into space may be limited. Therefore, it would behoove us to quit pussyfooting around.
Also, the size of the "seedcorn" required for a technical civilization is getting smaller because of technologies like 3D printing. There are a few important puzzle pieces missing. It still requires a huge worldwide infrastructure to build modern microprocessors. But some progress is being made in this area as well.
Global Village Construction Sethttp://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Global_Village_Construction_Set
Knowing that it could take generations to accomplish an off world self sustaining society, would it be possible to take steps now to insure that the human race does not disappear all together?I was thinking of DNA/Genetic samples that could be placed in orbit or sent to mars to keep them from harm? This way in the future maybe the human race could be cloned back into existence.
Zeroth order: If you were to take fossil fuels out of the equation on Earth, how much of human civilization right here would be self sustaining? If you take the point of view that fossil fuels are not really part of 'humanity' then we are not in fact self sustaining here on Earth, so we can't really talk about extending outwards...
Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels is easier and more urgent than extending a self sustaining presence outwards.
When I read the mars trilogy by kim stanley robinson, I thought the people preferring lifeless rocks over life were overdone. But these people exist. They are basically mainstream in germany. If you have a positive view of the future people think you are stupid.
Quote from: rklaehn on 05/30/2012 07:43 pmWhen I read the mars trilogy by kim stanley robinson, I thought the people preferring lifeless rocks over life were overdone. But these people exist. They are basically mainstream in germany. If you have a positive view of the future people think you are stupid. Why do you say that?I've thought that Muslim suicide bombers are scary, but this would be much worse!
What about thorium? That is a fossil fuel, but it could drive a technical civilization for many million years. Or what about deuterium? It's also a fossil fuel, but it would last longer than the sun at current energy consumption levels. So not every fossil fuel is unsustainable.
Quote from: rklaehn on 06/01/2012 10:12 amWhat about thorium? That is a fossil fuel, but it could drive a technical civilization for many million years. Or what about deuterium? It's also a fossil fuel, but it would last longer than the sun at current energy consumption levels. So not every fossil fuel is unsustainable.You might want to buy yourself a dictionary sometime.
You are right. I meant non-renewable.
Quote from: rklaehn on 06/01/2012 11:58 amYou are right. I meant non-renewable.Okay. And you probably mean "technological civilization" too.
The problem here is not so much the terminology as the whole mindset that somehow energy production is a natural process. Like there's a stream you can go to and collect electricity. It sounds preposterous, and we all know it is, but that doesn't stop anyone from talking about "natural resources".
I had an argument about this earlier today, but I think this is getting a little off topic. To get back on topic, do people generally agree that we are at a moment in time where our civilisation has the technological base required to establish off-Earth colonies, but not the political will to do so?
I see someone has already linked VHEMT, the ultimate anti-progress, anti-human organized group around (and whose stated goal is visible in the name "voluntary human extinction movement"), but there are many others as well, from lunatic left-wingers, over extreme environmentalists who value plants and animals more than human life all the way to all sorts of rabid religious radicals...
I kind of took VHEMT for performance art. Too baldly infantile to actually be intended for rousing a following. Or, a piece of elegantly, eruditely stupid art to be horrified by, and then leave the museum, and go get a good dinner.
Basing any kind of assumption of consumption rates in a space colony on data baselined by US averages is a bit fatuous, don't you think?
Also, the size of the "seedcorn" required for a technical civilization is getting smaller because of technologies like 3D printing.
What about thorium?
Ever more people reject science as a force of good and believe technology is evil.
We are definitely at a technological level where it makes sense to start establishing off-earth settlements. The missing technology required will only be developed during the attempt.
[When government is involved] actually accomplishing the goal of the program becomes less and less important.
People that view human achievement and aspiration like planetary resources or spacex as something positive are definitely in the majority.
But the good thing is that these people don't reproduce. .... So after a few decades hopefully these idiots will have removed themselves from the gene pool.
The problem is, there are quite a few sympathizes who think that restricting yourself to the "voluntary" part is not gonna be enough to save Mother Earth from the Plague (us) and who advocate other, less voluntary, methods...
