How not to colonize space...

[JonClarke]

Near earth (and later near planetary) space is important because of all the activity that takes place there. It is no good talking about space hotels and planetary settlements is the debris hazard in orbit is so great that they can't be built or visited.<br /><br />There is a real tendency for a concept's advocates to push an idea because it is cool, without thinking through the ramifications for everyone. That is why we had things like Orion, needles, Timberwind, ASAT tests, all of which seemed like good ideas that the time, but were really bad ideas in the big picture.<br /><br />Done the wrong way even asteroid mining would cause significant problems. I am thinking of the O'Neill suggestion to use mass drivers to move refined ores round the solar system. Over time this could generate a significant increase in small space debris, essentially artifical meteor streams. I have never seen this quantified. It may be that the increase in debris is acceptably small. But it may not and either way it has to be thought through.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[halman]

JonClarke,<br /><br />OK, I was referring to interplanetary space, not low earth orbit. And planetary surfaces do not qualify as 'space' in my book. They are other planets. We are creatures who have evolved on a planetary surface, so we tend to think in terms of planetary surfaces when we discuss off planet exploration, but planets make up a tiny fraction of all of the Cosmos. We can survive just about anywhere, by creating our own gravity, ecosystems, and habitat. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Thanks for the clarification.<br /><br />I am not sure if the sort of distinction you are making will be workable. For example, a singificant increase in interplanetary debris, such might occur as from use of mass drivers for example would impinge not only on interplanetary space but also on the surfaceof the Moon, asteroids, and the moons of Mars. Generating a lot of debris in lunar orbit will impinge on the surface their orbits decay. The surface of the Moon has in respects for environmental management, more in common with other space environments than it has with Earth.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[spacester]

Certainly the distinction will be workable. Orbital mechanics assures it, for the most part. Mass drivers are the only exception AFAIK in terms of changing the heliocentric orbit of stuff. Asteroid mining will not be sending stuff flying off at km/s speeds. Even if stuff escaped a rock's gravity well, it is still co-orbiting with its parent for all practical purposes. Spaceships will be traversing the Sun's gravity well but they don't need to be classified as hazards. <br /><br />I'm in agreement with you in general terms, Jon, but there's no need to get carried away. Mass drivers are not a serious part of current-day space infrastructure visions, and the reason you cite is one of many problems with the notion. What else is there to cause the beyond LEO space debris problem you describe?<br /><br />Certainly the moon is pollute-able, yes? For example, if we set up manufacturing which takes advantage of the vacuum, yet we spew gases and stuff as part of the process, how long before the vacuum becomes degraded enough to matter to someone else?<br /><br />Yet, we have good readings on the current vacuum environment, and as soon as we show up again, we'll get fresh readings, so we can track the changes as we go. Our economic activity can be treated as an input function in our scientific model of the vacuum environment. We need not wring our hands at the changes, but we are obligated to track them.<br /><br />The idea that space is too vast for us to ruin it sounds an awful lot like bad history repeating itself. Yet we have a self-awareness now that wasn't there before. The bottom line IMO is that it'll all be fine, we'll not screw it up because it's in our own interests not to.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kosmonavtkaa]

Instead of colonizing (and maybe terraforming) planets, when technology is sufficiently advanced, build artificial space habitats that could travel from one star system to another, and live in these. <font color="orange">"Why climb out of Earth's 4000-mile-deep gravity well merely to sit yourself down at the bottom of some other world's gravity well? Instead of building settlements on other worlds, why not build them in empty space?"</font>(<i>Space Travel</i>, Ben Bova) Planets could then be mostly visited for scientific study and such. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

I tend to think this is how we will eventually travel. Starships by the very nature of what distances they have to travel, lend themselves to becoming self sustaining habs. And if we are limited to the speed of light which probably means we will be sublight for awhile. This limitation will make journeys between several star systems last decades, even centuries which imposes the design of self sustaining starships. There would still be the possibility of finding an earthlike world humans may want to settle in large numbers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Travelling to star luminal or subluminal .Do you think we may do it in our life time?

 

[qso1]

alokmohan:<br />Travelling to star luminal or subluminal .Do you think we may do it in our life time?<br /><br />Me:<br />In our lifetime? Not unless some extreme quantum leap in our technological development occurs, along with the discovery of a destination world that would warrant the use of the technology. Given the current state of human spaceflight in the world today...we can't even be sure if we will see humans on mars in our lifetime.<br /><br />In my graphic novel, the reason for an interstellar mission is revealed in 2011 when an image of a very earthlike appearing world orbiting Alpha Centauri is released. Then the quest to go there more or less begins at that time but the mission does not actually depart until the year 2156...which many knowledgeable folks will tell you is optimistic...even too optimistic. The mission also depends on some major technical breakthroughs in propulsion, life support. And the ship is really really big!<br /><br />I did go subluminal but chose to go 75 percent light speed to avoid the problem of taking decades just to arrive at the destination. This also shows that we still don't know how to go superluminal in 2156...but who knows in 2256. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[quasar2]

we had a parallel discussion on the marssociety forum. about feces disposal. <br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />permanent base. With the Hab attachment, it could go the same distance as a smaller rover, but bring along a laboratory, a kitchen and dinning area, and bunks for sleeping, a sanitary facility, and a communication center as well, that can directly contact Earth or one of the Com sats around Mars to communicate with the fixed base if need be.<br />Back to top <br />View user's profile Send private message <br />quasar777<br /><br /><br /><br />Joined: 06 May 2002<br />Posts: 132<br /><br /> <br />PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:51 pm Post subject: Reply with quote [Mark post as unread]<br />it would be kinda like a Unimog RV, pullling one of those new atv`s. i can see that. alot of ppl think there`s going to be rigid system in going to Mars, i don`t think so. many things can happen. everything will need to have @least 2 uses. a shovel can become a sled, for instance, if necessary. a vicegrip can become a trailer hitch. a suit can be an airlock. a helmet can be a window. feces can be fuel. human hair can have many uses. algae can be fuel, etc., as well as food. no doubt rats will come along inadvertantly & they would probably be hunted & eaten., maybe ran on a treadmill. fingernails could be used, maybe made into some kinda plastic.<br />Back to top <br />View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail <br />RedStreak<br />Regular Member<br /><br /><br />Joined: 12 May 2006<br />Posts: 381<br />Location: Illinois<br /> <br />PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:35 pm Post subject: Reply with quote [Mark post as unread]<br />quasar777 wrote:<br />feces can be fuel. human hair can have many uses.<br /><br /><br />Eww. I understand recycling but that's pretty unhygenic. Personally any waste whether from astronauts or algae needs to be broken down into something...less disgusting to be frank. I ima <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kelvinzero]

Space colonisation should be viewed in a very positive light by environmentalists. Living in space is all about understanding biospheres, mastering recycling and solar power.<br /><br />As space advocates we should be really pushing this to people concerned with the environment. The major project of this century should be learning how to live in habitats that exchange as close to no materials with their environments as we can possibly manage.<br /><br />We are never going to reach selfsustainability by dribs and drabs of legislation that everyone drags their heals on to gain a slight advantage over their fellows. We have to start with the assumption we are in a box and nothing goes in or out, and then make it work.

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

"how not to repeat the same mistakes made when Australia was colonized"<br /><br />Hmm, I guess that means treating the Indigenous inhabitants poorly is out then.<br /><br />IMHO, the worst environmental thing that the colonists did was clear the land for pasture. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Overstocking leading soil erosion, poor irrigation philosophies leading to salinisation, and deliberate introduction a wide range of non-productive feral species were also major mistakes. Some ferals were inadvertent like most weeds, inevitable, like pigs, or honest mistakes like the cane toad. But it's hard to justify foxes, rabbits, starlings, carp and myahs.....<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[itsfullofstars]

“Of course, this all depends on whether or not we can cure ourselves of our stupid propensity to kill each other in war. And transfer this almost totally wasted effort to actually going into space for the betterment of mankind. THAT is the problem, NOT polluting space itself!â€<br /><br />Very nice post but I would phrase it like this.. ‘Of course this all depends on whether or not we can cure ourselves of our greed.’ Greed is probably the major cause of our most recent wars.<br /><br />We also need to be able to stick to our own rules. The artic is a supposed to be a none developable area owned by no nation, everybody seems to have forgotten this and are now trying to get in quick so they can have the biggest slice of the cake before anybody else.<br /><br />We need a way to form those protective laws and then police them. To police them we need one police force, (a global government?) we need to stop thinking like small tribes and start thinking like a species.<br /><br />All I have mentioned above will probably take longer to accomplish than it will to invent inter stellar travel tho’ :-(<br /><br />Lovely thread by the way I love the direction it has taken.<br /><br />itsfullofstars<br />

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

I agree entirely with than Jon. Good points. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[richalex]

"Instead of colonizing (and maybe terraforming) planets, when technology is sufficiently advanced, build artificial space habitats that could travel from one star system to another, and live in these."<br /><br />Because the resources (materials, space, energy) of a space station are far more limited than for even a small planetoid. That does not mean that space stations have no future, but it shows why they are not the only future.

 

[richalex]

"Of course, this all depends on whether or not we can cure ourselves of our stupid propensity to kill each other in war. And transfer this almost totally wasted effort to actually going into space for the betterment of mankind."<br /><br />Ironically, the only reason we are in space now is due to that very same propensity to war, specifically through the drive to advance war technology.