DescentBB

This is probably too early to be considering the possibilities, but I was wondering: Does anyone think that we will live long enough to see the absolute beginning of space colonization? By beginning I mean the first attempts to get the materials together and experiment life in outer space, see how technology fare on the moon, etc.
I'm thinking that with how quickly technology is advancing, is there a possibility?

I'm not sure about permanent colonization, but I think I'll be around long enough to see manned missions to Mars and possibly farther.

That Discovery channel series, \"When we left Earth\" got me thinking about it, too.

I don't think it will happen in my life time (30 yrs + to go) but I believe we will visit Mars by then.

Stephen Hawking has something to say on that subject. According to him, the only way to pretty much ensure humanity's survival is to expand into other solar systems. About faster-than-light communication... I don't understand this very well (yet), but a book that I read on entanglement a few years ago suggested that it could be used to send information faster than light. However, Wikipedia disagrees:

Although two entangled systems appear to interact across large spatial separations, the current state of belief is that no useful information can be transmitted in this way

The book was published in 2001, so I'm siding with Wikipedia. If, when all is said and done, it turns out that it's impossible to send information faster than light, then if we humans do expand into other solar systems, it's going to be, like, impossible for one government to run the whole mess. It would take 4 years for information to travel between Earth and the nearest star, and much longer to travel to a star that has a habitable planet around it. We could save humans in general from random disasters like big rocks hitting Earth (AhemBushAhemAhem), but the cultures would diverge pretty quickly and after another few hundred years, I think that we would end up with two distinct flavors of life form who happen to look identical and who get each other's top news stories 20 years late. I'm not saying that human nature would change on a colony, just that there's no way that Earth is going to regulate any colonies.

if we humans do expand into other solar systems, it's going to be, like, impossible for one government to run the whole mess

So there is hope for humanity!

Gooberman wrote:

if we humans do expand into other solar systems, it's going to be, like, impossible for one government to run the whole mess

So there is hope for humanity!

That's Right! Now we're making progress

Gerard K. O'Neill

went to some lectures of his back in the 70's or 80's. interesting stuff.

http://www.ssi.org/

I have a freind who's very email address is a call to \"Colonize Space\". He's very into the idea, as am I to be honest. But he's very much a \"fast-track\" guy, and talks about putting people on Mars on a permanent basis as soon as possible. To which I ask: \"To do what, exactly?\" And he's yet to come up with a good answer besides abstract knowledge and our survival as a species.

I'm all into the human race, or something we become, outliving our parent star. But...

Man isn't going to inhabit space in any great numbers until there's a living to be made there. And right now there isn't. Except for science, perhaps. But that isn't the kind of money-maker that draws tons of people to permanently dwell in such a hostile environment. Antarctica has not experienced a population boom from all the research to be done there, and it's a lot closer, less expensive to get to, and is an environment far friendlier to human beings than you'll find on any other planet or moon in our solar system. The cost of maintaining a human on Mars is significantly higher. Especially compared to the cost of a robot that can do the same thing, and never risk a human life.

Going to and living in space is so expensive, that I have a hard time thinking of anything there requiring a human on-site that could justify the cost. It takes a LOT of energy to get any significant cargo up to the 11 km/sec or so required to escape Earth's gravity.

Turn Mars into a giant farm? Antartica would be an easier place to start. And if the bio-dome ever ruptured, you'd at least be able to breath the air. I think we'd sooner see our oceans covered in kelp farms or something before a Martian farm would benefit anyone not already living there.

Mine asteroids or other terrestrial bodies for expensive and rare metals? Again, these things are still plentiful enough to meet demand on earth. Even if you found a pure gold asteroid the size of Texas, the cost of building and then delivering the equipment and crew to exploit and bring your treasure to market would likely be too expensive to justify.

My buddy calls me a party-pooper. But I'm just trying to be real about it. I think human exploration of space is important, and will continue in my lifetime. But I expect space to remain a place for explorers and researchers and perhaps a handful of very wealthy tourists. Large numbers of humans in space isn't going to happen until there's a job for them to do. And one that pays well enough to justify the costs and dangers. A cheaper way to generate the needed kinetic energy to escape Earth's gravity pit would help too.

Not to say it may not happen in a couple of centuries. My guess is that the technology and industries that would require space and make it practical don't exist today. My job and the entire industry I work in didn't exist two centuries ago. Who knows what our great grandkids may want or need, and what jobs they'll do to make ends meet...

M-B I think you are quite right. There is no need for colonization of other planets, no economic gain, no science that cannot be done by remote and no technology even on the horizon that would make it worthwhile.
Wasn't it A.C.Clarke who said: \"I thought I would live to see the first man walk on the moon, I never thought I would live to see the last man walk on the moon.\"
That would seem to be the case to me. There is nothing to be gained by sending people. It can all be done much more cheaply by machines. Look at the photos of Mars and the Moon. They are dead, dead, dead. If there was ever life on Mars it is long gone. Photos from the Rovers that have been there for 3 years now are just photos of rocks, dust, and more rocks. There is more life on the tip of Everest than on the entire surface of the Moon and probably all of Mars.

glad the pilgrims didn't think like this.

Duper wrote:glad the pilgrims didn't think like this.

People colonized the "new world" because there was something of benefit to be gained here. Common reasons: freedom from religious persecution, untapped treasures, and adventure/curiosity. Only the third is presently valid for space exploration.

This goes right back to Bug's point: mankind isn't going to colonize Mars, return to the Moon, etc. until there's something of sufficient value to be gained there. Right now, the benefit-to-cost ratio of sending people offworld is simply dwarfed by that of sending robots. Rovers and probes can be sent more cheaply, don't need to be resupplied or brought back, and it's not as big a deal if something goes wrong and it's destroyed. As long as we're just gathering data, robots can do that just as well as humans at a fraction of the cost.

