Curiosity Mars Rover Success!

[Bonam]

Bonham, I agree with a lot of what youve said here... that a human colony might be a baby step to more meaningfull colonization. But then I remembered you also believe in the sort of proposition put forth by people like Vinge and Kurzweil that we are approaching a technological singularity and that super-intelligences will design successive generations of even more intelligent super-intelligences.

If thats true then colonizing space might actually happen faster if we dont expend a lot of resources on it now, and instead wait for the "singularity".

Because the singularity will not happen if we just sit around and wait for it. The singularity is the theoretical culmination of technological progress, which (so far) relies on human effort and human ingenuity.

This same sort of problem comes up when people talk about the idea of exploring deeper space. The "ship" we build 1000 years from now will pass the one we send today making it redundant.

I understand what you are trying to say here though the example is not strictly correct (for example, the spacecraft could already have long since arrived at its destination 1000 years from now, and thus it would not be possible to pass it). But I am sure you understand that science and technology builds on itself. If we never build a spacecraft that can travel at 0.0001c, we'll never build one that will travel at 0.0002c, nor one that will travel at 0.001c, nor 0.01c, nor 0.1c, etc. It's an incremental process.

If humans had been content to live in caves until the day they could build skyscrapers, then the day that they could build skyscrapers would never have come.

ITs true that technologies emerge because of these "baby steps" but if thats the point why not do the opposite of whats being proposed. Instead of building a hospitable environment on mars build an inhospitable environment here on earth (no air, toxic atmosphere, shitty climate) and then practice building human colonies inside that.

Because one endeavor is productive and the other counter-productive? Because one would inspire and excite and unite humans while the other would be shrugged at? Because lots of kids dream of being astronauts but few dream of living inside a jar of toxic gas? But you may be interested to know that experiments in harsh conditions have indeed been done to try to gain insight into space colonization.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Bonam

[wyly]

That doesn't seem like very much time to get something like that done.

that's what I thought as well but I guess not having to plan for a return trip would save billions and simplify the entire process shaving years off the engineering requirements...no return lift-off system needed...

I think the company is called Mars One if you want to read up on their plans...

Edited August 9, 2012 by wyly

[Wild Bill]

Wars will always occur, but as long as a significant amount of people are dying from preventible causes like diseases, hunger, lack of proper sanitation etc. I think there's more vital ways of improving the human race than a Mars colony. But as I said, I would be more supportive of a colony if this colony was mostly or completely self-sustaining and we didn't have to spend insane amounts of money continually shipping supplies to Mars.

By colonizing Mars with humans we could learn to possibly survive as a species after some catastrophe like an asteroid hitting earth, or learn how to survive a harsher climate on earth. That's why I'm saying the cost/benefits may only be in our favour if we have the tech to have the colony be self-sustaining. What are the other advantages (that would be worth the cost) of putting human rather than robots being on Mars? Other than it being freaking cool lol.

As had been said before MG, the speed of light or radio is a limiting factor for using robots. Direct remote control is not very practical because of the time delay. Here's a link:

http://www.spaceacademy.net.au/spacelink/commdly.htm

Circuit Distance Delay Time

HF link (UK-NZ) ~20,000 km 0.07 s (67 ms)

Submarine cable(UK-NZ) ~20,000 km 0.07 s (67 ms)

Geosat Link (US-Aus) ~80,000 km 0.25 s

Earth-Moon 384,000 km 1.3 s

Earth-Mars 55 - 378 million km 3 - 21 minutes

Earth-Jupiter 590 - 970 million km 33 - 53 minutes

Earth-Pluto ~5800 million km 5 hours

Earth-Nearest Star ~9.5 million million km 4 years

Please note that Mars is a 21 minute delay, each way!

As for costs and being self sustaining, most of the cost is in the initial launch. Once a craft is in space and in an orbit that will eventually intersect with its destination the cost is negligible, since the craft is coasting. Coasting is free, except for a little bit if you need any course corrections. That's also why a trip to Mars takes so damn long! If we had a constant boost drive, like an ion engine, you are under constant acceleration. This gives a bit of a sense of gravity, so that your coffee stays in your cup and your muscles have something to work against. Instead of a 2 year trip the time might be cut to a couple of months or even a few weeks!

Once you are there, if you have enough energy and raw materials you can very quickly become self sustaining. Your landing craft can be your initial shelter. With solar or nuclear power you can smelt minerals and metals. Ordinary sand becomes glass to make a pressurized greenhouse.

It might take years to be able to make computer chips but there are lots of more basic technologies that could do an amazing amount for the early years. Vacuum tubes, for example! People have made them in their basement workshops! Vacuum tubes worked in radios for decades before we invented solid state devices. A base on Mars would have lots of room and plenty of solar power. Why not use vacuum tubes, at least in the beginning? Along with incandescent light bulbs! And little control light electronic indicators. Hell, early fighter jets flew with vacuum tube electronics. Colonists would find building old fashioned crt monitors much easier than flat screen LED tvs.

