Who needs Goldilocks

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AsimovFan

Guest
We should really be focusing on creating our own mega habitat.

We can find new life forms on a Goldilocks planet, but living there?
Too risky. Some tropical virus there will permanently alter our dna.
And we wont detect it till its too late. (Movie deal?)

It would be easier, safer and leave us more in control if we just start
from scratch and build a mega structure out of asteroids.

An exterior shell, an interior rotating habitat. It can be like a huge sailship.
With solar sails attached to it we can get power and control of its orbit.
Build huge netlike collectors that catch all the space dust and refine them
with nano grinders.

Inside it can be like a garden, we can build living quarters into it and anything
we need.
 
V

Valcan

Guest
AsimovFan":yjnpw5oi said:
We should really be focusing on creating our own mega habitat..........

..........Inside it can be like a garden, we can build living quarters into it and anything
we need.
LOL dude basically Ramma.

Though i dont see us being able to controll the orbit of something weighing around something like 20-25 Iowa class battleships with solar sails. Or well much of anything for the moment.
 
D

dryson

Guest
We should really be focusing on creating our own mega habitat.

We can find new life forms on a Goldilocks planet, but living there?
Too risky. Some tropical virus there will permanently alter our dna.
And we wont detect it till its too late. (Movie deal?)

It would be easier, safer and leave us more in control if we just start
from scratch and build a mega structure out of asteroids.

An exterior shell, an interior rotating habitat. It can be like a huge sailship.
With solar sails attached to it we can get power and control of its orbit.
Build huge netlike collectors that catch all the space dust and refine them
with nano grinders.

Inside it can be like a garden, we can build living quarters into it and anything
we need.
We can find new life forms on a Goldilocks planet, but living there?
Too risky. Some tropical virus there will permanently alter our dna.
And we wont detect it till its too late
Too risky? Where has the soul of humanity gone? Humanity used to live in a extremely hazardous world during the dinosaur age. Building a habitat on a goldilocks planet sounds better than running from a thundering herd of Raptor's or T-Rex'x looking to make me dinner and then a pile crap.
 
S

Space_pioneer

Guest
dryson":35yhj2xk said:
We should really be focusing on creating our own mega habitat.

We can find new life forms on a Goldilocks planet, but living there?
Too risky. Some tropical virus there will permanently alter our dna.
And we wont detect it till its too late. (Movie deal?)

It would be easier, safer and leave us more in control if we just start
from scratch and build a mega structure out of asteroids.

An exterior shell, an interior rotating habitat. It can be like a huge sailship.
With solar sails attached to it we can get power and control of its orbit.
Build huge netlike collectors that catch all the space dust and refine them
with nano grinders.

Inside it can be like a garden, we can build living quarters into it and anything
we need.
We can find new life forms on a Goldilocks planet, but living there?
Too risky. Some tropical virus there will permanently alter our dna.
And we wont detect it till its too late
Too risky? Where has the soul of humanity gone? Humanity used to live in a extremely hazardous world during the dinosaur age. Building a habitat on a goldilocks planet sounds better than running from a thundering herd of Raptor's or T-Rex'x looking to make me dinner and then a pile crap.
Dryson, are you Five? Dinosaurs went extinct 63 million years before Humans evolved to a similair shape, and use tools. It took another 2 million for us to evolve into Homo Sapiens sapiens.

Anyways, no matter how hardy your species is, if there is a virus on another planet for which you have absoluetly no immunity to, you are screwed.
 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
This talk of dangerous virues on other planets is nonsense. Surely there are viruses there, but would they even have DNA? I sincerely doubt that they would even try to harm us, I can't imagine they would be biologically compatible with us. For that matter, I'm not so sure that we would be able to consume the plants and animals that may be there. The issue of biological compatability is a pretty fuzzy one right now and that should not be used as justification for going or not going.
 
V

Valcan

Guest
Space_pioneer":4fsl0xhy said:
dryson":4fsl0xhy said:
:eek:
What if there are raptors on the planet!!! What if they have raptro Jesus!! Nothing beats raptor jesus!!

While we didnt hang out with dinosaurs (other than their descendents which can be pretty freaking horrible) We did hang out with super predators by the boat load.

