I've come to the conclusion that space colonization just won't happen

[micrometers]

Another question, for colonizing our own solar system, is how would we get materials in bulk to Earth? Obviously mining of materials is something we'd want to do, but how would we get it safely down through the atmosphere? Getting it off the moon or such body with a lower escape velocity would be the easy part, I imagine.

And I know how we can do it currently but current re-entry technology would be expensive wouldn't it?

That wouldn't make much sense I suppose. Plus, the dangers of reentry.

I've always thought that you could probably do some neat material science techniques in zero gravity. Like, there might be a better way to fabricate stuff in a zero-g environment. and fusion power I think might be more feasible in zero-g.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

That wouldn't make much sense I suppose. Plus, the dangers of reentry.

I've always thought that you could probably do some neat material science techniques in zero gravity. Like, there might be a better way to fabricate stuff in a zero-g environment. and fusion power I think might be more feasible in zero-g.

Well, if the theories about a space elevator being possible to construct prove correct, I would think we could build, for liquid bulk anyway, a sort of...pipeline that goes from low orbit (200-300 miles up) down to the ground and internally, the pipe has bends back and forth every few feet, which would slow the descent of the liquid, right?

I know I said space elevator but what I really meant was simply having something built that could extend to space. The "elevator" part seems like it would be slow as hell.

 

[irishScott]

The only one that I"ve heard of is helium 3 on the moon for nuclear fusion.

Otherwise, the earth has plenty of minerals. The one thing we might run out of is oil, and that is definitely no in the solar system.

The earth has plenty of minerals now, how about in 600 years? Remember industrialization and population growth are still happening, we're far from recognizing our maximum potential resource utilization.

Even so, imagine access to a planet of untapped iron deposits. Assuming cost-efficient transportation, it would make all forms of steel ridiculously cheap, and whomever tapped them ridiculously rich. Plus it would allow us to maintain/restore our own planet without scraping out every mineral deposit. So we have a green motive and a profit motive. Not to mention a population motive to get off this rock once growth becomes untenable.

Bottom line is humanity can not stay on the Earth as a modern society and survive indefinitely, unless some magic recycling tech is developed in the coming years. Eventually we will want to leave, or have to leave, and at that point tech will have advanced to where, with effort, we can.

 

[irishScott]

Well, if the theories about a space elevator being possible to construct prove correct, I would think we could build, for liquid bulk anyway, a sort of...pipeline that goes from low orbit (200-300 miles up) down to the ground and internally, the pipe has bends back and forth every few feet, which would slow the descent of the liquid, right?

I know I said space elevator but what I really meant was simply having something built that could extend to space. The "elevator" part seems like it would be slow as hell.

Meh, what we need is better power generation. We could all but make the Iron Man suit in 2013 if we just had that chest piece.

 

[micrometers]

Iron is not consumed in the same way that oil is consumed.

 

[irishScott]

Iron is not consumed in the same way that oil is consumed.

And this matters how? I'm assuming at some point we're going to move away from oil as a primary power source. Once again, we have to. May take centuries but eventually it'll be used up.

 

[ViperXX]

Well isn't Saturn's moon Titan covered with lakes of liquid Methane? $$$
There is also suppose to be an asteroid that has more gold on it then all the gold that has been found on earth. $$$
There is money to be made and you got to wonder why more corps don't realize this and invest more money in space exploration.

Oh and that thing about freezing your ass off on Mars can be avoided if we set these giant machines down on Mars and let them pump gases into the atmosphere until it warms up. Maybe have a small crew of humans to maintain it over the years. In a couple of hundred years move colonists in.

 

[ioni]

Yeah, we need to skip past those straight to Infinite Improbability Drives.

Fixed. Although, bending space is probably our best bet.

 

[ichy]

And you're in such auspicious company as those who said colonizing America was a doomed venture and wouldn't amount to anything. Good for you!

That's a pretty bad analogy. Figuring out a more efficient way to haul things out of Earth's gravity well is a much greater technological challenge today than crossing the Atlantic was several hundred years ago.

 

[ichy]

There is also suppose to be an asteroid that has more gold on it then all the gold that has been found on earth. $$$
There is money to be made and you got to wonder why more corps don't realize this and invest more money in space exploration.

Do you have any concept of how expensive it is to launch anything into space, much less bring it back to Earth?

 

[irishScott]

Do you have any concept of how expensive it is to launch anything into space, much less bring it back to Earth?

Do you have any concept of how far technology has come in the last hundred years, and how fast it continues to accelerate? Just reading this thread it's amazing to me how many people are stuck in their present frame of reference. We're not talking about Obama's state of the union, we're talking about advances over the next 200 years at least. Imagine several milestones as monumental as the internet and atomic power. That's what we have ahead. Given the current trend, it's quite possible that power generation will be among them. Chemical rockets as we know them may be museum pieces in their entirety in 150 years.