With sufficient preparation, a Mars colony could become self-sufficient in just a few years. As it grew of course more things could be sent from Earth, such as seeds for new plants and maybe even some livestock, in the form of frozen embryos. The weight of a shipment of seeds is trivial.

Until Man is living there, we have no idea of what he may find that would start an economic trade back to Earth. Europe had no idea of what the New World held that was valuable until they went there. Even if there are no physical things to trade, the position of Mars as an observatory, especially with its very thin and clear atmosphere, might be valuable to someone back home. Or maybe the gravity, which is around a third of that on Earth might allow some types of manufacturing processes that would be more cost-effective than we have been doing, or even possible when it hasn't been possible on Earth at all!

For all we know, valuable mineral and metal deposits may be literally lying out on the open! Or at least very easily accessible.

We just can't tell until we get there. One thing is rarely mentioned. People living on worlds with lighter gravity might live more comfortably far longer than they do here. Imagine hauling 120 year old bones around on Mars, where the gravity makes a 180 lb man effectively weigh only 60 lbs. On the Moon it would be half of that! Mind you, that is weight and not Mass. It takes the same force to speed up or slow down. Still, for walking around a Mars base and sleeping in your bed the strain on your bones and heart would be a pittance in comparison.

I'd go in a heartbeat! Who would want to come back?

Edited August 9, 2012 by Wild Bill

[Bonam]

As for costs and being self sustaining, most of the cost is in the initial launch. Once a craft is in space and in an orbit that will eventually intersect with its destination the cost is negligible, since the craft is coasting. Coasting is free, except for a little bit if you need any course corrections. That's also why a trip to Mars takes so damn long! If we had a constant boost drive, like an ion engine, you are under constant acceleration. This gives a bit of a sense of gravity, so that your coffee stays in your cup and your muscles have something to work against. Instead of a 2 year trip the time might be cut to a couple of months or even a few weeks!

I'm all for ion engines (heck my master's and PhD theses were on basically a variant of one), and indeed the travel time can be cut down quite a bit using them. But I would definitely point out that the constant force provided by any near term realistic electric thruster would be very small. The "sense of gravity" thus produced would be essentially negligible (you could realistically get about 1 N / ton of spacecraft mass, which corresponds to 0.001 N / kg, 1 mm/s^2, or 0.0001g). An object dropped from the height of your hand would take about 1 minute to fall to the "floor", for example. This amount of gravity would not provide any useful amount of resistance for your muscles to work against.

Of course, farther in the future, it may be possible to have higher thrust "continuous boost" drives, but for now the above is around the upper limit of what's realistic.

Once you are there, if you have enough energy and raw materials you can very quickly become self sustaining. Your landing craft can be your initial shelter. With solar or nuclear power you can smelt minerals and metals. Ordinary sand becomes glass to make a pressurized greenhouse.

Indeed. In-situ resource utilization (commonly referred to as ISRU at space exploration conferences) will be key to the success of an early Mars settlement.

It might take years to be able to make computer chips but there are lots of more basic technologies that could do an amazing amount for the early years. Vacuum tubes, for example! People have made them in their basement workshops! Vacuum tubes worked in radios for decades before we invented solid state devices. A base on Mars would have lots of room and plenty of solar power. Why not use vacuum tubes, at least in the beginning? Along with incandescent light bulbs! And little control light electronic indicators. Hell, early fighter jets flew with vacuum tube electronics. Colonists would find building old fashioned crt monitors much easier than flat screen LED tvs.

You have to remember that every hour of someone's time spent on Mars, especially in the early years, would cost an astronomical amount. Let's say for example that we had a mission that gets to Mars with 100 colonists and they are to be "self-sufficient" in 10 years. And let's say that this mission cost $500 billion. Assuming these colonists work 16 hours a day 7 days a week, they are gonna put in about 6 million total hours (for the 100 of them) over that 10 year time span. That means that the cost of their time spent on Mars during this initial 10 year period is about $80,000/hour. Now, would it be worth someone on Mars spending days putting together vacuum tubes out of Martian regolith and then waiting around while they compute things for hours and days, or would it be better to spend another few million to send them an initial supply of computer chips that can be used to build the electronic components that they need, with modern specifications? The answer is immediately obvious: it is absolutely not worth anyone's time on Mars to be tinkering around with outdated technology.