And what is this safe you mention. At any moment our planet could either:

Get hit by a meteor, have super volcano explode, experience a horrible plague, get sucked into a black hole,etc etc.

Again what is this "safe" you speak of? Will there be soft tacos? I LOVE SOFT TOCOS!!!! :D
 
S

Space_pioneer

Guest
Valcan":xbzgatsu said:
:eek:
What if there are raptors on the planet!!! What if they have raptro Jesus!! Nothing beats raptor jesus!!

While we didnt hang out with dinosaurs (other than their descendents which can be pretty freaking horrible) We did hang out with super predators by the boat load.

And what is this safe you mention. At any moment our planet could either:

Get hit by a meteor, have super volcano explode, experience a horrible plague, get sucked into a black hole,etc etc.

Again what is this "safe" you speak of? Will there be soft tacos? I LOVE SOFT TOCOS!!!! :D
I know, I just hate when people say that people were around the same time as the dinosaurs.
 
C

csmyth3025

Guest
Space_pioneer":1zgd5lyp said:
I know, I just hate when people say that people were around the same time as the dinosaurs.
Didn't you ever watch the Flintstones? We not only were around the same time as dinosoaurs, we had them as pets and used them for steam shovels!

Chris
 
C

captdude

Guest
With a planetary sampling pool of one to base any conclusions on; I don't think a convincing argument can be made one way or the other as to the contaminating effects an alien virus may or may not have upon a terrestrial species.







I think therefore I am...........constantly wanting to know why. :?:
 
A

AsimovFan

Guest
captdude":acro44v1 said:
With a planetary sampling pool of one to base any conclusions on; I don't think a convincing argument can be made one way or the other as to the contaminating effects an alien virus may or may not have upon a terrestrial species.
The concept wasn't really about avoiding a possible virus that could remap our dna.

If you think about it any intelligent race will eventually conclude
that it is better to expand with mega-habitats, than to go searching
for a possible planet to live on. And when we do eventually manage to
contact and communicate with ET we will determine that this is the case.

The realities of colonizing are very complex. Terraforming, which could take
thousands of years. Possible hostile natives, even if its just a mean swamp rat.
Bugs that will certainly carry dangerous bug juice. Microbes that we can't predict
with certainty what effect they will have.
The list could go on for days.

To go around and say well maybe maybe not, is naive. Its best to assume that
for a certainty all other planets will be dangerous for humans. At least as dangerous
as our own planet.
Not to say were too scared to do it, but when our own existence may hinge on
avoiding danger, To go rushing blindly into it is suicidal. Just surviving off planet
will be challenge enough for our thrill seeking explorers to get their rush.

Another thing is that we will have to go out into space by the millions, not a few
guys here and there, one thing humans like is company.
 
S

Space_pioneer

Guest
AsimovFan":3v3yanvy said:
captdude":3v3yanvy said:
With a planetary sampling pool of one to base any conclusions on; I don't think a convincing argument can be made one way or the other as to the contaminating effects an alien virus may or may not have upon a terrestrial species.
The concept wasn't really about avoiding a possible virus that could remap our dna.

If you think about it any intelligent race will eventually conclude
that it is better to expand with mega-habitats, than to go searching
for a possible planet to live on. And when we do eventually manage to
contact and communicate with ET we will determine that this is the case.

The realities of colonizing are very complex. Terraforming, which could take
thousands of years. Possible hostile natives, even if its just a mean swamp rat.
Bugs that will certainly carry dangerous bug juice. Microbes that we can't predict
with certainty what effect they will have.
The list could go on for days.

To go around and say well maybe maybe not, is naive. Its best to assume that
for a certainty all other planets will be dangerous for humans. At least as dangerous
as our own planet.
Not to say were too scared to do it, but when our own existence may hinge on
avoiding danger, To go rushing blindly into it is suicidal. Just surviving off planet
will be challenge enough for our thrill seeking explorers to get their rush.

Another thing is that we will have to go out into space by the millions, not a few
guys here and there, one thing humans like is company.
No matter how large you make it, unless you are talking Star wars level technology, a Spacestation or megahabitat will never be able to have the capacity to fit millions of people; It's not a effecient and viable option. Sending a few thousand people in colony ships to a habitable planet will be much more cost-effective than a megahabitat, and will continue to do so for a long time. If we manage to find out a way to go FTL travel, then colonizing planets will most likely always be more feasible than a massive space station, or asteroid colony.

