Rusakov Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 I've been on a space colonization kick lately. But why should I leave you guys out? What are your thoughts on space colonization? I personally think it's a prudent thing to do. The chief reason being the great filter, if everybody is stuck in one place when a terminal disaster strikes then humanity might go extinct. By spreading out into space there's a smaller likelyhood of every human dying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faisul Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Yeah, the Great Filter has been an argument made by many to legitimize the idea of having awesome space adventures. At this point, however, that's all it is for now - an idea. There is a staggering amount of practical considerations that must be made before even attempting the settlement of another planetary body, so many in fact that many seriousface would-be space-colonisation thinkers have cited simply building something in space and living in that instead as a more feasible solution - at least remotely within our lifetimes. There's quite a bit of buzz right now with various nations putting forward proposals to build bases on the moon and mars and whatnot, which is exciting, but my impression is that it's all another dick waving contest, what with emergent superpowers hungry for their own 'man on the moon' moment. As for the more ethical considerations concerning space colonisation, it would be a terrible shame to wipe out/be wiped out by whatever microbial life (or otherwise) we might stumble across even in our own solar system by our presence alone. We've had some nasty episodes on our own planet, think of how awful it would be if we touched down on Mars and wiped out whatever remnant of an ecosystem Mars might have simply because a careless astronaught forgot to seal his gloves properly. Another is the absolute dependency a newly formed colony would have towards Earth - absolutely everything we take for granted would have to be supplied/engineered in such a way to allow for some degree of self-sufficiency in the colony by authorities on Earth. Forget terraforming - we simply don't have the technology or the know-how to do it - so the colonists will be well and truly screwed if only one supply drop goes wrong. While the above arguments makes me look like a nettlesome pessimist about the prospects of space colonisation, don't take me wrong - I think it's an immensely exciting idea and I won't deny that I think that it will be an integral part of our not too distant future, but I simultaneously have little reason to believe it'll be a cakewalk in any way to get there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Synapsepilot Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 In the case of the moon, we know water exists there, and that there are supposedly titanium ore reserves on the moon. Titanium is an excellent material for building spaceships, so possilbly the moon could serve as a sort of shipyard one day in the future. http://www.space.com...r-titanium.html Some have advocated that the first voyage to Mars should establish a small permanent colony, meaning the first mission would be a one way trip. The colony would be further supplied by additional launches. Eventually the colony would gain additional buildings and maybe underground facilities. Now why not do something like this? This would be very similiar to the early colonization of the North American continent. http://www.pcmag.com...,2405162,00.asp One of the major problems of space colonization is finding a powerful enough space ship to get anyone anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. This ship would also need a system for supplying gravity, as bone degenration could be a problem if it is a long voyage without gravity . We could possibly do this by means of a nuclear pulsed propulsion spaceship (Project Orion). It is powerful enough to launch several thousand tons of stuff into space, on a single stage from surface to orbit.However, I don't think a spaceship powered by exploding nuclear war heads would sit well with the public. We could also try space elevators, which may solve some problems of a safe and relativly cheap way of delivering heavy payloads to space. http://en.wikipedia....lear_propulsion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vy'drach Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Some have advocated that the first voyage to Mars should establish a small permanent colony, meaning the first mission would be a one way trip. The colony would be further supplied by additional launches. Eventually the colony would gain additional buildings and maybe underground facilities. Now why not do something like this? This would be very similiar to the early colonization of the North American continent. However, when the North American continent was settled, they were settling a hospitable and fertile land, and they still wouldn't of survived if not for the Native Americans. Then there's the matter of North America having everything the settlers needed. Lumber for building, air to breath, game to hunt, water to drink, fish to catch, land to grow crops, etc. etc. The moon, or mars or whatever planet you'd like, wouldn't have that. It'd be a bunch of "settlers" living in a dome at best, solely dependent on supplies from Earth. Best case scenario they might have a meager way to generate things such as food and filtering air without disposable filters, but that'd only provide a cushion at best for late arrival of the supplies. If a supply ship gets lost, they'd have to seriously ration in order to survive to the next one, and if it happened to get lost twice in a row, they're screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sroberson Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Sadly, the writing is already on the wall on the future of space. Just another battlefield. But beside that fact. I used to be a big believer of space colonization because I saw it as a solution to the issues caused by overpopulation - then I realized that if the population were just decreased problems would go away (No, not suggesting genocide, I support antinatalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism). I usually don't consider the issue of The Great Filter, or human extinction because I believe that much is inevitable whether it be because of genetic decay, mutation, or because we vaporize each other with H bombs. Financially, and even physically, I see colonization on the moon (the most likely first candidate) to be nearly impossible for a long time to come....despite all of this, I think it would be neat to colonize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusakov Posted June 27, 2012 Author Share Posted June 27, 2012 I found this today. https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/get-humans-mars-within-decade-funding-mars-direct-plan/yVrbPtpt?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 My thoughts? it's necessary. We are about to cross a point in where the Earth won't be able to recover from all the resources we, humans, consume, so to keep our species going, we need to look outside our backyard. At any rate, like it or not, the Earth is doomed, be it mankind, our sun dying, etc, etc. Though, I still believe this goes out of our lifetime. While yeah, having huge space stations and throwing a man-mission to mars seems doable on the next decades, I don't think that "true" colonization will happen anytime soon. Having a unified Earth would speed the process of building up enough resources to get this going for real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sroberson Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 My thoughts? it's necessary. We are about to cross a point in where the Earth won't be able to recover from all the resources we, humans, consume, so to keep our species going, we need to look outside our backyard. At any rate, like it or not, the Earth is doomed, be it mankind, our sun dying, etc, etc. Fortunately, the only galactic catastrophes in the forseeable future are as many as millions of years away. The sun with eventually expand to a point where it consumes Earth and a collision of our galaxy with Andromeda is even further away from that. I believe the first things to take care of is the human race destroying itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RougetheBat4Real Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Colonization, fine. Weaponization, dangerous. My sister ought to know. She had a brother in-law who had the ability to remote view the future. You would never believe what she saw. There was a big city that had been destroyed, all that was left was rubble. In the midst of it was a sign that read: "Welcome to Genocide City Zone" Not funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vy'drach Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Colonization, fine. Weaponization, dangerous. My sister ought to know. She had a brother in-law who had the ability to remote view the future. You would never believe what she saw. There was a big city that had been destroyed, all that was left was rubble. In the midst of it was a sign that read: "Welcome to Genocide City Zone" Not funny. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RougetheBat4Real Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 BOOYAH! Gotcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thu'um Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Colonization, fine. Weaponization, dangerous. My sister ought to know. She had a brother in-law who had the ability to remote view the future. You would never believe what she saw. There was a big city that had been destroyed, all that was left was rubble. In the midst of it was a sign that read: "Welcome to Genocide City Zone" Not funny. i need space colonization to seperate me from this :hehe: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gestalt Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 The moon, or mars or whatever planet you'd like, wouldn't have that. It'd be a bunch of "settlers" living in a dome at best, solely dependent on supplies from Earth. Best case scenario they might have a meager way to generate things such as food and filtering air without disposable filters, but that'd only provide a cushion at best for late arrival of the supplies. If a supply ship gets lost, they'd have to seriously ration in order to survive to the next one, and if it happened to get lost twice in a row, they're screwed. They propose polluting the atmosphere of mars to counter this. That way over time it will come to be more like ours...something that holds the good stuff(oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen) in and keeps the bad stuff (the sun's radiation) out. Fast foward a few more decades...In theory we've got an artificial enviroment that could hold coulds of parcipitation and sustain plant life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thu'um Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 on a serious note, i think we lack the capablility to do any serious right now, mabye towords the end of my life time..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Synapsepilot Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 We have the know-how of how to set up major outposts on the moon and beyond, we have had it since the height of the space race. Take a look at Project Orion and NERVA, these would have provided the space engines necessary for the establishment and resupply of large colonies. The Army had a plan for setting up bases on the moon, called horizon lunar base (granted it would have had military purposes rather than mankind's peaceful expansion into space). And there were other proposals mostly utilizing modified Apollo equipment. Werner Von Braun was thinking up giant space stations complete with artificial gravity in the early fifties (remember those giant wheel shaped space stations?). These bases would have been the first step towards larger colonies. Right now, I can not imagine the same enviroment that helped stimulate the development of such ambitious space projects in such a short time. The Apollo program had to put a man on the moon in under ten years, it was thought of as crazy at the beginning of the program then, putting a man on the moon in under ten years today seems nearly impossible. As said above, we probably will not see anything serious for a while... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gestalt Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Yes a project of this magnitude is way past billions and even trillions of dollars. Such a movenment would require more recourses than one country could provide. It would probably take an entire global task force to colonize the moon alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geo Stelar Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 I found time for roaming the site as a guest and saw this topic. I'm not back yet, but this topic really made me think I need to post what I think. Consider this. look at Earth. it is never too late, but nobody knows when the earth will eventually die due to numerous human activities that destroy the environment. and then the space colonization. it sounds a nice idea but for me we should think less about space colonization. if we can't help heal our own planet right now then what more the other places in space? with foreign terrain and atmosphere at that? I think we should focus on helping Earth heal itself first because if we can't help it survive, or heal, then we can not live long in space. correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not sure whether I'm gonna be able to post here anyways, because this took already much of the little free time i have. lol. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts