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

[Bateluer]

If you think about the many many logistical hurdles, as well as the sheer misery of early life on Mars and the high risks, I have come to the conclusion that it just won't be happening.

The only way that it could happen would be if robotic "servants" became advanced enough, which I guess is the crux of Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars novel -- robot factories are advanced enough that they yield incredible production and do not require human labor.

You're technical and scientific qualifications have convinced me. 🙄

Hardships of life have never stopped colonists before. There was an article written by researchers and former/current astronauts about creating a Martian colony by making it a one way trip. I created a thread about it a long time ago, but basically, most of the logistical hurdles revolve around returning the people to Earth. Make it a one way trip, and 3/4ths of those technical problems go away. Even knowing they'd never return to Earth, I've no doubt that NASA/ESA/JAXA/RSA/China would have more volunteers then they could reasonably screen.

 

[Fritzo]

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?

Gravity doesn't have as much to do with holding an atmosphere as a magnetic field. You would have to get the dynamo in Mars's core spinning to protect the atmosphere from being blown away by solar wind. At one time, Mars had a thicker atmosphere and a magnetic field. It stopped and we are left with what we see today. Earth would suffer a similar fate if our core stopped spinning.

 

[irishScott]

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


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!)



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 resource use problems, then we are not going anywhere.




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.

Well aren't you the pessimist. There's no reason to think that. Humanity has a long history of coming up with big solutions to big problems that last beyond our lifetimes. We've created cultures that last thousands of years, and if we couldn't make anything that lasted past our lifetimes we'd still be cavemen.

How science and innovation works is a little bit of theory at a time, with rapid refinement. For a lot of the math that we now take for granted and do in one line, the original proofs were pages long. We don't need a 200 year program, we'll do what we've always done. The next generation will stand on the scientific shoulders of the previous generation. So far its accomplished far more than people with your world view would have predicted 70 years ago.

 

[OverVolt]

I agree with the OP, humans are a one-trick pony and that trick is burning hydrocarbons.

 

[ViperXX]

Bullshit! We broke the sound barrier and we will break the Light barrier.
CERN already did, read the news.

All you naysayers get on your horses and break the sound barrier.

 

[OverVolt]

CERN is a gigantic waste of money. Anything useful to humans is going to be based on electrons, not gravity or small nuclear forces or tiny particles.

Take oil energy concentrate into small area (???) scientific breakthrough. Sure yeah right.

 

[DrPizza]

Well aren't you the pessimist. There's no reason to think that. Humanity has a long history of coming up with big solutions to big problems that last beyond our lifetimes. We've created cultures that last thousands of years, and if we couldn't make anything that lasted past our lifetimes we'd still be cavemen.

How science and innovation works is a little bit of theory at a time, with rapid refinement. For a lot of the math that we now take for granted and do in one line, the original proofs were pages long. We don't need a 200 year program, we'll do what we've always done. The next generation will stand on the scientific shoulders of the previous generation. So far its accomplished far more than people with your world view would have predicted 70 years ago.

What you're referring to are engineering challenges. Much of what people think it's just a "matter of solving the technological problems" is actually "it's absolutely impossible by the known laws of physics. They've been off before with their laws; you had better hope they're still wrong, otherwise, it's NEVER going to happen."

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Gravity doesn't have as much to do with holding an atmosphere as a magnetic field. You would have to get the dynamo in Mars's core spinning to protect the atmosphere from being blown away by solar wind. At one time, Mars had a thicker atmosphere and a magnetic field. It stopped and we are left with what we see today. Earth would suffer a similar fate if our core stopped spinning.

Hm...maybe the impact of a moon hitting Mars could help charge up the core too?

 

[Jaskalas]

Practical space travel is thousands of years off. None of us need concern ourselves with it. Population / resources will implode on us long before we set foot on mars.

 

[micrometers]

Hm...maybe the impact of a moon hitting Mars could help charge up the core too?

When I last read up on it, Venus for instance apparently once had a moon that might have actually hit the planet, which accounts for its weird backward spin and from the lack of spin maybe the absence of the magnetic field.

In the Red Mars book, Kim Stanley Robinson tackles the subject of yoking meteors and intentionally ramming them into a planet to increase moisture in the atmosphere and increase heat also.

I honestly think that the best bang for buck research would be to engineer a bacteria that would gradually eat change the atmosphere of Venus or Mars. Send it over on a space probe and let the microbes work from there.

 

[irishScott]

What you're referring to are engineering challenges. Much of what people think it's just a "matter of solving the technological problems" is actually "it's absolutely impossible by the known laws of physics. They've been off before with their laws; you had better hope they're still wrong, otherwise, it's NEVER going to happen."

Exactly. The "known" laws of physics. You think the field of physics has gone as far it can go? We've reached our limit of discovery? There is so much we don't know.

 

[micrometers]

Exactly. The "known" laws of physics. You think the field of physics has gone as far it can go? We've reached our limit of discovery?

I believe that we have reached a place of diminishing returns, yes.

The days of making discoveries while working as a clerk at a patent office are over. Most of the frontiers of physics are concentrated in extremely expensive projects like the super-colliders, which cost billions of dollars and really so far haven't really had that many practical uses (care to enlighten? be my guest)

Sure, I could be wrong, but more likely, I"m right I believe.

 

[irishScott]

I believe that we have reached a place of diminishing returns, yes.

The days of making discoveries while working as a clerk at a patent office are over. Most of the frontiers of physics are concentrated in extremely expensive projects like the super-colliders, which cost billions of dollars and really so far haven't really had that many practical uses (care to enlighten? be my guest)

Sure, I could be wrong, but more likely, I"m right I believe.

Those days are over because of increased communication, we have so much information at our disposal now.

And science usually doesn't present practical applications, at first. It presents a bunch of seemingly useless theories until all of a sudden they become practical.

And Dr. Pizza mentioned what I was talking about were largely engineering challenges, well it could very well be engineering challenges that lead to the next great breakthrough. Look at computers. Compare computational power now to just 10 years ago. Maybe in a few decades we'll "engineer" a super-mega-ultra-awesome computer that is so powerful it provides us with data we've never seen before.

Bottom line is no one can know the future, more often than not things happen completely out of left field that only a very few, if any, saw coming at all. Great things will happen, scientifically, over the next 50 years alone that no one can accurately predict today. I find predicting the far future and humanity's eventual extinction based on present technology to be an extremely arrogant hypothesis.

Imagine explaining computers to someone 200 years ago. That wasn't an engineering challenge then, we were several levels of technology behind where we needed to be. You talk to anyone back then and they would deem modern tech impossible. Why are we any different today? Yes we know more, but how do you know that we've reached the point of limiting returns? You don't! You have no clue, neither do I. but if history continues to repeat itself, and it has yet to stop, there are great things our future scientifically; and we'll probe around in the dark, doing crazy ideas that people say will go nowhere, and find them. As we've always done.

 

[coloumb]

When I last read up on it, Venus for instance apparently once had a moon that might have actually hit the planet, which accounts for its weird backward spin and from the lack of spin maybe the absence of the magnetic field.

In the Red Mars book, Kim Stanley Robinson tackles the subject of yoking meteors and intentionally ramming them into a planet to increase moisture in the atmosphere and increase heat also.

I honestly think that the best bang for buck research would be to engineer a bacteria that would gradually eat change the atmosphere of Venus or Mars. Send it over on a space probe and let the microbes work from there.

Somehow this makes a lot of sense - something similar to the terra-forming device named Genesis in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

Space Colonization IS possible - but it costs $$$ which no country is willing to throw money at [they'd rather throw money at things which can destroy our own planet].

I wonder how fast the leader's minds would change if scientists discovered a "planet killer" asteroid that was on target to hit the Earth in 10-15 years...

 

[PowerEngineer]

If you think about the many many logistical hurdles, as well as the sheer misery of early life on Mars and the high risks, I have come to the conclusion that it just won't be happening.

This sounds like the same conclusion you would have reached back in the 1800's about the chances that anyone would be taking the Oregon Trail.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

OK, so one of the potential problems of FTL has been covered - inertial dampeners need to be invented. However the other problem (not the only other problem just the obvious one) depends on what kind of FTL we invent. If it's FTL in realspace, there will have to be some kind of shielding otherwise anything you hit, even tiny objects, will cut thru your ship. I imagine even hitting a pocket of barely perceptible low pressure gas at FTL could destroy your ship.

One way to avoid that, and having to invent shields, would be to invent FTL that takes you into an hyperspace, ie an alternate dimension. But then, that has its own problems, as in, there will of course be demons and stuff in that other dimension that you have to be protected from.

we just need to start dumping our toxic waste (after calling it Ooze) into the sewers to start growing some mutant turtles and then teaching them ninja skills to protect us from any such invaders from this dimension we would most likely call X.

 

[micrometers]

This sounds like the same conclusion you would have reached back in the 1800's about the chances that anyone would be taking the Oregon Trail.

No, the exploration of the Americas followed the same patterns that man had done in exploring Europe and Asia.

