Will man ever colonize space?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Blertola

Guest
<p>A tremendous amount of the science fiction that I read takes place either ten years into the future or ten-thousand years into the future. In the former, little has changed from present times. In the latter, man has expanded to the stars with technology so far extrapolated from present day science that it might as well be magic. Good literature on the interim period is hard to find.</p><p>&nbsp;I am having a tremendous amount of trouble envisioning a scenario in which man expands beyond Earth and colonizes space. And I'm not talking Space Arks hurled towards the next nearest star--I mean expansion even within our own solar system. What would prompt a large enough mass of people to live anywhere but Earth?</p><p>The answer, at least in my mind, is almost certainly an economic one: someone discovers some sort of economic value in space, a critical mass of people pursuing this primary industry gather, making the provision of secondary industries from space-to-space more profitable than Earth-to-space, and then I suppose things grow from there. Though what that economic value is and how things would grow is rather fuzzy to me (heck, it's all fuzzy to me).</p><p>The alternative, of course, is that the entire thought is a sham and it is most likely that people will never leave Earth in any sustainable number.</p><p>Anyway, I'm just not knowledgable enough to figure this out on my own, and none of my friends seem interested in the idea, so I thought I would register to a few forums and ask the experts what the most likely outcome was or what hypothetical scenarios could get man living beyond Earth. And here I am.</p><p>So have you ever thought about what the impetus might be?</p><p>&nbsp;P.S. I don't really buy the "Earth runs out of resources and people flee to space" theory, again because of economics. It seems more likely that we will simply start recycling and reprocessing the resources we've already used once it becomes profitable to do so vs. just tearing new ones out of the earth.</p><p>Hopefully this is the right forum to be asking this question in.</p>
 
N

nimbus

Guest
It could simply be that we figure out how to have everyone be independent from each other in energy and matter. Given an efficient enough energy production scheme, and some start trek-like replicating/fabricating tech, you could just build yourself a spaceship and go anywhere in the system to setup your own estate with space radiation shielding and a deep space internet connection to stay in touch with the rest of humanity as it too gets to focus on whatever it likes, as opposed to being held in bondage by social labor. &nbsp;Your buddies might show up for a visit with their own spaceship, etc. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
<p>There are some people here who probably are experts but here is my opinion anyway:</p><p>Yes, over the next hundred years we will, barring some huge catastrophe, make some form of substantial progress towards a substantial population off this planet. </p><p>I do&nbsp;base this on earth running out of resources, but not in the usual way. As you say, we will probably solve these problems by learning to recycle much more efficiently.</p><p>My argument is that it is our resources that have been holding us back. Our industry relies on oil, fresh water and free oxygen. There may not be another planet in the universe that has all these gifts because we are not yet sure that life is not some tremendous fluke. Certainly no other planet near at hand does.</p><p>It is the inability to translate our industry to other nearby worlds that has prevented us moving into space. Our rockets are good enough to get us to the moon or mars but there is nothing we could do there except some science and flag planting and then come back. </p><p>Fortunately we are going to be forced to develop technologies that do not depend on an endless supply of any of these things. Oil will run out eventually.&nbsp;We will have to&nbsp;learn to use biofuels.&nbsp;Cities more and more are looking at recycling their own water. If we are making our own fuel then I guess we are managing our own oxygen as well, since what we are really doing is using photosynthesis to take CO2 from the air and split it into two parts: fuel that goes into your tank and oxygen that goes into the atmosphere. Energy is produced when these are put back together in your car.</p><p>Inevitably we are in the process of learning how to live on a planet that gives us nothing for free. Of course we can do this, life is a very complicated machine that has run perpetually on this planet for&nbsp;billions of years. All our technology has to become similarly sustainable.</p><p>Once this is done we will effectively be living in moon-bases on our own planet. It is a real shame we had not kept maintaining a&nbsp;genuine&nbsp;moonbase these last 40 years or we would already be way ahead of the curve here. We would have perfected recycling because every kilogram of waste we throw away on the moon costs many many thousands of dollars to replace.</p><p>Once we have learnt to live entirely within what amounts to an artificial life support system on earth&nbsp;the notion of colonising a world such as mars&nbsp;ceases to be science fiction.&nbsp;</p><p>What will be the first big motivation for largescale industry in space? My favorite is Space Solar Power. It is still a way off but it is getting a lot of development indirectly. Just recently, with oil running out, solar power technological breakthroughs are being announced every other week. Solar power is going to end up as cheap as paint. As it becomes cheaper it will be used more, there will be more investment and it will mature rapidly.</p><p>I doubt we will consider space solar power seriously until we have exploited solar power to its limits here on earth, but at that point it will be a very mature technology that suddenly cannot grow any further except by moving into space. Every company invested in solar power will become a space advocate.</p><p>I believe that at some point there will be a tipping point where a space solar power satellite returns a small profit above the cost of its launch. The more rockets you launch the more money you make. But it gets better because everyone agrees that the more rockets you launch, the cheaper they will become per launch and per kilogram.</p><p>In fact, one of the big reasons we do not have truely reusable rockets even now is because they are more expensive. Why? If you think using a rocket once and then biffing it into the ocean is expensive, what about building a rocket once and then not building another of the same design for a decade or more? That is like throwing your entire infrastructure and all your employees into the ocean. Reusable launchers will become cost effective when there is enough market for launches that the factories can just keep mass producing them despite them being reusable.</p><p>I think either of these reasons (recycling and large space industry) are sufficient to justify us moving outwards.&nbsp;Put them together and you have not doubled but squared your opportunites to become a&nbsp;spacefaring civilisation.</p>
 
