What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

Dook · 2005-11-27 09:22:53

Alternative fuel and energy resources outside the earth? Uh, solar? Microwave? Lunar oxygen transported to earth? You use more energy and money just getting into space than you could possibly return.

I'd really like to see your evidence that humanity will die off in 20 years if we don't expand into space. Your organization cannot hope to have a functional SSTO spaceplane by then anyway so it really seems to me that you've just made yourself invalid.

What we really need are reasonable ideas that minimize risk and cost. We need a plan with reasonable timeframes that is grounded in reputable science and led by a recognized, respected, and charismatic leader so we would all eagerly join to form an organized effort that is not driven by apocalyptic panic.

Why don't you work on that for a while, then come back and show us what you've come up with.

Palomar · 2005-11-27 10:16:55

*Because it's there.

(The mountaineering motto).

And because we can.

--Cindy

Dook · 2005-11-27 10:42:19

Yeah, "because it's there" trumps all.

Forget how much it will cost and how many lives we will lose. After all, that's the price you pay.

I'm sure you believe that it's worth it that 185 people have lost their lives attempting to climb mount everest, not to mention the many living amputees who lost limbs because of frostbite. After all, look at all of the great technology it's given us and look at how we have developed the once desolate mountain.

Personally, I don't care that people risk their lives on a mountain. That's their business. But risking my money, my time, my equipment, and my astronauts on stupid endeavors that provide little to no benefit to humanity like: asteroid mining, colonies in space, the moon, even mars is just plain stupid.

Choose not to be stupid.

MarsDog · 2005-11-27 13:45:27

International Space Agency could have significant value in bringing together space enthusiasts. There is always a shortage of good faciliators.

Their mission statement should be simple.
Quality information, entertaining, while bringing together space enthusiasts.
(Religious doomsday disaster interpretations we hear everyday.)

John Creighton · 2005-11-27 15:27:19

Yeah, "because it's there" trumps all.
Forget how much it will cost and how many lives we will lose. After all, that's the price you pay.
I'm sure you believe that it's worth it that 185 people have lost their lives attempting to climb mount everest, not to mention the many living amputees who lost limbs because of frostbite. After all, look at all of the great technology it's given us and look at how we have developed the once desolate mountain.
Personally, I don't care that people risk their lives on a mountain. That's their business. But risking my money, my time, my equipment, and my astronauts on stupid endeavors that provide little to no benefit to humanity like: asteroid mining, colonies in space, the moon, even mars is just plain stupid.
Choose not to be stupid.

You provide one assertion about the benefits of such endeavors and I provide the opposite assertions. What quality of debate and discussion do you think that will lead to?

Dook · 2005-11-27 16:34:50

You debate the validity of debate?

And you missed the obvious, well I thought it was, sarcasm. What new technology has climbing provided? What development of mount everest?

VTTFSH_T · 2005-11-27 16:51:34

Yeah, "because it's there" trumps all.
Forget how much it will cost and how many lives we will lose. After all, that's the price you pay.
I'm sure you believe that it's worth it that 185 people have lost their lives attempting to climb mount everest, not to mention the many living amputees who lost limbs because of frostbite. After all, look at all of the great technology it's given us and look at how we have developed the once desolate mountain.
Personally, I don't care that people risk their lives on a mountain. That's their business. But risking my money, my time, my equipment, and my astronauts on stupid endeavors that provide little to no benefit to humanity like: asteroid mining, colonies in space, the moon, even mars is just plain stupid.
Choose not to be stupid.

How are endeavors of space colonies, the moon, and mars stupid? Do you realize the value of a moon base? We could put a manufacturing plant on the moon. This manufacturing plant could cater to the building of satellites and other objects in space. Since the gravity on the moon is 1/8th the gravity that is on Earth, it would be a lot more cost effective to launch materials from the moon than they are to launch from Earth. Also, we could place solar panels on the moon and collect energy to power the plant.

Life is a very valuable thing. How would you feel if your father died aboard Challenger or Columbia. Life should never be taken for granted. Yes, lives are the cost of progress, but by the way you are saying the life of loss is required, you sound brutal and like you do not care about the loss of life. Lives lost are definitely a roadblock. I see no reason why we should forget how many lives are lost. NASA didn't do this. That is why they grounded the shuttle flights for 2 years. They feared that they would lose more astronauts to unsafe equipment.

