Space colony

[alokmohan]

An idea whose time hasn't come: Colonies in space. The notion never goes away, though. <br /> At the Space 2006 conference of the American Aeronautics and Astronautics Association in San Jose, Calif., the participants debated whether to colonize the moon or Mars or just plain space with large orbiting residential satellites, according to an article in Wired.com. <br /> These are serious people in the NASA-industrial complex. You hear the same back-to-the-moon and onward-to-Mars sentiments from people throughout the aerospace world. <br /> Few ask: Why bother? <br /> What can we get from a base on the moon or Mars that comes near justifying the expense? There's little doubt that with enough effort the human race could build such outposts. The problem is that in terms of cost benefit, the usual rationales fall apart. <br /> The first question is, "What can a human colony do that unmanned probes can't do far sooner and far more cheaply?" <br /> In recent years the unmanned program has been going gangbusters. The Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity, Cassini to Saturn, Galileo to Jupiter, Mars Express from the European Space Agency, all have been successes. Why send people? <br /> Wired quotes Klaus Heiss, the director of the High Frontier(.org), which advocates putting people into space, as saying that a moon base would allow scientists to study the effect of low gravity on humans. But why bother unless you are going to put a colony on the moon? And why do that? <br /> Colonization -- a permanent presence -- is definitely what a lot of space folk have in mind. High Frontier uses the evocative phrase "Jamestown on the Moon" and speaks of "artificial villages floating in space." <br /> There's nothing pernicious in the idea, but ... why do it? <br /> People argue sometimes that, well, we could mine the moon for minerals. The underlying difficulty with this and other reasons for colonies, such as manufacturing things in low or micro-gravity, is the enorm

 

[qso1]

Excellent post.<br /><br />alokmohan:<br />An idea whose time hasn't come: Colonies in space.<br /><br />Me:<br />Quite a bit of future ideas of the 1960s and 70s seems to have met the same fate. Their time has not come.<br /><br />alokmohan:<br />"What can a human colony do that unmanned probes can't do far sooner and far more cheaply?"<br /><br />Me:<br />If our technology had been developed to the point where we could provide artificial environments relatively inexpensively, we might have been able to colonize mars at least. What seems more realistic to me is a lunar or mars base but doing it with todays or near term tech keeps it an expensive proposition.<br /><br />No doubt unmanned probes have made impressive discoveries. The traditional argument for human spaceflight here is having a human in the loop for certain things a probe may not be able to do. Until the cost of human spaceflight comes down however, unmanned probes have not so far encountered anything that absolutely requires a human presence.<br /><br />Of course, if an unmanned probe were to find evidence of life on mars for example, I would have high confidence in the discovery but my confidence would be higher with a thourough human analysis.<br /><br />alokmohan:<br />If we had a truly cheap way of getting lots of materials to Mars or wherever, all sorts of things might make sense. But we don't.<br /><br />Me:<br />Therein lies the problem. One I call "The cost barrier". We broke the sound barrier, barriers to getting man in space, to the moon, but we have not been able to break the cost barrier.<br /><br />alokmohan:<br />Note that industry, which has to make a profit, is not rushing factories into space.<br /><br />Me:<br />This is one area that has been sorely neglected IMO. In part by NASA, in part by private industry/enterprise. Recalling a device called the beam builder back in 1983. A device that could extrude aluminum truss like beams for space stations or other massive structure in LEO. Beam builder kind of dissappea <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>

 

[newtonian]

alokmohan - Indeed this earth was made for man, but the moon and Mars were not.<br /><br />As an ancient reliable source states:<br /><br />(Psalm 115:16) . . .As regards the heavens, to Jehovah the heavens belong, But the earth he has given to the sons of men.<br /><br />To me it makes more sense, as you noted, to continue unmanned exploration, and perhaps utilization of resources, by high tech robotics.<br /><br />Meanwhile, we should dedicate more funds and efforts to preserving our beautiful precious gift, this earth.<br /><br />Sadly, man is still ruining this earth.

 

[qso1]

Newtonian:<br />Sadly, man is still ruining this earth. <br /><br />Me:<br />And one way to allieviate that is to move as much industrial acivity whether manned, man tended, or robotic...to space. <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>

 

[newtonian]

qso1 - And thus pollute space? <br /><br />Actually, that would be fine if feasable, but the original post by alokmohan notes most manufacturing of products would involve prohibitive transportation costs, etc.<br /><br />There is no need to pollute anywhere. The governor of California just signed a bill to try to help on one front: global warming.<br /><br />The ultimate solution is foretold at Revelation 11:18 [our Creator destroying the destroyers of the earth, plus good news] - but that would be for another thread really.<br /><br />Industrial activity need not pollute - it depends on how it is done. For a few examples:<br /><br />1. Limiting thermal pollution to winter in temperate climates and using it to heat homes.<br /><br />2. Releasing CO2 into greenhouses where the 'pollutant' could be turned into fuel and food by plants.<br /><br />3. Recycling more and throwing away less (helps in many ways, including the garbage crisis).<br /><br />4. Using various micro-organisms (including extremophiles) to converty 'pollutants' into more useful forms (including food and fertilizer, etc.).<br /><br />5. Energy conservation so that fuel use could be mostly renewable and renewed.<br /><br />BTW - these methods would also be helpful in a space colony.<br /><br />BTW#2 - Robotics would be manned, to more or less of an extent. Or were you considering independent robotic colonization by robots with AI (artificial intelligence)?