Until Man is living there, we have no idea of what he may find that would start an economic trade back to Earth. Europe had no idea of what the New World held that was valuable until they went there. Even if there are no physical things to trade, the position of Mars as an observatory, especially with its very thin and clear atmosphere, might be valuable to someone back home. Or maybe the gravity, which is around a third of that on Earth might allow some types of manufacturing processes that would be more cost-effective than we have been doing, or even possible when it hasn't been possible on Earth at all!

While possible, it is unlikely to be cost effective, except in the scenario that we build a space elevator on Mars, which essentially reduces the cost of transport back to Earth to zero (once the up front cost of the elevator has been paid for). While a space elevator is extremely challenging to build on Earth with currently existing materials, it would actually be very doable on Mars.

For all we know, valuable mineral and metal deposits may be literally lying out on the open! Or at least very easily accessible.

There are many asteroids which have such deposits in very high concentrations, far higher than ever occur on Earth.

We just can't tell until we get there. One thing is rarely mentioned. People living on worlds with lighter gravity might live more comfortably far longer than they do here. Imagine hauling 120 year old bones around on Mars, where the gravity makes a 180 lb man effectively weigh only 60 lbs. On the Moon it would be half of that! Mind you, that is weight and not Mass. It takes the same force to speed up or slow down. Still, for walking around a Mars base and sleeping in your bed the strain on your bones and heart would be a pittance in comparison.

Studies have shown that humans in reduced gravity conditions lose bone density and muscle strength and suffer other physiological effects. One would not retain one's Earthly physique if living on Mars. Your heart, like other muscles, would get weaker. The net effect would likely not be any improvement in health, and perhaps a decline if anything. Although of course such studies as have been carried out have been done in near-zero gravity in orbiting spacecraft, not in Mars' 0.38g field. So perhaps Mars gravity would be sufficient to keep your bones and muscles from deteriorating. Sadly, we really don't know until we send living creatures to Mars (or build a facility that simulates Mars gravity).

I'd go in a heartbeat! Who would want to come back?

I'd go as long as the colony ship had a 50/50 male/female ratio or better ;p Last thing you want is to be the odd guy out on a planet with only a few people on it haha.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Bonam

[Moonlight Graham]

As had been said before MG, the speed of light or radio is a limiting factor for using robots. Direct remote control is not very practical because of the time delay. Here's a link:

Good point.

Self-sustaining life on Mars just seems more complex than what you're saying.

[Wild Bill]

I'm all for ion engines (heck my master's and PhD theses were on basically a variant of one), and indeed the travel time can be cut down quite a bit using them. But I would definitely point out that the constant force provided by any near term realistic electric thruster would be very small. The "sense of gravity" thus produced would be essentially negligible (you could realistically get about 1 N / ton of spacecraft mass, which corresponds to 0.001 N / kg, 1 mm/s^2, or 0.0001g). An object dropped from the height of your hand would take about 1 minute to fall to the "floor", for example. This amount of gravity would not provide any useful amount of resistance for your muscles to work against.

You have to remember that every hour of someone's time spent on Mars, especially in the early years, would cost an astronomical amount. Let's say for example that we had a mission that gets to Mars with 100 colonists and they are to be "self-sufficient" in 10 years. And let's say that this mission cost $500 billion. Assuming these colonists work 16 hours a day 7 days a week, they are gonna put in about 6 million total hours (for the 100 of them) over that 10 year time span. That means that the cost of their time spent on Mars during this initial 10 year period is about $80,000/hour. Now, would it be worth someone on Mars spending days putting together vacuum tubes out of Martian regolith and then waiting around while they compute things for hours and days, or would it be better to spend another few million to send them an initial supply of computer chips that can be used to build the electronic components that they need, with modern specifications? The answer is immediately obvious: it is absolutely not worth anyone's time on Mars to be tinkering around with outdated technology.

While possible, it is unlikely to be cost effective, except in the scenario that we build a space elevator on Mars, which essentially reduces the cost of transport back to Earth to zero (once the up front cost of the elevator has been paid for). While a space elevator is extremely challenging to build on Earth with currently existing materials, it would actually be very doable on Mars.

There are many asteroids which have such deposits in very high concentrations, far higher than ever occur on Earth.

Studies have shown that humans in reduced gravity conditions lose bone density and muscle strength and suffer other physiological effects. One would not retain one's Earthly physique if living on Mars. Your heart, like other muscles, would get weaker. The net effect would likely not be any improvement in health, and perhaps a decline if anything. Although of course such studies as have been carried out have been done in near-zero gravity in orbiting spacecraft, not in Mars' 0.38g field. So perhaps Mars gravity would be sufficient to keep your bones and muscles from deteriorating. Sadly, we really don't know until we send living creatures to Mars (or build a facility that simulates Mars gravity).

I'd go as long as the colony ship had a 50/50 male/female ratio or better ;p Last thing you want is to be the odd guy out on a planet with only a few people on it haha.