S

SFRocker

Guest
<p>The question is will we survive that long?</p><p>&nbsp;We have the know how. We can develop the necessary technology. But it will take time and money. The more money you invest the less time it will take, but regardless it will take a long time.&nbsp;</p><p>Barring some major turn of events the best we can hope for is to be starting to create a moon base in 2020. If that base is given enough funding and enough time to develop we likely could establish a "colony" or permanent presence on the moon shortly thereafter, but if you mean colony in the traditional sense (people living there lives not just doing there jobs) then we may never see a colony on the moon. It will depend what resources we find there and whether or not we find ways to use them. You might see a Helium-3 mine to generate fuel for Fusion reactors, but that presupposes we develop Fusion reactor technology and that someone can make a compelling case for mining the Helium on the moon instead of creating it in a lab or getting it from somewhere else. The need for a colony would also disappear if technology was developed to transport workers too and from the moon fast enough and at low enough cost.</p><p>&nbsp;Beyond the Moon we are probably looking at at least another 10 years before a Mars mission would be attempted. The first mission will probably be a two year mission, but again that won't really be a colony, just 6-8 people doing there jobs. </p><p>The next project would be to establish a Mars base and look how long its going to take for us to establish a Moon base from when we first landed there. I'd say conservatively you would be looking at at least another 20 years before any sort of permanent Mars base would be established. Of course that presupposes that Mars dust storms don't destroy anything we put there during that 20 year period. So maybe a Mars base by 2050 probably more like 2060.</p><p>&nbsp;Beyond that would involve speculation about propulsion technologies to carry humans beyond our solar system. No other planets would be good candidates for colonization. They are all either too cold (everything beyond Mars), two hot (Mercury), two small (all asteroids) or to toxic (Venus). But if by some unforseeable method we did develop the capability to carry humans out of our solar system during a human lifetime before 2060 you might see plans for a base on a planet in a neighboring galaxy around that time and anticipate another 50 years at least before any such thing would be attempted.</p><p>&nbsp;In the mean time we have bigger concerns. Our biggest threat is our growing population. There aren't enough resources to go around as it is and if history shows us anything it is that human's have no problems killing other human's if they need (or think they need) those human's resources to live. Add to that the threat of nuclear war and you have a recipe for the quick annihilation of the human race. Global warming will only make matters worse because farm lands will dry up or become submerged and all those people who currently lay claim to those lands will not be happy about giving up what those lands afford them. Canada might benefit from a warmer climate, but they won't last long when the US farm lands are unsustainable and we decide that its us or them. Our neighbors to the north won't last long fighting us and we won't be the only country looking to conquer neighbors to sustain itself.</p><p>More than likely we will annihilate ourselves long before an asteroid impact or some other natural disaster wipes us off the planet and at the rate we're going we certainly will before we ever get around to any significant colonization of space. Of course the people who are in a position to change are fate don't really care, because they'll be dead before any of this happens, leaving saving the planet to their children's children. Thanks grandma and grandpa!</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
 