 

[qso1]

If anything has been learned from the 1970s. Its that we don't make those sacrifices on a large enough scale to make much difference. Looking at energy news and and alternative energy proposals today is the same as it was in the 1970s. A very telling story of what little progress we as a nation have made.<br /><br />All your ideas are excellent ones. Its getting Americans to adapt them. It usually takes some kind of catastropic event, emergency to get us to actually adapt that which would help us.<br /><br />BTW, if its a choice of polluting space over earth...I'd opt for polluting space before earth because space is so tremendously vast that we could pollute it for a thousand years and it would not even be measurable from the nearest star using todays tech to measure it. <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>

 

[qso1]

Newtonian:<br />BTW#2 - Robotics would be manned, to more or less of an extent. Or were you considering independent robotic colonization by robots with AI (artificial intelligence)? <br /><br />Me:<br />Man tended or AI once it (AI) matures as a viable technology. Man tending basically means a crew occasionally looks in on an otherwise largely automated facility. <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]

Man is making history.Mars expedition will be necessary only.

 

[qso1]

I'm all for a human expedition, even a base on mars. Especially if it results from a preliminary discovery of life there. Further into the future, I would like to see the discovery of an earthlike world. If such a world proves to be very earthlike. A human exploration or colonization could get underway. I won't be around that long but I think this may be the direction humanity takes over hundreds or thousands of years. The craft that will take them may well be an interstellar colony starship. <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]

1 This was done in Weisbaden, Germany 40 years ago. The electric power plant, instead of using an air cooled or water cooled condencer, used a distriuted condencer consisting of thousands of heat exchangers in private homes and businesses. The problem was the very low pressure network sucked in air and ground water though tiny leaks. This reduced the efficiency of the steam turbine and made it impractical to reuse the condenced water. This increased costs beyond the value of the heat delivered and resulted in huge quantities of slightly poluted water.<br />2. It is difficult to keep the leakage from the green houses small, except at very high cost. Trace polutants in the CO2 = carbon dioxide are bad for the plants and humans. The CO2 is excessively hot in most cases, so cooling, and purifing the CO2 is costly.<br />3 I suggest a Saturday trash pick up of items that might be useful to someone. Volunteer labor would reduce costs and giving most of the stuff away free would insure that someone would take most of the stuff home at least briefly.<br />4. Most of the organisms can use only a narrow range of material as food, requiring homeoners to sort diligently and/or costly separation to avoid posoning the micro-organisms. Where sunlight is the energy source, micro-organisms more than a foot from the sun receiving surface are starved for energy especially on cloudy days.<br />5. Conservation is a sacrifice for most of us. ie how do 6 people (and their baggage) travel to a destination in a 4 passenger vehicle which uses very little fuel? I agree we need to perfect all of these to make a space colony practical. Neil

 

[alokmohan]

Reaching mars is not difficult.It has been discussed lot of times.

 

[newtonian]

stevehw33 - You seem to like to post in response to my Biblical statements, but you choose to ignore my scientific statements in my posts.<br /><br />Is there some reason you are so obsessed with this?<br /><br />On your comments on my Biblical statements, which I will comment on only briefly:<br /><br />Your statements have no basis in fact, and you have posted zero evidence for your statements.<br /><br />You have made clear your opinion earth was not made for man, but you have no evidence backing that conclusion.<br /><br />Sure there are many other forms of life on earth - you seem to imply I did not know that - silly man!<br /><br />The fact is that some extremophiles likely could exist not so far (by universal standards) beyond earth.<br /><br />My point relevant to thread theme, which you have totally missed because of your obsession, is that any space colony would be in a location hostile to human life compared with earth, which is made for man.<br /><br />And that earth is made for man is backed by many observations in many sciences - whether you believe man evolved to fit earth's unique environment or whether you believe earth was created to fit humans unique requirements for living a happy life.<br /><br />Now, to discuss this tangent in depth would be too much of a tangent on this thread - so, in response to your response to me I will start a new thread.<br /><br />It would be best if you posted your comments mostly there - since it is a tangent off thread theme.<br /><br />The title of said thread will be:<br /><br />The anthropic principle - was earth made for man?

 

[newtonian]

nexium - Thank you for responding to my ideas.<br /><br />Thank you for the reference to one way this is already being done. Reminds me of geothermal heated homes in Iceland, except that was done successfully!<br /><br />I agree we need to perfect all of these and more, not just to make a space colony practical, but also to stop polluting earth!