I agree, right now continuous thrust engines are far too weak. Still, how quickly could something new come on stream? Even a continuous acceleration of only 1/10 g would reduce transit times to other planets by a fantastic amount. We're smiling and dreaming here, remember?

As for obsolete technology like vacuum tubes, I suspect that as many obsolete technologies as possible should be adopted in the beginning, after balancing out the time involved in building something old versus something state of the art.

You see Bonam, I'm not all that confident that Earth will be a reliable source for more materials like computer chips. That support depends too much on politics. Not necessarily a war that destroys support capabilities but simple budgetary changes in priorities could leave colonists screwed!

I would think it only prudent for colonists to become totally self-sufficient as quickly as possible! How long would it take to develop the resources necessary to make your own computer chips and other high level solid state devices?

What's more, solid state manufacturing is a high volume process. Vacuum tubes are easier to make in onesy-twosy batches. They are useless for digital applications, of course but for simple power control, radio, analog television and such they are quite useful for a small colony.

The first priorities are to be able to breathe! Then comes food, water and adequate shelter. Making your own computers might never be necessary! A Mars colony could survive indefinitely on a 1940's level technology. If everything is run by a computer system with no spares available then it would be very vulnerable.

I would feel more secure the sooner I didn't need not just initial devices but any replacements to come from Earth. Far better to be indefinitely self-sufficient from almost Day 1. Once that is accomplished, I'd work on developing local capabilities for newer technologies.

I agree with a Martian Space Elevator. I just can't see anyone winning a political war to have it funded from this end. Martians would have to create their own capability for such a thing, at least for the lion's share of what is required.

I also agree with asteroid mining being a better choice as a source for almost anything we can imagine. I merely mentioned it to apply to those things we CAN'T imagine!

As for the physical effects of living on Mars, anyone becoming a colonist there had better hope that .38 g is enough, even with supplemental exercise and other techniques. Once again, if the support from Earth stops, I would like to be able to survive! If I had children there, I would be even more motivated.

Or maybe I'm just too cynical! No politician would leave a colony stranded, would they?

[Wild Bill]

Another dormant post. Pity. The ones most important to the very future of mankind always seem to be ignored, while those about what often is rather trivial run on for pages and pages...

[eyeball]

Another dormant post. Pity. The ones most important to the very future of mankind always seem to be ignored, while those about what often is rather trivial run on for pages and pages...

The future of who? As I asked above, are we simply cashing in our planet to see who has the most after it's been stripped of it's resources or should we use these to leverage our species evolution towards becoming space-faring and presumably free of the constraints of living on such a tiny fragile and very finite speck?

I suppose we should allow for the possibility that the leveraged will be a coalition of wealthy individuals who one day pool their vast inheritances together to escape a planet that's been exhausted of all it's natural capital. Given the bigger picture here, that of mankind's survival we should probably wish them Godspeed, because I think they're going to need it.

They better get on with it too before the jig is up and those who fear being left behind try to clamber aboard their lifeboats.

OTOH Canada could still have enough capacity to allow for the development of a more common vision that might lend itself to utilizing our still fairly vast natural resource base to the cause of becoming a space-dwelling people, but that would probably mean not catering so much to the notion that making individuals as ridiculously stinking rich as possible is actually mankind's best hope. Good luck with that.

Edited August 12, 2012 by eyeball

[Wild Bill]

The future of who? As I asked above, are we simply cashing in our planet to see who has the most after it's been stripped of it's resources or should we use these to leverage our species evolution towards becoming space-faring and presumably free of the constraints of living on such a tiny fragile and very finite speck?

I suppose we should allow for the possibility that the leveraged will be a coalition of wealthy individuals who one day pool their vast inheritances together to escape a planet that's been exhausted of all it's natural capital. Given the bigger picture here, that of mankind's survival we should probably wish them Godspeed, because I think they're going to need it.

They better get on with it too before the jig is up and those who fear being left behind try to clamber aboard their lifeboats.

OTOH Canada could still have enough capacity to allow for the development of a more common vision that might lend itself to utilizing our still fairly vast natural resource base to the cause of becoming a space-dwelling people, but that would probably mean not catering so much to the notion that making individuals as ridiculously stinking rich as possible is actually mankind's best hope. Good luck with that.

Things don't quite work like that, eyeball!

First off, the faster we get off this ball of rock the faster we have access to literally infinite resources. Very quickly we could get literally everything we need from asteroids, the Moon and maybe other planets. To send it back to cover the needs of the earth could be cheap and easy.

There could come a day when the earth becomes fallow and returns to the way it was in perhaps the 1700s. People would still live here only because they absolutely wanted to, perhaps for religious reasons.