Schlack and Wordekemper analyzed their data after the mission and found that plant growth was first observed on the 4th day after seed planting, somewhat slower than expected for Earth-grown rice. Growth then progressed at a normal rate, but the direction was extremely irregular and inconsistent, with stems for some reason making 1 80-degree turns away from the light and many plant tips demonstrating curled patterns. The stems seemed to exhibit no phototropic effect....From photographs as well as Gibson's observations, Schlack set about the task of reconstructing the growth patterns of the roots and stems of each seedling. Of the 24 seeds planted, only 10 developed. This is a number which is close to the germination ratio of 12 out of 24 observed in the control group planted on Earth.The longest stems to develop in testing on Earth were approximately 2 inches long. It is interesting that one leaf from compartment 4 of the Skylab container grew to 4.2 inches. While it was impossible to measure precisely the leaf and root dimensions or growth rates from photographs, the results indicated that the Skylab rice plants grew as fast or faster than the Earth plants after the seeds had germinated.
The whole anti-nuclear movement is illustrative of how people become irrationally afraid of something because they don't understand it. Or even worse, because of the little knowledge we do have (we have incredibly powerful instruments that can measure infinitesimal radiation levels in tuna from Fukishima, far below the natural radiation ... people are just automatically afraid.
I've expressed the above ideas virtually every opportunity that I can.
We have wasted forty years so far, depending on the honesty of our politicians to do the right thing on this topic and on many others. It is a misguided dependency not based on fact; our politicians simply prefer to stay in power, and do not work toward the common good all that much. I think there is some evidence to support a contention that we are being kept on planet. The urgency to establish a lunar base is high, and is an absolute prerequisite for any colonization effort.Could this thread be turned into a poll?
If water and oxygen were the only needs on Mars/Moon...Average consumption/usage of ONE US human per day:Water: 575 liters/day - total usage [1] 2 liters/day - consumption w/ typical humidity on EarthOxygen: 360 liters/day - healthy adult at rest [2]References:1. United Nations Development Program - Human Development Report, 20062. Normal Hemodynamic Parameters and Laboratory Values, Edwards Lifesciences LLC, 2009.Based on these requirements, it is 100% impossible to recycle the human exhaust products to put a large population (1 million people) on the moon / Mars. Take the average human water consumption down an order of magnitude, it is still 100% impossible to do this. Now add the additional requirements of food, supplies other consumables (2-ply toilet paper). As they say in NY... fuhgedaboudit.
The anti-science and anti-progress brigade is really bad. ... this religion of self-hate is quite destructive.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 05/31/2012 02:42 pmI've expressed the above ideas virtually every opportunity that I can. Me too... sometimes I just don't get why people don't get this.QuoteWe have wasted forty years so far, depending on the honesty of our politicians to do the right thing on this topic and on many others. ... The urgency to establish a lunar base is high, and is an absolute prerequisite for any colonization effort.I agree with everything you say about politicians, sadly. But I'm not sure that a lunar base is *mandatory*...
We have wasted forty years so far, depending on the honesty of our politicians to do the right thing on this topic and on many others. ... The urgency to establish a lunar base is high, and is an absolute prerequisite for any colonization effort.
...second, there is an ocean of water on mars, both in the regolith and in the polar ice caps. Even if you would not have a closed water cycle, mars could support millions of humans for the forseeable future.
What if all the females males on the planet just happened to say "We've had enough!"
Quote from: Warren Platts on 06/01/2012 08:10 pmWhat if all the females on the planet just happened to say "We've had enough!" End of the world fer shure.
What if all the females on the planet just happened to say "We've had enough!"
If you could provide some evidence for how much water is up there, and a fairly valid estimate of how much of it could be accessible in the next twenty to fifty years, then we could have a discussion on how many people could live up there.
821,000 cubic kilometers should be enough for a long time, even if you could somehow "consume" it.
"How urgent is it to develop a self-sustaining off-earth presence?"
"How much time do we have to build a half-sustaining off-earth presence?"
4 - Biologic threats (natural & man made) - Two of my grand parents caught and survived the Spanish flu in 1918. It killed 4 or 5 percent of the human population. The black plague killed higher percent of some areas it hit. I'm no biologist, but I have listened to some people who have played one in movies and on television. The threat here comes down to will a new virus pop up that can in the world of modern medicine quickly spread and kill a high percent of the population. And if it does appear, will it die out after a pandemic? Or will it keep coming back? Having enough people off world would definitely help in this case.
1. I actually can't believe that someone is making the argument that extinction of the human species wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. 2. Homo sapiens is the most advanced species in the known universe, and the only technological species in existence. For our species to go extinct, whether due to a man-made disaster or otherwise, wouldn't just be bad, it wouldn't be a tragic waste of potential that would set back the progress of life in the solar system by millions of years.3. Just as we should have the responsibility to make sure we don't kill off other species of animal and plant on Earth, we have the obligation to preserve our species!Sheesh.
And your optimism about the threat that nuclear war presents seems unjustified, IMHO, especially given the way that international tensions have been escalating more quickly over the last couple of years after the relative lull during the 1990s and early 2000s.
A question to ask is - What kind of catastrophes would off world colonies help us to survive as a species and when are they likely to happen?If you look at the possibility of a each of the following:1 - Asteroids and comet strikes - This in the near future would not lead to an existential threat. The worst case I think is possible in the next couple of centuries is something that creates regional devastation but humanity would recover even if it took a couple of centuries. Creating a defense against smaller more likely NEOs won't require colonies.
2 - Super volcanoes - The last eruption that killed a significant portion of the human race happened in 525 AD in the spot that Krakatoa erupted in the late 19th century and is credited by some historians for triggering the dark age. It created two years of sun obscuring clouds of ash that killed indirectly roughly a third of the people on earth. The geological record shows that at this spot a major eruption happens every couple of thousand years or so. This could happen next week or a few thousand years from now. If it happened now it would destroy for a few years of agricultural production killing billions. We would recover without space colonies, but would take many centuries recover from. If the Norris geyser basin erupts like it did 700,000 years ago, space colonies my be the only way for humans to survive.
3 - Nearby Super Nova - It will take a long time (many millenia) before we have any chance of spreading out far enough into the galaxy to guarantee human survival. (no urgency on this one)
5 - Global Nuclear War - The threat has been lessened, but it is not gone. Regional nuclear wars are more likely, but won't wipe out the human race.
I know there are more, but they are a good enough list for discussion purposes. Out of the list there are threats to the survival of our species that having self sustaining colonies would be very wise to have in case they happen. Some threats such as a nearby Super Nova (hopefully remote possibilities) would be so overwhelming that no colony would help in the slightest. But there are lesser threats and it would be useful to have our eggs in multiple baskets.
The concerns which fail are those which have scattered their capital, which means that they have scattered their brains also. They have investments in this, or that, or the other, here, there and everywhere. "Don't put all your eggs in one basket" is all wrong. I tell you "put all your eggs in one basket, and then watch that basket like a hawk." Look round you and take notice; men who do that do not often fail. It is easy to watch and carry the one basket. It is trying to carry too many baskets that breaks most eggs in this country. He who carries three baskets must put one on his head, which is apt to tumble and trip him up. One fault of the American man is lack of concentration.
Quote from: peter-b on 06/01/2012 09:40 pmAnd your optimism about the threat that nuclear war presents seems unjustified, IMHO, especially given the way that international tensions have been escalating more quickly over the last couple of years after the relative lull during the 1990s and early 2000s."Relative lull during the ... early 2000s". Heh. Guess I was imagining that bit of unpleasantness that started in September 2001.
Bottom line: face it: the only justification for space colonies is because space colonies are cool; therefore, space colonies must pay their own way.
Homo sapiens is the most advanced species in the known universe, and the only technological species in existence. For our species to go extinct, whether due to a man-made disaster or otherwise, wouldn't just be bad, it wouldn't be a tragic waste of potential that would set back the progress of life in the solar system by millions of years.
It's hard to see how a colony on Mars is going to be able to lend much more than moral support to Planet Earth in case it ever got creamed. The more likely scenario is that if Earth took a big hit, support for Mars would evaporate, and it would be the Mars colony that would go extinct in the event of a crisis on Earth.
Losing a city or two to nuclear terrorism is insignificant compared to a full nuclear exchange between the US and the Soviet Union and the allies of both. One is an existential threat to civilization (and maybe even humanity) itself, the other is "just" really, really bad.
