Is off-world colonization a reality, or just sci-fi?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
32,014
32,470
146
I don't understand. One minute we're all supposed to drive electric cars using science and technology to save the world and the next minute we're supposed to be inhabiting mars. Do you have any idea how much energy it would take to inhabit mars or the moon?

Thats not science... thats not how any of this works! Whatever. Sci-fi imitating real life imitating sci-fi is starting to irk me considering all the underlying technology and infrastructure is not there nor is it a good use of energy.
That is what the Kardashev scale is all about though, energy consumption. :sneaky:
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,352
1,860
126
Of course its technically possible, especially within our own solar system.
However, its expensive, and it would take an insane or idealistic leader with very very deep pockets to take us there.

In addition, it would likely be a one way trip at least for the first few decades. And we would have to keep the base resupplied as I do not think we have enough efficiency/expertise with closed loop environments to keep them fed/watered over the long term without supply drones on a regular basis.

Also, unless we want our colonists dying of cancer young, the biggest challenge I think would be in limiting the exposure to radiation. We could put water or liquid hydrogen shields on the ship, to limit exposure in transit. If trying to colonize the moon, the low gravity would be a problem, and radiation would be a problem, on mars, the radiation would again be a problem, but at under .4 gs, and at least a little bit of atmosphere, long term there would be more survivability, especially if a local magnetic field cound be found or constructed, or if the base were shielded with a thick layer of ice ... Of course there are possibilities farther out (Titan maybe?) but then "getting there" becomes more of a problem, and the distance from the sun reduces the viabillity of solar power, so the ships would likely need to be carrying a heavy ass reactor ....
 

moonbogg

Lifer
Jan 8, 2011
10,731
3,440
136
Is there any real world theory or idea behind inertia dampeners like in ST so we don't die when going to light speed instantly? What about artificial gravity (that doesn't involve a giant spinning ring)?

I know teleportation and warp drive at least have some kind of real world idea behind them, even if its far fetched. Haven't heard much about these though.

Light speed is too slow to be useful for anything other than travel within one particular solar system, so light speed travel wouldn't be the ultimate goal.
If you make a kind of warp drive and compresses the space in front of you, and stretches the space behind you, faster than light travel should be possible and if you do it right, you won't need inertia dampeners because you aren't traveling through space. Instead, space travels around you.
 

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
Yes it is. Look for Lunar colonization starting in the 2020s to the 2030s and hopefully it will have large Lunar bases by 2050.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,708
10,016
136
Of course it is reality. We just need to continue to develop.

First thing that's going to happen is bio engineering. We're going to be printing organs, then body parts... maybe entire bodies with the potential for transplanting "you" inside a new body. You could be 100 with a 30 year old body.

Along side this robots able to perform complex motor tasks for construction in hostile environments, like outer space or the atmosphere of other planets.

Then comes the fusion of man and machine. Think avatar. Not sure we'll get your consciousness to relocate, but instead your mind will control the functions of remote machines / robots. This is merely a networking extension to technology we're already developing. You could get sensory information from the robot and figuratively "be" on location. "You" could be walking on the surface of another planet, without actually being on the surface.

Colonization in our solar system is just a matter of time.

Beyond that...other solar systems, I only wish to speculate so far. Our abilities will be vastly different when we are ready to try such a task.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Colonization in our solar system is just a matterwaste of time.

Beyond that...other solar systems, I only wish to speculate so far. Our abilities will be vastly different when we are ready to try such a task.
Re: colonization. For what purpose? The technology to control Earth's population has been around for decades. It's called condoms and birth control. As other nations industrialize, their birth rates should drop. There's no reason why governmental policies and a slow cultural change couldn't effectively result in a very sustainable population on Earth - say, 5 billion. Or even 2 or 3 billion; that could happen in a matter of a few generations, if there was the will. We don't HAVE to outgrow our planet and resources.

Thus, as far as needing room for Earth's population, such a need would be artificial. Further, colonization would NOT be for this purpose. The energy required to get significant numbers of the population off our planet is mind-boggling, though something like space elevators would reduce the required energy to about the minimum possible. I'm reminded of a talk about physics and comics at the American Association of Physics Teachers - a fairly common theme is that the evil-doer or good-doer is soooooo close to an invention, they're just missing one final ingredient. And, that's all that's missing from space elevators being a possibility - one final ingredient. But, no one knows what precisely that ingredient is going to be. Calling it "unobtainium" isn't necessarily incorrect. *IF* the ability to build space elevators ever comes to fruition, I'll be celebrating that event with the type of enthusiasm as someone celebrating their marriage or birth of a first child.


Now, about these other solar systems. At this point, it's absolutely magic. Maybe, one day, something will be discovered that will get us there. At present time, we absolutely do NOT have the technology to get there. Look at the calculation earlier in the thread - to send the International Space Station to a solar system 10 light years away, in a journey that took 200 years, it would take the equivalent of ALL the energy used by humans in the course of one year - all of the coal, all of the oil, all of the natural gas, hydropower, solar power, wind power, and nuclear power put together.

It was easy to overlook this point: the calculation is based on the present weight (mass) of the ISS. The amount of energy required scales up nearly linearly with the mass of whatever we send people on to another solar system - and since you have to take fuel with you, the equivalent amount of fuel used on Earth in a year - your mass is going to increase tremendously. Let's not forget all those supplies the ISS gets from time to time; 200 years worth of supplies have to be taken on the journey. To send 20 people to another solar system, I think it would be an extremely low estimate to say, 20 years worth of all the energy used on Earth.

Though, if we ever master fusion power (ahem, dear Gov't, please fund this research), it may be possible to gather up those half dozen or so hydrogen atoms per cubic meter - I have not done the math though on this possibility. Other ideas, such as warping space, are still well within the realm of science fiction. Just because we can imagine it does not mean it's ever going to be physically possible. (I would LOVE to be wrong on this one.) But, it's sort of like Micchio Kaku constantly talking about invisibility cloaks, etc. What I don't think he has ever mentioned, when talking about how in the future, it blah blah blah, that the technique they've come up with for building them has a very solid drawn in the sand line that has to do with the particle sizes that are arranged in the meta-materials. Simply, the physics does not allow for building invisibility cloaks that cloak visible light, because the particle size would have to be too small (smaller than atoms). Or, to put it another way, "look! Jimmy built a 1 foot tall building out of silly putty. One day, mankind will be able to build 1000 meter tall sky scrapers out of silly putty." Hopefully, you realize such isn't possible because the inherent properties of silly putty would cause such a building to collapse under its own weight long before it came even close to that height. Structural engineering (with the constraint that silly putty be used) is never going to overcome the physical properties of that squishy substance. So, even though we can teleport sub atomic particles, and possibly are on the verge of warping tiny tiny tiny amounts of space, it does not automatically mean it's just a matter of time before we're flying an Enterprise at warp 2.
 
Last edited: