Living on other planets

[kimb68]

There's a lot of big talk out there about having human outposts on Mars and the Moon, and of having to figure out how to live on other worlds so that we don't face extinction on this one. Without even getting into all the science fiction scenarios, isn't this one of the most dangerous, expensive, and wasteful endeavors we could be contemplating? Why don't we try living on the bottom of the ocean for a while and see how hard that is? It's only a few miles away.<br /><br />Seriously, though. The death rate for astronauts is about 4.5% and most of them never even leave orbit. Living in space just doesn't seem like a reality-based notion to me.

 

[qso1]

kimb68:<br />There's a lot of big talk out there about having human outposts on Mars and the Moon...<br /><br />Me:<br />And thats pretty much all it is and has been for years...talk. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Putting it into actual practice involves an encounter with the cost barrier. A barrier built upon false arguments. False arguments that almost always win the day where NASA is concerned.<br /><br />Heres how it works:<br />Back in 1973-74, NASAs budget was cut some 50%, from 2% GDP to 1% GDP. This during a time when the same talk you mentioned was being heard but still taken a bit more seriously. The roughly 1% GDP NASA budget has been maintained since. Yet the savings never got applied to earthly ventures including learning to live under the oceans. There were better earthly ways to spend the savings such as the Reagan era $500 B dollar S&L scandal which wiped out any savings from NASA cuts during the 1980s, and then some.<br /><br />Fast forward to today.<br /><br />NASA gets $16 billion annually and about 2/3rds of that is for manned spaceflight. NASA was unable to develop cheap access to space in the form of a replacement for the shuttle. Hardly a step closer to planetary colonization.<br /><br />While NASA is planning a return to the moon, this is initially not going to be all that much different than Apollo and there is a very good chance IMO the program will be scaled back or axed by an incoming Presidential Administration in 2008.<br /><br />Money? Recall the NASA budget number I posted. If we cannot afford a portion of that to find out what we can do and cannot do in space, how can we afford a $400 plus billion dollar and growing, deficit year after year and $100 billion plus per year on rebuilding Iraq when that money could be better spent in the US if we are too poor to afford human spaceflight. <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>

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">Living in space just doesn't seem like a reality-based notion to me.</font><br /><br />Under the current level of manned spaceflight, one could argue that you are correct.<br /><br />Here's the catch, however. Man will eventually <b>need</b> to spread out from good old Mother Earth to increase our chances of surviving as a species.<br /><br />Barring some unforseen scientific discovery, we will have to do it incrementally in both terms of technology and biology.<br /><br />Yes, strapping people onto bombs and lifting them into space is very crude, and very expensive. However, in the last 40 odd years, we've gained an incredible amount of knowledge on how to work and live in space.<br /><br />We've done so at our own pace, rather than faced with starting from scratch trying to save at least part of humanity from an impending asteroidal impact of planet killing proportions.<br /><br />Those few decades have taught us <b>how</b> to live offworld, and also what to expect when we endeavour to do so.<br /><br />With enough money, we could set up a colony on Mars starting tomorrow if we had to. I'll leave you with an analogy that is "reality-based".<br /><br />Imagine natural disasters like hurricanes as they occurred a century ago. Hundreds of thousands of people died simply because they didn't know a hurricane was going to hit.<br /><br />Furthermore, even if the did have advanced warning, unless there was an infrastructure in place to evacuate hundreds of thousands of people rapidly, casualties would still be apalling.<br /><br />That's what our manned space program is analogous to. We are building the evacuation infrastructure one shuttle mission, and one ISS crew at a time.<br /><br />I understand that evacuating Earth ahead of a titanic disaster is not the main reason we're in space, but when and if the time comes, we'll be more prepared for it.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Robert Zubrin is striving to get journey to mars sanctioned.

 

[qso1]

By now he may be begging! <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>

 

[nexium]

My thing is to observe and analyze. It is possible that human society will collapse soon, with disasterous results. Agreed space is dangerous, but so is staying on Earth. The recent prosparity and "good times" will end some day. There may not be enough time remaining to move even a millionth part of humanity into space. I'm not optimistic that NASA can do this, even if we give them 10% of the GDP = GNP = gross national (domestic) product, instead of 1%. Neil

 

[torino10]

As ironic as it may seam I think that the only impetus for developing a massive space infrastructure would be an asteroidal impact event. A localized extinction level event is what the world would have to see in order to get the various political agencies capable of dealing with a global extinction level event up and running.<br />This is why I support any plans to cause diemos or another solar body to impact the polar regions of mars. We have enough probes present to show the effects, It would warm the martian climate, Humanity would be brought face to face with how fragile it's existance is without destroying the earth.<br />An extreme concept, but not one without merit<br />

 

[alokmohan]

I suggest you go thro mars society website.Dont be too fast to conclude.

 

[qso1]

I'm well aware of the Mars Society and they are at the forefront of bringing information about human spaceflight to the masses. And they are of course, simulation living conditions on Mars to some extent with there projects (Euro-MARS Project, Mars Desert Station, Flashline Arctic Station, Translife Mission, Pressurized Rover).<br /><br />But we are still almost as far away from actually living on mars as we were in the 1970s, to say nothing of any worlds beyond. Public opinion and the cost barrier have changed little since then. I remember when the first seriously planned human mars missions were scheduled for the early to mid 1980s. That was all gone by 1973-74. Today Mars is on the scope again so to speak, but for now, its a "No earlier than 2020" thing and 2020 is 14 years from now. 14 years ago we were hearing about "Mars Direct" and plans for a Mars mission in 2004.<br /><br />If however, there is some major breakthrough in private enterprise including the Mars society efforts, then it may prove to be a different story. <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>

 

[kimb68]

Thanks for the replies. I'm genuinely struggling with this topic (in a purely intellectual way, of course. It's not keeping me up nights). To clarify, when I wrote "wasteful" I meant that any effort to support an off-world population is surely dependent on us getting our &%$#@! together here on Earth first. It seems to me that from a financial, moral, and logistical standpoint we have to solve problems like AIDS, resource depletion, and civil strife before we can even think about relocating the human race. <br /><br />Financial, because we can't afford to do all these things at the same time. Moral, because I think we have a ethical obligation to try and fix this planet before we go screw up another one. And logistical, because otherwise we'll just be taking all our problems with us to the next place.<br /><br />If human society is going to collapse, as someone warned, then we can forget about getting off this planet at all. It's going to require the most enlightened, tolerant, responsible, and egalitarian society we can muster to make it happen. Basically, a utopian Star Trek kind of society. Otherwise, it seems to me the best we can hope for is off-world tourism for the super-rich.<br />

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Take a look at these pages;<br />http://www.nuclearspace.com/a_liberty_ship.htm<br />http://www.nuclearspace.com/a_liberty_ship2.htm<br /> & then just keep following the link <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[qso1]

Actually, the idea that we have to solve earthly problems such as aids before we go into space is a flawed one. We will probably never solve some of our human problems and even if we do, new ones will arise if we colonize other worlds. Part of the challenge of being human I suppose is problem solving. Especially solving in parallel.<br /><br />Off world tourism for the super rich is probably going to be the way it goes for awhile. We have that sort of thing right here on earth. There are places here I will never go to because I will never have the money.<br /><br />But eventually, I'd say we have a good chance of settling on worlds deemed worth the effort to settle on. This however, is still at least a number of decades away short of some unforseen breakthrough in inexpensive access to space and the planets. <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>

 

[falsify]

to me all these expeditions is a big waste of money and time.imagine all the worldly good that could have been done i lieu.living on another planet... thats so farfetched really.its utopian!

 

[qso1]

I'm not sure to which expeditions you refer since man has yet to actually go to any of the planets. Thats why I mentioned that kind of exploration is decades away.<br /><br />But if your looking at waste and really believe something should be done. Look at the deficit, the rebuild or war in Iraq, then compare that to the NASA budget. <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]

Earth will run short of space and food for human being.We have to go to mars,no way out.For survival.

 

[dannyd]

General societal movement through time:<br /> <THE VANGARD -----the masses ------The ANCHORS /><br />The old Bell Curve. Surviving our destructive tendencies probably requires that the VANGARD prevail and we get off the planet. Curing moral/economic unbalances before precipitious exploration has not been our M.O. of late. -d

 

[qso1]

Thats something that will take decades to actually determine knowing how governments operate. It would probably be three or four decades before food shortages etc would be recognized as an emergency. If were running that low on food, Mars won't be of any help without better understanding of how to grow or produce food there. <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]

Steven Hawking wants man shifts to other planets also.

 

[alokmohan]

Thats true,we dont know much.

 

[alokmohan]

Also for any number of reasons our planet may become unfit for habitation.Sun may be red giant much earlier than our predicted models.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

You hit the nail on the head, if we dont spread out to other systems in the galaxy, we are eventually doomed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[dannyd]

Years ago I heard ex-CA gov/Oakland mayor Jerry Brown give a talk and while I disagree with much of what he spews out I will probably always vote for him because he made a point of his being a futurist and a dedicated space exploration guy. How tragic will it be if we come this far as a species and can't get our war-sworn asses off this planet? -dannyd

 

[alokmohan]

Exploration is key to all success.We must explore.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Explore, yes. But colonize too. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[qso1]

crazyeddie:<br />Actually, a shortage of food is not a very likely scenario, in my opinion. <br /><br />Me:<br />I agree with you here. But it could still happen and with it would come the decades long realization that it has which pretty much rules out food shortage as a reason to go to other worlds either way. For one thing, we will need to really nail down food generation on places like Mars to be successful at leaving due to food shortages.<br /><br />crazyeddie:<br />Instead of a Malthusian catastrophy, I think it's far more likely that humanity will be endangered by a collapse of the biosphere, a global pandemic, or an asteroid strike...<br /><br />Me:<br />Agree even more so here. But for leaving due to such reasons, one has to look at what reason will prompt some crash program.<br /><br />Biosphere collapse, is this something that will happen suddenly or over decades? More than likely it will be over a period of decades and perhaps followed by one quick, final collapse for which humanity will be ill prepared due to the decades of debating if the biosphere is on its way to collapse.<br /><br />Pandemics have occured before and we never left the planet. Most pandemics in history have occured far too quickly to allow for departure of Earth were they to occur now. If it took a pandemic to go from being identified to being a threat in five years...too little time to really be able to get much of anyone or anything off planet, much less to another world.<br /><br />Asteroid strike...forget it. Easier to deflect the roid rather than try to escape it by attempting to move large masses of humanity, or even small masses off world.<br /><br />Current ability:<br /><br />Less than 1,000 humans have ever been to space in half a century.<br /><br />Largest habitable volume for humans currently is ISS. Hardly a Noahs Ark.<br /><br />No humans have ever ventured beyond the moon and only 27 have been on or around the moon.<br /><br />IMO, only if we get plenty of warning, and recognize that warning e <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>