Meanwhile, we would expand our population into Space! Like Europe after the discovery of the New World, Earth would become a backwater. Space would be where most progress would be made.

Think of it! Once Man is established and expanding into space, we would no longer have all our eggs in one basket. No more worries that one or two idiots could destroy our whole race!

Cultures in Space would of necessity become a bit more logical and practical. After all, make a mistake with an airlock and you are dead! Simple Darwinism would improve the species.

Tell the truth. Aren't you the least bit attractive at the thought of leaving all the idiots and wingnuts behind?

Edited August 12, 2012 by Wild Bill

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Another dormant post. Pity. The ones most important to the very future of mankind always seem to be ignored, while those about what often is rather trivial run on for pages and pages...

\

I've been following in the news but, controversy drives arguments.

And realistically, that is what many(most?) posters come here for.

[eyeball]

Things don't quite work like that, eyeball!

First off, the faster we get off this ball of rock the faster we have access to literally infinite resources. Very quickly we could get literally everything we need from asteroids, the Moon and maybe other planets. To send it back to cover the needs of the earth could be cheap and easy.

Things don't work like that either. Think about what you're suggesting here - turning Earth into a giant recipient of welfare and living off the sweat of the hard working spacers? Oh the humanity.

There could come a day when the earth becomes fallow and returns to the way it was in perhaps the 1700s. People would still live here only because they absolutely wanted to, perhaps for religious reasons.

Meanwhile, we would expand our population into Space! Like Europe after the discovery of the New World, Earth would become a backwater. Space would be where most progress would be made.

Think of it! Once Man is established and expanding into space, we would no longer have all our eggs in one basket. No more worries that one or two idiots could destroy our whole race!

I hear you, I was raised on 2001 and Star Trek too, I'm only wondering why I'm not typing this from my home on Clavius Base. Obviously this business of getting into space is a lot harder than it looks and may not be worth doing much more than sending the odd robot out.

Cultures in Space would of necessity become a bit more logical and practical. After all, make a mistake with an airlock and you are dead! Simple Darwinism would improve the species.

Tell the truth. Aren't you the least bit attractive at the thought of leaving all the idiots and wingnuts behind?

Dream on. I doubt it would be very long before the Pastafarians and Scientologists were waging crusades and jihads against one another.

Edited August 13, 2012 by eyeball

[Wild Bill]

Things don't work like that either. Think about what you're suggesting here - turning Earth into a giant recipient of welfare and living off the sweat of the hard working spacers? Oh the humanity.

I hear you, I was raised on 2001 and Star Trek too, I'm only wondering why I'm not typing this from my home on Clavius Base. Obviously this business of getting into space is a lot harder than it looks and may not be worth doing much more than sending the odd robot out.

Dream on. I doubt it would be very long before the Pastafarians and Scientologists were waging crusades and jihads against one another.

Why would Earth become a welfare bum? Do you believe that the people who would choose to stay behind would all be deadbeats that did nothing constructive? That's not likely for most, just as it's not today. Societies in Space are not likely to feed and supply those still on Earth out of charity forever. Some sort of trade would inevitably happen.

The worst case scenario would be for Man to die off on the Earth. I would think that would make the eco-warriors ecstatically happy! The Earth would become pristine and green again! No evil Man to dirty it up and change the climate! We would see Eden again!

By the time such a thing might happen, there would be billions of people living off world. Man would be spreading out over countless stars, or perhaps just living in traveling space colonies. There would be no fear of the race ever becoming extinct.

Why aren't you seeing this already happening? Because things have been run by politics and when politicians run things we ALWAYS take the longest and least-efficient path! It was a century or more after the New World was discovered before we began to see a lot of travel and extensive colonization. Things had to progress to the point where private enterprise could take on those roles.

The same thing has been happening with Space. How long since Man landed on the Moon? Now we see private companies like SpaceX developing the hardware to exploit Space. We see consortiums of companies being formed to mine the asteroids for minerals and metals.

It will happen, eyeball. Just not for our generation. Maybe that was our own fault.

As far as Scientologists ans such, they will always be with us, wherever we are. They are a product of human nature.

[wyly]

\

I've been following in the news but, controversy drives arguments.

And realistically, that is what many(most?) posters come here for.

ya, if we all agreed with each other what would be the point of being here...controversy/disagreement/exchange of ideas is the intellectual engine that drives our society forward...

[GostHacked]

I actually wouldn't mind participating in the colonization of Mars myself.

Visiting would be cool too. Few people realize, but Mars has geographic features that are almost unfathomable in scale compared to Earth. Vertical cliffs 7 km tall,

Bombing down that in a wing suit would be pretty awesome.