Going to Mars would involve these huge problems:

1. The sheer amount of lift required for supplies

2. human vulnerability to radiation

3. human vulnerability to micro-asteroids puncturing the craft

4. human need for gravity

5. somehow landing a multi-ton craft containing all of those supplies on Mars.

6. Somehow figuring out how to launch from Mars back to Earth.

and on top of it all, there are the psychological issues of the multi-year mission.

I do think that those obstacles can be tackled on their own, but taken together they would make any mission highly risky, since there would be so much that could go wrong.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

When I last read up on it, Venus for instance apparently once had a moon that might have actually hit the planet, which accounts for its weird backward spin and from the lack of spin maybe the absence of the magnetic field.

In the Red Mars book, Kim Stanley Robinson tackles the subject of yoking meteors and intentionally ramming them into a planet to increase moisture in the atmosphere and increase heat also.

I honestly think that the best bang for buck research would be to engineer a bacteria that would gradually eat change the atmosphere of Venus or Mars. Send it over on a space probe and let the microbes work from there.

The bacteria idea is a good one...plants are the primary makers of oxygen on earth, but if there were bacteria that could convert the atmosphere of Mars that would be a big step.

But even if Mars had a more appropriate mix of atmospheric gases, I thought the low pressure and density of its atmosphere was a problem as well? How could the atmosphere be thickened without more gravity/magnetic field?

Also, here's something I've been wondering...aircraft on Mars. An Earth fighter jet cannot reach orbit. If we assume that despite the thin air on Mars, a fighter jet's engines could operate at the same thrust on Mars, would an Earth style fighter jet be able to reach a low Mars orbit? Or is even 33% Earth gravity too high?

 

[Fritzo]

Bullshit! We broke the sound barrier and we will break the Light barrier.
CERN already did, read the news.

All you naysayers get on your horses and break the sound barrier.

CERN did not...the FTL neutrino experiment you are referring to is most likely wrong. If it were correct, it would mean that everything we've observed and proven in the last 100+ years in physics is incorrect, and most of those concepts have been verified so many times that it's not very likely they're wrong.

I know we want the universe to work in a more tame manner, but it doesn't, and there are boundaries where there simply aren't enough resources available to make something happen.

I don't think we'll ever reach FTL travel. What I DO think will happen is human life spans will be extended indefinitely. 1000 years of travel time while your body is permanently in a state of 25 years of age is much more likely and energy efficient than ultra high speeds.

 

[Jaskalas]

What we really need to do is master fusion, and figure out how to leave the atmosphere without burning tons of rocket fuel in the process.

 

[Fritzo]

What we really need to do is master fusion, and figure out how to leave the atmosphere without burning tons of rocket fuel in the process.

The space elevator is the answer to that, and I think we'll have the materials for than within 50 years.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

The space elevator is the answer to that, and I think we'll have the materials for than within 50 years.

Well, I'll say right now that if space elevators are going to be used for people to ride up out then they need to have the ability to "eject" from the elevator with a parachute or whatever.

Although, there is a certain range in the middle of the trip up the elevator where you're so high that falling down can't be arrested by parachutes and you'll risk burning up on re-entry, but at the same time even if the thing had an emergency rocket booster it would be too low to escape that way.

 

[irishScott]

Well, I'll say right now that if space elevators are going to be used for people to ride up out then they need to have the ability to "eject" from the elevator with a parachute or whatever.

Although, there is a certain range in the middle of the trip up the elevator where you're so high that falling down can't be arrested by parachutes and you'll risk burning up on re-entry, but at the same time even if the thing had an emergency rocket booster it would be too low to escape that way.

I imagine the trip would require a space-suit equipped with both a parachute and a jetpack of some sort (hey, it's the future right?)

 

[Fritzo]

Well, I'll say right now that if space elevators are going to be used for people to ride up out then they need to have the ability to "eject" from the elevator with a parachute or whatever.

Although, there is a certain range in the middle of the trip up the elevator where you're so high that falling down can't be arrested by parachutes and you'll risk burning up on re-entry, but at the same time even if the thing had an emergency rocket booster it would be too low to escape that way.

I would be freaked out by the possibility of the carbon ribbon used to attach the Earth to a counterweight would break. Can you imagine something 25000 miles long breaking 1/10th of the way down? It would cause damage around the world!

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

I would be freaked out by the possibility of the carbon ribbon used to attach the Earth to a counterweight would break. Can you imagine something 25000 miles long breaking 1/10th of the way down? It would cause damage around the world!

Would it really have to reach out 25000 miles? You've achieved low-orbit somewhere between 100 and 200 miles, right? I guess it depends how deep in space the counterweight has to be.