B

Blertola

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The question is will we survive that long?&nbsp;We have the know how. We can develop the necessary technology. But it will take time and money...&nbsp;<br /> Posted by SFRocker</DIV></p><p>This was the problem I had when thinking about it for myself. Sure, we have the technology (sort of), or at least the drive and intelligence to overcome obstacles like radiation, but why would we bother? What is the impetus for building a moon base? If it's just people doing (scientific) jobs, then space is going to be nothing but one giant Antarctica. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Kelvin,&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Space solar power... Now that's an interesting idea. I also agree that solar power is going to become an enormous industry--I'm just not sure if I can see the need for people to move out in to space as a result. Sure, one would need people to go up for maintenance, but for any mass to live there? It seems unnecessary and therefore unlikely. Still, industry in space is always exciting--are there any other possibilities you know of?</p>
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
<p>Sticking with space solar power for the moment:</p><p>The main thing it would give us is a huge market for launches and huge tonnages in earth orbit at much cheaper prices.</p><p>Even if nothing about SSP itself needed people this larger infrastructure would still make all our other dabbling in space much cheaper and much larger scale. From a planet of a few billion there would certainly be a market for many thousands each year wishing to spend a month in space if a large and&nbsp;luxurious destination were built. And everything else we do such as the ISS would be scaled up too, and robotic missions would be so common they would occasionally bump into each other :)</p><p>Secondly though,&nbsp;SSP would need people. Robots are currently nowhere near as good as people at nontrivial repair. There would be a lot of such repair&nbsp;if you have hundreds of square kilometers of&nbsp;SSP satelites to look after.&nbsp;The day that robots do become better at human tasks is the day I trade this body in for a nice cybernetic one!</p><p>Thirdly, with this level of infrastructure it would become cost effective to build an industry on the moon to build at least some components of the SSP satelites. Again that means many more people&nbsp;offplanet for long durations.</p><p>Apart from SSP what is there?</p><p>I dont favor the HE3 idea much. You would need this huge industry before you could even be sure the idea could work.</p><p>Space tourism is one. The market seems quite small though. Maybe it can take off.</p><p>Perhaps a more important element of space tourism is suborbital flights. This could become just a faster way to travel: Under 90 minutes to anywhere in the world. As with SSP if suborbital flights became everyday then the reusable launch technology would mature and this would allow us to consider much&nbsp;cheaper and therefore larger&nbsp;projects in space. This alone would not push us to other worlds but it would be a great help.</p><p>(edit)</p><p>Finally of course there is the Nimbus way. Even if we just sit on this planet at some point we will master self reproducing machines and genetic engineering. At that point a single seed could grow us entire cities on mars or perhaps ceres or the moon. These technologies are far more plausible than say warpdrive with our current understanding of physics. The only thing that I can see stopping us colonising other worlds in the timeframe of about a century or two&nbsp;is extinction from the sorts of&nbsp;abilities we are just beginning to develop now, or a natural plague spread by our own airtravel. Or an asteroid, but in a mere 2-century period that would be incredibly bad luck.</p>
 
N

nimbus

Guest
I expect there will be attempts to make at least a few bunkers with as much of man's knowledge and as much of our precious goods (seeds, vaccines, basic electronic essentials, etc etc) scattered around the globe (and maybe in orbit or on the moon or further out) as soon as we see things start to get out of hand too quick to come up with a solution.. In fact it should be common sense for anyone with the means to do it, to do it as soon as possible. &nbsp;There's already some of these hording seeds and what not, but no real doomsday bunker yet, as far as I know. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A tremendous amount of the science fiction that I read takes place either ten years into the future or ten-thousand years into the future. In the former, little has changed from present times. In the latter, man has expanded to the stars with technology so far extrapolated from present day science that it might as well be magic. Good literature on the interim period is hard to find.&nbsp;I am having a tremendous amount of trouble envisioning a scenario in which man expands beyond Earth and colonizes space. And I'm not talking Space Arks hurled towards the next nearest star--I mean expansion even within our own solar system. What would prompt a large enough mass of people to live anywhere but Earth?The answer, at least in my mind, is almost certainly an economic one: someone discovers some sort of economic value in space, a critical mass of people pursuing this primary industry gather, making the provision of secondary industries from space-to-space more profitable than Earth-to-space, and then I suppose things grow from there. Though what that economic value is and how things would grow is rather fuzzy to me (heck, it's all fuzzy to me).The alternative, of course, is that the entire thought is a sham and it is most likely that people will never leave Earth in any sustainable number.Anyway, I'm just not knowledgable enough to figure this out on my own, and none of my friends seem interested in the idea, so I thought I would register to a few forums and ask the experts what the most likely outcome was or what hypothetical scenarios could get man living beyond Earth. And here I am.So have you ever thought about what the impetus might be?&nbsp;P.S. I don't really buy the "Earth runs out of resources and people flee to space" theory, again because of economics. It seems more likely that we will simply start recycling and reprocessing the resources we've already used once it becomes profitable to do so vs. just tearing new ones out of the earth.Hopefully this is the right forum to be asking this question in. <br />Posted by Blertola</DIV></p><p>The short answer is YES.</p><p>But "ever" is a long time.&nbsp; We won't be colonizing anytning in space any time soon.&nbsp; At the moment we lack sufficient incentive and the necessary technology for economic access to space.</p><p>We will conduct operations in space, including colonization, when it becomes economically attractive to do so.&nbsp;(BTW doomsday scenarios are very unlikely, but survival is economically attractive.)</p><p>For those who are just chomping at the bit for us to do something in space I offer this advice.&nbsp; Don't waste&nbsp; your time thinking about advanced propulsion or space ships.&nbsp; That may be fun, but it is ultimately irrelevant.&nbsp; Spend your time inventing something valuable that is only viable through space-based operations.&nbsp; It might be a new drug.&nbsp; It might be information that can only be efficiently obtained from space.&nbsp; It might be a piece of equipment that can only be made to extraordinarily small tolerances in a weightless environment.&nbsp; It is probably something else.&nbsp; But the point is that what is needed is not a <em>means</em> of going to space but rather a <em>reason</em>&nbsp;for going there that is attractive to a commercial enterprise.</p><p>That reason will be found.&nbsp; We will go to space in a major way.&nbsp; But not soon.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>For those who are just chomping at the bit for us to do something in space I offer this advice.&nbsp; Don't waste&nbsp; your time thinking about advanced propulsion or space ships.&nbsp; That may be fun, but it is ultimately irrelevant.&nbsp; Spend your time inventing something valuable that is only viable through space-based operations.&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />I disagree.&nbsp; Until we can get into space for much less than current costs we are not likely to produce anything in space.&nbsp; At the moment any product we would contemplate making in space from any material other than in-situ resources (which there are very few of in *NEO*) would have to be worth it's weight in gold or more upon return to earth to make it viable.&nbsp; We need to quit wasting money on new rocket designs, use the EELV architecture combined with space construction techniques to achieve our current goals and develop new methods other than pure rocket designs for escaping the gravity well of Earth.&nbsp; &nbsp;We have spent the last several decades proving that rockets are not the answer, so lets invest some money into new ideas and infuse the private sector with capital by buying more of what we already have sitting on the shelf instead of wasting the money on NASA jobs programs.&nbsp; It's time to turn the delivery of payloads over to the military and cut NASA out of the launch loop and let them focus on science instead of engineering and logistics,&nbsp; they are very good at the science but terrible on the engineering and logistics. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
 
S

Slava33

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I disagree.&nbsp; Until we can get into space for much less than current costs we are not likely to produce anything in space.&nbsp; At the moment any product we would contemplate making in space from any material other than in-situ resources (which there are very few of in space) would have to be worth it's weight in gold or more upon return to earth to make it viable.&nbsp; We need to quit wasting money on new rocket designs, use the EELV architecture combined with space construction techniques to achieve our current goals and develop new methods other than pure rocket designs for escaping the gravity well of Earth.</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Brian, I agree that a modified EELV would be a better option for human flight than developing a new system from scratch, which is what NASA is doing with Ares. &nbsp;Putting a lot of NASA resources into it seems misguided. &nbsp;Science missions (especially deep space ones) give a lot more bang for the buck. &nbsp;But I guess it only takes care of JPL, the other centers want a piece of the pie&nbsp;<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" />. &nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
<p>&nbsp;I agree with DrRocket, adding the recommendation to also&nbsp;work on ISRU.</p><p>You could pour a huge amount of money into launch systems, bring down the cost/kg by an order of magnitude and still be spending more per year&nbsp;with no plan for actual profit in sight.</p><p>On the other hand, demonstrating a little lawnmower sized robot that generates a few hundred times its own weight in oxygen or solar panels is almost as good as bringing launch costs/kg down a few hundred times,&nbsp;if it turns out your business plan involves the moon anyway.</p><p>or, suppose for example we figure out a way of building a higher quality computer chip that allows 10xfaster operations <em>in serial</em>! Some operations can not be done in parallel so you cant just build a bigger computer. That single chip, weighing less than a gram, could crack a code in one year that would otherwise take ten, even with the budget to build a city sized computer on earth.</p><p>Develop any technology that can start making open ended amounts of money with just say&nbsp;a two or three times reduction in cost/kg and we will develop those rockets very quickly simply by the huge investment from people who see a reliable profit.</p>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;I agree with DrRocket, adding the recommendation to also&nbsp;work on ISRU.You could pour a huge amount of money into launch systems, bring down the cost/kg by an order of magnitude and still be spending more per year&nbsp;with no plan for actual profit in sight.</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;As a government entity&nbsp;NASA is not about profit, it is about capability.&nbsp; So reducing the cost by an order of magnitude would equate to an order of magnitude increase in capability for the same cost.&nbsp; I noticed how quiet the last thread got on the subject of just using EELV systems over producing a brand new one, which hints to me that it is a viable concept that the NASA folks on this board don't want to address.&nbsp; I love NASA, I grew up in their back yard, and marvel at their accomplishments, but at some point we all have to face reality and do what's best for the people who are paying the bill i.e. the taxpayer.&nbsp; IMHO NASA has turned itself into a self licking lollipop with a soft tootsie roll center.&nbsp;They need to&nbsp;change their ways of doing business&nbsp;if they want to survive and lead us into the future.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;As a government entity&nbsp;NASA is not about profit, it is about capability.&nbsp; So reducing the cost by an order of magnitude would equate to an order of magnitude increase in capability for the same cost.&nbsp;</DIV></p><p>EELV sounds like a good idea. This may well be the correct way to go with our rocket development.</p><p>But a machine that produces&nbsp;hundreds of times its weight in oxygen or solar cells &nbsp;is almost as good as reducing launch costs by hundreds of times. Or what about an closed lifesupport system that can run indefinitely, just like the earth's?</p><p>Not only can this technology reduce the cost of setting up a large scale industry on another world by <em>arbitrary</em> orders of magnitude, but we can probably progress far&nbsp;more rapidly on this technology compared to the speed at which we design the next generation of&nbsp;rockets.</p><p>Another advantage is that lifesupport and ISRU advances would probably have many more spinoff technologies relevant to earth, thus paying for themselves and accelerating research even more.</p><p>I would love to see what the sort of money that is spent on rockets could do towards developing lifesupport or ISRU technology.</p><p>Does anyone know what the relative budgets between developing rockets and lifesupport and ISRU are?</p>
 
W

webtaz99

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>EELV sounds like a good idea. This may well be the correct way to go with our rocket development.But a machine that produces&nbsp;hundreds of times its weight in oxygen or solar cells &nbsp;is almost as good as reducing launch costs by hundreds of times. Or what about an closed lifesupport system that can run indefinitely, just like the earth's?Not only can this technology reduce the cost of setting up a large scale industry on another world by arbitrary orders of magnitude, but we can probably progress far&nbsp;more rapidly on this technology compared to the speed at which we design the next generation of&nbsp;rockets.Another advantage is that lifesupport and ISRU advances would probably have many more spinoff technologies relevant to earth, thus paying for themselves and accelerating research even more.I would love to see what the sort of money that is spent on rockets could do towards developing lifesupport or ISRU technology.Does anyone know what the relative budgets between developing rockets and lifesupport and ISRU are? <br /> Posted by kelvinzero</DIV></p><p>Trouble is, rockets pay (by providing commercial satellites). Life support and ISRU don't (at least not right now). </p><p>Certainly, some life support tech could be used terrestrially, such as splitting CO2 into carbon and O2, or recycling water (especially removing microbes). ISRU would have to be VERY cheap to be viable on Earth. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I disagree.&nbsp; Until we can get into space for much less than current costs we are not likely to produce anything in space.&nbsp; At the moment any product we would contemplate making in space from any material other than in-situ resources (which there are very few of in *NEO*) would have to be worth it's weight in gold or more upon return to earth to make it viable.&nbsp; We need to quit wasting money on new rocket designs, use the EELV architecture combined with space construction techniques to achieve our current goals and develop new methods other than pure rocket designs for escaping the gravity well of Earth.&nbsp; &nbsp;We have spent the last several decades proving that rockets are not the answer, so lets invest some money into new ideas and infuse the private sector with capital by buying more of what we already have sitting on the shelf instead of wasting the money on NASA jobs programs.&nbsp; It's time to turn the delivery of payloads over to the military and cut NASA out of the launch loop and let them focus on science instead of engineering and logistics,&nbsp; they are very good at the science but terrible on the engineering and logistics. <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>You disagree because you have personal agenda to push a specific technology, for personal commercial gain.&nbsp; A technology that has no chance without government subsidy.&nbsp; You are not objective. </p><p>It is not the mission of the military to deliver civilian payloads.&nbsp; It should not be their mission.&nbsp; </p><p>You are correct in that a viable product for production in space must be extremely valuable on a per pound basis.&nbsp; But that is not likely to change any time soon.&nbsp; Perfect ball bearings manufactured in the weightless environment of space will be a commercial loser. </p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

