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

[zinfamous]

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.

Hubble isn't so much about space exploration, as it is about discovery and confirmation--astrophysics research and the like. It's one of the greatest tools in all of science today, and probably history in terms of the knowledge that it has helped foster. I think many would say that it has long paid for itself, and quite a bit more.

I do think we should continue with manned and unmanned explorations, for precisely the reasons you state, but not only is Hubble not useless, it isn't really part of the same branch of research.

 

[Fritzo]

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.

I think the study they did on this showed that the point of equilibrium needed with a counterweight sizable enough to do the job is something like 23000 miles. If it only needed to be a couple hundred miles we could build one next week.

The carbon ribbon they would use for this project would need to be INCREDIBLY strong, paper thin, and possibly constructed in space then launched down to us.

 

[micrometers]

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?

There was a wired article a while back about the problems of descending into Mar's atmosphere. The short is that compared to Earth, the gravity is like 1/3rd and the atmosphere is like 1/50th, which makes aerobraking a problem. And unlike the moon, the gravitational attraction is very strong.

So you would have to figure out some sort of landing rocket jet, since to make a human settlement landing it would have to be like 10 tons.

In the book Red Mars, yes, there were gliders. But even more relevant would probably be zeppelins.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

I was thinking that if for whatever reason, it was decided that space colonization would be better if people lived in space stations than on other planets, places like Mars or even better, low G moons would be great places to build these stations because the materials to build the stations could be mined off them and the escape velocity to get the materials off lower gravity planets/moons would be less.

In fact, wouldn't it even stand to reason that on a lower gravity body, a space elevator would be easier to construct? If a space elevator off the Earth had to extend 25,000 miles, what about one off Mars or the Moon? Or off one of the moons of Mars? The space station could orbit mars but get the materials off one of Mars' moons?

 

[sandorski]

It will happen, guaranteed. There's just too much stuff out there that's worth Big$.

 

[micrometers]

I was thinking that if for whatever reason, it was decided that space colonization would be better if people lived in space stations than on other planets, places like Mars or even better, low G moons would be great places to build these stations because the materials to build the stations could be mined off them and the escape velocity to get the materials off lower gravity planets/moons would be less.

In fact, wouldn't it even stand to reason that on a lower gravity body, a space elevator would be easier to construct? If a space elevator off the Earth had to extend 25,000 miles, what about one off Mars or the Moon? Or off one of the moons of Mars? The space station could orbit mars but get the materials off one of Mars' moons?

yes, it definitely would be easier from a smaller body.

 

[DrPizza]

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.

And since then, we discovered electrons, etc. There are a lot of things that are "impossible" today because of a lack of technology - things that haven't been developed, but which are not impossible by known physics. Quantum computing - not impossible. Some day, our silicon chips will be like relics of the stone age. However, your computer that "provides us with data we've never seen before - it will do what it's programmed to do. Thus, I'm not sure what you are even attempting to imply. For example, a super-duper faster computer might make the enormous mountain of data at CERN become trivial to process. But that computer isn't going to create data about processes independently of experiments such as at CERN. I'm a bit of a pessimist - I hope that they don't find the Higgs Boson, because that will imply new physics that we don't understand. But, if the Higgs is found, in the bigger picture, it implies that we're running out of spaces to figure out the finer details of how the Universe works. Dark energy, dark matter - two big unknowns. Other than that though... where are you going to look for this new knowledge. (And, with the U.S. cutting support for the super collider in Texas, it's clear that it's not the U.S. that's going to be the fore runner of finding something completely new.

Anyway, I think a reasonable, though not necessarily accurate analogy is "why don't we continue exploring the globe? Maybe we'll find the lost continent of Atlantis!" In physics, we don't know everything. However, there are absolutely no guarantees or promises that we ever will discover (or if there is even something TO discover) that will revolutionize our knowledge. We can hope this happens, but "great things will happen" does not necessarily imply that any of those things will ever support our efforts to colonize other places in the universe.

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.

Well, close to 25,000 miles (at least.) It would have to be above geostationary orbit (between 22 & 23,000 miles.) To reach escape velocity (without the use of fuel), an object would have to be released from a space elevator at an altitude greater than roughly 31,000 miles.

 

[Muse]

I've pretty much always thought that any preoccupation with the notion of space colonization is fairly infantile. The evidence I've seen suggests it's unlikely. First of all there's no need for it. If we fuck this planet up to the point where we can't live on it, we've blown it, pure and simple. Add to that the fact that we don't even have a notion of where an inhabitable planet may be and the fact that getting any of us to it should we find it is probably going to be entirely impossible. Forget it, it's probably never going to happen and the sooner we accept it, the better off we'll be.

 

[Muse]

It will happen, guaranteed. There's just too much stuff out there that's worth Big$.

Whoa! The only big bucks I see in this is in science fiction movies. :whiste: Go watch Total Recall or Avatar, Star Wars or Serenity.

 

[sandorski]

Whoa! The only big bucks I see in this is in science fiction movies. :whiste: Go watch Total Recall or Avatar, Star Wars of Serenity.

There's Gold(and other stuff) in them thar asteroids, Moons, and Planets!

 

[irishScott]

And since then, we discovered electrons, etc. There are a lot of things that are "impossible" today because of a lack of technology - things that haven't been developed, but which are not impossible by known physics. Quantum computing - not impossible. Some day, our silicon chips will be like relics of the stone age. However, your computer that "provides us with data we've never seen before - it will do what it's programmed to do. Thus, I'm not sure what you are even attempting to imply. For example, a super-duper faster computer might make the enormous mountain of data at CERN become trivial to process. But that computer isn't going to create data about processes independently of experiments such as at CERN. I'm a bit of a pessimist - I hope that they don't find the Higgs Boson, because that will imply new physics that we don't understand. But, if the Higgs is found, in the bigger picture, it implies that we're running out of spaces to figure out the finer details of how the Universe works. Dark energy, dark matter - two big unknowns. Other than that though... where are you going to look for this new knowledge. (And, with the U.S. cutting support for the super collider in Texas, it's clear that it's not the U.S. that's going to be the fore runner of finding something completely new.

Anyway, I think a reasonable, though not necessarily accurate analogy is "why don't we continue exploring the globe? Maybe we'll find the lost continent of Atlantis!" In physics, we don't know everything. However, there are absolutely no guarantees or promises that we ever will discover (or if there is even something TO discover) that will revolutionize our knowledge. We can hope this happens, but "great things will happen" does not necessarily imply that any of those things will ever support our efforts to colonize other places in the universe.

Once again your thinking is somewhat limited here. There may be entire realms of physics that we haven't discovered yet. Physics largely deals with observable and/or predicted phenomena. Our current powers of both observation and prediction are limited. There may be things going on in the universe that we can neither predict nor detect with current methods. This is where, say, that computer might come in. More powerful doesn't just mean raw computing power, it means more advanced algorithms that can precisely take advantage of that power. There may be groundbreaking information in realms already explored, that we have simply passed over due to our inability to observe and/or process it properly.

Another possible avenue is human improvement. Biomedical advances may one day lead to ways to augment intelligence, furthering our abilities and people may come up with things never thought of. Or we may create true AI robots that do similar.

Yes, you and the other pessimists could be entirely right, and we have gone almost to our limit physically and will soon begin a long decline into extinction. But the mere fact that we know as much as we do does not do anything to logically support that assertion, any more than the past revolutionary discoveries of history logically support the opposite assertion. So in light of viewing humanity as a dying species with all of our legacies ultimately meaning nothing, and viewing humanity as having a bright future, with no superior evidence towards the former I'm going with the latter.

 

[dighn]

There's Gold(and other stuff) in them thar asteroids, Moons, and Planets!

I think there's room for the industrialization of space. It just doesn't have to involve mass migration of humans. In theory it may be done far more effectively and cheaply using automation and maybe even artificial extensions of ourselves; no need for life support, more robust bodies, expendable. It's not like humans can operate effectively in space without machines anyway. Maybe that's how "colonization" will happen, not by moving people, but by moving automated constructs, information and raw materials.

 

[sandorski]

I think there's room for the industrialization of space. It just doesn't have to involve mass migration of humans. In theory it may be done far more effectively and cheaply using automation and maybe even artificial extensions of ourselves; no need for life support, more robust bodies, expendable. It's not like humans can operate effectively in space without machines anyway. Maybe that's how "colonization" will happen, not by moving people, but by moving automated constructs, information and raw materials.

Mass Migration does not mean everyone or even most. Just means Many. It will happen. The only thing stopping us right now is Cost. We have the technological Know-How, it is just too expensive for our current Economic Development. Either our Technology will improve making it much cheaper or our Economies will grow to a sufficient size as to afford it.

 

[DrPizza]

Once again your thinking is somewhat limited here. There may be entire realms of physics that we haven't discovered yet. Physics largely deals with observable and/or predicted phenomena. Our current powers of both observation and prediction are limited. There may be things going on in the universe that we can neither predict nor detect with current methods. This is where, say, that computer might come in. More powerful doesn't just mean raw computing power, it means more advanced algorithms that can precisely take advantage of that power. There may be groundbreaking information in realms already explored, that we have simply passed over due to our inability to observe and/or process it properly.

Another possible avenue is human improvement. Biomedical advances may one day lead to ways to augment intelligence, furthering our abilities and people may come up with things never thought of. Or we may create true AI robots that do similar.

Yes, you and the other pessimists could be entirely right, and we have gone almost to our limit physically and will soon begin a long decline into extinction. But the mere fact that we know as much as we do does not do anything to logically support that assertion, any more than the past revolutionary discoveries of history logically support the opposite assertion. So in light of viewing humanity as a dying species with all of our legacies ultimately meaning nothing, and viewing humanity as having a bright future, with no superior evidence towards the former I'm going with the latter.

Can you explain what you mean by the 1st paragraph, particularly in terms of algorithms? I'm not even sure you have a clue what you're talking about there. Imagine for a second that we didn't know what an electron was. How the heck are you going to write an algorithm that will discover the electron? That makes little sense. You would be able to write an algorithm to process data. You can write algorithms to test simulations (i.e. simulations of how galaxies form, etc.) - but you're using observations in creating those algorithms. I cannot imagine how you're going to write an algorithm that discovers something you're not really setting out to discover.

And again, to reiterate the point I was trying to make about your last paragraph: eventually, if we're capable, we WILL run out of new discoveries - new physics. Though, within the framework of the laws of physics as already known, we can learn finer and finer details. e.g. we're refining the standard model. e.g. we're already experimenting with quantum teleportation. There are a lot of things that we already suspect are possible within our current framework of knowledge, but for which we are generations from developing and implementing the technology. But, afaik, other than dark energy, dark matter, there isn't much indication of a new framework for understanding how the universe works. There are a lot of details that still have to be worked out - tons of details. And in working those out, we'll advance our technology. But, for example, we're not going to come up with a new stable element (unobtainium) or something like that.

 

[irishScott]

Can you explain what you mean by the 1st paragraph, particularly in terms of algorithms? I'm not even sure you have a clue what you're talking about there. Imagine for a second that we didn't know what an electron was. How the heck are you going to write an algorithm that will discover the electron? That makes little sense. You would be able to write an algorithm to process data. You can write algorithms to test simulations (i.e. simulations of how galaxies form, etc.) - but you're using observations in creating those algorithms. I cannot imagine how you're going to write an algorithm that discovers something you're not really setting out to discover.

And again, to reiterate the point I was trying to make about your last paragraph: eventually, if we're capable, we WILL run out of new discoveries - new physics. Though, within the framework of the laws of physics as already known, we can learn finer and finer details. e.g. we're refining the standard model. e.g. we're already experimenting with quantum teleportation. There are a lot of things that we already suspect are possible within our current framework of knowledge, but for which we are generations from developing and implementing the technology. But, afaik, other than dark energy, dark matter, there isn't much indication of a new framework for understanding how the universe works. There are a lot of details that still have to be worked out - tons of details. And in working those out, we'll advance our technology. But, for example, we're not going to come up with a new stable element (unobtainium) or something like that.

I was speaking, in retrospect rather vaguely and redundantly, about AI. Give what amounts to a sentient or near-sentient intelligence access to a super-computer, information, and tell it to look for general patterns in data gathered by sensors (for lack of a better term) several generations sharper than CERN. It may discover patterns that humans are physiologically incapable of spotting or mathematically deriving in their most abstract forms, that could lead to new discoveries.

My 2nd point insofar as physics is concerned is that the standard model only encompasses 1. What we know and 2. What we can predict. There are observable physical phenomena unaccounted for as you pointed out (dark matter/energy), why not unobservable phenomena? I'll admit I'm no physicist, but from what I know there is no conclusive theory of everything. Is there any reason there can't be whole other realms of physics that exist such that we can neither observe or interact with them at our current level of tech? I'm not saying there are, just that it's a possibility; and if it is a possibility it is also a possibility that we will one day figure out how to observe/interact with said realms of physics. Until there is a conclusive theory of everything, there will always be something new to discover.