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

[gorcorps]

This place is getting boring so I'm throwing this out there to see what happens. Plus I'm curious of the opinions. For the sake of argument I'll just consider leaving Earth as a success, so even an orbiting space station would count.

Anyway, with the resources we have, do you think humanity could establish a colony somewhere other than Earth that would be sustainable for at least a couple generations (ie, at least one generation living their entire life in the colony)? There's a whole bunch of sci-fi on the subject and personally I think that's all it will ever be is fiction, but there are many in the science community that believe we absolutely could set up shop somewhere if we put our mind to it.

So what say you? Consider orbiting space stations, biodome on a nearby planet or moon, finding another habitable planet and figuring out how to get there, whatever.

And I suppose the 2nd part of this question would be, if you believe we could do it, do we have the time and resources to pull it off before we can no longer survive on this rock?

 

[mmntech]

NASA seems to think it's possible.

 

[Insomniator]

200 years

 

[Bateluer]

Reality, but scifi with current technology.

 

[Gibsons]

It's possible imo - Moon, station or Mars.

All of them would be staggeringly expensive. Exponentially so if you want to make it somewhat sustainable.

 

[waggy]

is it possible now? no. but in 100 years? 200 years? sure.

 

[nettrader]

Mars One got 200 000 online applicants and the first human settlement will go in 2023.

 

[MrCassdin]

Reality, but scifi with current technology.

Wrong. It's absolutely possible right now and the technology is 40 years old.

http://youtu.be/lonCo-fUUUU

Mars Direct could have taken us to Mars 25 years ago using 1980s space tech. The plan was developed by Martin-Marietta and NASA.

We could go to Mars right now for cheap if our leaders would let us.

 

[John Connor]

I see the moon being colonized. But the problem of food and water come into play. Is there even water in the moon? Perhaps they would take a few tons of water up there and just recycle it like they did on the shuttle.

This place is getting boring...

No shit!

 

[Kaido]

It's been a reality for 30+ years. We've had the technology available forever. Just no financial incentive. We only went to the moon to beat Russia to it. What's the point now?

I'd love for us to do it, but we're too busy blowing people up in other countries to invest in that type of stuff. Also, yay for Elon Musk & others doing space programs on their own :thumbsup:

 

[Insomniator]

Wrong. It's absolutely possible right now and the technology is 40 years old.

http://youtu.be/lonCo-fUUUU

Mars Direct could have taken us to Mars 25 years ago using 1980s space tech. The plan was developed by Martin-Marietta and NASA.

We could go to Mars right now for cheap if our leaders would let us.

Is 1980's space tech any different than today's? Sure computers are a lot more powerful, but until propulsion is better...

 

[John Connor]

Wouldn't need to change the current propulsion technology to colonize the moon. I have read that current rockets will take us there quicker.

 

[MrCassdin]

Is 1980's space tech any different than today's? Sure computers are a lot more powerful, but until propulsion is better...

The best thing about the Mars Direct program is that it did not require advanced propulsion technologies, Mars just isn't that far away. Mars also has the ability to refine liquid rocket fuel right from the atmosphere (this has been proven) so there is no fuel issue.

 

[KeithP]

It seems to me resources would be better spent developing technology to identify and travel to other earth-like planets rather than trying to live on a planet with a atmosphere toxic to us.

-KeithP

 

[Imp]

Let's start with the Arctic and Antarctica... At least both have water and oxygen and somewhat hospitable temperatures. Worst case, everyone leaves on the last boat out of there.

 

[smackababy]

I would say, yes it is possible, however, I wouldn't want to be the first to try. If history is anything to be learned from, being in the first wave of colonist to a new habitat is pretty much a death sentence.

 

[Insomniator]

It seems to me resources would be better spent developing technology to identify and travel to other earth-like planets rather than trying to live on a planet with a atmosphere toxic to us.

-KeithP

Given the distance of the closest planet outside our solar system, I think making mars habitable is an infinitely more realistic goal. I mean... its not out of the question that humans will never be able to travel the distance required to get to another solar system.

http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/17/closest-planet-found-outside-solar-system/

4 light years and that one is hotter then mercury.

Moon/Mars is our only shot unless Zefram Cochrane actually invents warp drive in 40 years.

