Eventually living on other planets

[mauigal10]

1) Is it possible for us to create a moon base colonization in the future , or is it just the realm of futurists, dreamers, and optimistic scientists?

 

2) A subject of great debate is whether we should colonize another planet or moon.

If you think we should, which celestial body would you choose to target for potential colonization and why?

 

I think our Moon or Mars should be our first terrestial choice.

:confused:

[maddog]

1) Is it possible for us to create a moon base colonization in the future , or is it just the realm of futurists, dreamers, and optimistic scientists?

No Dream. Very likely. Strange such a bold vision coming from Ex-Prez Bush. However,

his bold vision of 2004 that eventually launched the current Constellation Program, to be his best great thing he did (even if his Only great thing )

2) A subject of great debate is whether we should colonize another planet or moon.

If you think we should, which celestial body would you choose to target for potential colonization and why?

I would think all of them. Though the order is going to be a case of conservation of energy (Saving not the physical law).

Thus the Constellation program picked the Moon first over Mars (because it's close).

Second good reason the Moon is an excellent source of Aluminum. So mining on the Moon. Next would likely be Mars. The travel time of 11 months with a 2 year delay before return will force us to take some time (10 years) before we attempt going there.

Next will be the asteroids (all of them). I would focus on the ones rich in Nickel and Iron. Expected assets of each to be minimum of $50 Billion ($50,000,000,000). These

could make easily an enterprising multi-trillionare to the one who creates the infrastructure to go there and come back with the goods.

Next I would go for the Trojan Asteroids (those asteroids at the L4, L5 point between Jupiter

and the Sun) and moons of Jupiter and later Saturn. To get humans beyond Mars though

will take something better than chemical rockets. Enter Ion propulsion. This has to get

to be economical (which currently is not).

 

It is very likely that the 21st Century will be a similar repeat of the 16th though this time

the only natives will be the ones we put there. No indigenous peoples to greet us.

So ideally by the close of the 21st Century we will have made it out to the Kuiper belt beyond Pluto. I am hopin' :confused:

I think our Moon or Mars should be our first terrestial choice.

:blink:

Already answered above.

 

maddog

[Moontanman]

Next I would go for the Trojan Asteroids (those asteroids at the L4, L5 point between Jupiter

and the Sun) and moons of Jupiter and later Saturn. To get humans beyond Mars though

will take something better than chemical rockets. Enter Ion propulsion. This has to get

to be economical (which currently is not).

 

 

I agree even to the point of saying chemical rockets are simply not good enough for any realistic space craft or even space travel in general. See my signature for the answer to our space travel needs, the nuclear light bulb rocket!

 

BRUCE BEHRHORST ARTICLE LIST

 

I would even debate the idea of colonizing planets at all but that is another thread

[Boerseun]

1) Is it possible for us to create a moon base colonization in the future , or is it just the realm of futurists, dreamers, and optimistic scientists?

It's perfectly possible, but everything done by humans on such a scale will have to be justified by more than "because we can". Such a project will consume enormous amounts of resources that could arguable be better spent on Earth. For instance, why not colonize the seafloor? It's as alien and dangerous as any colony on the moon would be, it would serve as a great learning tool to develop skills and techniques required for colonizing other planets. It's much closer and cheaper to get there, though - and as a project would occupy humanity for quite a few centuries.

2) A subject of great debate is whether we should colonize another planet or moon.

If you think we should, which celestial body would you choose to target for potential colonization and why?

If I had to pick one, I would go for Mars. Mars, at least, has an atmosphere, albeit a very thin and diffuse one, but one that would stop most micrometeorites, nonetheless.

 

But that's all besides the point.

 

Any resources that could be found on Mars or any other body in the Solar System is worthless in the absence of buyers. It's no good landing on an asteroid that is made of 99% solid pure gold, if you can't get it to Earth. And even if you could get such a massive amount of gold to Earth, all you would achieve by this is to depress the gold price to such an extent that it becomes essentially worthless. Which kinda makes the whole exercise pointless. The availability of resources in space must be seen in the context of what wants and needs any colonizers would have; resources should be mined and processed for them - attempting to trade with Earth will be virtually impossible due to fuel requirements and the distortion of the planetary market by the sudden availability of the rare commodity of your choice.

 

Colonizing the moon and the planets are all perfectly possible technically, but I think we need a much better reason than "because it's awesome and we can".

 

Even the old story of "keeping humanity's eggs in one basket" is not enough. With early detection and sufficient resolve, asteroids in dangerous close-earth orbits can be identified and either destroyed or nudged into safer orbits. If we can't do it yet, we should be able to in the not-too-distant future.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to depress y'all. Colonizing the moon and planets will be awesomely cool. But I think increasingly intelligent robots will be the ticket for humanity's presence in space, and not only on the short term, but for hundreds of years to come, still.

 

And I agree, it sucks. But reality is a harsh mistress at times. I just can't see any justification for spending billions of dollars on space colonization when there are no locals to trade with, and its impossible to get anything of value back to Earth in large enough quantities to make it sustainable.

[Thunderbird]

It's perfectly possible, but everything done by humans on such a scale will have to be justified by more than "because we can". Such a project will consume enormous amounts of resources that could arguable be better spent on Earth. For instance, why not colonize the seafloor? It's as alien and dangerous as any colony on the moon would be, it would serve as a great learning tool to develop skills and techniques required for colonizing other planets. It's much closer and cheaper to get there, though - and as a project would occupy humanity for quite a few centuries.

 

If I had to pick one, I would go for Mars. Mars, at least, has an atmosphere, albeit a very thin and diffuse one, but one that would stop most micrometeorites, nonetheless.

 

But that's all besides the point.

 

Any resources that could be found on Mars or any other body in the Solar System is worthless in the absence of buyers. It's no good landing on an asteroid that is made of 99% solid pure gold, if you can't get it to Earth. And even if you could get such a massive amount of gold to Earth, all you would achieve by this is to depress the gold price to such an extent that it becomes essentially worthless. Which kinda makes the whole exercise pointless. The availability of resources in space must be seen in the context of what wants and needs any colonizers would have; resources should be mined and processed for them - attempting to trade with Earth will be virtually impossible due to fuel requirements and the distortion of the planetary market by the sudden availability of the rare commodity of your choice.

 

Colonizing the moon and the planets are all perfectly possible technically, but I think we need a much better reason than "because it's awesome and we can".

 

Even the old story of "keeping humanity's eggs in one basket" is not enough. With early detection and sufficient resolve, asteroids in dangerous close-earth orbits can be identified and either destroyed or nudged into safer orbits. If we can't do it yet, we should be able to in the not-too-distant future.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to depress y'all. Colonizing the moon and planets will be awesomely cool. But I think increasingly intelligent robots will be the ticket for humanity's presence in space, and not only on the short term, but for hundreds of years to come, still.

 

And I agree, it sucks. But reality is a harsh mistress at times. I just can't see any justification for spending billions of dollars on space colonization when there are no locals to trade with, and its impossible to get anything of value back to Earth in large enough quantities to make it sustainable.

 

Pragmatism is a great and wonderful clarifier. The question of colonizing space to me is about the why , not the possibility of it. I do not see any advantage . There is no more hostile, energy consuming, atrophic, environment than space.

[maddog]

For instance, why not colonize the seafloor? It's as alien and dangerous as any colony on the moon would be, it would serve as a great learning tool to develop skills and techniques required for colonizing other planets. It's much closer and cheaper to get there, though - and as a project would occupy humanity for quite a few centuries.

I would agree, the seafloor is a good place to create settlements, aggregate resources

together. This is not and either/or situation though. We should do both.

 

Any resources that could be found on Mars or any other body in the Solar System is worthless in the absence of buyers. It's no good landing on an asteroid that is made of 99% solid pure gold, if you can't get it to Earth. And even if you could get such a massive amount of gold to Earth, all you would achieve by this is to depress the gold price to such an extent that it becomes essentially worthless. Which kinda makes the whole exercise pointless. The availability of resources in space must be seen in the context of what wants and needs any colonizers would have; resources should be mined and processed for them - attempting to trade with Earth will be virtually impossible due to fuel requirements and the distortion of the planetary market by the sudden availability of the rare commodity of your choice.

We will make into space as a collection of communities. We will likely do it only after

some kind of scientific revolution regarding propulsion to get out there has occurred.

Whether it be Ion, Nuclear (Fusion preferred), Matter/Anitmatter (one NASA official I

spoke with suggested using Anti-Protons), or something even more exotic is not sure.

That we will do it is clear. I predict in this 21st Century there will some kind of permanent

facility somewhere in this solar system other than Earth.

 

Even the old story of "keeping humanity's eggs in one basket" is not enough. With early detection and sufficient resolve, asteroids in dangerous close-earth orbits can be identified and either destroyed or nudged into safer orbits. If we can't do it yet, we should be able to in the not-too-distant future.

This is a must have as well, Identification and well as Management.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to depress y'all. Colonizing the moon and planets will be awesomely cool. But I think increasingly intelligent robots will be the ticket for humanity's presence in space, and not only on the short term, but for hundreds of years to come, still.

All things out there will require Human intervention at some point. I would agree that

not to "break the bank" to get there is prudent. So getting out there has to become

financially viable as well.

 

I just can't see any justification for spending billions of dollars on space colonization when there are no locals to trade with, and its impossible to get anything of value back to Earth in large enough quantities to make it sustainable.

We are the locals once we colonize. We become the natives.

 

maddog

[Moontanman]

Colonization of space will come as a result of industry in space. Achieving the infrastructure to exploit those resources will be very expensive compared to some human endeavorers but compared to war the cost of space colonization is peanuts. Once the first parts of the infrastructure is established more infrastructure can be build from resources already in space. sending refined metals to the earth is not an energy intensive endeavor and sending finished products back to earth would be cost efficient. There will be things that can only be manufactured in zero gee. The real pay off of space colonization will be as maddog pointed trade with the Earth from the natives of the colonies. Space craft will be manufactured in the orbiting colonies, eventually any star ships will indeed be built the as well.

[Boerseun]

We will likely do it only after

some kind of scientific revolution regarding propulsion to get out there has occurred.

With that, I agree fully. It has to become cheap and efficient, otherwise colonization with the numbers required to make it a self-sustainable effort, will be impossible. Consider 16th century colonization. Any Tom, Dick and Harry who could afford to slap together a boat and pin a sail on it, could theoretically have partook in that particular endeavor. With Space Travel being what it is, only the elitist of elite little group will ever get there - mostly due to cost. You won't trust any fool with a billion-dollar rocket, but what if that rocket only cost $1000, for the sake of the argument?

That we will do it is clear.

It's not entirely as clear as one would hope at first glance. For instance, George Bush committed the US to return to the moon by 2020, and then to pursue human travel to Mars. These are fine sentiments. But presidents cannot commit their successors to expenses on their account. And grandiose multi-term projects promised by prior presidents have no guarantee to be delivered, if not scrapped in total by future presidents, when budgets need to be trimmed in the face of a new and different agenda. George Bush could not foresee the current economic slowdown, which might impact severely on any moon or Mars ventures when that money could be very welll better spent at home. I wouldn't say it's clear at all.

I predict in this 21st Century there will some kind of permanent facility somewhere in this solar system other than Earth.

Believe me, I really do hope so. But I am yet to see any compelling reasons why.

All things out there will require Human intervention at some point.

As long as robotic missions are cheaper, more durable, redundant, and increasingly more versatile, then I fail to see how you can come to that conclusion. If there is a problem with a space telescope that costs, for instance, $1,000,000, won't it make more sense to scrap it and launch a new one, if a manned repair mission would cost $2,000 000?

We are the locals once we colonize. We become the natives.

Countries tend to trade with other countries based on the size of the market and the value of commodities to be traded with. It will take years and years (I'm talking centuries of committed effort here) to inflate the population of any given colony anywhere in the Solar System to generate a market worth trading with. Once again we have to commit generations of future humans to a project that seems cool now.

Colonization of space will come as a result of industry in space.

Ever since the Industrial Revolution, processes have been more and more automated, labour figures for any process have been trimmed to save cost. This will be even more appliccable in the face of the ridiculously high labour costs of orbital factories. You might have a single crew of astronauts observing automated processes aboard a space station, very much like we have now, and even then their permanent presence isn't really required and/or necessary. Automation makes for more profit, and the bottom line would be the final maker or breaker for our presence in space, I guess.

Once the first parts of the infrastructure is established more infrastructure can be build from resources already in space.