Slava33

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You disagree because you have personal agenda to push a specific technology, for personal commercial gain.&nbsp; A technology that has no chance without government subsidy.&nbsp; You are not objective. It is not the mission of the military to deliver civilian payloads.&nbsp; It should not be their mission.&nbsp; You are correct in that a viable product for production in space must be extremely valuable on a per pound basis.&nbsp; But that is not likely to change any time soon.&nbsp; Perfect ball bearings manufactured in the weightless environment of space will be a commercial loser. &nbsp; <br /><p> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>How did the question of colonizing space deteriorate into the EELV vs. Ares debate? &nbsp;There are some obvious problems with developing the next generation of astronaut movers (most of which seem to be due to NASA's peculiar management of these projects). &nbsp;However, a much more important factor is our government's Space policy and commercial human flight development. &nbsp;We wasted two decades having astronauts delivering payloads into LEO. &nbsp;For all his other failures, W set us back on the path to spread out into the solar system. &nbsp;Hopefully, the new president will communicate this as one of the building blocks of our national vision, and we will proceed to the next incremental step to colonizing space.</p><p>Near term, there is not going to be a silver bullet that takes us to the stars. &nbsp;Neither will commercial human space flight turn to space colonization anytime soon. &nbsp;What's needed is for space colonization to stay in the news, to become part of our national identity, just like the Apollo was. &nbsp;Only then will the money and bright minds flock to the field, and tech breakthroughs will inevitably follow.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Trouble is, rockets pay (by providing commercial satellites). Life support and ISRU don't (at least not right now). Certainly, some life support tech could be used terrestrially, such as splitting CO2 into carbon and O2, or recycling water (especially removing microbes). ISRU would have to be VERY cheap to be viable on Earth. <br />Posted by webtaz99</DIV></p><p>You could say it is commercial satellites that pay. I really do want to see a lot more money going into better rockets. The best way I can see of doing this long term&nbsp;is trying to come up with more ideas that justify more commercial satellites. Communication satellites, weather satellites.. Tourist satellites? Every time we come up with another commercial success the launches will increase and so will consistant investment into better rockets that does not need to come out of NASA's budget.</p><p>As you say unfortunately there isnt much use for ISRU on earth. If fact it would be less efficient than and in competition with companies that profit by large scale mass production. They are not going to invest in it which is why it is a good purpose for NASA. nevertheless I expect there would be many profitable spin off technologies proportional to the effort NASA put into it. One spinnoff is rapid-prototyping technology for example.</p><p>I think many technologies to do with lifesupport could also have worthy spinnoffs. Water recycling is a good example, and cities are beginning to do this with more and more advanced technology. No one is going to buy an ISS toilet for their school but I expect there are many worthwhile results from mastering recycling on a small scale that can be applied on a larger and more commercial scale for cities.</p><p>Solar panels are another interesting one. I bet that now people are worrying about alternative energy, that space is (over the long term anyway) getting a shot in the arm from all the advances in this field that it does not need to pay for.</p>
 
