Out From Earth - ...(you're interested in which?)

Palomar · 2004-03-27 08:31:49

*There have always been lots of good discussions here at New Mars regarding not only colonizing and possibly terraforming Mars (I'm -not- interested in this turning into a "green vs red" debate, thank you; by the way, I put a slash "/" between colonization and development, hoping to include both "factions" that way...:smile:). Gennaro has started an interesting thread in the "Terraforming" folder regarding Titan (I wish I could chime in on that, Gennaro, but I'm afraid the topic matter is a bit beyond my ken at this point). Others are interested in terraforming Venus, etc.

I'm curious as to the overall sentiment of members.

My vote is the 2nd choice.

--Cindy

Gennaro · 2004-03-27 09:06:12

Hi, Cindy! You're entitled to know that it's actually beyond my ken as well. I'm afraid the post on terraforming Titan might already have revealed a certain basic lack of knowledge about chemistry, but what the heck. If you don't ask how are you ever going to learn?

About the choices for the poll I somehow miss an alternative. Why settle for the solar system? I'd like to extend human presence to places like Alpha Centauri, Epsilon Indi and Tau Ceti as well.
:;):

Allright, maybe not relevant for the given time frame...

For me it's a close call between number 3 and 5. Maybe it's related to what is meant by space colonies? If you mine the gasgiants for helium-3 people might need to live somewhere so maybe space colonies.
But for the "classical" O'Neill approach I fear there is precious little for the population to sustain themselves from and justify the size of investment, for example considering there is *nothing* to build with at Lagrange points.

Byron · 2004-03-27 10:10:45

I voted for number 5...if it's even remotely feasible, I'd love to see the settlement/colonization of planets as well as O'Neill colonies. I think if settlements on planets and moons become possible, self-contained space habitats probably won't be too far behind, and this might be a very good way to get people to other planetary systems in "style"...lol.

As for how I see Mars, I see it as the logical "first step" into space, as it's the most Earth-like of all the planets and moons of the Solar System, not to mention its relative proximity to Earth. But once we get Mars down pat, there's no need to stop there, or anywhere else for that matter...

B

Gennaro · 2004-03-27 10:54:54

He, he, you convinced me. Number 5 it is. Naturally including the caution that what we call a "space colony" might range significantly in size and function.

Cobra Commander · 2004-03-31 16:48:11

Number 3. Planets good, metal can in space bad.

Planets have gravity and resources we can rip from the ground. As Gennaro pointed out, there is nothing to work with in open space. I don't see such facilities becoming self-sustaining, so they wouldn't really be colonies at all.

Certainly some kind of space station as a port could be practical and I've always been one for big space-based installations, but solid ground is preferable for settlements. Even the most inhospitable rock has advantages over O'Neill type colonies.

Constructed habs are for travelling through space, not living in space. IMOSHO, of course.

bolbuyk · 2004-04-08 06:08:15

I thinkk it´s reasonable to point some planets and moons as kind of ´cosmic parks´and not inhavbit them. I don´t know which would be best candidates, but some planets or sateellites that have a brother/sister that is very like antoher aree good candidates. eg Callisto or Ganymede should be left as it is.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-04-09 19:48:07

I voted #5, just because right now we need anything to get off of Earth. Personally I don't think there's much to the whole O'Neillian space colony idea, its supporters' argument is why go to the trouble to get out of Earth's gravity well just jump into another? It sounds like a great argument, except that's there's a counter to it. Why go to the trouble to get out of Earth's gravity well just to sit outside and do nothing? Comparing the resources on Mars or the Moon to that of empty space is like comparing the habitibility of the great plains to that of the Atacama Desert. Sure, you could get stuff from the asteroid belt, but again what's the point? The idea of leaving Earth is that we GO SOMEWHERE. You don't get into a car and drive for hours just to stop on a random stretch of highway and call it your destination, you actually go somwhere, another city, a park, whatever. But if it's possible and viable we should do it.

I agree with Gennero, eventually we're going to have to leave the Solar System, and we have good reason to do so now. In The Case for Mars, Robert Zubrin devotes an entire chapter to why Mars has to be our next fronteir. I agree with this, but you have to admit that any way you look at it Mars is kind of a lousy frontier. Sure, you can terraform it, at great expense and time consumption, and though it's hospitible by planetary standards, it's still not exactly the kind of place you'd go to without putting serious thought into factors you don't even think about on Earth. Water? Oxygen? Pressure? These are taken care of on Earth, but huge tasks for habitation on Mars. But, it's better than nothing, for now Mars should be our frontier.

After that, we can go to a place much more appealing. One of the nearby stars, Alpha Centauri, Tau Ceti, Delta Pavonis, or Chara, should have an Earth-like planet around it. Imagine a planet with a built in shirtsleeve environment! Now that's the kind of place people will be wanting to go to. Once we get near light speed propulsion down it's just a 30 year ride down, perhaps, easily done for a colony of about 200 with 2600s technology. First to Mars, on to Tau Ceti! :laugh:

Euler · 2004-04-09 20:41:28

Mars is the only place we have found where a colony can be established with current technology that is completely independent from Earth. As such, it takes priority over any other options.

The problem with extrasolar planets is that they are so hard to get to. There is no reason to wait for 2600s technology when there is somewhere that we can colonize now.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-04-09 21:48:10

Mars is the only place we have found where a colony can be established with current technology that is completely independent from Earth. As such, it takes priority over any other options.
The problem with extrasolar planets is that they are so hard to get to. There is no reason to wait for 2600s technology when there is somewhere that we can colonize now.

Exactly, so we take Mars now and other systems later.

I seem to remember a quote from Wally Schira where he was asked about the why it is important to explore the Moon and Mars. He said something along the lines of that they're both ugly islands in JFK's "new ocean," but going to them gives us the right to say we've been there, and we can look for the beautiful islands. Now, today we know that Mars is hardly an ugly island compared to the other planets, but the point remains. Right now we should set our sights on the red planet, so that once we're there we can look to the planets that are truly desirable.

SBird · 2004-04-10 11:27:46

Another good reason to wait is that in a few decades, we'll start being able to actually look for terrestrial planets around nearby stars. Right now, it's pure conjecture as to whether those stars have habitable planets. It'd be a terrible waste to go all that way and just find another Mars.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-03-27 08:31:49

Re: Out From Earth - ...(you're interested in which?)

#2 2004-03-27 09:06:12

Re: Out From Earth - ...(you're interested in which?)

#3 2004-03-27 10:10:45

Re: Out From Earth - ...(you're interested in which?)

#4 2004-03-27 10:54:54

Re: Out From Earth - ...(you're interested in which?)

#5 2004-03-31 16:48:11

Re: Out From Earth - ...(you're interested in which?)

#6 2004-04-08 06:08:15

Re: Out From Earth - ...(you're interested in which?)

#7 2004-04-09 19:48:07

Re: Out From Earth - ...(you're interested in which?)

#8 2004-04-09 20:41:28

Re: Out From Earth - ...(you're interested in which?)

#9 2004-04-09 21:48:10

Re: Out From Earth - ...(you're interested in which?)

#10 2004-04-10 11:27:46

Re: Out From Earth - ...(you're interested in which?)

Board footer