Colonizing Space

[charles brough]

What is the whole purpose of space exploration if it is not to ultimately let us expand out into the universe? After all, we are very crowded on our little planet, so much so we are pressing hard on its diminishing resources.

 

Apparantly, our society just drifts along teleologically without any real plan and no clear goals. Moving in the sluggish way we are to this goal, it could easily illude us entirely. Don't you all get the feeling that the people on the Fox network would be happy to pull the plug on the whole space effort? They are just not quite ready to openly say so . . .

 

charles, HOME PAGE

[jackson33]

What is the whole purpose of space exploration if it is not to ultimately let us expand out into the universe? After all, we are very crowded on our little planet, so much so we are pressing hard on its diminishing resources.

 

Apparantly, our society just drifts along teleologically without any real plan and no clear goals. Moving in the sluggish way we are to this goal, it could easily illude us entirely. Don't you all get the feeling that the people on the Fox network would be happy to pull the plug on the whole space effort? They are just not quite ready to openly say so . . .

 

charles, HOME PAGE

 

think you will find, space exploration was founded with a military intent. the first rockets where meant to destroy an enemy, etc. To some degree much, may still be...

 

not very many scientist, feel man will ever "colonize space". research stations with short term habitation in our solar system, the closest idea to CS.

 

diminishing resources; this a very complicate issue to address, since each resource has a different potential outcome if lost. much of what we currently use is for economical reasons. many things we use steel or wood for, for instance, can be replaced by aluminum product but with additional cost.

oil, of course can be replaced with many other products including solar power. Food/water are another topic, but food can in theory be produced to feed 20-30 billion people today if required and fresh water can be produced from sea water, which is done today.

 

the crowded plant; put into a perspective, is all the people not on the planet where moved into Texas, the density of that State, would be less than that of metropolitan NYC or LA/Orange counties in California, today.

 

it may seem we are drifting unconcerned, but there are people, in/out of government that are planning for every conceivable problem that could effect mankind. many alternative energy, nanotech and other corporate facilities are working on solutions in hopes of capitalizing on a pending problem.

[charles brough]

Anyone else less optimistic? No reason to be hungry, we could feed 20 billion people. No need to worry that just another loss of life in a space project and Congress may cut out NASA funding. No need to worry that nations that are on the edge of fighting over water supply; we can just desalt sea water. Energy too, no problem, we just use renewable energy. Oh, and the space goal, well, not to send Columbus back to the New World to colonize it, we have enough space here in the Old World. Crossing the sea is only for military purposes . . .

 

charles, HOME PAGE

[Tormod]

The first uses of rockets in space was definitely not military (read a Robert Goddard biography, for example). However, as soon as the military realized the potential of rockets, they basically took the cake and ate it.

 

I am optimistic that we will colonize space. It will happen slowly but I do think it's inevitable.

[charles brough]

I am optimistic that we will colonize space. It will happen slowly but I do think it's inevitable.

 

Yes, either we do it or the next civilization does it. . .

 

charles

[CraigD]

not very many scientist, feel man will ever "colonize space". research stations with short term habitation in our solar system, the closest idea to CS.

Please back up this claim. Is it based on a poll of scientist of all or a particular discipline?

 

Please note that the Space forum is not one of the hypography forums where the “back up your claims” rule is commonly disregarded in favor of lively, if unsupported, debate.

[blamski]

i think there is a huge amount of research being undertaken to test the viability of partial or full migration. partial migration, the need to travel to exploit resources, is obviously the prime mover right now - the humanitarian saving of planetary life is probably not too profitable unless its run along similar lines as those who pack 100 north africans into a dinghy and push it towards spain or italy.

 

the iss and every shuttle mission carry experiments on how plants (crops) and animals will behave/breed/develop in low or zero gravity. there is research into how the human body reacts to extended time is zero gravity. space probes are examining the moon, mars and other planets to see how much potential for supplying water and fuel they have. terrestrial biospheres such as the eden project are examining how to build a fully functioning artificial ecosystem. all this at a cost billions of pounds, dollars, euros, roubles and yen.

 

we'll be out there cocking it up sooner or later.

[jackson33]

Not saying many in the area of rocket development were interest in things other than military, the actual developing were military fronted. Highlights of German Rocket Development 1927-1945, shows the the process, success and by way of the German Military...

 

NASA, as well as many others are testing the feasibility of making objects in our solar system habitable for humans. others studies involve orbiting settlements and the like. However the thread author went straight to UNIVERSAL, which (If preferred IMO) i see no mass desire to explore that potential for the foreseeable future at least in the universe.

 

since there was a touch of over population, over extending our purpose or in short destroying our planet, I would suggest the need to CS, should not be to solve perceived problems. we could build 100 floating colonies on the planets 70% water surface, with all the amenities we now have and self sufficient, for the cost of one orbiting sanctuary.

 

since, this would seem to make me anti-NASA, I will tell you my desire to see the private sector get involved and a little cost effective economics applied.

BUT, I favor and support every NASA project, period....

[TheFaithfulStone]

The universe or nothing at all.

 

Take your pick.

 

TFS

[jackson33]

The universe or nothing at all.

 

Take your pick.

 

TFS

 

preferably "universe", practical application "solar system".

 

The head of NASA, pretty much sums it up. "at some point man will have to become a two-three or four world community", giving times frames in the 100's of thousands or "millions of years". as mankind continues to solve problems, allowing longer life spans, fertility, famine, war, etc., the populations will increase. terraforming of current objects, Venus, Mars, the Moon and a moon or two of Jupiter, large orbiting objects are all possible solutions. unless C speed is achieved and to a great degree, to colonize under any scenario, planets outside our Solar systems are not going to be discussed. sending out probes, yes and they are now and many more planned.

 

the needs and the point of the thread, IMO are thousands of years off. keeping to opinion, I would say 100k years, when technology may have developed to the point, application is no more than our sending a Shuttle into space.

 

Michael Griffin quotes taken from Enc Wik, Space Colinization...

[charles brough]

preferably "universe", practical application "solar system".

 

The head of NASA, pretty much sums it up. "at some point man will have to become a two-three or four world community", giving times frames in the 100's of thousands or "millions of years". as mankind continues to solve problems, allowing longer life spans, fertility, famine, war, etc., the populations will increase. terraforming of current objects, Venus, Mars, the Moon and a moon or two of Jupiter, large orbiting objects are all possible solutions. unless C speed is achieved and to a great degree, to colonize under any scenario, planets outside our Solar systems are not going to be discussed. sending out probes, yes and they are now and many more planned.

 

the needs and the point of the thread, IMO are thousands of years off. keeping to opinion, I would say 100k years, when technology may have developed to the point, application is no more than our sending a Shuttle into space.

 

Michael Griffin quotes taken from Enc Wik, Space Colinization...

 

I can understand you feeling that it will take 100,000 years to colonize our solar system! That is what you wrote isn't it? But perhaps that estimate is based on the way the Earth is run now and how we now allocate our resources now. It sort of assumes an aimless drift--because, that is what is happening now. But of course, societies change and world conditions make big tranformations in a few decades. My thinking is that we are heading for just that. The Polynesians developed a technology that enabled them to launch boats that were whole colonies, launched them with no certainty they would ever see land. We assume they developed this skill and intent because they were crowding their land. From one island to the next, they looked for and found other islands. We will never know the number of the launchings that ended in all lives lost---perphaps 99% of them. THEY did not drift. They came to populate the whole vast pacific.

 

Its our turn now. . .

[CraigD]

The head of NASA, pretty much sums it up. "at some point man will have to become a two-three or four world community", giving times frames in the 100's of thousands or "millions of years".

…

Michael Griffin quotes taken from Enc Wik, Space Colinization...

Jackson, what’s Enc Wik? I’d very much like to read the summary you attribute to Griffin in context, as it seems to strongly contradict this quote from the wikipedia article “Michael D. Griffin”:

for me the single overarching goal of human space flight is the human settlement of the solar system, and eventually beyond. I can think of no lesser purpose sufficient to justify the difficulty of the enterprise, and no greater purpose is possible.

These certainly do not seem the words of a rocket scientist and space policy maker who expects large-scale colonization of space to be hundreds of thousands or millions of years in the future.

not very many scientist, feel man will ever "colonize space". research stations with short term habitation in our solar system, the closest idea to CS.

Please back up this claim. Is it based on a poll of scientist of all or a particular discipline?

I’m still waiting for a response to this request.

 

While I do, I’ll float the question for an informal poll with some of the staff at NASA Goddard, which I work near. Would you care to place a wager on 50% or more of these scientists (lets say only ones with PhDs in astronomy or aerospace engineering) agreeing with the statement “I do not feel man will ever colonize space"? :doh:

[jackson33]

Kind of a mis quote; went back to Wikipedia and what was said was if mankind is to exist FOR 100s of thousands of years even millions, we must become multi-planet. Not that the need, was that far off.

 

I first wrote 10K, figuring we should be getting into trouble by then and changed to the 100k not wanting to stray to far from Griffin. in the end a may disagree anyway and that mankind will survive regardless of totals, just that the totals will some day take a terrific decline.

 

This discussion generally leads to corporate greed or some particular society maybe even a government. these to me are cop-outs and the basic religions of the planet drive the mentality to generate themselves over others.

 

 

Craig; have already address poll, changing to IMO, based on universal colonization. As with GW, SC or a number of issues there are no such figures available, which i might add you know.

[TheFaithfulStone]

The Polynesians developed a technology that enabled them to launch boats that were whole colonies, launched them with no certainty they would ever see land. We assume they developed this skill and intent because they were crowding their land.

 

Ooo... fun. Got a reference? I'd like to read about that.

 

TFS

[charles brough]

Ooo... fun. Got a reference? I'd like to read about that.

TFS

 

I wish I could accommodate you. I read a lot on the subject some 20 years ago. Each boat had tethered animals, food, water stocks and a group of people. They could sight an island that was so far off as to be below the horizon because of the way clouds form over rocky islands. Coral islands were harder to find. They sailed and paddled and went with currents. In this way, the went from island to island and from New Zealand to Hawaii. They had missed Easter Island of the Cain Mutiny but had created the society on Easter Island.

[Boerseun]

The Polynesian migratory thing is true, so much so that Madagascar, on the African East coast, speak a language which has a certain Polynesian language as its closest linguistic relative! Remember, the whole Indian ocean lies between Madagascar and the rest of the Polynesian world! Yet they did it.

 

However, I'm not so sure they did it to stem overpopulation. Any particular migration raft can, after all, accommodate only so many people.

 

And the same with the colonisation of space. Think about it. The human population figure on Earth is climbing with about 300,000 individuals per day. This will be the number of people we'll have to launch off Earth, and accommodate on Mars or whatever the destination will be, every single day, just to maintain Earth's current population. We won't make a knock in the figures. So, I guess we will eventually colonize the solar system, but for vastly different reasons that either population pressure on Earth or resources. People increase in number too quickly for the first, and freightage is too high for the second. If we want to colonize the solar system, we'll have to invent a reason for it that has no historical precedent on Earth. It will be a brand spankin' new reason to colonize some place other than home. We shouldn't be looking to history to justify this particular mission. This mission will have to stand on its own feet and be able to justify itself, by itself.

[jackson33]

Craig; your poll question for NASA as posed "will ever be", would get a *yes* answer from me. If posed as the concern of scientist today in the universal perspective, my answer then NO.

 

IMO; Artificial gravity, not with centrifugal force will be solved. Looking forward I really feel, C speed will, probably from some new energy, will be if not conquered, be a near C reality. I think there will be advances in Nanotech and matter transfer which will allow many things. I could go on with potential advancement in equipments/material/understandings which make space/galactic almost inevitable. However humans have certain requirement for existence. Were talking in GW conditions which would vary slightly, yet given credence for exterminating life itself. Although I disagree, these are scientist and understand life can adapt but slowly to an environment. Equal sized planet, then identical gravity OK, but this is the big one. Virus/germ/micro-isms, which should have advanced anyplace adaptable for humans and where humans have had no time to build immunities could take thousands if not millions of years and generations to adapt to. What grows on earth, plants trees, animal life, all could be effected and the probability would be any seeds or animals would not function, germinate or grow at all much less to the quality to support the human. There are far too many variables, which will be worked out over centuries of scientific probes which are in effect answering question, hoped the science community centuries from then will want answers to. At least this is my opinion on the matter...