Cost is definitely roadblock in the road to colonizing Mars and space. Without funds, you cannot do anything. This is why NASA has done very little over the past decade. The NASA budget for Fiscal Year 2006 is only a mere $16.456 billion, only 2.4% over this year budget of $16.070 billion. If NASA wants to achieve major goals like the "First Man on Mars", it will need a lot more funding. We should think like we did when we were planning Apollo and fund NASA a lot better than it is being currently funded. Because NASA is poorly funded, it cannot truly achieve any major goals on that small of a budget.

Space colonies are very valuable. They provide us with a solution to the constanly growing population on Earth. The predictied population growth of Earth between 2000-2005 was 6.1 billion people to 6.45 billion people, meaning that the population or Earth grew 5%. Space colonies and colonizing Mars could be a solution to the growning population. If the population keeps growning as it is currently, we will exhaust Earth's resources faster than we would if we colonized other planets, solar systems, and sent colonies out into space. Colonies in the orbit of some gas giants would allow us to harvest Helium-3, which is an isotope which is used for clean fusion fuel.

Mining asteroids in the asteroid fields is very important to the expansion of the human race. The asteroid field yields many important resources such as platinum, Iron, Cement, Silicates, Industrial Calcuim Oxide, a variety of Phosphates, Water, Carbon, Nitrogen, Sulfurs, Sulfides, and Ferrous metals. The estimated value of an asteroid 1 km in diameter is $1 trillion. Now there are many asteroids in the asteroid field bigger than 1 km and there are a lot of asteroids in that size range. That would pay off the defecit of this country and give us a good surplus if we were to reach the asteroid field and start mining there first. If NASA were to acheive that, that would secure them a very large budget to do their operations.

*Edit* Choose the expansion of humanity into space, not sitting here on Earth.

Martian Republic · 2005-11-27 17:04:14

My feeling on this matter is, that we are going to have put the current economic system through bankruptcy reorganization. So while we at it, the United States should re-charter NASA into governorship type operation with it own Constitution as to it purpose. When the United States take over the Federal Reserve System because it bankrupt and now has to put it through bankruptcy reorganization, then the US Government will be the one generating the credit instead of private interest. With the United States now generating that trillion per that has to be generated to keep the economy from imploding, can now make the rules as to where it go and the terms that it will be used. Ninety percent of that credit the US government generates will be used down here inside the United States and other ten percent will be used by NASA to run there space government, build the infrastructure that needs to be built and generate technological spin-off, etc. The United States is going to be generating at least one trillion dollars right off the bat to finance restarting and rebuilding the United States. So NASA would have 100 billion dollars to finance there space government on the Moon, Mars in a city. Then we go to the private sector inside the United States or these space companies to find out what they can do and/or offer the contracts to them. Leave the new NASA charter open so other nation can become charter member of the new NASA Government or board that act as the government that NASA is suppose to function as.

I know most people won’t like what I just wrote, but that OK. I just through it out there for you to shoot at it anyway to see what comes up.
'

Larry,

Grypd · 2005-11-27 17:46:30

I wonder if Columbus had given up when his main ship the Santa Maria was foundered on rocks, would the USA have existed as it is now or would if the Chinese had reversed there decision to stop the Dragon treasure/exploration fleets what would we have found.

Space is dangerous, Colonisation is difficult and dangerous. If we want a graphic example from history look at what happened to the Spanish at the fort of La Navidad, the English colony of Roanoke, what of the Darian colony.

Space is a case where we can try to make it as safe as possible but we are dealing with things which are based on munitions and that will for the most part be the case. If someone makes a mistake people will die. That is the risk but those involved are highly educated and they know the risks. They also know the rewardsor more realistacly the potential rewards. For mankind space gives us the means to move off the planet and become something more. We stay on Earth and we are vulnerable to extinction. A Racial prime directive implores that we try to do everything to spread that which is us. Come on who hasnt gone to the next glen just to see what is there and that is Space a place to see what is there.

I could go into purely political means as to why we western countries should be the ones to heavily invest in our future but that is for another thread.

Dook · 2005-11-27 18:04:37

Manufacturing satellites on the moon? I think you greatly underestimate the difficulty. How many parts to a computer? How many different metals and alloys? Magnets ground to a perfect tolerance. Tiny capacitors and cpu's assembled in a clean environment by workers who need food, air, water, energy, entertainment. It would absolutely NOT be more cost effective. Any moon base would be nothing more than an extremely expensive mobile home park because that is the current level of our technology.

Could we do it? Yes but at about forty times the cost and risk that we now have of putting satellites into orbit.

You accuse me of not caring about lost lives yet you profess some urgent requirement to colonize space for no reason other than to live out some trekkie fantasy? I accept the loss of life when risks have been reduced as much as possible and the mission is worth the risk.

Space colonies are useful? Sigh...I hate to break it to you but there are vast expanses of liveable space, thousands of square miles in Canada, USA, China, Mongolia, Russia, Africa, South America, the oceans, that remain on the earth. Just because there's not enough room left in downtown Tokyo doesn't mean that space colonies are the answer or even desired by the public.

I would very much like to hear the details of how you plan on colonizing other solar systems. That's like a child who wishes for world peace but knows nothing of the problems that need to be solved.

Colonies in orbit around gas giants could harvest helium3? Uh, how?

Mining asteroids is very important? No it's not. It's the height of absurdity. Every element you named is already available on the earth and we aren't going to run out of those things any time soon. No element, not gold, not even PGM's are worth the cost of the space based infrastructure needed to gather that element. In the future? Possibly but doubtful. Business will always choose recycling and local manufacturing over expensive and unreliable space materials.

Your mission to mine a single asteroid would double the deficit, not reduce it.

I support the smart exploration of space. Not star trek fantasy and self imposed urgency driven by apocolyptic hysteria.

Martian Republic: You still haven't taken that college level macro economics class. Give it a try. You can propose your Larouche ideas to an economics professor and see what they think.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-27 19:05:08

I don't think that the profitable exploitation of space is quite as pessimistic as you think it is Dook, but you are correct on the balence.

We definatly don't need the vacuum or zero gravity of space to manufacture anything for Earth at the moment, and if we did it would be some small-scale specialty platform in orbit.

We won't be needing any base material from any space source on Earth, ever. The matter we have on Earth isn't going anywhere. We will probobly low on PGMs some time in the next 50 years aproximatly, so there might be some money to be made there. He3 will probobly never be a commodity we can't live without.

Orbital space tourism? Without a revolutionary new propulsion system or rocket fuel breakthrough, will probobly not become economical for even the upper class until such a thing is available. This will basically limit orbital tourism to occasional stays by the super-rich.

Orbital solar power might be a little bit attractive, but it will have a tough time competing with ground-based arrays with storage. The solar satelites will have to have a high (read: expensive & unserviceable) orbit to minimize the time in shadow, and you might have trouble with the Van Allen belts. In any event, the arrays will have a somewhat limited lifespan.

Unfortunatly, the only people making any appreciable money from space endeavours are people building rockets or whatnot for exploration or limited commercial endeavours.

...As for a colony, no a colony can't be justified on any tangible economic terms. The only thing a colony really has to offer in that reguard is that its not here. The only people this is really a value to are individuals who won't mind paying the price in exchange for the not-here-ness, which probobly means a private colony will be the first real colony.

On the other hand, government isn't going to get much out of the not-here-ness except as an insurance policy that its model, its culture will likly be the basis of the culture to come in space. I think that colonization is inevitable, (some) people are hard-wired to want to expand. For that reason, I think government could probobly justify helping colonization start, but not to do the colonizing itself.

John Creighton · 2005-11-27 19:37:53

You debate the validity of debate?
And you missed the obvious, well I thought it was, sarcasm. What new technology has climbing provided? What development of mount everest?

Well, there is the equipment developed for the pursuit of climbing Mount Everest. However, Mount Everest is clearly not the only motivation for the development and production of such equipment. That is why in this case, argument by analogy fails. The moon represents a much more unique challenge then climbing Mount Everest . Another key difference is Mount Everest is more of a test of the limits of the human being then the limits of technology and hence does not provide the same stimulus to innovation as trying to thrive in a lunar environment.

Dook · 2005-11-27 20:20:49

There are radical space efforts that I would support, ones that deliver a science return or necessary infrastructure.

-Small lunar base to maintain an large interferometer on the dark side. We may even be able to resolve planets in other solar systems. PGM mining if we figure out how to do it efficiently. It would likely need to be highly automated and use a lunar space elevator to get the heavy platinum from the moon's surface.
-Human mission to mars that begins slow to test the technology, test greenhouses, and conduct science that gradually evolves into a permanent mars base and planetwide exploration. Then maybe terraformation.
-Giant spinning permanent space station with a spaceplane hangar at it's center. This one is waaaay down the road though-maybe in 150 years it would be useful.

John Creighton · 2005-11-27 20:30:44

There are radical space efforts that I would support, ones that deliver a science return or necessary infrastructure.
-Small lunar base to maintain an large interferometer on the dark side. We may even be able to resolve planets in other solar systems. PGM mining if we figure out how to do it efficiently. It would likely need to be highly automated and use a lunar space elevator to get the heavy platinum from the moon's surface.
-Human mission to mars that begins slow to test the technology, test greenhouses, and conduct science that gradually evolves into a permanent mars base and planetwide exploration. Then maybe terraformation.
-Giant spinning permanent space station with a spaceplane hangar at it's center. This one is waaaay down the road though-maybe in 150 years it would be useful.

Agreed

Martian Republic · 2005-11-27 21:29:56

Martian Republic: You still haven't taken that college level macro economics class. Give it a try. You can propose your Larouche ideas to an economics professor and see what they think.

The only problem with trying to discuss economic with a college economic professor is, those college professors don't know there so-called field of study of economic. Unfortunately I would almost do better talking to a complete idiot about economics than I would to one of those economic professor. You can yell all you want, but unfortunately that true.

You try and discuss the difference between a Private Central Banking System and Public Central Banking System, they will go into orbit or tantrum and claim there is no such thing as a Public Banking System and they may even deny that one ever exist too. The United States has had a Public Banking System for almost 40 to 50 of it existence. Under the US Constitution, only Congress has the power to set weight and measure, coin money or generate credit. For about twenty years or so during and just after the Civil War, the US Treasury was acting as the Central Bank of the United States coining the money and generating the credit. So for almost 60 years or better we have had Private Government Banking System inside the United States. Not only do those college economic professors refuse to recognize that sixty year period in American history like it never existed, but they don't recognize the people that ran the American economic for that period as economist either. People like Alexander Hamilton or Clay & Henry Carry as economist. Hamilton setup the First National Bank and either Clay or Henry setup the Second National Bank and other one is the son that setup up the Treasury Department and Green Back Able Lincoln.

Now if those college economic professors what to cherry pick the US History like this and then cherry pick the people they want to consider to be economist when the ran the US economy for sixty years. Then I have no use for though college professors.

Now I don't want you taking my word that this is so. I want you to go check out what I have just said and prove to yourself whether or not what I just said is true or not. But, if you were to check out what I have said, you will find out that it is true.

So Dook, you do speak out of ignorance and you know now what your talking about.

I have a cure for your ignorance:

Go check out what I just wrote and see if it true.

It has to be true or false as what I said and there is no third choice either.

Larry,

John Creighton · 2005-11-27 22:13:21

Martian Republic: You still haven't taken that college level macro economics class. Give it a try. You can propose your Larouche ideas to an economics professor and see what they think.
The only problem with trying to discuss economic with a college economic professor is, those college professors don't know there so-called field of study of economic. Unfortunately I would almost do better talking to a complete idiot about economics than I would to one of those economic professor. You can yell all you want, but unfortunately that true.
You try and discuss the difference between a Private Central Banking System and Public Central Banking System, they will go into orbit or tantrum and claim there is no such thing as a Public Banking System and they may even deny that one ever exist too. The United States has had a Public Banking System for almost 40 to 50 of it existence. Under the US Constitution, only Congress has the power to set weight and measure, coin money or generate credit. For about twenty years or so during and just after the Civil War, the US Treasury was acting as the Central Bank of the United States coining the money and generating the credit. So for almost 60 years or better we have had Private Government Banking System inside the United States. Not only do those college economic professors refuse to recognize that sixty year period in American history like it never existed, but they don't recognize the people that ran the American economic for that period as economist either. People like Alexander Hamilton or Clay & Henry Carry as economist. Hamilton setup the First National Bank and either Clay or Henry setup the Second National Bank and other one is the son that setup up the Treasury Department and Green Back Able Lincoln.
Now if those college economic professors what to cherry pick the US History like this and then cherry pick the people they want to consider to be economist when the ran the US economy for sixty years. Then I have no use for though college professors.
Now I don't want you taking my word that this is so. I want you to go check out what I have just said and prove to yourself whether or not what I just said is true or not. But, if you were to check out what I have said, you will find out that it is true.
So Dook, you do speak out of ignorance and you know now what your talking about.
I have a cure for your ignorance:
Go check out what I just wrote and see if it true.
It has to be true or false as what I said and there is no third choice either.
Larry,

Anyone else, you feel like insulting with out any legitimate basis?

MarsDog · 2005-11-27 23:56:51

What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

From their website, this looks like a well meaning organization.

I would like to see internet based space education at the center.
Interviews with experts, questions posed.
Perhaps local meetings and conferences, something like computer clubs.

VTTFSH_V · 2005-11-28 01:37:32

Martian Republic is right. You are ignorant.

VTTFSH_V · 2005-11-28 01:37:54

I hate to accuse people themselves of things (I prefer to accuse only ideas), but you are extremely ignorant. Please do significant research on any topic on which you expect people to take you seriously. Right now, you just look like an ignoramus.

Manufacturing satellites on the moon? I think you greatly underestimate the difficulty. How many parts to a computer? How many different metals and alloys? Magnets ground to a perfect tolerance. Tiny capacitors and cpu's assembled in a clean environment by workers who need food, air, water, energy, entertainment. It would absolutely NOT be more cost effective. Any moon base would be nothing more than an extremely expensive mobile home park because that is the current level of our technology.
Could we do it? Yes but at about forty times the cost and risk that we now have of putting satellites into orbit.

To get this aside, VTTFSH_T is well aware of how many parts there are to a computer. He builds them himself. To the topic, since Gerard O’Niell became a prominent figure, and since the founding of the Space Studies Institute, every knowledgeable person (i.e. those who, again, actually research) has understood that building Space Solar Power Systems (SSPSs) from lunar material dramatically reduces the launch costs. In brief, it is because the astronauts and their equipment that they take with them have very much less mass than that of the SSPSs themselves. They launch what they build on the moon using magnetic mass launchers, which are powered by inexpensive solar energy that they collect on the moon. Some pieces of the SSPSs, which aren’t composed of lunar materials are launched from Earth and assembled with the lunar materials in space. And we could do all of this with NASA’s sad level of technology. For trivia’s sake, launching a 5 gigawatt SSPS from Earth would cost $500 billion.

Space colonies are useful? Sigh...I hate to break it to you but there are vast expanses of liveable space, thousands of square miles in Canada, USA, China, Mongolia, Russia, Africa, South America, the oceans, that remain on the earth. Just because there's not enough room left in downtown Tokyo doesn't mean that space colonies are the answer or even desired by the public.
I would very much like to hear the details of how you plan on colonizing other solar systems. That's like a child who wishes for world peace but knows nothing of the problems that need to be solved.

When you say that space colonies are not useful, you are arguing against intellectuals like Carl Sagan, Freeman Dyson, Robert Zubrin and countless others. I find that to be absolutely hilarious. In any case, I see that you suggest other areas of earth before space and astronomical bodies. The trouble is that people do not like to colonize land just because it is there. They colonize it because it is beneficial. Many regions of land on Earth do not contain fertile soil, lack other resources like fresh water, building materials, vegetation (perhaps because of the soil) and game. People do export supplies that they have in abundance and import supplies that they lack, but in certain areas, that is not desirable because there may not be much to export or the cost of exporting/importing at that area may be expensive. Here is an extreme example: why hasn’t anyone colonized Antarctica? (Please do not think too hard about this.)

I’m not going to waste anymore of my time on this argument. Read some books on the topic, and you will learn much. To target your lack of knowledge, read Robert Zubrin’s “Entering Space.” The introduction itself will do a lot for you.

Colonies in orbit around gas giants could harvest helium3? Uh, how?

Again, to save me time, I would like you to explain why it CANNOT be done, and I will help you from there. It is actually very simple to do.

Mining asteroids is very important? No it's not. It's the height of absurdity. Every element you named is already available on the earth and we aren't going to run out of those things any time soon. No element, not gold, not even PGM's are worth the cost of the space based infrastructure needed to gather that element. In the future? Possibly but doubtful. Business will always choose recycling and local manufacturing over expensive and unreliable space materials.

You are again arguing against many intellectuals like, mainly in this case, John Lewis. He is a Planetary Scientist who knows immeasurable amounts more than you (and everyone on the forum for that matter) on the subject. You are so ignorant that I do not know where to start! So to save me time again, read Lewis’ “Mining the Sky” and try to argue with that. Mining asteroids can be unbelievably rewarding.

Overall, you just need to learn more information.

Austin Stanley · 2005-11-28 07:19:59

First off, would it be to much of a pain for all you guys, VTTFSH_T,V and whoever else may be out there to pick more unique identifires? It can be a real pain to tell you apart.

Secondly, I think the main argument you and Dook actualy have is an issue of timeframe. I don't think Dook necessarily sees most of what you (and others) propose as totaly impossible, but certianly not something we are going to see any time soon (as in this century). So it doesn't make sense to start spending serious money on them now. (But Dook, don't let me put words in your mouth here...)

To get this aside, VTTFSH_T is well aware of how many parts there are to a computer. He builds them himself. To the topic, since Gerard O’Niell became a prominent figure, and since the founding of the Space Studies Institute, every knowledgeable person (i.e. those who, again, actually research) has understood that building Space Solar Power Systems (SSPSs) from lunar material dramatically reduces the launch costs. In brief, it is because the astronauts and their equipment that they take with them have very much less mass than that of the SSPSs themselves. They launch what they build on the moon using magnetic mass launchers, which are powered by inexpensive solar energy that they collect on the moon. Some pieces of the SSPSs, which aren’t composed of lunar materials are launched from Earth and assembled with the lunar materials in space. And we could do all of this with NASA’s sad level of technology. For trivia’s sake, launching a 5 gigawatt SSPS from Earth would cost $500 billion.

While I don't think SSPS, be they Lunar or orbit based are totaly impossible or implausible, they certianly have high hurdles to overcome. First off the price you quote, $1000/kW is only marginaly supperior to conventional power options, which range around $1200/kw-$1500/kW. But I find it highly dubious that you could achive even this price. Power storage for the night hours alone is probably going to cover the diffrence, so even if you could achive the price, (which I doubt) you could beat conventional options untill you had a whole fleet of them up there.

Which leads to my secound point. I don't think a SPS system is reasonable in the short term because of the incredibly huge capital investment necessary. You must build a very large mining, refining, and factory operation on the moon, as well as a large rail-gun to ship it all in to space. The capital cost is GARGANTUAN. No way private industry could do it, heck the cost of a single satilite alone HALF a TRILLION dollars by you numbers, would be a strech even for the US Goverment. If a SPS is ever going to be possible, it is going to have to wait untill a presense on the moon brings its capital costs down and new launch technologies bring prices to space down.

When you say that space colonies are not useful, you are arguing against intellectuals like Carl Sagan, Freeman Dyson, Robert Zubrin and countless others. I find that to be absolutely hilarious. In any case, I see that you suggest other areas of earth before space and astronomical bodies. The trouble is that people do not like to colonize land just because it is there. They colonize it because it is beneficial. Many regions of land on Earth do not contain fertile soil, lack other resources like fresh water, building materials, vegetation (perhaps because of the soil) and game. People do export supplies that they have in abundance and import supplies that they lack, but in certain areas, that is not desirable because there may not be much to export or the cost of exporting/importing at that area may be expensive. Here is an extreme example: why hasn’t anyone colonized Antarctica? (Please do not think too hard about this.)

Many areas of Earth lack fertile soil? HA! How much fertile soil are you going to find in SPACE? Or any other non-terrestial location for that matter. (Please do not think too hard about this).

But in all seriousness I echo GCRN's coments about this. The realities of space travel make interworld trade unattractive. It's very hard to find a commodity that it would be cheaper to import from off world that it would be to develope on Earth. Maybe Platnium, Gold, and other Rare Earths, but the advantage in space is marginal at best. Certianly there is no manufactured commodity that would be valuable enough. Although I do have some ideas about "extra-terrestial" jewerly that might cut it, but that would be due to artificaly increase demand, not it's intrinsic value. And again the capital costs are immense. A presence is need to drive costs down before this becomes possible.

As for living space, land, whatever. The Earth is full of it. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that an offword colony of ANY sort will never, thats right NEVER, cost less to develop than some section of the Earth. Be it Antartica, the Ocean, the Desert, a higher building, whatever, and by whatever Metric you wish to measure it by. Building new land simply costs way, way more than claiming unused land here on Earth. Population pressure and what not will not change this fact.

So as GCRN says that main benifit an offworld Colony has is it's not-here-ness. This is one of the main reasons America was settled. While I think that some their are other reasons why an off world colony are attractive. Such as a safety net, cultural advancement, diversity, expansion, and what not. However, none of these things have a quantifable cost. They are values which are impossible to justify. Which is good because colonisation will never be attractive on a per-cost basis.