S

Simsup

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A tremendous amount of the science fiction that I read takes place either ten years into the future or ten-thousand years into the future. In the former, little has changed from present times. In the latter, man has expanded to the stars with technology so far extrapolated from present day science that it might as well be magic. Good literature on the interim period is hard to find.&nbsp;I am having a tremendous amount of trouble envisioning a scenario in which man expands beyond Earth and colonizes space. And I'm not talking Space Arks hurled towards the next nearest star--I mean expansion even within our own solar system. What would prompt a large enough mass of people to live anywhere but Earth?The answer, at least in my mind, is almost certainly an economic one: someone discovers some sort of economic value in space, a critical mass of people pursuing this primary industry gather, making the provision of secondary industries from space-to-space more profitable than Earth-to-space, and then I suppose things grow from there. Though what that economic value is and how things would grow is rather fuzzy to me (heck, it's all fuzzy to me).The alternative, of course, is that the entire thought is a sham and it is most likely that people will never leave Earth in any sustainable number.Anyway, I'm just not knowledgable enough to figure this out on my own, and none of my friends seem interested in the idea, so I thought I would register to a few forums and ask the experts what the most likely outcome was or what hypothetical scenarios could get man living beyond Earth. And here I am.So have you ever thought about what the impetus might be?&nbsp;P.S. I don't really buy the "Earth runs out of resources and people flee to space" theory, again because of economics. It seems more likely that we will simply start recycling and reprocessing the resources we've already used once it becomes profitable to do so vs. just tearing new ones out of the earth.Hopefully this is the right forum to be asking this question in. <br />Posted by Blertola</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Blertola: I fear most of us could only give you our perceptions based upon a certain knowledge within an uncertain world. And the reality of where we are as a &ldquo;human&rdquo; race, postulates an ignorance far greater than our capacity of reaching for the stars. Sure there are a few enlightened among us who know what mans destiny should be & can be. But until mankind can throw off the bonds of tyranny that binds him to this earth: He if ever, will forever be doomed by his own dismal traits, to be the pathological self possessed race they seem to be. </p><p>There are three main tyrannies that greatly self prohibit mankind&rsquo;s advance into the universe. And perhaps I should put this to you in a way we all here should understand. </p><p>1) Mankind as a singular Earth race - has been and always will be a petty, selfish driven by greed - Ferengi race. </p><p>2) Mankind as a singular Earth race - has been and always will be a petty doubtful, distrusting, mistrusting, suspicious Romulan race.</p><p>3) Mankind as a singular Earth race - feeds on misery, desolation, hopelessness, anguish, gloom, depression, despondency, & dejection. This is their, our food, as repulsive as Klingon worms, or African&rsquo;s drinking blood vamipirishly from a living cow, an Asian drinking blood vampirishly from a living snake. </p><p>This is the race that you ask to take you to the Horse Head Nebulae, Andromeda, Pluto, let alone Mars or back&nbsp;to&nbsp;Earth&rsquo;s own moon? </p><p>Scholars, Seer&rsquo;s, and yes even Holy Men have tried to tell us how to get there. One even stating &ldquo;When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.&rdquo; And that same being, who has been thought of as divine origin, virtue and power, throughout his teachings spoke to & of mankind as a child - until the very end, what he termed the &ldquo;end of days&ldquo;. And those &ldquo;childish&rdquo; things he spoke of that makes mankind &ldquo;childish&rdquo;? See and read #&rsquo;s 1,2 & 3 above again! <u>If your child acted this way, what would you do? What did he do?</u> And last, he did say what that remedy was, didn&rsquo;t he. The one sentence that bound all others together. &ldquo;And now abide in faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. Charity rejoices not in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth&hellip;&rdquo; </p><p><u>I am not a religious person. I do not espouse a singular vision of faith.</u> Yet this one Holy Man knew, just as many others knew, what the problems mankind faced in getting back to his origins: And it wasn&lsquo;t his ability and science that could take him back there: It was his own ignorance that would and could. And any gods, deity&rsquo;s who espoused differently were and are not looking out for our best interest, but were merely the charlatan religious orders that mankind dreamt of - for living here & staying here and being the ignorant children their cults demanded. For our future was never intended to be &ldquo;here on earth&rdquo;, our destiny was the stars, but only if we as a unified race would and could find our way & &ldquo;grow up&rdquo;!