 

[irishScott]

That's a pretty bad analogy. Figuring out a more efficient way to haul things out of Earth's gravity well is a much greater technological challenge today than crossing the Atlantic was several hundred years ago.

I said "colonizing" not "sailing to". There were many failed attempts at colonization before Europe figured out what worked.

 

[Fritzo]

if we can get to a large percentage of the speed of light, say 75% or greater, we will leave the solar system. it's in our nature to explore. After all the closest star system to us is only 4 light years away.

Problems with going that fast:

1) To propel 1LB of matter to even 50% the speed of light, it would require the energy of approximately 98 20 megaton nuclear bombs. The energy requirements increase exponentially: A ship the size of the space shuttle propelled at 75% of c would require the energy output of the entire US for 300 years.

2) Hitting the smallest particle at at even 10% the speed of light would penetrate any known material. A ship would look like swiss cheese by the time it reached it's destination.

3) Acceleration, course changes, and deceleration would take months. Doing so too suddenly would kill everyone due to inertial forces.

4) Gamma ray radiation outside of our solar system is deadly. Shielding would have to be VERY thick. Even so, interstellar travelers would likely be sterile be the time they reached their destination.

So, it's not a matter of just going fast, it's a complex series of systems that have to support going that fast.

 

[zinfamous]

The Patriots lost.

 

[zinfamous]

The problem is we are wasting a TON of money on irrelevant space programs and not spending any on the advancement of practical space programs.

Instead of planning manned space flight that pushes current technology and spurs massive amounts of innovation we are spending 8 billion dollars to replace the Hubble Space Telescope.

Finding planets 100 light years away that may support life or be "earth like" is a 100% irrelevant endeavor.

I know someone must be doing something right whenever you happen to think it is wrong.

that has to be some sort of natural law.

I was with you the first sentence, then it just went downhill, fast.

 

[Patranus]

I see it the other way round. There's little of scientific value to be gained in the short or even long run with manned missions. On the other hand the bang for the buck for unmanned space probes is HUGE. Hubble and other space probes have expanded our understanding of the universe immensely!

Manned space missions force innovation in terms of technology as there is a lot less tolerance when it comes to putting a man into space.

Just look at all of the innovations that came about from the moon missions and the space shuttle.

I think that there is room for manned and unmanned. I would certainly want more unmanned missions to Mars before trying to send a human there but there is a difference between that and this 'deep space' exploration.

Now, I am not saying that programs like the Hubble are "bad" rather somewhat pointless at this juncture in relations to mans space capabilities. Sure it is "cool" to map galaxies and everyone loves those bas ass photos distributed by NSAS - but ok, where does that get us? America spends another 8 billion on another telescope and discover some plater a billion lightyears away. Ok. Cool. Now what.

 

[micrometers]

Do you have any concept of how far technology has come in the last hundred years, and how fast it continues to accelerate? Just reading this thread it's amazing to me how many people are stuck in their present frame of reference. We're not talking about Obama's state of the union, we're talking about advances over the next 200 years at least. Imagine several milestones as monumental as the internet and atomic power. That's what we have ahead. Given the current trend, it's quite possible that power generation will be among them. Chemical rockets as we know them may be museum pieces in their entirety in 150 years.

We have been good at making small things better, but big things are more or less the same as they've been for the past fifty years.

Interestingly to me, the "military industrial complex" is responsible for the internet. If not for the threat of the soviet union, the funding for the military that created the internet might never have been.

What I'm trying to say is that goals fuel innovation. Innovation does not just happen naturally. Yes, I do believe that if humanity wanted to, we could colonize Mars. We could figure out the technical know-ho to do it.

But it will never happen because the political system will not sustain the GOAL for long enough for the innovation to occur.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

man will colonize space when it becomes pragmatic to do so. the way things are going here on earth, how many years and billions of people will it take force the issue i have no idea.

the need for manned flights is constantly diminishing. the argument that a man at the controls to deal with the unexpected is legit, but there's a point where that becomes more trouble than it's worth and it costs a ton of money, materials and performance.

mars will never be terraformed or colonized on a large scale. there's no magnetic field and the gravity is 1/3 earth's. if you could make a decent atmosphere it would just drift into space, like it did before. there's no point in mining the solar system just to bring it back here, either.

however, with a bit of science fiction, you could launch some nanotechnology to devour 1 or both of the moons and make massive rotating space stations. additional material and energy can be harvested from mars' dust-laden winds.
there is plenty of matter and energy to be had, just provide the order.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

man will colonize space when it becomes pragmatic to do so. the way things are going here on earth, how many years and billions of people will it take force the issue i have no idea.

the need for manned flights is constantly diminishing. the argument that a man at the controls to deal with the unexpected is legit, but there's a point where that becomes more trouble than it's worth and it costs a ton of money, materials and performance.

mars will never be terraformed or colonized on a large scale. there's no magnetic field and the gravity is 1/3 earth's. if you could make a decent atmosphere it would just drift into space, like it did before. there's no point in mining the solar system just to bring it back here, either.

however, with a bit of science fiction, you could launch some nanotechnology to devour 1 or both of the moons and make massive rotating space stations. additional material and energy can be harvested from mars' dust-laden winds.
there is plenty of matter and energy to be had, just provide the order.