Finding an iron-rich asteroid is very different than having available resources to build an addition to your space station with. All that iron need to be converted into shapes and sizes required for your building project. Even then, impurities in the asteroid implies that it won't be a simple matter of just cutting the asteroid into the required sizes. Melting, alloying, casting and machining will be required. All of this requiring fuel. So I think it's a bit harder than it sounds, and massive amounts of fuel will have to be on hand to make it even remotely possible.

sending refined metals to the earth is not an energy intensive endeavor and sending finished products back to earth would be cost efficient.

How do you suppose sending refined metals back to Earth won't be energy intensive? Remember, for any action, there's an equal but opposite reaction. That being the idea behind rocket engines and basically any means of propulsion you can imagine, you can understand that getting any resources from the asteroid belt, say, would require immense amounts of fuel. There are vast storehouses of untapped and unmined resources right here on Earth, and I think it will take many thousands of years before mining in space will become even comparably cost-eficient than just mining on Earth. This is not to mention the vast array of supporting industries required just to let a simple coal mine operate, which is one of the cheapest mining ventures currently.

There will be things that can only be manufactured in zero gee.

Whilst that is certainly true, I cannot see how that can't be perfectly well done by automated factories in low Earth orbit. A vast labour force as implied by space colonization won't be necessary. In fact, having clunking, bulky and messy humans around your pristine zero-g orbiting platform might actually be detrimental to what you want to achieve.

The real pay off of space colonization will be as maddog pointed trade with the Earth from the natives of the colonies.

I agree - if it was possible. But as I said above, in creating colonies of populations big enough to trade with, we have to commit tens of generations to a project that we might find cool and awesome right now. Even the Apollo missions lost public interest and support after the first moon landing. I just don't see it happening.

 

In closing, just the following:

 

I might sound like an old sour puss in appearing so negative regarding the whole matter, but we have to be realistic. We can speculate and daydream - hell, I'll even help design a futuristic Mars colony. But we have to have a very valid reason for doing so. And I haven't come accross one yet. Because not only will it cost us a lot of money right now, it will cost generations of our descendants money, for centuries to come before anything even remotely approaching what you propose would become viable and self-sufficient.

 

What I would propose, would be to rather spend those resources on Earth, investing heavily in robotics and metallurgy (for one), so that we can launch a single intelligent machine to Mars which can self-replicate, and with the help of its replicants build an entire city fit for human habitation. Once all that is done, the humans can move in. And all the infrastructure would be there and waiting, all for the cost of a single launch not much more expensive than the Mars rovers. I discount the original research cost, because that will have applications in the domestic economy of Earth, which will end up footing the bill for all the required research through the purchase of consumer goods generated by that new technology. This will also be a venture that will take many years, but at least then we won't be dependent on the fickle nature of human interest in such long-term projects which would be dependent on long-term support.

[enorbet2]

OK I will attempt to do my best Vulcan Meditation imitation and resist becoming over-the-top emotional by saying (deep breath) that I am a bit surprised to see such narrow attitudes on this subject in a Science forum. Incidentally the Vulcan thing is an attempt at some cleansing humour as I resist the "trekkie" label rather adamantly.

 

On one hand we will likely go "out there" because it is in our nature to explore and despite the apparent fact that such creatures as alligators have enjoyed long lineage by staying put, exploration has worked rather well for humans.

 

When people speak of pragmatism in the same breath as space exploration especially in a derogatory or even merely dismissive way I have to wonder if either they were alive and relatively aware of the outside world circa 1965 or have actually thought through such conditions as population growth and human progress.

 

Arthur Clarke (rip) put together one of the better lists of collateral benefits of the Kennedy mandated Manned Moon Landings and was in sad fact better researched and more expansive than the one NASA currently sports online Apollo's Contributions to America but anyone alive prior to that effort can hopefully imagine what an immensely different world this would be absent the cooperation and development not only between commercial companies, scientific laboratories, think tanks, government agencies but between all of them and more combined and crossing more political borders than any other single endeavor in human history including World War II.! That we would not be even discussing this here online due to the lack that would exist in electronic miniaturization and reduced power usage, just to name a very few, without the Appolo and preceding projects is of trivial concern compared to the gains in medicine, robotics, solar power.....well the list includes literally every branch of Science and examples are in everyone's cars and homes even in so-called third world countries.