I don't think that it is obvious that it can. In space it will be necessary to have the resources of an advanced technological civilization to thrive, at a minimum like the one we have now. Advanced technological civilizations require an enormous number of specialized skills to sustain themselves and hence a vast number of humans that have these skills. I find it difficult to believe that greater than 90% of humanity can be wiped out without civilization collapsing in short order. But the collapse of civilization will doom any space residents so I think we're looking at a minimum of 10% of humanity living off world before we can even begin to speak of off earth settlements providing any insurance against terrestrial disaster.
There are two issues which haven't been sufficiently discussed in this thread.1. The title of the thread implicitly assumes that it is indeed possible for humanity to thrive off-Earth.
The vast majority of humanity has yet to be convinced of this (to be generous; most think the idea silly) and probably won't be until it is actually demonstrated so trying to use some possible future catastrophe as motivation is almost certainly doomed to failure.
The issue is still very much an open question and treating it as settled will cause nothing but confusion and worse when dealing with non space advocates.
2. But even if it is accepted that it is possible to thrive off earth we still have the problem of determining what fraction of humanity would have to be living off planet before we can be confident that humanity could survive a worldwide catastrophe that kills everyone living on earth. The comments here seem to assume that that fraction can be relatively low and that it can be achieved relatively quickly, say by the end of the century.I don't think that it is obvious that it can. In space it will be necessary to have the resources of an advanced technological civilization to thrive, at a minimum like the one we have now. Advanced technological civilizations require an enormous number of specialized skills to sustain themselves and hence a vast number of humans that have these skills. I find it difficult to believe that greater than 90% of humanity can be wiped out without civilization collapsing in short order. But the collapse of civilization will doom any space residents so I think we're looking at a minimum of 10% of humanity living off world before we can even begin to speak of off earth settlements providing any insurance against terrestrial disaster.
If you allowed people 2000 years ago unlimited access to the 2012 internet the well learned would reconstruct much of our technology very quickly.
It is going to take many many generations of humans off planet before there are as many off planet as their are on, only for the reason that no matter how cheap it gets to ship humans off planet it's always going to be cheaper to raise them in location.
Quote from: rklaehn on 06/01/2012 08:41 pm821,000 cubic kilometers should be enough for a long time, even if you could somehow "consume" it.Yes, and how does does the presence of all this water create an "urgency" for Mars colonies?
Quote from: Jim Davis on 06/02/2012 04:58 amI don't think that it is obvious that it can. In space it will be necessary to have the resources of an advanced technological civilization to thrive, at a minimum like the one we have now. Advanced technological civilizations require an enormous number of specialized skills to sustain themselves and hence a vast number of humans that have these skills. I find it difficult to believe that greater than 90% of humanity can be wiped out without civilization collapsing in short order. But the collapse of civilization will doom any space residents so I think we're looking at a minimum of 10% of humanity living off world before we can even begin to speak of off earth settlements providing any insurance against terrestrial disaster.Two females as genetically different as possible, say a Bantu from South Africa, and a Mayan are enough if you assume a genetically combed batch of preselected sperm and you select for only female offspring for at least 10 large generations of children. The longer they only have females the more healthy the final stock will be.
The extinction idea is probably the worse justification for MSF. It's fringe stuff and makes you easy to dismiss.All the doom-and-gloom stuff on this thread is ridiculous.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 06/01/2012 08:21 pmIf you could provide some evidence for how much water is up there......From the wikipedia article: Results, published in 2009, of shallow radar measurements of the North Polar ice cap determined that the volume of water ice in the cap is 821,000 cubic kilometers (197,000 cubic miles). That's equal to 30% of the Earth's Greenland ice sheet or enough to cover the surface of Mars to a depth of 5.6 meters (dividing the ice cap volume by the surface area of Mars is how this number is found). The radar instrument is onboard the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.821,000 cubic kilometers should be enough for a long time, even if you could somehow "consume" it.
If you could provide some evidence for how much water is up there...
Based on these requirements, it is 100% impossible to recycle the human exhaust products to put a large population (1 million people) on the moon / Mars. Take the average human water consumption down an order of magnitude, it is still 100% impossible to do this.
I actually can't believe that someone is making the argument that extinction of the human species wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
The extinction idea is probably the worse justification for MSF. It's fringe stuff and makes you easy to dismiss.