As far as Mars not having enough gravity, how much more mass would it need to have enough gravity? Would crashing the moons of Mars into it give it enough? Consider this question repeated for any other planet, or planetoid/moon(ie Titan, etc) in our solar system that has moons but is a little short of having sufficient gravity.

 

[micrometers]

As far as Mars not having enough gravity, how much more mass would it need to have enough gravity? Would crashing the moons of Mars into it give it enough? Consider this question repeated for any other planet, or planetoid/moon(ie Titan, etc) in our solar system that has moons but is a little short of having sufficient gravity.

I think Venus would have been perfect...if only it weren't so ruined.

 

[dighn]

We have been good at making small things better, but big things are more or less the same as they've been for the past fifty years.

Interestingly to me, the "military industrial complex" is responsible for the internet. If not for the threat of the soviet union, the funding for the military that created the internet might never have been.

What I'm trying to say is that goals fuel innovation. Innovation does not just happen naturally. Yes, I do believe that if humanity wanted to, we could colonize Mars. We could figure out the technical know-ho to do it.

But it will never happen because the political system will not sustain the GOAL for long enough for the innovation to occur.

you are right that there will probably never be any major political movement for colonization, at least in the foreseeable future, and that is completely reasonable because there is no need. however our technologies will advance regardless. we want to build bigger things more cheaply, make humans beings live longer and more robust, make space more accessible for military/industry/recreation, so on and so on. one day the barrier to colonization will be small enough that it no longer requires such a colossal amount of effort that only entire nations can muster up.

 

[SMOGZINN]

forever is a long time. basically the only way space colonization wont happen is if our species is wiped out beforehand. and that will be VERY hard to accomplish. (it sounds easier than it actually is)

This is such a stupid argument. Someone somewhere was once wrong, therefore we can predict nothing!

The earth has plenty of minerals now, how about in 600 years?

It will still have almost all the same minerals (a little more actually, our gravity field sucks new material in all the time. Earth is getting bigger!)

Bottom line is humanity can not stay on the Earth as a modern society and survive indefinitely, unless some magic recycling tech is developed in the coming years. Eventually we will want to leave, or have to leave, and at that point tech will have advanced to where, with effort, we can.

Or, what seems most likely is that we just kinda peter out as we run out of material and energy. We as a species seem to be compleatly unable to make plans that last longer then our lifetime, and recently one election cycle. If we can't make long term plans to fix our growing energy, population, and resourse use problems, then we are not going anywhere.

America spends another 8 billion on another telescope and discover some plater a billion lightyears away. Ok. Cool. Now what.

Then we use that information to learn more about the conditions of the early universe. We use that knowledge to understand more about the modern universe. We apply that knowledge to our current technology and increase it. Shampoo, Rinse, Repeat.

The thing is I don't think mankind will ever make it to another star. The distances are just too great, the energy requirements too high. We have a pretty good understanding of how the universe looks now and we can't even come up with a theoretical technology that has any chance of working that could keep our current civilization going past the depletion of our oil, much less could power interstellar space flight. I think our oil will hold out maybe another hundred years with some basic conservation, but then it will run out and mankind will start the slide back into the stoneage where we will stay until an extinction event comes along to wipe us out.

I think most people here are vastly underestimating just how much power it would take to travel to another star in a resonable amount of time.

 

[ultimatebob]

I think that interstellar travel will eventually happen, but it won't happen until we get to the point where heavy industry has screwed up the planet to the point where we need to look for another place to live.

It's the same reason that solar panels and electric cars aren't popular right now... people usually go for the cheap and easy solution until they're no longer practical.

 

[Fritzo]

As far as Mars not having enough gravity, how much more mass would it need to have enough gravity? Would crashing the moons of Mars into it give it enough? Consider this question repeated for any other planet, or planetoid/moon(ie Titan, etc) in our solar system that has moons but is a little short of having sufficient gravity.

Well, you would need another Mars to create enough mass to make the gravity similar to Earth. The moons of Mars are pretty tiny (they are most likely captured asteroids).

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Well, you would need another Mars to create enough mass to make the gravity similar to Earth. The moons of Mars are pretty tiny (they are most likely captured asteroids).

Similar to Earth, yes...but is it necessary to fully reach Earth's gravity in order to hold an atmosphere? In other words...maybe .33 of Earth gravity won't hold an atmosphere but perhaps .45 will?