 

"Of what use is a baby?" is not just a clever phrase. Renaissance and Reformation rode on the back of Exploration and such Enlightenment had not even begun to face the press of human population growth. Consider that as the population continues to grow, as it surely will, there are only so many possible conclusions or consequences and most of them (war, pestilence, famine, oppression, etc etc) are bad at least for all but a very lucky few (not considering the loss of human resources and all those effects on progress and legacy) with the one really worthwhile solution being new frontiers and the effort it takes to get there.

 

It may be a difficult subject to approach with still so many people denying human affected climate change but it seems to me that considering NASA's budget was never more than 1.2% of the US budget, and is presently hovering around 0.5 % I think we have to seriously ask ourselves in what sort of future are we presently investing and how does that reflect real priorities?

[Thunderbird]

On one hand we will likely go "out there" because it is in our nature to explore and despite the apparent fact that such creatures as alligators have enjoyed long lineage by staying put, exploration has worked rather well for humans.

 

Exploration of space is our future. There is no doubt about that, However we cannot use the old paradigm of exploration for exploitation as we have done on earth. Natural resource will always be far more easily exploited within the life supporting sphere of earth.

 

When people speak of pragmatism in the same breath as space exploration especially in a derogatory or even merely dismissive way I have to wonder if either they were alive and relatively aware of the outside world circa 1965 or have actually thought through such conditions as population growth and human progress.

 

I’m 48 and a huge fan of both science and science fiction, however there is a clear separation from what is Hollywood fantasy and what is scientificlly practical and economical.

From studying cyclical patterns of evolution and systems theory I believe we will eventually connect up with the cosmos as currents of information increase, and will enhance human existence., and possibly put us in contact with intelligent beings.

 

It seems the natural way of life, But we should realize the evolutionary trend here. Physical travel, trade goods etc are of less importance compared to information and communication.

 

Information exploration is the future.

 

I remember the Moon landing and how it made me “feel” proud and privileged to be alive at that time, however I learned much more from scientist collecting light and radio signals from space. The earth does not need more metal, we need to heighten our awareness of what's really out there and the sky is not the limit, just the speed of light.

[maddog]

With Space Travel being what it is, only the elitist of elite little group will ever get there - mostly due to cost. You won't trust any fool with a billion-dollar rocket, but what if that rocket only cost $1000, for the sake of the argument?

It is a cost-to-reward ratio here that is important. A Spanish Galleon could say cost

(rough guess) less than say $50,000 in today's dollars. In daily maintenance was probably

less than $500 in today's dollars. Yet it's potential reward benefit (per voyage) could be

$10 - $500 Million in today's dollars. This is what drove the Spanish to build them.

 

This will be the same for our solar system. From a book I read back in 1972, by the

Club of Rome, "Limits to Growth". It predicted what is starting happen now. The cost

of raw materials will start going up due to their scarcity. The first to go will be the little

materials like: Cadmium, Chromium, Gallium, Germainium, Palladium, Berylium, and

others. Their prices in raw cost may shoot up 10x while more common commodities

like Alluminum, Iron, Tin, etc will go up more modestly. There will be some technology

enhancements either reclaiming by recycling or by finding new sources (you mentioned

the Oceans). Some point this century this will still not be enough. You will then need

to go out there. Your alternative is to stop producing, and just have an agrarian civilization.

 

It's not entirely as clear as one would hope at first glance. For instance, George Bush committed the US to return to the moon by 2020, and then to pursue human travel to Mars. These are fine sentiments. But presidents cannot commit their successors to expenses on their account. And grandiose multi-term projects promised by prior presidents have no guarantee to be delivered, if not scrapped in total by future presidents, when budgets need to be trimmed in the face of a new and different agenda. George Bush could not foresee the current economic slowdown, which might impact severely on any moon or Mars ventures when that money could be very well better spent at home. I wouldn't say it's clear at all.

Believe me, I really do hope so. But I am yet to see any compelling reasons why.

So far as I am aware the Constellation program is still on track with NASA. The commitment

to go to Mars was taken off the table as to far out there (or maybe couldn't met by 2020

is more likely). The Constellation program still has provisions to go back to the Moon,

build a base (or two) as permanent settlements. To replace the ailing Space Shuttle.

What is really needed and has as yet not been provided for is some workhorse type

vehicle to haul stuff around the Earth-Moon system. Such a vehicle would look something

like a Space Shuttle for landing on Earth (assuming Hypersonic Flight ever gets working

right). The rocks on the moon are similar to a bauxite that is rich in Alluminum.