I would much rather live on a planet than a space station. There are all kinds of dangers to a space station, much more so than a habitable planet.
 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
AsimovFan":1jwlmc4w said:
The concept wasn't really about avoiding a possible virus that could remap our dna.

If you think about it any intelligent race will eventually conclude
that it is better to expand with mega-habitats, than to go searching
for a possible planet to live on. And when we do eventually manage to
contact and communicate with ET we will determine that this is the case.
You're taking quite a leap there. Using the possible actions of an extraterrestrial civlization to justify your argument aint gonna fly here.

The realities of colonizing are very complex
.
Yes, almost as complex as building world-sized ships on the scale that you are talking about. You're not even talking about Rama sized ships here, do you have any idea how big something would need to be do produce its own gravitational field? Even with using centrifugal force on ring like ship, how on earth are you going to find the resources to put all of that together? You're talking about Halo here, and building Halo has to be 100 million times harder and more expensive than slowly terraforming a planet.

Terraforming, which could take
thousands of years. Possible hostile natives, even if its just a mean swamp rat.
Bugs that will certainly carry dangerous bug juice. Microbes that we can't predict
with certainty what effect they will have.
The list could go on for days.
Doesn't matter. Problems abound either for terraforming or world-ship construction. In space you still have the dangers of cosmic rays, solar flares, other forms of space radiation, and not to mention the countless posisble mechanical failures that a system you are talking about could have. Space will not tolerate mistakes. But at least if you're on another planet or a moon, you always have a habitat to fall back to.

To go around and say well maybe maybe not, is naive. Its best to assume that
for a certainty all other planets will be dangerous for humans. At least as dangerous
as our own planet.
Humans on an earth like planet would completely confuse any local wild life. They would not be used to seeing humans, they would not know what to do, and they certainly would not try to harm us because there are much better biological actions they coudl take to meet their energy requirements aside from going after an extremely advanced and alien species.

Not to say were too scared to do it, but when our own existence may hinge on
avoiding danger, To go rushing blindly into it is suicidal. Just surviving off planet
will be challenge enough for our thrill seeking explorers to get their rush.
I don't even know how this comment is supposed to contribute to the discussion.

Another thing is that we will have to go out into space by the millions, not a few
guys here and there, one thing humans like is company.
MILLIONS??? Boy I'd love to see the dimensions of the craft you're talking about here!
 
C

csmyth3025

Guest
When the time comes that we have enough space infrastructure in place so that "common" people can hitch a ride to somewhere else in our solar system, I'm sure there will be some who will prefer the accomodations of a space colony and some who will prefer the feel of good old terra firma under their feet - even if it's as inhospitable as the Moon or Mars. The main thing is to get to a technological level where people will have the freedom to make that choice.

As far as settling on a planet orbiting another star, that's something we wont be able to even consider doing for another several hundred years. The distances are just too vast for us to travel (unless someone invents a warp drive).

Chris
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
Space_pioneer":gnc8sv50 said:
No matter how large you make it, unless you are talking Star wars level technology, a Spacestation or megahabitat will never be able to have the capacity to fit millions of people; It's not a effecient and viable option. Sending a few thousand people in colony ships to a habitable planet will be much more cost-effective than a megahabitat, and will continue to do so for a long time. If we manage to find out a way to go FTL travel, then colonizing planets will most likely always be more feasible than a massive space station, or asteroid colony.

I would much rather live on a planet than a space station. There are all kinds of dangers to a space station, much more so than a habitable planet.
We already build cities that hold millions of people. We could build much bigger but ultimately we are limited by the amount of farmable area on this planet, which recieves only the tiniest fraction of the suns power.

The only thing you need in order to build a deathstar-sized colony is one single tiny self sufficient colony capable of building another colony. Then exponential growth takes off. All you need to master is the sorts of skills we have already mastered, eg manufacture, horticulture etc, but adapted for space. It will be by no means easy, but our current physics strongly implies that FTL is impossible. There is not much less cost effective than impossible.

Futhermore, even if we do get FTL, we will probably still have to develop all the same skills as we would for that tiny first colony in order to survive the trip, unless of course our FTL is so good that we can reach other habitable worlds while holding our breath.
 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
kelvinzero":3oaenwyw said:
We already build cities that hold millions of people. We could build much bigger but ultimately we are limited by the amount of farmable area on this planet, which recieves only the tiniest fraction of the suns power.
Okay, now this is getting ridiculous. HOW are you going to keep an object with a diameter bigger than Earth from collapsing in on itself? At first I thought you were talking about O'neill cylinders, which are at least feasible. But you're talking about literally planet sized stations here that can hold billions of people.

I don't suppose you want to give us any dimensions on this thing do you? Or could it be that you have no idea what you are talking about?

The only thing you need in order to build a deathstar-sized colony is one single tiny self sufficient colony capable of building another colony
Not only that, but trilliosn upon trillions of dollars, and I'd say billions of tons of metal to put this thing together. WHERE do you suppose we can get such resources? And even if you do must the resources, there's no guarantee that this structure will be completely safe. Like I said earlier, it could collapse in on itself. Any station that big will need a massive supercomputer to keep all its systems running correctly- probably billions of countless subsystems scattered all over. And if any of the critical ones fail, it could mean death for the inhabitants.

You are talking about ways to do this, and maybe someday in the future we can build such massive objects like Halo rings and Rama cylinders. But you have yet to mention how any of this is safer, cheaper, and easier than travelling to an Earth like planet or even terraforming.

You mentioned something about viruses and predatory wildlife. But like I said earlier, these lifeforms would not bother with us because we do not fall into their natural foodweb which has been undisturbed for millions of years. Any animals would run away from us because of their natural instincts, and we do not know what types of viruses would be there- I doubt they would try to attack humans as there are many other animals for them to rely on.

And finally, no space habitat with an Earth-like environment will be completely free from viruses, disease, and predators. If you want your station to be self sustaining and Earth-like, then it will need those to keep from falling apart. If you have one species, you have thousands.

Then exponential growth takes off. All you need to master is the sorts of skills we have already mastered, eg manufacture, horticulture etc, but adapted for space. It will be by no means easy, but our current physics strongly implies that FTL is impossible. There is not much less cost effective than impossible.

Futhermore, even if we do get FTL, we will probably still have to develop all the same skills as we would for that tiny first colony in order to survive the trip, unless of course our FTL is so good that we can reach other habitable worlds while holding our breath.
You do not need to travel faster than light or even at light speed to get to other planets. The first expeditions will take many years to get there, and will probably not be coming back home, but I think that is something that people will be willing to accept. You'll find that getting a ship to another star system will be much easier politically and economically than building this gigantic station that holds billions of people that you're talking about.

Now look here, kelvin. I've asked you some questions in this post and since you are making such bold claims on an engineering board, I have a right to have them answered. So please do not ignore my post like you did my previous.
 
A

AsimovFan

Guest
Yuri_Armstrong":3nen9dsn said:
kelvinzero":3nen9dsn said:
We already build cities that hold millions of people. We could build much bigger but ultimately we are limited by the amount of farmable area on this planet, which recieves only the tiniest fraction of the suns power.
Okay, now this is getting ridiculous. HOW are you going to keep an object with a diameter bigger than Earth from collapsing in on itself? At first I thought you were talking about O'neill cylinders, which are at least feasible. But you're talking about literally planet sized stations here that can hold billions of people.

I don't suppose you want to give us any dimensions on this thing do you? Or could it be that you have no idea what you are talking about?

The only thing you need in order to build a deathstar-sized colony is one single tiny self sufficient colony capable of building another colony
Not only that, but trilliosn upon trillions of dollars, and I'd say billions of tons of metal to put this thing together. WHERE do you suppose we can get such resources? And even if you do must the resources, there's no guarantee that this structure will be completely safe. Like I said earlier, it could collapse in on itself. Any station that big will need a massive supercomputer to keep all its systems running correctly- probably billions of countless subsystems scattered all over. And if any of the critical ones fail, it could mean death for the inhabitants.