The one thing that is being talked about is better equipment to validate if the data from the Viking missions actually had detected microbial life on mars, or evidence that mars had some form of life on it. If this turns out to be true, then the galaxy hence the universe if full of life. That's pretty exciting. If we end up finding more than that, people's philosophies are going to drastically change.

[wyly]

If this turns out to be true, then the galaxy hence the universe if full of life. That's pretty exciting. If we end up finding more than that, people's philosophies are going to drastically change.

i dunno, people have a strange way of incorporating new science into old philosophies to enable them to hold onto those original philosophies...

[eyeball]

Why would Earth become a welfare bum? Do you believe that the people who would choose to stay behind would all be deadbeats that did nothing constructive? That's not likely for most, just as it's not today. Societies in Space are not likely to feed and supply those still on Earth out of charity forever. Some sort of trade would inevitably happen.

I think the space-born living up in Stratos might think that about the trogs below who will nonetheless probably be putting in 20 hour days just to survive.

In any case you're the one who suggested spacers would cover the needs of Earth simply because it would be cheap and easy to do so. I have my doubts, mostly because of the prime moral directive - produce or die - that's leading us towards the rosy Cornucopian future you envision.

The worst case scenario would be for Man to die off on the Earth. I would think that would make the eco-warriors ecstatically happy! The Earth would become pristine and green again! No evil Man to dirty it up and change the climate! We would see Eden again!

Now who would'a ever thunk you'd think that?

I highly doubt we'll go extinct any time soon, we're just too weedy a species,like dandelions, but I do think we could easily knock our civilization so flat on it's ass that it would take thousands of years and perhaps hundreds of generations to get back to a point where we can think of doing what you're talking about.

By the time such a thing might happen, there would be billions of people living off world. Man would be spreading out over countless stars, or perhaps just living in traveling space colonies. There would be no fear of the race ever becoming extinct.

Why aren't you seeing this already happening? Because things have been run by politics and when politicians run things we ALWAYS take the longest and least-efficient path! It was a century or more after the New World was discovered before we began to see a lot of travel and extensive colonization. Things had to progress to the point where private enterprise could take on those roles.

Well, I guess this clinches it, this definitely seems more like your heart that's behind your thinking here.

The same thing has been happening with Space. How long since Man landed on the Moon? Now we see private companies like SpaceX developing the hardware to exploit Space. We see consortiums of companies being formed to mine the asteroids for minerals and metals.

Your faith in the power of free private enterprise seems as wooly headed as...I just can't put my finger on it...but I'm almost certain I've been accused of it too.

It will happen, eyeball. Just not for our generation. Maybe that was our own fault.

I have serious doubts, especially if its not going to happen during the lifetime of the people investing in it. Aside from a few dreamers why would they? I think we've probably blown our wad in terms of the natural resources we'd need myself to make a serious attempt at industrializing space plus meet consumer needs plus keep on growing our economy in the manner to which we're accustomed.

Fermi's Paradox plus the complete blank SETI is drawing suggests the chances of a sentient species, and especially our's surviving it's adolescence may be slimmer than we think. I live in hope and would love to be proven wrong but I think we really need to focus a lot more on the here and now when it comes to our long-term survival.

I think we need another couple thousand years or so of social evolution before we can hope to cultivate the sort of collective attitude, mindset, effort and sacrifice it will likely take to launch a whole society into space. We'd need a world government and peace and prosperity for all before we could even seriously consider it and that is most certainly not going to happen in our lifetimes. We stand a better chance of benevolent aliens showing up at the last minute to rescue us from ourselves. Or maybe humans from the future who've reached the TS will reach back through time to rescue everyone.

As far as Scientologists ans such, they will always be with us, wherever we are. They are a product of human nature.

Yes they will. I wouldn't be surprised to find that's usually the case wherever sentience evolves. I seriously doubt we'll leave that behind on Earth.

Edited August 15, 2012 by eyeball

[bleeding heart]

Tell the truth. Aren't you the least bit attractive at the thought of leaving all the idiots and wingnuts behind?

You always take the weather with you, as the song says.

Idiots and wingnuts are--leaving aside the subjectivity of the charge--a permanent part of the human condition.

That goes for those with the "Will-to-Mars," certainly.

Edited August 15, 2012 by bleeding heart

[GostHacked]

i dunno, people have a strange way of incorporating new science into old philosophies to enable them to hold onto those original philosophies...

Well having life evolve in some way on one planet is a miracle really. Having it evolve or having existed on TWO planets in our solar system greatly improves the chances of the galaxy being full of life, and some possibly intelligent.

[wyly]

Well having life evolve in some way on one planet is a miracle really. Having it evolve or having existed on TWO planets in our solar system greatly improves the chances of the galaxy being full of life, and some possibly intelligent.

statistically I would say that life existing elsewhere at some time is a sure thing, other than confirming it in our own solar system there isn't any point in seeking it out...time and the enormous distances involved make a further search a waste of resources, without faster than light travel we're never leaving our solar system...

[wyly]

I highly doubt we'll go extinct any time soon, we're just too weedy a species,like dandelions, but I do think we could easily knock our civilization so flat on it's ass that it would take thousands of years and perhaps hundreds of generations to get back to a point where we can think of doing what you're talking about.

climate change over the next 500 years could set us back thousands...

Fermi's Paradox plus the complete blank SETI is drawing suggests the chances of a sentient species, and especially our's surviving it's adolescence may be slimmer than we think. I live in hope and would love to be proven wrong but I think we really need to focus a lot more on the here and now when it comes to our long-term survival.

ya it's like a lottery, there could be multiple winners or just one...as (semi)intelligent life we ould very well be all alone in our galaxy... Edited August 16, 2012 by wyly

[Wild Bill]

statistically I would say that life existing elsewhere at some time is a sure thing, other than confirming it in our own solar system there isn't any point in seeking it out...time and the enormous distances involved make a further search a waste of resources, without faster than light travel we're never leaving our solar system...

Why should that be so? Only if we intended to physically keep returning!

Long before we settle other planets and asteroids in the solar system we would be capable of making something like an asteroid base move under power. With solar and/or nuclear power plus a self-sustaining environmental system a large asteroid could support a surprisingly large population. Add in even a very modest ion drive engine and there would be nothing to stop that asteroid from heading out to the nearest star.

It would take many generations but eventually they would arrive at another system, perhaps with other planets suitable for colonization. If so, some of the population might choose to become colonists and live on another world. If not, it would be no big deal. The asteroid would just keep moving on! To another star and another. For most of the people involved would likely to prefer living in that asteroid. It would be home. Earth would be only a memory, something in the history books. It would suggest harsh gravity, abusive climates and worst of all, germs! Why change the safe and clean life in an interstellar colony craft for that?

Population is easy to plan with contraceptives but even if the population grows too large, there would be no problem. Simply find another asteroid and build another colony craft! The beauty of such craft is that you take your material resources with you. An asteroid ten or more miles in diameter has a HUGE volume of mass, with LOTS of metals, minerals and perhaps even water!

Once the process has started, in a few hundreds of thousands of years Mankind would have spread out across a good portion of our galaxy. It would be a geometric progression, like doubling a penny every day.

[wyly]

Why should that be so? Only if we intended to physically keep returning!

Long before we settle other planets and asteroids in the solar system we would be capable of making something like an asteroid base move under power. With solar and/or nuclear power plus a self-sustaining environmental system a large asteroid could support a surprisingly large population. Add in even a very modest ion drive engine and there would be nothing to stop that asteroid from heading out to the nearest star.

It would take many generations but eventually they would arrive at another system, perhaps with other planets suitable for colonization. If so, some of the population might choose to become colonists and live on another world. If not, it would be no big deal. The asteroid would just keep moving on! To another star and another. For most of the people involved would likely to prefer living in that asteroid. It would be home. Earth would be only a memory, something in the history books. It would suggest harsh gravity, abusive climates and worst of all, germs! Why change the safe and clean life in an interstellar colony craft for that?

Population is easy to plan with contraceptives but even if the population grows too large, there would be no problem. Simply find another asteroid and build another colony craft! The beauty of such craft is that you take your material resources with you. An asteroid ten or more miles in diameter has a HUGE volume of mass, with LOTS of metals, minerals and perhaps even water!

Once the process has started, in a few hundreds of thousands of years Mankind would have spread out across a good portion of our galaxy. It would be a geometric progression, like doubling a penny every day.

I thought the same thing, turning asteroids into a space craft seems the only practical way to colonize/explore the galaxy, and each journey being a one way trip...I don't know how popular that would be with those staying behind, it would cost an enormous amount of cash with little or no benefit for those remaining, so politically it becomes a tough sell...

then there's the gravity issue,a lack of gravity appears to have a detrimental effect on our bodies,...even if we could counter that would even getting off the asteroid/craft and functioning on a planet with gravity after many generations in space be possible...

[Wild Bill]

I thought the same thing, turning asteroids into a space craft seems the only practical way to colonize/explore the galaxy, and each journey being a one way trip...I don't know how popular that would be with those staying behind, it would cost an enormous amount of cash with little or no benefit for those remaining, so politically it becomes a tough sell...

then there's the gravity issue,a lack of gravity appears to have a detrimental effect on our bodies,...even if we could counter that would even getting off the asteroid/craft and functioning on a planet with gravity after many generations in space be possible...