What is rich in the rocks and soil of Mars is Iron (some Nickel, Tin). The asteroids will

have in addition to Iron, Nickel, Tin, Tungsten, etc, it will have all the hard find

Elements: Indium, Osmium, Iridium, Germainium, Gallium, etc.

As long as robotic missions are cheaper, more durable, redundant, and increasingly more versatile, then I fail to see how you can come to that conclusion. If there is a problem with a space telescope that costs, for instance, $1,000,000, won't it make more sense to scrap it and launch a new one, if a manned repair mission would cost $2,000 000?

Robotic mission still have their place, doing sensing work, going places and looking at

stuff. In the short it will be less expensive to launch new ones. In the long run, if the

commitment to go, it will be less expensive to launch them from space because your

already there.

 

Countries tend to trade with other countries based on the size of the market and the value of commodities to be traded with. It will take years and years (I'm talking centuries of committed effort here) to inflate the population of any given colony anywhere in the Solar System to generate a market worth trading with. Once again we have to commit generations of future humans to a project that seems cool now.

It didn't take much for small towns out west in the 1800's to have something to offer

that wasn't available in the east before there were people willing to pay for it. This is

what drives economies. So before Countries there will be Communities in space.

Groups of people offering what is cheaper or not available at all for a fair price.

 

Ever since the Industrial Revolution, processes have been more and more automated, labour figures for any process have been trimmed to save cost. This will be even more appliccable in the face of the ridiculously high labour costs of orbital factories. You might have a single crew of astronauts observing automated processes aboard a space station, very much like we have now, and even then their permanent presence isn't really required and/or necessary. Automation makes for more profit, and the bottom line would be the final maker or breaker for our presence in space, I guess.

Automation is fine. In every automated factory today there are people involved (fewer

yes, but not 0). They may be involved in Research, fixing the machines, management.

If every a total factory can be run without people, we are in essence saying that Human

Beings have become superfluous. This may become true. Bill Joy of Sun Microsystems

even today, thinks that Machines may take over the world within a 100 years.

Finding an iron-rich asteroid is very different than having available resources to build an addition to your space station with. All that iron need to be converted into shapes and sizes required for your building project. Even then, impurities in the asteroid implies that it won't be a simple matter of just cutting the asteroid into the required sizes. Melting, alloying, casting and machining will be required. All of this requiring fuel. So I think it's a bit harder than it sounds, and massive amounts of fuel will have to be on hand to make it even remotely possible.

You would best to do the smelting and refining of the resources out there first. More

people.

How do you suppose sending refined metals back to Earth won't be energy intensive? Remember, for any action, there's an equal but opposite reaction. That being the idea behind rocket engines and basically any means of propulsion you can imagine, you can understand that getting any resources from the asteroid belt, say, would require immense amounts of fuel. There are vast storehouses of untapped and unmined resources right here on Earth, and I think it will take many thousands of years before mining in space will become even comparably cost-eficient than just mining on Earth. This is not to mention the vast array of supporting industries required just to let a simple coal mine operate, which is one of the cheapest mining ventures currently.

A term used for moving whole asteroids like we herd animals would be propelled by

Mass Drivers. Fuel from the asteroid itself. Other more cost effective forms of propulsion

are required. Fusion is close (current less than 2x input). Some else maybe.

 

Whilst that is certainly true, I cannot see how that can't be perfectly well done by automated factories in low Earth orbit. A vast labour force as implied by space colonization won't be necessary. In fact, having clunking, bulky and messy humans around your pristine zero-g orbiting platform might actually be detrimental to what you want to achieve.

Even you subscribe to going into space. If your that far out, ya' might as well go whole hog. :hyper:

 

Even the Apollo missions lost public interest and support after the first moon landing. I just don't see it happening.

Apollo lost interest because the original visionary was shot, goal met, end of vision. No

one was willing to own the vision past the origin. This is at risk here too. The resource

on this planet have not been managed well. Where we go from here will determine

whether we make it into space. If not, we will likely not make it as a civilization either.

 

I might sound like an old sour puss in appearing so negative regarding the whole matter, but we have to be realistic. We can speculate and daydream - hell, I'll even help design a futuristic Mars colony.

Yeah! :eek: :hihi:

But we have to have a very valid reason for doing so. And I haven't come accross one yet. Because not only will it cost us a lot of money right now, it will cost generations of our descendants money, for centuries to come before anything even remotely approaching what you propose would become viable and self-sufficient.