Not even population pressure can change this fact. There are simply to many people here on Earth to every more a signifigant fraction of them off planet. There are 6.1 BILLION people on the Earth, thats a huge number. Even if you could move people off the planet at some insane rate like say 10,000 people a day, it would take you over 250 years to move just 1 of those billions. But in fact you wouldn't even cut into the growth rate. In 2000 the Earth population was growing by 1.4%, that's over 230,000 people a day. Even with some far-out stuff like space elevators and what not you simply couldn't move this many people off planet at this rate, it's not possible. Which is just as well, as it's unlikely you could manufacture living space for them in a colony at this rate either. If population problems are going to be solved, they are going to be solved here on Earth by using more land and reducing the birth rate, not by off world colonies.

Now I still love the idea, but again it's something far off, which I unfortuantly will not live to see.

Colonies in orbit around gas giants could harvest helium3? Uh, how?
Again, to save me time, I would like you to explain why it CANNOT be done, and I will help you from there. It is actually very simple to do.

We've talked about this many times before in other threads. Even if you could harvest helium3 from a gas gaint (and Jupiters huge gravity field and intense radiation belts by no means make this a sure thing), why would you? He3 power generation is going to have a very hard time competing with other Fusion alternatives. D-D fusion is only margianly more difficult, produces slighly more neutrons, is slightly less power dense, but most importantly Deutrium is basicly Free. You can buy it right now, over the web, for less that $1/L, tank included! He3 will never be able to beat that price, and it's margianl advantages aren't worth the cost which is going to be several million times as much. I personly think that He3 production by bombarding lithium with neutrons is probably more cost effective than imporing it from off world.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-28 07:46:51

What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?
From their website, this looks like a well meaning organization.
I would like to see internet based space education at the center.
Interviews with experts, questions posed.
Perhaps local meetings and conferences, something like computer clubs.

The problem is MarsDog, is that the fellow that runs the ISA (Rick Dobson) is a certifiable parinoid delusional, and probobly schitzophrenic too. Did you notice how his "board members" all have the same bizzar typing style? This is NewMars'es third encouter with the guy you know, the former of the three he even tried to hit us up for money.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now about this colony business...

"The trouble is that people do not like to colonize land just because it is there. They colonize it because it is beneficial."

Yes, but the bennefit of colonizing a particular piece of land does not have to be tangible. After all, America was largely founded by people who did not come here for any natural reasource, but rather to escape religious oppression in Brittain. To some people, the very distance from Earth is itself a sufficent bennefit, where they would be sure to leave behind the Earth and its problems and have a crack at starting over... thats going to appeal enough to some to give up their home and make the big move.

Oh, and there does happen to be a small town in northern Antarctica

(mining gas giants for He3) "Again, to save me time, I would like you to explain why it CANNOT be done, and I will help you from there. It is actually very simple to do."

No. This is actually quite difficult, the distance involved is extreme even with a high-energy nuclear engine. Then there are the deadly radiation belts, which are so fantasticly intense they are even visible to telescopes in the optical range and put the Van Allen's to shame. Seperating the He3 from the regular Helium is no small matter either. Since fusion reactors don't need He3, it being only a "high octane" fuel compred to seawater-based Deuterium, will never be economical.

The same deal with the solar power satelite, the bennefit of putting a large array in orbit is simply not that big compared to building larger arrays dirt-side and pairing them with storage methods. Even building the arrays on the Moon will be very expensive, especially now with the invention of thin-film and organic solar cells - which are incompatible with the harsh space environment - which will be much cheaper per watt.

There simply is no way a space solar array could possibly compete without an Earth-side space elevator. The cost of manufacturing arrays on the Moon in megawatt scales is simply too high, particularly given the difficulty of mass driver launch... How do your brittle cells survive the acceleration? How do you stop the payload when it reaches its destination? Adding a braking rocket would destroy this economics of the launch method since now you have to build rockets too, which is harder on the Moon then Earth despite their size.

Space solar power is about to go out of style for a long while as soon as inexpensive inverters and storage systems come available, which have long since reached maturity and now only await mass production.

Commodore · 2005-11-28 15:49:32

Just because something is hard, dangerous or expensive does not mean it should not be done. The journey is just as important as the destination.

As for the particulars, I think our primary goal over the next 30 years or so is to establish a permenent self-sustaining "location" on the Moon by using local resources. From there the local resources, low gravity, lack of an atmosphere, and the technologies developed along the way will allow us to go in any direction we want. Be it back to Earth to build orbital infrastructure, space evelvators and so on, or to Mars and the rest of the outer or inner solar system.

BWhite · 2005-11-28 16:35:31

I agree substantially with both Austin Stanley and GCNRevenegr, in this thread.

= = =

Now for my own comments:

* Population pressure? To use Werner von Braun's unfortunate phrase, unskilled labor will always be able to make babies faster than skilled labor can make rockets. Space will never solve Terran over-population, if it exists.

That said, people unhappy with an overcrowded Earth may well desire to start over, elsewhere. Space will not alleviate Earth's population issues but population pressure might push some folks out there.

* Before I read Moonrush and Wingo's hypothesis about Ni-Fe asteroid fragments on the Moon, I didn't think there was any short term profitable scenario for lunar business, except perhaps for a few tourists.

Now I do think PGMS are an exciting possibility (if they exist) however total Terran platinum sales currently total approximately $7 billion per year. Hardly astronomical numbers. On the other hand, PGMs are such terrific catalysts, if lunar supply or asteroidal supply was large enough to substantially depress prices, I am confident folks on Earth will discover a great many terrific applications that are only economical using cheaper platinum.

* This leaves settlement as the main driver. Mike Griffin concurs, as far as I can tell - - or maybe I concur with him? 8)

Why settlement? As others have said, its intangible, but it is tied into our identity and how we conceive of ourselves as a species.

= = =

Edit to add. As I have posted before, if we do not attempt to settle "out there" what does that say about us, as a species?

It's not necessarily about what we will find but rather it's about what we may become. As Elon Musk recently said:

“Becoming a spacefaring civilization or a multiplanet species … it may well be the hardest thing that humanity ever does,” Musk said. “Life has a duty to extend itself and we, as life’s representatives, should do so.”

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-28 21:05:00

Just because something is hard, dangerous or expensive does not mean it should not be done. The journey is just as important as the destination.
As for the particulars, I think our primary goal over the next 30 years or so is to establish a permenent self-sustaining "location" on the Moon by using local resources. From there the local resources, low gravity, lack of an atmosphere, and the technologies developed along the way will allow us to go in any direction we want. Be it back to Earth to build orbital infrastructure, space evelvators and so on, or to Mars and the rest of the outer or inner solar system.

The Moon isn't as good of a jumping-off point as most make it out to be. The "Lunar reasources" are limited only to rocket fuel, which will be difficult to extract in any quantity, and Hydrogen may not be available at all. I remind that high-energy nuclear drives require hydrogen as a working fluid, and no other gas is an acceptable substitute.

The Earth also has one edge that the Moon won't have for many decades or a century: an industrial base. All our manufacturing ability (rockets, fuel, food, colony equipment) is currently on Earth, and putting this capability on the Moon will require a completly, totally mind-boggling trillion-dollar investment to make the Moon's cheif advantage (low gravity) worthwhile - IF the Moon has Hydrogen - for a fairly small bennefit. It doesn't make alot of sense to put rocket factories and supply bases and colony kit builders there. Its fairly questionable if its worthwhile to put only put fuel depots there or in orbit if there is a little snow in the soil.

We don't need a base that is truely self-sustaining on the Moon any time soon, think of it as a drilling rig or antarctic research station, except producing at least a majority of the fuel needed to operate it. The food, hardware, and crew will be shuttled to and from Earth.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-11-27 09:22:53

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#2 2005-11-27 10:16:55

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#3 2005-11-27 10:42:19

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#4 2005-11-27 13:45:27

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#5 2005-11-27 15:27:19

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#6 2005-11-27 16:34:50

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#7 2005-11-27 16:51:34

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#8 2005-11-27 17:04:14

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#9 2005-11-27 17:46:30

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#10 2005-11-27 18:04:37

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#11 2005-11-27 19:05:08

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#12 2005-11-27 19:37:53

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#13 2005-11-27 20:20:49

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#14 2005-11-27 20:30:44

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#15 2005-11-27 21:29:56

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#16 2005-11-27 22:13:21

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#17 2005-11-27 23:56:51

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#18 2005-11-28 01:37:32

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#19 2005-11-28 01:37:54

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#20 2005-11-28 07:19:59

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#21 2005-11-28 07:46:51

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#22 2005-11-28 15:49:32

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#23 2005-11-28 16:35:31

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

#24 2005-11-28 21:05:00

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

Board footer