(On an unrelated note, I dress up in a NASA jumpsuit and pretend to fly a spaceship to Mars several times per week. I love my job.)

Well the latest lander has shown that we can grow asparagus on Mars so can colonization be far off?

As to the moon I think some peeps believe H3 is in abundance on the Moon.

Lothar, Just what is your job? Last I read you were unemployed.

woodchip wrote: Lothar, Just what is your job? Last I read you were unemployed.

He subs as "The Count" on Sesame Street.

woodchip wrote:Well the latest lander has shown that we can grow asparagus on Mars so can colonization be far off?

Well, aside from that no human has stepped foot on Mars... how did they manage to grow asparagus on it? I thought Mars didn't even have an atmosphere, yet alone one with Carbon Dioxide in it.

TIGER, you funny.

TIGERassault wrote:

woodchip wrote:Well the latest lander has shown that we can grow asparagus on Mars so can colonization be far off?

Well, aside from that no human has stepped foot on Mars... how did they manage to grow asparagus on it? I thought Mars didn't even have an atmosphere, yet alone one with Carbon Dioxide in it.

Mars has a thin atmosphere, 95% CO2. It's fairly deep, but extremely low pressure (typically less than 1% of that of earth, but it varies depending on location.) Because of the low pressure, ice will sublimate rather than melt -- directly from solid to gas.

(I teach at an aerospace museum.)

Negatratoron wrote:Stephen Hawking has something to say on that subject. According to him, the only way to pretty much ensure humanity's survival is to expand into other solar systems.

I'm skeptical of this. It is typically easier to destroy things than to create them. Creating a Mars colony is no different. We already have the technology to nuke Mars into oblivion, and we are still decades away from colonizing it. In a few decades, when we do colonize it, it will be just as easy to nuke Mars as it will be to nuke targets closer to home. So I don't see space colonization as being the quick fix to mankind's problems.

TIGERassault wrote:

woodchip wrote:Well the latest lander has shown that we can grow asparagus on Mars so can colonization be far off?

Well, aside from that no human has stepped foot on Mars... how did they manage to grow asparagus on it? I thought Mars didn't even have an atmosphere, yet alone one with Carbon Dioxide in it.

As I understand, they've only proved the fertility of the soil, and they also mentioned turnips as a crop that would thrive in it.

As for economic benefits of space mining/colonization, that would depend on what resources are available and feasiblity transported. I'm sure the oil companies would love to get their hands on the lakes of hydrocarbons on Saturn's moon, Titan.

Jeff250 wrote:

Negatratoron wrote:Stephen Hawking has something to say on that subject. According to him, the only way to pretty much ensure humanity's survival is to expand into other solar systems.

I'm skeptical of this. It is typically easier to destroy things than to create them. Creating a Mars colony is no different. We already have the technology to nuke Mars into oblivion, and we are still decades away from colonizing it. In a few decades, when we do colonize it, it will be just as easy to nuke Mars as it will be to nuke targets closer to home. So I don't see space colonization as being the quick fix to mankind's problems.

First, we don't have the technology to nuke Mars (or any other planet for that matter) into oblivion. If you don't believe me, check this out. Second, your point remains (partially) valid. We will be able to nuke ourselves and/or anything else wherever we go, simply by proxy. We are there, the weapons are ours, therefore we will forever retain the capacity for war. However, the few of us who remain somewhat sane and reasonable will be able to part ways with those who don't, i.e., the vast majority of the human population, and in so doing (hopefully) save us all, or at least a handful. To what end? Who knows? Who cares? Life is about living, and that's exactly what the sane, reasonable minority will do, until the day they die. Space exploration just gives us something to do besides blowing each other up and blaming God or the devil or some other person/place/thing we don't particularly care for. Besides, it's human nature to be curious, and curiosity leads to exploration, and the more mysterious and vast the territory, the greater the search. It's kind of hard to find someplace more mysterious and vast than space.

MD-1118 wrote:First, we don't have the technology to nuke Mars (or any other planet for that matter) into oblivion. If you don't believe me, check this out.

Well, right, you're interpreting my remark too literally here.

MD-1118 wrote:However, the few of us who remain somewhat sane and reasonable will be able to part ways with those who don't, i.e., the vast majority of the human population, and in so doing (hopefully) save us all, or at least a handful

The trend seems to be that to have any technology n to preserve the human race, you must have technology n+1 to threaten it.

I for one would like to see what happens if we seeded Mars with lichens and mosses.

Jeff250 wrote:So I don't see space colonization as being the quick fix to mankind's problems.

Right, it's not supposed to be a quick fix to mankind's problems; that's a totally different ballpark. Expanding onto other planets would just protect humanity from mindless coincidental disasters like giant rocks hitting Earth and wiping out all life.

Lothar wrote:Mars has a thin atmosphere, 95% CO2. It's fairly deep, but extremely low pressure (typically less than 1% of that of earth, but it varies depending on location.) Because of the low pressure, ice will sublimate rather than melt -- directly from solid to gas.

Ah, didn't know that. But isn't there another issue of the lack of water? Or is it that the asparagus was grown in an environment with water added.

TIGERassault wrote:

Lothar wrote:Mars has a thin atmosphere, 95% CO2. It's fairly deep, but extremely low pressure (typically less than 1% of that of earth, but it varies depending on location.) Because of the low pressure, ice will sublimate rather than melt -- directly from solid to gas.

Ah, didn't know that. But isn't there another issue of the lack of water? Or is it that the asparagus was grown in an environment with water added.

Nah, we'll just melt the polar ice caps like Ahnold did in 'Total Recall'.