You are not looking. Expansion is a natural thing (1). The infrastructure on Earth to long

term support 8+ billion people is at risk on Earth (that is with a Civilization). With that

most of the Earth will perish.

 

What I would propose, would be to rather spend those resources on Earth, investing heavily in robotics and metallurgy (for one), so that we can launch a single intelligent machine to Mars which can self-replicate, and with the help of its replicants build an entire city fit for human habitation. Once all that is done, the humans can move in. And all the infrastructure would be there and waiting, all for the cost of a single launch not much more expensive than the Mars rovers. I discount the original research cost, because that will have applications in the domestic economy of Earth, which will end up footing the bill for all the required research through the purchase of consumer goods generated by that new technology. This will also be a venture that will take many years, but at least then we won't be dependent on the fickle nature of human interest in such long-term projects which would be dependent on long-term support.

You are handing space over to the Machines. This may be the way. I would be afraid of

that future. One where Humans have become irrelevant. :eek_big: :eek2:

 

maddog

[enorbet2]

Sometimes the only way to learn how to do a thing, is to begin doing it. Tracking the fortunes of nations due to pure Science ("useless" at the time) should provide at least the commitment to devote say 10% instead of less than 1% of a country's budget, Understanding what we risk if we don't, even to intangibles like childrens' desire for education and a career, should rightly drive that figure to 15% minimum. The hurdle is certainly higher as it is no longer likely for a modern day set of Wright Brothers to solve major problems on a part-time basis. However just as aircraft utterly changed a world that could see little or no use for them beyond buzzing pigeons, doesn't it follow that we should trust in the odds that higher hurdles have higher rewards that we can't see until we leap them, or have we learned nothing from a historical constant?

[Moontanman]

I think it's important to dispel the urban legend of space travel being enormously expensive. The budget of the US space program from the very beginning to now is a very small percentage of the budget of the military. Even smaller compared to the entire GNP of the US. As for it being too expensive to bring refined metals to the earth from Jupiter's Lagrange points this is simply not true. By using various gravitational accelerations and such materials can be brought o earth orbit for very little energy expenditure. Much like using gravity assists to drive a space craft from the earth to Jupiter sending on back would take very little energy. Atmospheric braking can be used to bring such material to th surface of the earth. Moving stuff around the solar system is not an energy intensive endeavor. Bringing stuff from the surface of the earth to space is very energy intensive and will take controlled nuclear energy for it to be done realistically. Solar energy can be used to smelt metals from asteroids. Nuclear energy can also be used for this. In space nuclear energy really comes into it's own. The main problem will be establishing the infrastructure, once it is place anything is possible.

[Thunderbird]

I think it's important to dispel the urban legend of space travel being enormously expensive. The budget of the US space program from the very beginning to now is a very small percentage of the budget of the military. Even smaller compared to the entire GNP of the US. As for it being too expensive to bring refined metals to the earth from Jupiter's Lagrange points this is simply not true. By using various gravitational accelerations and such materials can be brought o earth orbit for very little energy expenditure. Much like using gravity assists to drive a space craft from the earth to Jupiter sending on back would take very little energy. Atmospheric braking can be used to bring such material to th surface of the earth. Moving stuff around the solar system is not an energy intensive endeavor. Bringing stuff from the surface of the earth to space is very energy intensive and will take controlled nuclear energy for it to be done realistically. Solar energy can be used to smelt metals from asteroids. Nuclear energy can also be used for this. In space nuclear energy really comes into it's own. The main problem will be establishing the infrastructure, once it is place anything is possible.

 

Thats all great in theory Moonman but there is nothing in an astoriod that cannot be found within the earths crust. In all the known geology of the solar system the richest deposits of rare base metals lie around hydrothermal vents in the earths oceans.

[maddog]

Thats all great in theory Moonman but there is nothing in an astoriod that cannot be found within the earths crust. In all the known geology of the solar system the richest deposits of rare base metals lie around hydrothermal vents in the earths oceans.

The best know method I've heard to capture resources with enormous rewards to figure a

method to capture the metals directly from the Earth's oceans. A viable technology that is

not here yet. Maybe within the next 50 years. Innovation has a way of turning things

upside down. At the same time just staying on Earth cause that's where we have been all

these years and why go elsewhere is like not bothering to prepare for a coming hurricane.

An asteroid/comet will likely hit the Earth if we don't get prepared. To do so correctly, one

must make a presence in space. The logistics require it. :naughty:

 

maddog

[Boerseun]

Jeez - I wished I shared your optimism, Moontan.

 

You propose to accelerate ore from a Lagrange Point around Jupiter, to Earth.

 

1) How do you propose getting the ore to the L point in the first place?

2) How do you expect to stop the ore, Earthside? You proposed atmospheric braking, which means you're happy with it raining rock all over the world? This, of course, is ignoring the utter and total cock-up you'll make of the atmosphere, as 80%+ of your ore burns up into the atmosphere, before hitting somebody's house to smithereens.

 

Spaceflight is cool. Space colonization is cool. Hell, it's awesome. But so are ten gazillion other pie-in-the-sky concepts. And the amount of available ore of any kind in the Earth's crust will be cheaper by orders of magnitude for many, many years.

 

If we run out of tin, what to do? Did all the tin ever mined, magically disappear? No, they're lying in landfills. Landfill mining will, also, be much more profitable than any space-based mining you can imagine.

 

Also, as to the cliché about the Wright Brothers inventing flying: Imagine if the purpose of every flying machine ever built was merely to get the pilot to Antarctica. Would it be such a good idea? Airplanes are cool, because they get you from one perfectly hospitable place to another.

 

I want humans to go to the planets, the stars, and eventually the entire galaxy. But I need a damn good reason. And I haven't heard a single one. Not a peep.

 

So, convince me.

[maddog]

Jeez - I wished I shared your optimism, Moontan.

You propose to accelerate ore from a Lagrange Point around Jupiter, to Earth.

1) How do you propose getting the ore to the L point in the first place?

2) How do you expect to stop the ore, Earthside? You proposed atmospheric braking, which means you're happy with it raining rock all over the world? This, of course, is ignoring the utter and total cock-up you'll make of the atmosphere, as 80%+ of your ore burns up into the atmosphere, before hitting somebody's house to smithereens.

The Trojan Asteroids are already at the Jupiter-Sun L4/L5 points (roughly). Using the

concept of a Mass-Driver (material from the rock itself) is move the orbit of said rock to

in proximity of Earth (not on it). No need to worry about dodging falling rocks.

Spaceflight is cool. Space colonization is cool. Hell, it's awesome. But so are ten gazillion other pie-in-the-sky concepts. And the amount of available ore of any kind in the Earth's crust will be cheaper by orders of magnitude for many, many years.

This is what NASA does pie-in-the-sky concepts day-in and day-out to justify their

existence. Are you saying we should STOP all development ??? :)

If we run out of tin, what to do? Did all the tin ever mined, magically disappear? No, they're lying in landfills. Landfill mining will, also, be much more profitable than any space-based mining you can imagine.

Recycling is a required solution for the near term if not afterwards. However, its efficiency

is not 100% (at best we are 19-22% in capturing across the board, less in some items).

So there is No way that Recycling alone will be the answer. Chromium was one of the

best examples that is now in the past. The rate of production of Chromium in about 1972

would have the expected of all know world reserves depleted by about the year 2000

because of one item -- the Automobile Chrome plated bumper. In the 80's what did we

do -- almost overnight (w/i 1 yr); stop making Chrome plated bumpers and moved to using

plastic resin bumpers on all models.

Also, as to the cliché about the Wright Brothers inventing flying: Imagine if the purpose of every flying machine ever built was merely to get the pilot to Antarctica. Would it be such a good idea? Airplanes are cool, because they get you from one perfectly hospitable place to another.

This would not have made as much sense in 1903, yet would make perfect sense in

1957 (IGY). This is the major problem I see with you logic. You are using expectant

utility of where we are now for some future time. The needs may be different by the

time we are to start moving commerce out to our solar system (w/i 100 years). So it

not fair to assess why we would bother to do something in 2100 with the standards of

2009 ???!!!???? :confused::confused::confused:

I want humans to go to the planets, the stars, and eventually the entire galaxy. But I need a damn good reason. And I haven't heard a single one. Not a peep. So, convince me.

I am very skeptical whether a proper convincing argument is even possible when you are

so closed off to the possibility. Your mind has already been made up. :shrug:

 

maddog