QuoteBottom line: face it: the only justification for space colonies is because space colonies are cool; therefore, space colonies must pay their own way.What about colonizing space for the sake of learning to colonize planets, in general? After all, if we can colonize Mars, surely we can re-colonize Earth if something happens to it. If we can learn to terraform Mars, surely we can learn to terraform Earth. If we can build worlds, does this not imply that we can fix worlds, too?
Quote from: peter-bHomo sapiens is the most advanced species in the known universe ... For our species to go extinct ... would be a tragic waste of potential that would set back the progress of life in the solar system by millions of years.... for the sake of argument I will pretend that I do not [agree]. Your post implies several things without any apparent justification: that technological species are more valuable ... that "potential" ... is valuable and can be wasted, and that "progress of life in the solar system" ... is something valuable. I hope I am stating the obvious when I say that not everyone has the same values. Frankly, I'm surprised that anyone would find that fact surprising!
Homo sapiens is the most advanced species in the known universe ... For our species to go extinct ... would be a tragic waste of potential that would set back the progress of life in the solar system by millions of years.
Quote from: Peter-BIt's hard to see how a colony on Mars is going to be able to lend much more than moral support to Planet Earth in case it ever got creamed. The more likely scenario is that if Earth took a big hit, support for Mars would evaporate, and it would be the Mars colony that would go extinct in the event of a crisis on Earth.Wouldn't that depend on how self-sustaining the Martian colony would be? ... What level of self-sustainability would a Martian colony have to attain if it were to not disappear if Terran civilization disappears?
Quote from: Peter-BLosing a city or two to nuclear terrorism is insignificant compared to a full nuclear exchange between the US and the Soviet Union ...Er, you do know that the Soviet Union no longer exists, right? ...
Losing a city or two to nuclear terrorism is insignificant compared to a full nuclear exchange between the US and the Soviet Union ...
There are two issues which haven't been sufficiently discussed in this thread.1. The title of the thread implicitly assumes that it is indeed possible for humanity to thrive off-Earth. ...2. But even if it is accepted that it is possible to thrive off earth we still have the problem of determining what fraction of humanity would have to be living off planet before we can be confident that humanity could survive ...3. I submit it will take a very long time before 500 million - 1 billion people ...Any scheme that takes that long to come to fruition can't be considered urgent. 4. It would be like pleading with George Washington that it is urgent to begin development of the atomic bomb at once because if the British get the bomb first the revolution is doomed.
Of course it is an open question. But the only way to answer this question is to attempt settlement. You will never get a definitive answer from theoretical debates.
Maybe we should forget about Mars because of the risk that in the future a Mars government may become a high tech enemy of Earth government. Maybe the risk of an extinction event war between Mars and Earth is greater than the risk of other types of extinction events.Totally tongue in cheek!
Quote from: mikegi on 06/02/2012 04:19 amThe extinction idea is probably the worse justification for MSF. It's fringe stuff and makes you easy to dismiss."MSF" being manned space flight?The fringe quality of the extinction idea also applies to the current taxpayer funded killer asteroid missions. Point being, either the idea is bad in both cases, or good in both cases.
I imagine that killer asteroid missions are several orders-of-magnitude less expensive than a Mars colony.
Quote from: peter-b on 06/01/2012 09:24 pmI actually can't believe that someone is making the argument that extinction of the human species wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.And the defense of the notion, "bad for whom?" is pretty darn paltry.
1. Bad for whom? Or what? Dieing a violent death at a young age is bad, to be sure. But extinction has no necessary connection with dieing young. If we want to prevent unnecessary death, then we should be spending our resources on preventing and mitigating catastrophes here on Earth. Spending trillions of public money so a tiny minority can have a get-out-of-jail-for-free card is a misallocation of resources.
do the engineering to figure out what it would take to feed 10 billion people using artificial lighting if necessary
Not everyone was in a congratulatory mood, though. “The reality remains that SpaceX has spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to launch a rocket nearly three years later than planned,” Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) told the Huntsville Times. “The ‘private’ space race is off to a dilatory start at best, and the commercial space flight market has yet to materialize.” ...While [Buzz Aldrin and Rusty Schweickart] expressed congratulations for the berthing, other retired astronauts have been more skeptical of commercial ventures. Their criticism—and their recent silence—did not escape the notice of journalist Miles O’Brien during a commercial space panel Saturday at the International Space Development Conference (ISDC) in Washington. “I haven’t heard any of the ‘national heroes’ congratulating Elon Musk,” he said. “It would be kind of nice and gentlemenly if they would.”
Quote from: Warren Platts on 06/03/2012 02:28 amdo the engineering to figure out what it would take to feed 10 billion people using artificial lighting if necessaryThis is a pretty big sentence. Can you expand on this.
10 billion people200 kg of rice would feed a person for a year.You could hope to get 4 kg/m2 in an intensive indoor op.Thus total area would be 500,000 km2--about the size of Spain.(I cannot find a figure for the global total indoor area of all buildings). Figure 1000 W/m2Total wattage = 5 x 1014 WattsCurrent total electricity capacity = 5 x 1012 WattsSo it does not add up, I must admit....
Quote from: Warren Platts on 06/03/2012 04:41 am10 billion people200 kg of rice would feed a person for a year.You could hope to get 4 kg/m2 in an intensive indoor op.Thus total area would be 500,000 km2--about the size of Spain.(I cannot find a figure for the global total indoor area of all buildings). Figure 1000 W/m2Total wattage = 5 x 1014 WattsCurrent total electricity capacity = 5 x 1012 WattsSo it does not add up, I must admit....Hmm... Using Polywell, assuming it lives up to its promises, we have 8.7 MeV per reaction, yielding (at 80% system efficiency with direct electrical conversion) about 6.1e13 J/kg of isotopically pure boron-11. Use rate is therefore about 8.2 kg/s worldwide, or roughly a million tonnes of B2O3 per year (natural boron is ~80% boron-11). This is maybe a fifth of current worldwide production of boron minerals, and results in several times as much helium as the current worldwide estimated rate of consumption.Still, that's a lot of reactor capacity to dedicate to vertical farming...Plants don't use the full spectrum of sunlight (this is why they are green). How much energy could you save by only supplying the frequencies they need?
Quote from: Hernalt on 06/03/2012 03:20 amQuote from: Warren Platts on 06/03/2012 02:28 amdo the engineering to figure out what it would take to feed 10 billion people using artificial lighting if necessaryThis is a pretty big sentence. Can you expand on this.10 billion people200 kg of rice would feed a person for a year.You could hope to get 4 kg/m2 in an intensive indoor op.Thus total area would be 500,000 km2--about the size of Spain.(I cannot find a figure for the global total indoor area of all buildings). Figure 1000 W/m2Total wattage = 5 x 1014 WattsCurrent total electricity capacity = 5 x 1012 WattsSo it does not add up, I must admit....
Quote from: QuantumG on 06/03/2012 05:16 amMaybe you could actually look up what he said before commenting on it?You do have access to the most fantastic information access system ever devised, use it.I did, I went to his website. There is a marketing hook to buy his next book that is self described as 'controversial'. So then I go to the Google search page. Typed in Stephen Hawking on Colonization. Eventually I get a second (or third) hand account of his theory that we need to colonize space because one of his greatest fears is that aliens (from the movie Independence Day) are going to invade the planet.He is very serious about telling us to "run and hide" from a fear of something that we have no proof exists. Although we've been talking about Mars and the Moon on this forum, Hawking wants to travel to the nearest star system.... NOW!So all my brief searches never find direct info from him. And what the media has transfered is a self-described as "irreverent, sarcastic and ironic account" of what Hawking is perhaps saying. Hawking is just trying to sell sensational statements that play on the Earth's fears of unknown-unknowns. I certainly have more respect for his works in real physics.http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20003358-71.htmlSo I have to double down on my question... does anyone know what this guy is really saying (so I don't have to buy his books to find out)?
Maybe you could actually look up what he said before commenting on it?You do have access to the most fantastic information access system ever devised, use it.
when asked about the outcomes of meeting intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Hawking said the discovery of other intelligent life would be the biggest scientific breakthrough in history, but then compared alien creatures visiting the earth to Europeans encountering Native Americans for the first time: "that did not turn out well for the native Americans."
I suggest re-phrasing the question:Can advocates of creating a self-sustaining off Earth presence articulate sufficiently urgent reasons to locate a funding source capable of making the attempt?There are many potential sources of funding each of which will evaluate the level of urgency differently.Also, there is a different sense of urgency in that whichever subset of humanity best accomplishes the creation of a self-sustaining off Earth presence will dominate human history for centuries thereafter. Which languages will be spoken by the settlers, for example.Whether that "matters" is an existential question without a right or wrong answer but if advocates of space settlement can persuade a funding source that this is a legitimate motivation, then perhaps this becomes a legitimate motivation.
So far we have not detected any life away from Earth. It could be seen that we have a duty to the universe to preserve a living ecosytem. Whether that includes a human presence is debatable.If there was no other life in the universe I would suggest sending out millions of probes with the ability to reach other star systems and spread the seeds of life.The same argument also applies to spreading intelligent life.
the only people that can reasonably be expected to pay for settlement are the settlers themselves...
when the Big One finally hits, 7 billion individual human lives ought to go quietly into that dark night, happy in the thought that there are 10,000 space dorks on Mars who will carry on the flame....
I agree that global strategic grain reserves and Mars colonies are not mutually exclusive. It's just that those who profess to worry about comet impacts and supervolcanoes only talk about Plan B, as if that is the only strategy, thus proving that comet impacts and supervolcanoes are not in fact high on their list of worries, and that they are in fact more worried that they will die of old age before humans set foot on Mars.
The anti-science and anti-progress brigade is really bad. In Germany in particular, I suspect it may be because of historical reasons. In America, it may be because of a stagnant middle class who doesn't see any real possibility of improvement and instead just hears a lot about what can go wrong. The whole anti-nuclear movement is illustrative of how people become irrationally afraid of something because they don't understand it. Or even worse, because of the little knowledge we do have (we have incredibly powerful instruments that can measure infinitesimal radiation levels in tuna from Fukishima, far below the natural radiation inherent in all tuna from Potassium, etc), people are just automatically afraid. People are far more afraid about nuclear power plants than they are about tsunamis and other natural disasters, even though SEVERAL orders of magnitude higher deaths occurred from the tsunami than the nuclear radiation itself (in fact, I don't believe anyone has died so far from Fukishima's radiation).Put the word "natural" in something, and they'll think it's totally fine. Powerful herbal or (much worse) "homeopathic" "remedies" are passed off as totally safe, but as soon as you mention genetic engineering, people go out of their minds with fear. I'm no fan of how genetically modified seeds are /designed/ to be sterile, etc, and of the foolish "intellectual property" reasons for it, but genetic engineering (done wisely) has enormous potential for improving our economy, diet, food security worldwide, and reducing mankind's ecological footprint on the planet.Nuclear and GMO are two powerful tools for mankind's development that can be used for great good and (on the whole) much better for the environment compared to the alternatives, but we are stymied by illogical fear, but also a collective belief in our own helplessness (especially the middle class).What bothers me aren't the people promoting renewable energy but those who are fighting against large renewable energy projects like wind farms, solar farms, hydro plants, geothermal power plants, etc, that can really make a significant difference in getting us off of old power sources (BTW, us in the States have the luxury of being able to live off of coal electricity for centuries, it's the rest of the world that will be more desperate... and I believe renewable/nuclear is a lot cheaper in the long run). We have the tools! We didn't get to be the apex species of this planet by being afraid of doing what needs to be done. And by the way, ALL life desires to succeed and conquer new territories. We have the foresight to be careful about conserving wilderness and enjoying and protecting other species, etc, but this religion of self-hate is quite destructive.
Quote from: Warren Platts on 06/03/2012 09:22 pmI agree that global strategic grain reserves and Mars colonies are not mutually exclusive. It's just that those who profess to worry about comet impacts and supervolcanoes only talk about Plan B, as if that is the only strategy, thus proving that comet impacts and supervolcanoes are not in fact high on their list of worries, and that they are in fact more worried that they will die of old age before humans set foot on Mars.You'll have noted, of course, that my main concern for mankind is global thermonuclear war, which I consider to be quite likely to occur in the 2150-2250 timeframe due to increasing scarcity of fresh water and fossil fuels. In that event, strategic grain reserves would be obvious targets of priority during the initial conventional stages of the conflict, as a psychological tactic intended to reduce a state's willingness to escalate to nuclear warfare.