</p><p>Look around you today, what do you see? Is there Greed? Is there mistrust? Is there depression? And do you see Charity? Forgiveness of debts? And the list goes on and on. Not the least of which&nbsp;are wars, all corruptible by the same in #&lsquo;s 1,2 & 3 above. The answer to your question is no, we won&rsquo;t be going there. We can&rsquo;t, we wont, because of 1, 2 & 3 are more self important. For that same prophet, who spoke those previous words, spoke of war and the end of days in the same sentence. People never have understood those words, never! And yet here they are. </p><p>And you shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. </p><p>&ldquo;Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all&hellip; And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold&hellip;.and then shall the end come.&rdquo; </p><p>Does this sound to anyone that there could be any faith, hope or charity left in mankind to reach for the stars? Does this sound like mankind &ldquo;grew up&rdquo; and learned war no more? <u>Even Nostradamus</u> gives us these same dire predictions: With not one mention of mankind in space, going no further than the moon. </p><p>Just look at our own political party&rsquo;s in this country, the U.S. of A. The republicans are more Fascist than at any time in our country&lsquo;s history. The Democrats are more Marxist/Lenninist than at other time in our history. And yet this is/was and presumably will be the choices we have to elect our government &ldquo;of the people by the people for the people&ldquo;, that it should not perish from the earth? </p><p><u>I am a scientist.</u> I look to other sources to find the scientific answers. And Yes even religious sources, for <u>they are the oldest written scientific sources we have.</u> I view them as historical, not religious. But I find in their words truth, a frightening terrible truth, that mankind fulfills each and every day because of ignorance! <u>The same ignorance that Nostradamus speaks of in his volumes. </u></p><p>You want mankind to go to the stars? Help your government to understand how important this is to you and your descendents. For the Star Trek World that Gene Roddenberry envisioned is a guide. He perhaps more than anyone else knew that mankind would have to unite to get into space. That we couldn&rsquo;t be 1 race among many, facing the quadrillions who inhabited the universe; if we were to survive. We had to have no debt, no coin exchange, and that takes charity. </p><p>Perhaps Barack Obama&rsquo;s presidency will change all that for the US. But I doubt it. If he doesn&rsquo;t see the vision as Kennedy did in his speech at Rice University: Then we are bound to the earth for 8 more years, where wars, recession-depression - greed governs our destiny.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You disagree because you have personal agenda to push a specific technology, for personal commercial gain.&nbsp; A technology that has no chance without government subsidy.&nbsp; You are not objective. It is not the mission of the military to deliver civilian payloads.&nbsp; It should not be their mission.&nbsp; You are correct in that a viable product for production in space must be extremely valuable on a per pound basis.&nbsp; But that is not likely to change any time soon.&nbsp; Perfect ball bearings manufactured in the weightless environment of space will be a commercial loser. &nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Everyone has a personal agenda.&nbsp; But... My responses in this thread are not biased to further mine.&nbsp; As far as commercial gain goes, what if anything do I stand to gain&nbsp;if NASA decides to change course from&nbsp;ARES to EELV or Direct 2.0?&nbsp; IMHO it just makes more sense for many reasons. All of which are based on cost, schedule and performance.&nbsp; Which&nbsp;are the criteria that all programs should be judged on.&nbsp; As for my succeeding without government subsidies.... if I have to paint it green, name it Mountain Dew and fly up to ISS and knock on the door and yell get the door it's Dominoes, I will get it done. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How did the question of colonizing space deteriorate into the EELV vs. Ares debate?<br />Posted by Slava33</DIV><br /><br />Because after you get the short answer which is "yes if we survive long enough", I think it's within the bounds of discussion to talk about the how, when, where and why. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
 
T

trumptor

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A tremendous amount of the science fiction that I read takes place either ten years into the future or ten-thousand years into the future. In the former, little has changed from present times. In the latter, man has expanded to the stars with technology so far extrapolated from present day science that it might as well be magic. Good literature on the interim period is hard to find.&nbsp;Posted by Blertola</DIV><br /><br />Futurama takes place in the interim. It takes place 1000 years from the present time. The show addresses human interactions in the year 3000. It describes potential technologies, including space ships, robots, parallel universes, and aliens. This may help connect the gap in your literature. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font color="#0000ff">______________</font></em></p><p><em><font color="#0000ff">Caution, I may not know what I'm talking about.</font></em></p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts