Space colonisation

[Stargazer]

Can we expect a new age of space exploration and colonisation? Apparently Russia recently stated they will increase funding for their space programme, which would include to build the new space craft Kliper, completion of their parts of ISS and sending a probe to Mars' moon Phobos, among other things. There are also suggestions being made that Russia would complete the Kliper shuttle in cooperation with ESA, which could give Europe manned access to space from Kourou. Maybe it could save money and resources for ESA's Aurora Programme?

 

Japan recently expressed a wish to build a Lunar base by 2025, and so if that plan will get financial and political support, we will eventually see four space agencies (NASA, ESA, JAXA, Federal Space Agency (Russia)) go for the moon. The question is, will they make sure to establish permanent colonies, or will they back out before the lunar colonies become useful but after they have cost a lot of money? As I see it, a Lunar colony must reach a critical point in order to be largely self-sustained. If it relied on cargo being shipped from the Earth it could become too expensive. Many of the things they need, they will have to harvest from the moon. Oxygen, water and some food could be produced there even at an initial stage.

 

The colony should also be just one part of the colonisation of the Earth-moon system. Another important part would be, in my opinion, a large facility in the Earth-moon L1 point where different raw materials can be processed and a couple of docks where space crafts can be assembled. Therefor the colony should be able to extract minerals in large quantities that it can use or launch to the other facility.

 

To be able to launch raw materials from a more shallow gravity well and build interplanetary spaceships or spacestations in microgravity is in my opinion vital for a longterm commitment to space colonisation. It will always be necessary to launch cargo and people from Earth of course, but hopefully the cost for doing that will go down as the commercialisation of space is picking up pace. Also, a space elevator should provide cheap access to space.

 

When we have achieved these things, I believe it will become cheaper and easier to reach the rest of the solar system as well.

[nkt]

All I can say to this is "hopefully"!

 

The third rock from the sun is getting pretty cramped and crowded with both people and stupid authoritarian laws. Of course, if China, or worse, America, gets there first, it might just be another totalitarian state - only one where they charge you for the air you breathe as well!

 

That might cut down on the number of breeding Dole lay-abouts, though...

[GAHD]

If you think these laws are authoritarian, think about the iron fist laws necessary in that unbeliveably hostile place known as space. The closest analogy I can draw would be to the first ships crossing the sea, and without any way of determining longitude at that.

[nkt]

If you think these laws are authoritarian, think about the iron fist laws necessary in that unbeliveably hostile place known as space. The closest analogy I can draw would be to the first ships crossing the sea, and without any way of determining longitude at that.

But there is no reason for it to be like that on a human level. In fact, it will be quite the opposite. On earth, if you go and sit in a bunker and tell the world to F off, they can cut the door down and drag you out, or they can starve you out.

 

On the moon, you are far harder to reach, and in a spaceship floating along, could they even find you? Once they do, they can't cut off your water, heating, light, etc. since it is all completely self-contained. Suddenly, the government has only two choices: Leave you alone, or destroy you. And you are still mobile, so you can leave. (Yes, I know about fuel/mass issues, etc.)

 

It will be like ships before the Royal Navy started throwing it's weight around many years ago. Piracy, pillaging and wanderlust, but on a larger scale.

[Tormod]

I think Stargazer's post is very interesting and see no reason to hijack it into a topic about laws.

 

To the point - I haven't had a real chance to look into the details of the Aurora program yet (Norway has decided not to participate as of yet, mostly beause we have no manned space flight programme) but I think it eventually will have to happen. But sadly, at the current stage, we have fewer launches into space than in many years and we are even struggling to maintain a single manned space station so a space settlement is probably many decades away. That is the pessimistic view, of course. If the current plans materialize we might see it happen sooner.

 

I think that simply getting to Mars and/or establishing a small base on the moon or lunar L1 orbit will be a huge undertaking and will drain the resources from building a permanent colony.

[GAHD]

hmm, maby we should pool together to design, build and send some robot miners out to mitigatethe costs, eh? Find some area of the asteroid belt chalk full of interesting minerals to tug home...

[paultrr]

There are two problems or aspects to all this. At present it is costly to put payloads into orbit. Conventional launch systems run somewhere around $6000.00 per pound for getting a load into orbit. That's where research on alternatives comes into play. Second, part of the reason the cost is so high has to do with supply and demand. As mentioned by a few we simply do not launch that often at present which tends to make the cost higher when we do. There is some logic to the idea that if the demand increased it could drive costs down in the long run. But there is also a flaw in that outlook that does not take a lot of other factors into account.

 

However, having said that I might suggest that survival in the long run will tend to make us as a race move outward. I say that based upon a lot of factors. How fast and when is a question we cannot answer fully at this time. Logic, however, would dictate that the sooner we start the easier it will be later down the line. Some cost aspects can be lowered by improving what we have and some by further R&D. I would also suggest that mankind's favoring of hands on, personal discovery will also have bearing on our moving out into space eventually.

[paultrr]

All I can say to this is "hopefully"!

 

The third rock from the sun is getting pretty cramped and crowded with both people and stupid authoritarian laws. Of course, if China, or worse, America, gets there first, it might just be another totalitarian state - only one where they charge you for the air you breathe as well!

 

That might cut down on the number of breeding Dole lay-abouts, though...

 

Actually, while I cannot speak for outside of America consider air for one's tires at a station now as compared to the past. Air on a space station or Moon base could for the general public be likened to say utility costs here on earth. It costs to produce such. I can bet that any base open to the public in general would have its equal to utility costs for air supply. Anytime anything costs its generally not given away. The reason one pays for air at the service stations is it costs that company money to run the compressor. They recoup that costs by charging 50 cents along with making a profit. If anyone thinks any government or enterprize would not charge somehow for air production is dead wrong. We tax payers footed the bill here for even the oxygen generators on the ISS through the cost of the whole complex down to its last basic parts. Everything that costs gets paid for somehow.

 

Of course, one could ask what happens to someone who decides they do not want to pay the air production cost or tax?

[paultrr]

If you think these laws are authoritarian, think about the iron fist laws necessary in that unbeliveably hostile place known as space. The closest analogy I can draw would be to the first ships crossing the sea, and without any way of determining longitude at that.

 

Navigation is just part of the problem. That sea out there is as far as we can tell endless. You get "Lost in Space" and you are really lost. Forget Robinson, forget Gilligan since it might be as much as a billion LY's to the next habitable rock from a star. Locally, one could in theory travel around. But once beyond the solar system one needs to know where one is going to survive.

[paultrr]

hmm, maby we should pool together to design, build and send some robot miners out to mitigatethe costs, eh? Find some area of the asteroid belt chalk full of interesting minerals to tug home...

 

Robots cost. Maybe not as much as putting men into space. But then again it still costs for the men and women to populate a collony even if robots built it. Minerals exist out there. We already know this. But untill either a base is built to extract them or a dire need to go get them exists they will sit where they are. This last note in itself goes back to the survival issue.

[Boerseun]

We would all want to see the Human Race enter space on some Big and Vast Mission, for some higher purpose. The sad fact is that any form of space colonisation, however well thought out and presented to the poor schmucks footing the bill (the taxpayer) will be initially well-received, supported, maintained, and then after the idiots paying for it have gotten bored watching it on the news and lost interest, they will demand to know why they are paying billions of dollars for such a waste of time. The Apollo missions being a case in point. So, I think in order to garuantee public funding for space adventures such as those mentioned in this thread, it's imperative to engage the public, and somehow maintain their interest.

And that brings me to the following point...

Why would we want to colonise space? I have been discussing this over quite a couple of years in various different formats, from internet forums to the local pub, and nobody can give me a seriously believable answer. But I'm open to any new ideas, so shoot!

Hey, I'd love to send an email to my buddy on the new Sulphur station on Io, or my mate doing ice drilling on Europa, or even submit my CV to the new station on Ganymede, but without a clear, rational objective, I don't think we're going to see humans beyond Earth orbit (okay, maaaaaaaaybe the moon) anytime soon. And I think that could be decades, even centuries before we can find a compelling reason to go to Mars. Anything we can do there can be done muuuuuch cheaper and easier with robots. Don't worry, I don't like it either, but hey - that's reality...

[Queso]

well the best reason would be that we are already over populated. in the years to come we are going to completely destroy this place if we don't get some of the people off earth, of if we die out.

[Boerseun]

Apparently, our population is increasing at the rate of something like 300,000 more births than deaths per day. So, if we wanted to maintain the status quo of our current population, we'd have to launch 300,000 people off the planet every 24 hours. If we could manage such a launch rate, we'd pollute the atmosphere in a very short while to such an extent that we'd probably kill every living thing on Earth in any case. And that's beside the logistical and technical issues involved in providing a third of a million individuals with accomodation in space every single day...

If overpopulation is a problem, the solution lies in lifestyle changes etc. on Earth, definitely not in space!

[Queso]

im not saying it would fix it, it would sure help. i just think a lot of us need to die.

[Boerseun]

Hahaha - true!

 

If you think about it, that's about the only thing that'll help, seeing as we've increased Earth's carrying capacity way beyond what's natural. In the old pre-technological days, it's been estimated that the Earth had a population in the few tens of millions. Now we're looking at billions! If technology were to disappear, 90% of the human race will have to die to restore the balance back to the natural carrying capacity.

 

I still would love a compelling reason to start up space colonies, though!

[C1ay]

Apparently, our population is increasing at the rate of something like 300,000 more births than deaths per day. So, if we wanted to maintain the status quo of our current population....

No need. Thus far this planet has one event or another that has taken care of the population. Be it an asteroid or a supervolcano, there won't be an overpopulation problem.

[Queso]

i think we are passed the natural threshold of disaster.

we have manipulated our world to allow us to live longer, to prepare for things.

 

i have absolutely no idea what's going to happen when we get closer, and clsoer, and closer. when the earths population is shoulder-to-shoulder. what do we do then?

i'm happy to be alive now, and not in 600 years.