You are talking about ways to do this, and maybe someday in the future we can build such massive objects like Halo rings and Rama cylinders. But you have yet to mention how any of this is safer, cheaper, and easier than travelling to an Earth like planet or even terraforming.

You mentioned something about viruses and predatory wildlife. But like I said earlier, these lifeforms would not bother with us because we do not fall into their natural foodweb which has been undisturbed for millions of years. Any animals would run away from us because of their natural instincts, and we do not know what types of viruses would be there- I doubt they would try to attack humans as there are many other animals for them to rely on.

And finally, no space habitat with an Earth-like environment will be completely free from viruses, disease, and predators. If you want your station to be self sustaining and Earth-like, then it will need those to keep from falling apart. If you have one species, you have thousands.

Then exponential growth takes off. All you need to master is the sorts of skills we have already mastered, eg manufacture, horticulture etc, but adapted for space. It will be by no means easy, but our current physics strongly implies that FTL is impossible. There is not much less cost effective than impossible.

Futhermore, even if we do get FTL, we will probably still have to develop all the same skills as we would for that tiny first colony in order to survive the trip, unless of course our FTL is so good that we can reach other habitable worlds while holding our breath.
You do not need to travel faster than light or even at light speed to get to other planets. The first expeditions will take many years to get there, and will probably not be coming back home, but I think that is something that people will be willing to accept. You'll find that getting a ship to another star system will be much easier politically and economically than building this gigantic station that holds billions of people that you're talking about.

Now look here, kelvin. I've asked you some questions in this post and since you are making such bold claims on an engineering board, I have a right to have them answered. So please do not ignore my post like you did my previous.
Yuri I appreciate your interest in this thread. I will address each of your concerns, stand by.
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
Hey Yuri, could you recheck your reply to me? I think you might be getting at least some of it confused with somebody else.

Im not aware of ignoring a reply from you, but replies are easy to miss on this site because there does not seem to be an 'unread' feature.

I think I can come up with good replies to your specific points but I would like you to check what you really want me to reply to.
 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
You and Asimovfan are both supporting the same argument it looks like. So I'd appreciate responses from both of you.
 
A

AsimovFan

Guest
Yuri_Armstrong":8dkdyfax said:
You and Asimovfan are both supporting the same argument it looks like. So I'd appreciate responses from both of you.
Yuri I read over your posts and find three questions.

Yuri_Armstrong":8dkdyfax said:
This talk of dangerous virues on other planets is nonsense. Surely there are viruses there, but would they even have DNA?
If there is even a 1% chance of catching a fatal virus, is it worth it?

Yuri_Armstrong":8dkdyfax said:
Do you have any idea how big something would need to be do
produce its own gravitational field?
The total mass of the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter is estimated to be less than half that of the moon.
But yet even some asteroids have their own moons, which means they have some gravity.
It wouldn't matter how big it is but how much it weighs.
I suspect it would take a lot of asteroid materials to create 1/3 earth gravity.
Considering the system I was suggesting, The cost would be recouped by the raw materials gained.
After the system is in place it would continually be able to work on the structure. It could be mostly automated.

Yuri_Armstrong":8dkdyfax said:
How on earth are you going to find the resources to put all of that together?
Space is filled with cosmic dust particles of endless amounts, using the system I envision you will have as much resources as you require.

Your comments.

Yuri_Armstrong":8dkdyfax said:
Humans on an earth like planet would completely confuse any local wild life.
Until their natural instinct kicks in.

Yuri_Armstrong":8dkdyfax said:
They would not be used to seeing humans,
Until they got used to it.

Yuri_Armstrong":8dkdyfax said:
they would not know what to do,
Ok I guess your right we should just trust the possible reactions of an alien species to do the right thing.

Yuri_Armstrong":8dkdyfax said:
and they certainly would not try to harm us
Ok were gonna trust you on that, lets go guys!

AsimovFan":8dkdyfax said:
Not to say were too scared to do it, but when our own existence may hinge on
avoiding danger, To go rushing blindly into it is suicidal. Just surviving off planet
will be challenge enough for our thrill seeking explorers to get their rush.
Yuri_Armstrong":8dkdyfax said:
I don't even know how this comment is supposed to contribute to the discussion.
If I originate the post then do I not have the right to add to as I see fit?
 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
If there is even a 1% chance of catching a fatal virus, is it worth it?
There would still be viruses present on any earth-like habitat you are talking about. It is not like you will be able to escapve viruses... they will follow wherever humans go.