Well, as I said, maybe not that many would want to jump off and settle a planet anyway! Plus, the asteroid can be spun, for centrifugal force to act as a substitute for gravity. A diameter of a few miles would not need a very fast spin rate to give something close to a 1 g acceleration. Taking an "elevator" down to the centre of the asteroid would give a steadily decreasing sense of gravity, which could be very useful for certain manufacturing processes and perhaps old folks.

As for payback for earthbound investors, perhaps initially the craft would have to do something profitable for a few years to earn its "freedom", so to speak. There are all kinds of things that not only are cheaper to make in zero g but are of better quality, quality better than is even possible on earth. NASA experiments have found all kinds of things that could make a good buck, not the least of which is ball bearings so perfectly round as to make the best produced on Earth look as lumpy as a golf ball! It sounds like a trivial thing but ball bearings are used in almost everything that turns or spins. The quality of the bearing makes a big difference on the amount of friction to be overcome. It could easily mean an extra 10 mpg or even more in a transmission, or something similar in an electric motor. Near frictionless bearings would save an unbelievable amount of wasted energy!

Plus there's the worth of the metals and minerals in the asteroid itself. Space mining will be hugely profitable once it starts happening. If your miners live there and aren't looking for a ride home surely there will be cost savings that can be applied to paying off the craft "debt"/

There is good evidence that some of the moons of Jupiter, Saturn and the other gas giants hold incredibly large pools of liquid methane and other hydrocarbons. These will always be in demand to an energy hungry Earth. It wouldn't be that big a feat of engineering to scoop up or pump up a LOT of this liquid "oil" to bring back to near-Earth orbit. The cost of transport would be mice nuts in total. The craft would slowly accelerate in a very long term orbit. Who cares if it takes 5 years or more? It makes the cost peanuts since little energy is spent on propellant and the people on the asteroid are never intending to come home anyway!

There's really nothing new we need to invent. Just apply what we already know. There would also be no shortage of volunteers. Computers would mean continual education available for the crew colonists, plus no doubt there would be some astronomical and scientific experimental work that could be done for more profit.

Perhaps for the first decade or two, while the asteroid is being dug out and readied, it could serve as a near-Earth base, rotating for gravity, for handling space mining materials from asteroids brought back to be smelted and refined in orbit, leaving no "dirtiness" spoiling the Earth from refining on the ground. There would no doubt be several such bases working at any given time. When they were sufficiently well outfitted they would "graduate" into "tankers", moving in orbits of several years out to the big gas giant planets to tap into the liquid methane and bring it home. There could be long trains of these tankers, spaced a few weeks or months apart.

So much for any debates about "Peak Oil"!

Work on preparing an asteroid craft would still procede all the time it is in use as a tanker. Every few years it would be back home, to receive anymore materials it needed to become self-sufficient. Eventually, it would be ready, its "indenture" paid off. It could then set out for the stars!

The craft would never truly be out of touch with Earth. With radio and laser, information could flow both ways. The time lag would keep increasing. Proxima Centauri is over 4 years away for a radio transmission! The lag would only keep increasing. Still, we wouldn't need a comfortable conversation. It would be more like a long stream each way of what new things had been observed or figured out.

Man, I wish I was younger!

[wyly]

Well, as I said, maybe not that many would want to jump off and settle a planet anyway! Plus, the asteroid can be spun, for centrifugal force to act as a substitute for gravity. A diameter of a few miles would not need a very fast spin rate to give something close to a 1 g acceleration. Taking an "elevator" down to the centre of the asteroid would give a steadily decreasing sense of gravity, which could be very useful for certain manufacturing processes and perhaps old folks.

spinning it is going to be problematic as they're not going to be balanced with a convenient center of gravity...then there issues with pitch, yaw and roll and then you need to steer the thing...but I can't envision anything smaller than asteroid successfully take man out of our solar system...

Man, I wish I was younger!

don't we all... Edited August 16, 2012 by wyly

[Wild Bill]

spinning it is going to be problematic as they're not going to be balanced with a convenient center of gravity...then there issues with pitch, yaw and roll and then you need to steer the thing...but I can't envision anything smaller than asteroid successfully take man out of our solar system...

don't we all...

Every mass has a centre of gravity, even if it has a lumpy shape. Once it spins it is not that hard to keep it stable. That's how gyroscopes work.

There may be some shaping needed so that it stays stable under acceleration but not a lot. The thrust will be very small, just continuous. Steering thrust requirements should be minimal. If the overall shape is too irregular you could just leave it and pick another one. If it is only a bit of trouble then some TNT equivalent should do the job.

Also, if you are going to do some mining and hollowing for living space you have to design for a stable mass as your result anyway. These are not impossibilities, just minor aggravations.

Again, I guess we all would like to be younger, especially if we could keep what we know now!