 

[CZroe]

It seems to me resources would be better spent developing technology to identify and travel to other earth-like planets rather than trying to live on a planet with a atmosphere toxic to us.

-KeithP

Mars is pretty darned Earth-like, and I don't mean only because it is rocky and of similar mass in the habitable zone of a similar sun. It has water, temperatures that aren't extreme, and an atmosphere which includes oxygen. If we found a planet like Mars in another star system, we would say we found another Earth-like planet.

 

[Gibsons]

Given the distance of the closest planet outside our solar system, I think making mars habitable is an infinitely more realistic goal. I mean... its not out of the question that humans will never be able to travel the distance required to get to another solar system.

http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/17/closest-planet-found-outside-solar-system/

4 light years and that one is hotter then mercury.

Moon/Mars is our only shot unless Zefram Cochrane actually invents warp drive in 40 years.

Would need a generation ship or suspended animation, given current propulsion methods.

 

[vi edit]

Let's start with the Arctic and Antarctica... At least both have water and oxygen and somewhat hospitable temperatures. Worst case, everyone leaves on the last boat out of there.

The problem with the moon and Mars is the wild swing of temps. The moon in particular is crazy. 250+ degrees during the day and almost -400 at night. That's a swing of 650 degrees. The amount energy, engineering, insulation, and HVAC required to protect our fragile bags of flesh with those swings is insane. Plus that whole sticking point of not being able to create one of the vital substances on earth - water. We can't even make the stuff yet. Condensing doesn't count.

I'm sure we have the tech today to land somebody on there for a short period of time. But any sustained operations would just be logistically and financially unfathomable.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

not just possible, but inevitable.

but not with today's technology

 

[John Connor]

Mars is pretty darned Earth-like, and I don't mean only because it is rocky and of similar mass in the habitable zone of a similar sun. It has water, temperatures that aren't extreme

Oh, minus a 100, that's not extreme at all. LOL


http://www.space.com/16907-what-is-the-temperature-of-mars.html

 

[ImpulsE69]

I think the key point was hit on early on. Money. If someone figures out there is money to be made, we will be there in no time. Until then, there is little incentive to spend the money required so it will be slow. No return on your investment? Forget it. Without basically the world coming together and saying "this needs to happen or we die" and pooling all their resources, it is a long ways off. Human kind can work wonders when we actually work together, but without incentive....eh.

As stated, resources to live in another place other than Earth is a problem, however I think "replicators" are getting closer than we realize. Of course, those could be blocked by the MPAA more than likely...so those might be postponed

 

[CZroe]

Oh, minus a 100, that's not extreme at all. LOL


http://www.space.com/16907-what-is-the-temperature-of-mars.html

It isn't. Earth has those temps. I guess you're saying that Earth isn't habitable?

-100 is totally within our abilities to make a habitable sanctuary and, from there, were can work on other adaptations while we try to terraform the atmosphere over generations to increase surface temps.

An exo-planet with temps far more extreme than that could be described as "the most Earth-like ever discovered!" until we knew more. If you think otherwise, you're kidding yourself. When they describe a planet in the habitable zone, they are saying that it COULD have temps similar to Earth. There are a lot of factors that they wouldn't know, which is why it's a whole zone and not a more specific orbit for the star's level of energy output. Is it geologically active? Does the atmosphere have an appropriate greenhiuse effect? Where exactly is it in the zone?

Mars is always losing atmosphere. It was far different when it had oceans (assuming it did). Back then, it was more Earth-like than Earth, so we need to find an Earth-like planet that we can reach during or before it's period of being habitable. At this point, Mars isn't so far gone that it can't be terraformed for long enough for us to adapt to some of the more permanent changes.

We might engineer people with lower body temperatures, lower metabolosm, able to breath with less oxygen, and more tolerance for cold (penguin genes, anyone? requiring very little water specifically to deal with a terraformed Mars.

Terra and genetic-forming.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Earth is dying. Your team of scientists found a planet exactly like Earth 100 lightyears away. This planet would require no teraforming of any sort and would make an ideal new home. To get there on current tech would take generations. Knowing you need a ship(b) to fit at a 1000 humans (X) and enough food(Y) and water(a) to last the entire trip, find $.