The total mass of the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter is estimated to be less than half that of the moon.
But yet even some asteroids have their own moons, which means they have some gravity.
It wouldn't matter how big it is but how much it weighs.
I suspect it would take a lot of asteroid materials to create 1/3 earth gravity.
Considering the system I was suggesting, The cost would be recouped by the raw materials gained.
After the system is in place it would continually be able to work on the structure. It could be mostly automated.
So let me get this straight. You're saying we should get the entire asteroid belt, refine it into a gigantic space habitat, and then have millions of supercomputers to run it? How is this cheaper than travelling to an earth like planet?

Space is filled with cosmic dust particles of endless amounts, using the system I envision you will have as much resources as you require.

Your comments.
My comments? My comment is that you still have not given us any dimensions, let alone shapes or references to other space habitats. All I know is that this thing is supposed to hold millions if not BILLIONS of people. There are many papers available on how an interstellar ship may work and what the crew would do when they got there. There are good papers as well that describe space habitats that you are talking about. Now are you pulling something completely out of the blue here or do you have a paper or engineer you would like to reference? The debate here is whether it is cheaper, safer, and better to travel to an earth like planet or build a space habitat. You have yet to provide anything that makes building a space habitat seem better than travelling to an Earth like planet.


Until their natural instinct kicks in.
Until they got used to it.
Ok I guess your right we should just trust the possible reactions of an alien species to do the right thing.
Ok were gonna trust you on that, lets go guys!
Ok, then let's assume that I'm wrong and all of a sudden the animals there decide to involve us in their food webs. Why would humans be in any danger? Any ship would likely bring some manner of weapons, at least for hunting. We're arguing hypotheticals here but on an earth like world you already have animals, plants, and maybe some exotic other kingdoms that could not exist here. But on a space habitat you need to make all of this on your own. A "goldilocks" world is more attractive because a lot of what you need is waiting for you. A space habitat needs to be built on its own, surely a feat of a civilization at least 1000 years in the future.

If I originate the post then do I not have the right to add to as I see fit?
Yes, but you could at least have your comments make some sense.
 
A

AsimovFan

Guest
Ok Yuri now we can get into the meat and potatoes of the discussion.

At the beginning stages of the habitat it would be about the size of an
aircraft carrier.
Search for and find asteroids of the dimensions that are similar in size and weight.
String them together with either nano (bucky-ball) tethers or just old fashioned
rope.
So start small at first your going to be adding width it will spiral outward expanding as you
build it.
Solar sails or wings will be attached to segments of it to capture solar wind, these will
blossom outward and the habitat will eventually look like a giant multi winged cigar.

On the most basic level for explanation purposes, see the habitat will be made by
stringing asteroid bits together looping it around to connect with itself, then spiraled
around with every asteroid bit you add, you can even use rubble, once the weight
starts to increase you will be able to fling rubble towards it and "Paint" it.

All the while using precise calculations to keep it balanced.

The outer shell can be melted and fused together. It can be built to deflect smaller
asteroids or comets, larger bodies will be detected and avoided with precise calculations,
you can add particles to it that will deflect radiation.
Add metallic threads to it and you can create an electromagnetic field and possibly
use it to deflect radiation too.

Thats really not that huge, when I talk about going into space by the millions I don't
mean on one ship.
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
Yuri_Armstrong":1asb7k0y said:
You and Asimovfan are both supporting the same argument it looks like. So I'd appreciate responses from both of you.
That is incredibly rude, Yuri. You just abused me having obviously mixed up my statements with someone elses and have made no attempt at apology at all. All right, I will give you answers to the portions that actually seem to apply to my post. I have zero interest in carrying this conversation with you further however.

Okay, now this is getting ridiculous. HOW are you going to keep an object with a diameter bigger than Earth from collapsing in on itself?
Yes that would be ridiculous and I do not know where you got the notion from. I said we could build things much larger than existing cities. Even if we were to build a single structure that held more population than the earth, that would not imply a diameter larger than the earth. It would be much much smaller because the population would live throughout its 3-dimensional volume. We cannot live throughout the 3d volume of the earth because of problems of structural strength, disposing of the heat and collecting more sunlight than the earths surface area.

The only thing you need in order to build a deathstar-sized colony is one single tiny self sufficient colony capable of building another colony
Not only that, but trilliosn upon trillions of dollars, and I'd say billions of tons of metal to put this thing together. WHERE do you suppose we can get such resources? And even if you do must the resources, there's no guarantee that this structure will be completely safe. Like I said earlier, it could collapse in on itself. Any station that big will need a massive supercomputer to keep all its systems running correctly- probably billions of countless subsystems scattered all over. And if any of the critical ones fail, it could mean death for the inhabitants.
Im going to ignore everything following "and even if you do" because it is irrelevant to my post. Im not proposing such a structure or its safety, I am only explaining why it does not need trillions of trillions of additional dollars.

It does not require one dollar more, once you have a self sufficient colony. That is what self sufficient means. If you can build a colony that supports 500 people, and if they can grow their own food, raise their own children and repair or replace every component of their own base using local resources, then they can build a second base. Then you have exponential growth with not one dollar more coming from earth. 2 bases, 4 bases, 8, 16, 32.
You might as well as how could Britain afford to colonize America, to build massive cities thoughout america and cover it in railway. Apparently very very easily given a couple of centuries of exponential growth.

You do not need to travel faster than light or even at light speed to get to other planets. The first expeditions will take many years to get there, and will probably not be coming back home, but I think that is something that people will be willing to accept. You'll find that getting a ship to another star system will be much easier politically and economically than building this gigantic station that holds billions of people that you're talking about.
I entirely accept we do no need FTL to colonize other systems. My reply was to those who keep insisting that we do need FTL. You are simply taking whatever I said and forcing It to be a continuation of your conversation with someone else. I dont think I was even replying to you. I have explained that I did not advocate any such station as you imagined. My point was it's scale is entirely plausible given self sufficiency and exponential growth.

Furthermore again you have totally missed the point I was actually making. Yes we can probably one day get to our nearest stars in mere decades. But even to survive mere decades, and the at the other end start building, building, building, we must have mastered self sufficiency. Given self sufficiency and time, as I have explained, a small colony can grow to monstrous size and monstrous numbers.
 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
kelvinzero":2rsot4r3 said:
That is incredibly rude, Yuri. You just abused me having obviously mixed up my statements with someone elses and have made no attempt at apology at all. All right, I will give you answers to the portions that actually seem to apply to my post. I have zero interest in carrying this conversation with you further however.
I apologize, I did get you and Asimov mixed up. Sorry for the misunderstanding, there is no reason for us to stop the debate.

Yes that would be ridiculous and I do not know where you got the notion from. I said we could build things much larger than existing cities. Even if we were to build a single structure that held more population than the earth, that would not imply a diameter larger than the earth. It would be much much smaller because the population would live throughout its 3-dimensional volume. We cannot live throughout the 3d volume of the earth because of problems of structural strength, disposing of the heat and collecting more sunlight than the earths surface area.
Could you provide some more information about the interior of this structure and its diameter? You say that it would be capable of holding millions of people, but they would live 3 dimensionally. So would this mean that the structure is not hollow but is instead packed with buildings and complexes? Also, how do you provide gravity for this structure?


Im going to ignore everything following "and even if you do" because it is irrelevant to my post. Im not proposing such a structure or its safety, I am only explaining why it does not need trillions of trillions of additional dollars.
But it does. The colony may try to set up yet another one by itself, but it will still need the money to provide for it.

It does not require one dollar more, once you have a self sufficient colony. That is what self sufficient means. If you can build a colony that supports 500 people, and if they can grow their own food, raise their own children and repair or replace every component of their own base using local resources, then they can build a second base. Then you have exponential growth with not one dollar more coming from earth. 2 bases, 4 bases, 8, 16, 32.
You might as well as how could Britain afford to colonize America, to build massive cities thoughout america and cover it in railway. Apparently very very easily given a couple of centuries of exponential growth.
Can you explain the self succiencies of this colony? Where do they get their atmosphere, food, animals, water, and other resources from? There are lots of precious metals on asteroids, but I'd like you to show something that supports asteroid materials that can provide for the things I just mentioned.

