Hawking Says Spread Out Or Become Extinct To Press>>>

[mako71]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />MeteorWayne: Welcome to SDC!<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Thanks!<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>________________ </p><p>reaaliaika.net </p> </div>

 

[ldyaidan]

". I see the space tourism as the only possible long-run habitation in space.."<br /><br />Ok...so who cleans the toilets, sweeps the floors, runs the shops, cooks the food, drives the vehicles and so on for the tourists? Then, who will provide the groceries, the electricity, and other support for those providing the services to the tourists? When saying "only tourism" it's easy to forget all the support staff and infrastructure needed to keep the places running. People are going to want the same comforts and conveniences in space, Mars, or on the moon that they have here on Earth. It takes people to make that happen.<br /><br />Rae

 

[mako71]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />Me: <i>". I see the space tourism as the only possible long-run habitation in space.."</i><br /><br />Idyaidan: Ok...so who cleans the toilets, sweeps the floors, runs the shops, cooks the food, drives the vehicles and so on for the tourists?<br />...<br />When saying "only tourism" it's easy to forget all the support staff and infrastructure needed to keep the places running. <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Oh, I wasn't definite enough - I especially meant the staff and not the tourists as the habitants.<br /><br />Let me explain my point of view; As the time goes on, the industrial work is done more and more with robots. Space is especially good place for robotics, since humans need to bring a piece of Earth with them, making them more expensive workers than robots. So, I expect that there is not much occupations for humans in space industry. Robots doesn't need to be fully automatic or intelligent - they may well be remotely operated from Earth, or one operator in space could operate several robots. Also, the space laboratories could be operated from scientists sitting on Earth - I think that there's no need in the long run to have space laborants...<br /><br />For sure, all designers - including software designers like me :-( - theoretics (mathematicans, physicsts), government officiers and such are staying down here for long time, since the jobs can be done here and it's much cheaper to company/government to keep us here than in space.<br /><br />But as in Earth, the servicing jobs are something that are hard to automatize, and I think that the same holds true in space, too. So, space tourist guides are definitely one group of human space workers.<br /><br />How much this staff would need humans for their infrastructure? It is hard to predict, since it's heavily dependent on the amount of space tourists and that's heavily dependent on the launch costs. If the tourist trip cost could be lowered from $20 milli <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>________________ </p><p>reaaliaika.net </p> </div>

 

[john_316]

Hi All......<br /><br /><br />So how is the Hawkins intellectual debate going?<br /><br /><br />I can see by many posts that not everyone is in agreement on the "subject matter" of debate.<br /><br /><br />Just thought I would put my 2 cents in too....<br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br />You all have a nice day.............<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[mako71]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />john_316: So how is the Hawkins intellectual debate going? <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Very well, thanks for asking ;-D<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />john_316: I can see by many posts that not everyone is in agreement on the "subject matter" of debate.<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />For pointing out where Hawking & Sagan went wrong in their SOD conclusions sometimes requires not-so-obvious indirect approaches ;-) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>________________ </p><p>reaaliaika.net </p> </div>

 

[mental_avenger]

MaKo71 says: <font color="yellow"> Lets assume that there are two organizations, both asking me for $500. The first one's mission is to send 5 people to live on Moon, and the second's mission is to prepare/protect Earth against catastrophes. What do you think, which organization I would select to give money? Which one would help me, my nearest and dearest and my children and their children more? </font><br /><br />First, sending 5 people to the Moon would do no good at all, so if the choice was between those two extremely limited choices, then the answer would have to be to prepare/protect Earth. However, you example contains the Logical Fallacies of Insufficient or Suppressed Evidence and False Dilemma and therefore is an invalid argument. Now if the money was going toward putting 2500 people in a permanent self-sufficient colony on Mars, that would be different. <br /><br />Second, we should do both at the same time because they are both important. We currently have the technology to move sufficient supplies and people to Mars to establish a viable colony. We probably have the technology to detect and deflect asteroids in time to save Earth, but that is not definite. In addition, if we tried that and screwed up, we wouldn’t get a second chance and the colony might be all we had to save humanity.<br /><br />MaKo71 says: <font color="yellow"> As long as we can't evacuate the whole humankind to space, we're tied to this piece of rock and we really need to keep a good care of it - not some distant outpost somewhere in the space. </font><br /><br />This “piece of rock” has been taking care of itself very well for billions of years. The amount we would have to invest in a viable colony would be miniscule in comparison to the overall budget used to care for the Earth.<br /><br />MaKo71 says: <font color="yellow"> But before going to colonize distant planets, should we first try to colonize e.g. deserts, Antarctica or seafloors? </font><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[mako71]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />Mental_Avenger: Now if the money was going toward putting 2500 people in a permanent self-sufficient colony on Mars, that would be different.<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />No, it changes nothing. Let me guess, what you were thinking those 2,500 people are doing? Right, they are doing something else than sitting there as "off-Earth human gene backup" waiting the Big One. Like I said, IMO the SOD is far too ideological reason to go to space, thus not a good nor solid reason to go there. Like I said, if it's a side effect of some other effort, that's just OK - Just like you stated in the end of your post:<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />Mental_Avenger: Colonies on Mars would not be just for repopulating the Earth.<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Make an approximation of costs and timeline to send 2,500 people to Moon/Mars. Then think the funding - if the only reason to go is just the SOD, how much money could you get from people, governments and commercial companies?<br /><br />And then just for pure entertainment, think that you're collecting money from earthlings to build an asteroid destroyer and think, how much money you would get for that?<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />Mental_Avenger: Second, we should do both [colonies & Earth protection] at the same time because they are both important.<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I fully agree. But that's not the point in Clarke's, Sagan's, Niven's and now Hawking's SOD -argument.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />MaKo71 says: But before going to colonize distant planets, should we first try to colonize e.g. deserts, Antarctica or seafloors? <br /><br />Mental_Avenger: In case of a KT class impact, that wouldn’t help much. <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I didn't mean that desert colonies were for asteroid impacts, I was asking if th <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>________________ </p><p>reaaliaika.net </p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

As there is debate as to whether to go to mars or moon,choose black hole.Steven may like the idea.

 

[oscar1]

That SOD (Spread Or Die) sounds somewhat harsh to me. "Play It Safe" was my first thought for an alternative, but the acronym of it doesn't exactly sound right either. So what about "Broader Existance", or 'BE'?

 

[halman]

MaKo71,<br /><br />No matter who wins this argument, I can assure you that saving the human race from the possibility of extinction is never going to be a primary reason for expanding the sphere of human activity. What I believe will force us to expand off of this planet is a very simple fact: The Earth is not a closed system. Nearly all of our energy comes from the Sun, in one form or another. Fossil fuels are sunlight that has been condensed over geologic spans of time, to make highly concentrated forms of energy. Now, I know that we will never run out of fossil fuels, but they are getting harder and harder to extract. And using them is beginning to look like it has serious drawbacks. The cost of a new drilling rig for use in the Gulf Of Mexico is well over 1 billion dollars, because it has to stand in water several hundred meters deep, and drill several kilometers below the sea bed to get to the oil. Burning that oil will release greenhouse gases, which may or may not be contributing to the undeniable warming of the Earth.<br /><br />So, to raise the standard of living of the majority of the planet's population is going to take an entirely different approach to how we collect and utilize energy, and sources of precious metals that don't require tearing up the ecosystem to extract and purify. We can either spend ever increasing sums learning how to make steel without burning coal, without spreading ash, without doing just about everything that we do when we make steel, or, we can decide to make our steel off planet, using off planet iron, off planet energy, and off planet locations. The energy cost of sending products from orbit to Earth is extremely small, because all it takes is the application of a few meters per second of delta V, and the load is dropping into the atmosphere, where aerobraking will slow it down.<br /><br />There is a very good chance that we will have to make choices in the near future about what kind of world we want to live in. We can <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[mental_avenger]

MaKo71 says: <font color="yellow"> No, it changes nothing. </font><br /><br />For you, perhaps. But for nearly everyone else here it changes everything. The difference between sending 5 people to the Moon which is impractical for a self-sustaining colony, and sending 2500 people to Mars where a self-sustaining colony is not only possible but <br /><br />MaKo71 says: <font color="yellow"> Make an approximation of costs and timeline to send 2,500 people to Moon/Mars. Then think the funding - if the only reason to go is just the SOD, how much money could you get from people, governments and commercial companies? </font><br /><br />That is a Strawman, because I don’t know anyone here that proposes we build a colony on Mars for only that purpose. Therefore it is an invalid argument.<br /><br />MaKo71 says: <font color="yellow"> And then just for pure entertainment, think that you're collecting money from earthlings to build an asteroid destroyer and think, how much money you would get for that? </font><br /><br />Unfortunately that would be a hard sell. Currently few people see an asteroid as a real threat. I think that they take scientists’ estimates of such an impact happening within the next 65 million years as license to procrastinate for another 40 million years. IMO it will be easier to get funding based on sending a viable colony to Mars. Asteroid detection and deflection programs will have to be hidden in relatively routine exploration programs such as deep impact.<br /><br />MaKo71 says: <font color="yellow"> I fully agree [we should do both [colonies & Earth protection] at the same time]. But that's not the point in Clarke's, Sagan's, Niven's and now Hawking's SOD -argument. </font><br /><br />So what? The point is still valid.<br /><br />MaKo71 says: <font color="yellow"> Yes, there is no point of doing so, so what is the point for space colonies? </font><br /><br />Taking comments out of context and leaving the <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[oscar1]

Let's make '6' "those things we can't imagine as yet".<br /><br />7. Mining PGM (Platinum Group Metals); suitable merchandise for return flights.<br /><br />8. TV time; something like a mix of Discovery and Big Brother material.<br /><br />9. A showcase for "Earthlings", where it is shown that we can get by without fossil fuels; extremely beneficial to all of us I would think!<br /><br />Anyone else with further viable suggestions?

 

[mako71]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />MaKo71 says: Make an approximation of costs and timeline to send 2,500 people to Moon/Mars. Then think the funding - if the only reason to go is just the SOD, how much money could you get from people, governments and commercial companies? <br /><br />Mental_Avenger: That is a Strawman, because I don’t know anyone here that proposes we build a colony on Mars for only that purpose. Therefore it is an invalid argument.<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, umh... I know my English is far from perfect, so sorry if I have misunderstood something or you haven't get my meanings. I thought to stay on topic, but it seems that this is going to be a space colony discussion since you're all giving reasons _other_ than SOD to colonies - so I think I could also take a larger look to colonies, too... I really didn't mean to say, that someone has said that SOD could be the only reason for space colonies, I just tried to say that it is no reason for space colonies.<br /><br />A little bit of backgrounds; The reason for me to ever start thinking about space colonies is that I'm a wannabe-hard-Sci-Fi-writer. I wanted to create a future world to one of my stories (years ago), dived to explore space technology and I'm still there (and haven't written a line of that story <br /><br />For me, the only good ground reason is commercial, either directly (i.e. the colony makes profit) or indirectly (the colony supports profit-making). IMO there's nothing wrong in money; currency is just a measurement unit for value, as is the meter for distances and kilograms for weight/mass. Nowadays, the value (cost) is mainly measuring efforts - in any case, if you want the Earth miners to produce the materials for colony ship (first colony ship is definitely built on Earth), the numerous people to design, build and fill the launch vehicle, you measure that effort of numerous people in money. You will need that amount of money from charity, gove <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>________________ </p><p>reaaliaika.net </p> </div>

 

[mako71]

I need to make some additions to my post:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">If I'd be a CEO of a company ... I'd probably concentrate on space tourism, either directly or indirectly ... for building LEO tourist space stations ... ways to lower launch costs (to get more customers).</font><br /><br />Of course lowering the launch costs would be the key for my space tourist company to make profit. But for indirect support for space tourism, I'd explore the space robotics. So my selection for near-term key technologies would be launch vehicles and space robots.<br /><br />And one more thing; I have always thought that a human space colony is a permanent place in space, where humans live. But I think I need to expand this definition (in my head; in publicity the meaning of the term is far too solid to be changed) so, that human space colony includes also permanent human-originated robotic missions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>________________ </p><p>reaaliaika.net </p> </div>