I entirely accept we do no need FTL to colonize other systems. My reply was to those who keep insisting that we do need FTL. You are simply taking whatever I said and forcing It to be a continuation of your conversation with someone else. I dont think I was even replying to you. I have explained that I did not advocate any such station as you imagined. My point was it's scale is entirely plausible given self sufficiency and exponential growth.
Ah then, so you do not contest that it would make more sense to travel to an Earth like planet instead of building a massive space habitat like Asimov was talking about?

Furthermore again you have totally missed the point I was actually making. Yes we can probably one day get to our nearest stars in mere decades. But even to survive mere decades, and the at the other end start building, building, building, we must have mastered self sufficiency. Given self sufficiency and time, as I have explained, a small colony can grow to monstrous size and monstrous numbers.
You've used some common sense logic, but I'd like to see you back it up with some information regarding asteroids and how they can be used to construct this space habitat to make it completely self sufficient.


AsimovFan":2rsot4r3 said:
Ok Yuri now we can get into the meat and potatoes of the discussion.

At the beginning stages of the habitat it would be about the size of an
aircraft carrier.
Search for and find asteroids of the dimensions that are similar in size and weight.
String them together with either nano (bucky-ball) tethers or just old fashioned
rope.
Old fashioned rope? Surely you're joking? And can you provide some information on these bucky ball tethers you are talking about?

So start small at first your going to be adding width it will spiral outward expanding as you
build it.
Solar sails or wings will be attached to segments of it to capture solar wind, these will
blossom outward and the habitat will eventually look like a giant multi winged cigar.

On the most basic level for explanation purposes, see the habitat will be made by
stringing asteroid bits together looping it around to connect with itself, then spiraled
around with every asteroid bit you add, you can even use rubble, once the weight
starts to increase you will be able to fling rubble towards it and "Paint" it.

All the while using precise calculations to keep it balanced.
But asteroids don't magically turn in to building materials. I'm assuming that you intend to have an orbital construction station set up nearby, right? And that leads me to another question, where are you going to put this habitat?

The outer shell can be melted and fused together. It can be built to deflect smaller
asteroids or comets, larger bodies will be detected and avoided with precise calculations,
you can add particles to it that will deflect radiation.
That sounds like some pretty sturdy material. Can you specify what material specifically you are talking about, how well it deflects micrometeorites, and if this material is present in asteroids?

Add metallic threads to it and you can create an electromagnetic field and possibly
use it to deflect radiation too.
I don't know much about electromagnetism, can somebody verify this statement?

Thats really not that huge, when I talk about going into space by the millions I don't
mean on one ship.
Actually, I was hoping you could provide some numbers on the dimensions. You said cigar shaped with solar panel wings, so I'm assuming cylindrical? Similar to Rama (space habitat by Arthur C. Clarke)?
 
C

csmyth3025

Guest
The original topic of this thread was essentially that we don't need a "Goldilocks" planet orbiting a distant star but that:
...We should really be focusing on creating our own mega habitat...
To the extent that traveling to another star (even the closest candidate stars) will take many generations, this statement implies a so-called "generation ship".

Any description of how such a generation ship might be constructed is pure speculation. To propose that an existing space colony will structure its economy around building another space colony is like saying that New York City could be made to stucture its economy around building a new city in the middle of the Amazon Rainforest.

Why would the people of New York want to do this? How would this grand effort be financed? Would the city administration just tax the "working people" of New York to the max so that the Mayor would have billions of dollars to pour into the project?

It's more likely that such projects will be financed by very wealthy individuals and/or corporations hoping to sell a better living standard to those in the existing colony (or colonies) who can afford it - somwewhat like the development of subdivisions around New York which eventually become part of an existing political entity (such as one of the five boroughs of New York), or a separate political entity in its own right by political incorporation.

There is one certainty about this speculation, though. We'll need to have an established and robust space infrastructure and a robust space economy within our own solar system before anyone starts to make any real preliminary proposals for the construction of a generation ship.

Chris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts