Arctic Sea Ice : Forum

AGW in general => Policy and solutions => Topic started by: ArcticMelt1 on December 19, 2018, 08:02:53 PM

Title: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt1 on December 19, 2018, 08:02:53 PM
As you know, the main problem in stopping global warming is the overpopulation of the planet. An attempt to make the life of all earthlings worthy will lead to the rapid collapse of the planet's biosphere. In this regard, in all villains of action movies the beat how reduce the population of the Earth. For example, in the films "Moon Racer" and "Agent Kingsman". But of course the repetition of the work of Adolf Hitler is doomed to failure. In this regard, in any case, the world economy will move along the “business as usual” path. Obviously, this development will lead the biosphere and the climate system to a complete collapse. Probably come true the recent forecast of Stephen Hawking.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/07/stephen-hawking-humans-will-turn-earth-into-a-giant-ball-of-fire-by-2600.html

Quote
Humans will turn the planet into a giant ball of fire by the year 2600, said physicist Stephen Hawking.

Overcrowding and energy consumption will render Earth uninhabitable in just a few centuries, Hawking said via video on Sunday at the Tencent WE Summit in Beijing.

The scenario of turning the Earth into Venus is obvious. The rapid melting of glaciers will lead to destabilization of tectonic plates, huge gas emissions from the mantle and evaporation of the oceans.

In this regard, there is a need to create space colonies for the salvation of mankind. How many people can put such a colony?

For example, Elon Mask believes that he can take on Mars about a million colonists.

In general, in your opinion, can you save people in space colonies? And how many?
Title: Re: How many people can fit in a space dinghy?
Post by: TerryM on December 19, 2018, 08:50:41 PM
Zero was not an option?


We've tried at least twice in domes here on earth. Why would we be more successful in space - or on Mars?
Terry
Title: Re: How many people can fit in a space dinghy?
Post by: ArcticMelt1 on December 19, 2018, 08:54:47 PM
We've tried at least twice in domes here on earth. Why would we be more successful in space - or on Mars?
Terry

The failures of experiments with the artificial biosphere in theory can be explained by the lack of funding.

Now the chances of creating space colonies have increased significantly. There are reusable rockets, which will reduce the cost of launching rockets into space.
Title: Re: How many people can fit in a space dinghy?
Post by: TerryM on December 19, 2018, 09:24:21 PM
We've tried at least twice in domes here on earth. Why would we be more successful in space - or on Mars?
Terry

The failures of experiments with the artificial biosphere in theory can be explained by the lack of funding.

Now the chances of creating space colonies have increased significantly. There are reusable rockets, which will reduce the cost of launching rockets into space.
Reusable rockets have been around for a long time, they just haven't proved to be efficient.
Didn't a hanger roof finally collapse on an old Soviet model a few years back?
Terry
Title: Re: How many people can fit in a space dinghy?
Post by: ArcticMelt1 on December 19, 2018, 09:41:49 PM
Reusable rockets have been around for a long time, they just haven't proved to be efficient.

This happened because few rockets were launched into space.

If the greenhouse and tectonic catastrophe becomes obvious to the majority, then this should allow a sharp increase in funding for the creation of space colonies. Then reusable rockets will be very useful. In addition, there are many ideas for the development of space tourism.
Title: Re: How many people can fit in a space dinghy?
Post by: Neven on December 19, 2018, 09:47:44 PM
How about changing the title of this thread, and then explain in what way this is a policy and/or solution?
Title: Re: How many people can fit in a space dinghy?
Post by: ArcticMelt1 on December 19, 2018, 09:54:33 PM
How about changing the title of this thread, and then explain in what way this is a policy and/or solution?

How is the best to rename a topic?

The solution in the thread suggested by Stephen Hawking.

https://futurism.com/stephen-hawking-humans-must-leave-earth-within-600-years

Quote
Professor Stephen Hawking isn’t afraid to state his opinion bluntly and honestly. He has publicly expressed his fears about the future of artificial intelligence (AI), the need for a new Space Age, the serious realities of global warming, how we might reach another Solar System, and that, as a species, humans must leave Earth in order to survive.

Hawking has previously stated that our time on Earth is limited to 100 years, after originally estimating 1,000 years. But, in a new announcement in a video presentation this past Sunday, November 5th at the Tencent Web Summit in Beijing, he gave the human species less than 600 years before we will need to leave Earth, according to the British newspaper The Sun.

Earlier in the year, Hawking said that: “We are running out of space and the only places to go to are other worlds. It is time to explore other solar systems. Spreading out may be the only thing that saves us from ourselves. I am convinced that humans need to leave Earth.”

A major concern of Hawking, and others, is that climate change is already causing rapid sea level rise. It is possible that, if this progression isn’t diminished by a cut in emissions, a significant percentage of what is currently land will be under water. (This is, of course, in addition to the other life-threatening effects of climate change.) Additionally, as this continues, populations are set to continue increasing, which could have disastrous consequences. Hawking is confident that within the next few hundred years, Earth will no longer be a habitable option for humans.
Title: Re: How many people can fit in a space dinghy?
Post by: Neven on December 19, 2018, 10:00:12 PM
How is the best to rename a topic?

The best way to rename a topic, is go to your opening post by clicking 'Modify' and then just change the subject title. I can also do it for you. A better title will attract more discussants.

Something like 'Spreading homo sapiens to other planets'. That's not a solution to AGW, but it is a potential prevention of extinction.

I think that within a few centuries of humans spreading to Mars, we'll have our first Solar System War, with such fierce weapons being employed, that both planets get wiped out.  ;)
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt1 on December 19, 2018, 10:03:47 PM
Ok, renamed the topic.
Title: Re: Re: How many people can fit in a space dinghy?
Post by: gerontocrat on December 19, 2018, 10:07:40 PM
Re: How many people can fit in a space dinghy?

A lot more if they are all dead.


Quote
The rapid melting of glaciers will lead to destabilization of tectonic plates, huge gas emissions from the mantle and evaporation of the oceans.


Who says?
Title: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt1 on December 19, 2018, 10:26:09 PM
Who says?

This option follows from the following facts:

1) The amount of carbon in the mantle is on many orders of magnitude greater than in the atmosphere or the crust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon#Occurrence

Quote
It has been estimated that the solid earth as a whole contains 730 ppm of carbon, with 2000 ppm in the core and 120 ppm in the combined mantle and crust.[55] Since the mass of the earth is 5.972×1024 kg, this would imply 4360 million gigatonnes of carbon. This is much more than the amount of carbon in the oceans or atmosphere (below).

In combination with oxygen in carbon dioxide, carbon is found in the Earth's atmosphere (approximately 810 gigatonnes of carbon) and dissolved in all water bodies (approximately 36,000 gigatonnes of carbon). Around 1,900 gigatonnes of carbon are present in the biosphere. Hydrocarbons (such as coal, petroleum, and natural gas) contain carbon as well. Coal "reserves" (not "resources") amount to around 900 gigatonnes with perhaps 18,000 Gt of resources.[56] Oil reserves are around 150 gigatonnes. Proven sources of natural gas are about 175×1012 cubic metres (containing about 105 gigatonnes of carbon), but studies estimate another 900×1012 cubic metres of "unconventional" deposits such as shale gas, representing about 540 gigatonnes of carbon.[57]


2) Melting glaciers increase seismic activity.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/167/1/012018/pdf
An Enhanced Seismic Activity Observed Due To Climate Change: Preliminary Results from Alaska

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-correlation-of-seismic-activity-and-recent-global-warming-2157-7617-1000345.php?aid=72728
Quote
This study will show that increasing seismic activity for the globe’s high geothermal flux areas (HGFA), an indicator of increasing geothermal forcing, is highly correlated with average global temperatures from 1979 to 2015 (r = 0.785).


3) The level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is close to historical highs in the entire geological history of the Earth.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2513.0;attach=113141;image)
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: sidd on December 19, 2018, 10:57:26 PM
1) Predictions of doom from increased seismicity due to glacier melt must first contend with the fact that this did not occur during MIS5e or 11.

2) I note that CO2 content is now around 400 ppb. Whether this is close to 2000 ppb manifest in the geological record probably depends on the definition of "close."

sidd
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: gerontocrat on December 19, 2018, 11:12:15 PM
Who says?
This option follows from the following facts:

2) Melting glaciers increase seismic activity.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/167/1/012018/pdf
An Enhanced Seismic Activity Observed Due To Climate Change: Preliminary Results from Alaska

Yes. But the paper referred to points to increased earthquake and volcanic activity that correlates well with ice loss, and predicts that will continue. Sounds very likely.

It does not predict "destabilization of tectonic plates, huge gas emissions from the mantle and evaporation of the oceans". That sounds like a Hollywood disaster movie script.

And Stephen Hawking's prediction of an earth transformed into Venus by 2600 ?
I am sorry, but I can find no link to a science paper on this.

And that is definitely all I'm going to say about that
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt1 on December 19, 2018, 11:21:12 PM
1) Predictions of doom from increased seismicity due to glacier melt must first contend with the fact that this did not occur during MIS5e or 11.

In theory, this can be explained that no large tectonic faults under the melting largest glaciers of the northern hemisphere (Labrador, Scandinavian and Greenland).

Now the situation is opposite. Large faults were found under both parts of Antarctica.

(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55315cdae4b03d5a7f6f23e1/t/557204cbe4b00808365f0295/1433535693148/Research+20_Image1.png)

http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/383/1/1#ref-85

Quote
Black dashed lines denote the East Antarctic Rift System (Ferraccioli et al. 2011)

GSM - Gamburtsev Subglacial Mountains
LV - Lake Vostok

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2520.0;attach=113133;image)


In this regard, the melting of Antarctica is much more dangerous than the melting of the northern ice sheets.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: sidd on December 19, 2018, 11:47:24 PM
Quite a bit of WAIS melted during MIS5e (and 11). So why no catastrophe then ?

In fact at the last deglaciation WAIS retreated more than we see today, and then readvanced to the point we see today ...

This discussion should be on one of the antarctica threads.

sidd
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt1 on December 19, 2018, 11:52:04 PM
WAIS melted during MIS5e (and 11). So why no catastrophe then ?

sidd

Possible then there was a too low rate of increase in the amount of greenhouse gases.

Now the level of CO2 is growing at almost cosmic speed. In just a few decades, from a maximum in the last 100 thousand years to a maximum in the last 20 million years.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Ken Feldman on December 19, 2018, 11:58:00 PM
Here's a link to a very entertaining article on Elon Musk's project to colonize Mars:

https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colonize-mars.html (https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colonize-mars.html)

Personally, I don't think it will work because of the radiation received during the 8 month trip and on the surface of Mars.  I voted for less than a 1000.  I just don't see how they'll set up a sustainable environment for producing food to feed the colonists.

And even with the worst predicted impacts of climate change anticipated in the next few centuries, Earth will be far more pleasant to live on than Mars or any other space colony.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: oren on December 20, 2018, 02:52:33 AM
Discussion of mantle carbon and tectonics etc. don't belong in this subject thread IMHO.
About human colonization of space/other planets as a solution to climate change, overcrowding and carrying capacity issues, I believe that a humanity too stupid/weak-willed to avoid these long-term catastrophies will also be too stupid to colonize space successfully, a much harder endeavor than covering the globe with solar panels and curbing human procreation.
So the only space colonization efforts, if any, will be private projects on a limited scale, with low chances of long-term viability. Terry's zero is probably the best answer, but in the context of the poll less than a thousand I guess.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Archimid on December 20, 2018, 03:24:44 AM
If humanity can control climate change and can successfully adapt to climate change, colonization of other planets is almost inevitable. Sadly, climate change may not allow the prosperity required to start colonizing space. Thus the idea of space colonies to save a sample of humans is not realistic.
We defeat climate change and continue our journey through the universe or climate change defeats us.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Bruce Steele on December 20, 2018, 03:50:00 AM
Seems like discussing ghosts or ancient aliens. There are plenty of shows on TV that pose as science dealing with similar issues . Talking about space colonies is about as useful. Junk and intended to distract.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt1 on December 20, 2018, 08:07:42 AM
About human colonization of space/other planets as a solution to climate change, overcrowding and carrying capacity issues, I believe that a humanity too stupid/weak-willed to avoid these long-term catastrophies will also be too stupid to colonize space successfully, a much harder endeavor than covering the globe with solar panels and curbing human procreation.

In theory, you may be right. If people can develop cheap carbon disposal technology, then we can terraform Venus. The only question is how much time does mankind have for solving the problem of climate change. If we do not have time to solve these problems or at least minimize them, then we can share the fate of dinosaurs.

Plus obviously more effort is needed to explore Venus. This is necessary for a better understanding of the catastrophic degassing that took place there. In recent years, appear discoveries on Venus of possible traces of the ancient ocean and plate tectonics.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: TerryM on December 20, 2018, 03:29:52 PM
Seems like discussing ghosts or ancient aliens. There are plenty of shows on TV that pose as science dealing with similar issues . Talking about space colonies is about as useful. Junk and intended to distract.


Ramen!
Terry
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt1 on December 20, 2018, 04:05:56 PM
I would not say that astronautics is not a serious matter. Probably only space technology will save the Earth from the greenhouse catastrophe. For example, the deployment on of near-earth orbit huge screens that will reduce the flow of solar radiation and cool the earth's surface.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: TerryM on December 20, 2018, 04:08:43 PM
o
I would not say that astronautics is not a serious matter. Probably only space technology will save the Earth from the greenhouse catastrophe. For example, the deployment on of near-earth orbit huge screens that will reduce the flow of solar radiation and cool the earth's surface.
-and render PV panels obsolete. :P
Terry
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt1 on December 20, 2018, 04:10:41 PM
o
I would not say that astronautics is not a serious matter. Probably only space technology will save the Earth from the greenhouse catastrophe. For example, the deployment on of near-earth orbit huge screens that will reduce the flow of solar radiation and cool the earth's surface.
-and render PV panels obsolete. :P
Terry

This option can be used when the terrestrial biosphere and civilization will be on the verge of destruction.

It is much better than spraying aerosols in the atmosphere, as it does not pollute the atmosphere with harmful substances.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: mitch on December 20, 2018, 06:16:30 PM
Orbiting sun screens will play hell with photosynthesis. The aerosols are relatively benign and much cheaper than space junk.

 Also, the cost of terraforming earth after the fossil fuel crisis will probably be about a million times cheaper than terraforming another planet in the solar system. 
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Bruce Steele on December 20, 2018, 08:13:55 PM
Aerosol spaying or space mirrors won't fix ocean acidification either. My guess is we will probably try to use both and continue to burn fossil fuels all the while.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: johnm33 on December 20, 2018, 11:39:59 PM
There's plenty of space in deserts next to cool seawater which would be much easier to colonise.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: NeilT on December 21, 2018, 12:05:17 AM
I think the whole premise around whether or not we can have a colony on Mars is based on some very loose assumptions.

First anyone who goes to colonise Mars is not going to be some hedonistic waster who thinks that they can just idle away their time and "have fun".  Colonists are going to be regimented, organised and extremely dedicated.

It is quite clear that until Mars has sufficient atmosphere, any colony on Mars will have to live under the surface, just as it will have to on the Moon.  So whilst Radiation will be a day to day issue, most of the living will be done in underground and radiation proof, habitats, shortly after the colonists arrive.

Thinking about that, you might want to revisit the efforts of Elon Musk with his Boring company and the way in which he is both making tunnels and also building materials in one go.

We have already reached the point where we can achieve sustainable life off our planet.  Unless we destroy ourselves in the next 50 years or so it is inevitable that we will leave our planet and start to explore/colonise other planets in the solar system.  We will go chasing adventure/fortune/fame/resources.  But we will go.

So now it is a race.  Our own destruction of our planet, or our own ability to reach the stars.

My take?  We could do it right now, we just don't have the incentive.  A choice between certainly dying on Earth and, maybe, dying on Mars?  There will be plenty of takers for that one.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Archimid on December 21, 2018, 02:23:33 AM
If self sustaining underground cities can survive in mars, they can certainly survive climate change on Earth.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: b_lumenkraft on December 21, 2018, 10:04:43 AM
Big projects take a lot of planning. Plannings take a lot of time.

To build a new power plant it takes 10-20 years. To build a new car it takes 5-10 years.

A project as the colonisation of another planet would take a very long time. Since we haven't done it yet, no one can say how long exactly, but i would say 50-100 years is optimistic.

Do we even have so much time?
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: TerryM on December 21, 2018, 12:46:37 PM
If self sustaining underground cities can survive in mars, they can certainly survive climate change on Earth.
Ramen!
Terry
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: kassy on December 21, 2018, 02:32:01 PM
If anyone was to be serious about this project the logical first step would be to build a base on the moon and practice there.

One thing that fascinates me is that what you eat influences the make up of the intestinal bacterial  genome.

So if you would build a base you would want to grow food there but how much ´earth/ground´ do you take up there? Plants also live in combination with soil bacteria, fungi etc.

It would be interesting to see a comparison from before launch/at arrival/couple of years after that.

Basically the colonists would be in a quite poor environment and i wonder what that will do in the long run (don´t expect to ever see the paper though).
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: oren on December 21, 2018, 03:17:49 PM
If anyone was to be serious about this project the logical first step would be to build a base on the moon and practice there.
A key difference is that the moon lacks water, which is to be found in the martian poles IIRC.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: magnamentis on December 21, 2018, 04:27:56 PM
Plannings take a lot of time.
To build a new power plant it takes 10-20 years. To build a new car it takes 5-10 years.

ever been in china let's say in 2-3 years cycles, planning does not have to take so much time as we afford the luxury in some places nowadays and whenever it was necessary, things were simply done and not even that badly.

this does not contradict the meaning of your post about having to hurry up but that part has to be relativated ( is relative )

nice weekend @all
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt1 on December 21, 2018, 04:41:39 PM
If self sustaining underground cities can survive in mars, they can certainly survive climate change on Earth.

It is doubtful. If the Earth's atmosphere as a result of a tectonic catastrophe warms up to 100-200 degrees Celsius, then it will be much easier to survive on Mars than in Earth's bunkers. Cooling technologies are much more complex than warming technologies. For example, you can compare how long the landing missions on Venus and Mars worked.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: kassy on December 21, 2018, 05:02:07 PM
If the Daleks took over Earth it would be easier on Mars too.

Both scenarios are equally likely....
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Bruce Steele on December 21, 2018, 05:06:37 PM
ArcticMelt, Again your proposed volcanic induced 100-200 degrees Celsius is pure conjecture . Yes former extinction events may have been triggered by volcanism , the Siberian traps and the Permian event but the CO2 release was ostensibly due to vast coal seams that overplayed the area of volcanism. 
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt1 on December 21, 2018, 05:18:57 PM
If the Daleks took over Earth it would be easier on Mars too.

Both scenarios are equally likely....

Unfortunately, a catastrophic option cannot be ruled out. The nearest planet to us is very similar to Earth in size and mass. Now there are many works that suggest the existence of life and oceans on Venus in the past. It cannot be ruled out that there once was also a rational civilization, which destroyed both itself and the planet.

Probably now terrestrial civilization burns carbon more rapidly than during any eruptions of the supervolcanoes in the entire geological history of the Earth. Therefore, dangerous consequences for tectonic plates are possible.

For example, recent work.

Quote
Journal of Earth Science and Engineering 4 (2013) 1-53
Anthropogenic Earth-Change: We are on a Slippery Slope, Breaking New Ground and It’s Our Fault—A Multi-Disciplinary Review and New Unified Earth-System Hypothesis
C. Allen

Received: January 01, 2014 / Accepted: January 12, 2014 / Published: January 25, 2014

Abstract: Human activity could be changing the Earth’s foundations themselves, as we affect multiple systems interacting in feedback mechanisms changing the atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, biosphere, and even the lithosphere (solid surface) and asthenosphere (deformable semi-molten rock layer beneath). Anthropogenic movement of ice, water and sediment alters viscosity and movement of the asthenosphere; this induces earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanism and rifting, and may induce plate-tectonic-change. These processes may account for the timing of unexplained contemporary Icelandic, New Zealand, Chilean, Japanese and Indonesian seismicity, volcanism and magma movement. Climate-change and sea-level rise are creating: slip-planes from differential water pore-pressures and/or weakening of previous fault-planes; sediment-change and altered hydrology and reservoir-mass, inducing isostasy and further change in pore-pressure. Loss of plant biomass and diversity alter hydrology, precipitation and transpiration, causing isostasy and further sediment- and climate-change. Increased ocean-mass, temperatures and acidity, reduced oceanic oxygenation, and increased transport of (organic) sediments elevate the production and destabilisation of gas-hydrates, causing slumps and tsunamis. Isostasy and altered viscosity of the asthenosphere increase seismicity, slope and faulting, which are the prime triggers for slumping and tsunamis.
Altered asthenosphere flows hasten subduction and rifting landward of subduction, enhancing volcanism. All of these processes predominantly coincide, temporally and spatially, in the coasts and continental margins, and the Pacific ring-of-fire, although response times and extents may vary from immediate to multi-millennial scales and from negligible to catastrophic. Contemporary Icelandic seismic and volcanic activity is explained by depleted magma reserves on the north-western side of the mid-ocean ridge as asthenosphere moves from the constructive boundary under deglaciating and rising Greenland.

Key words: Anthropogenic climate-change, volcanism, tectonism, vegetation-change, sedimentation, isostasy.

Several charts from there
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: gerontocrat on December 21, 2018, 05:37:25 PM
If the Daleks took over Earth it would be easier on Mars too.
Wrong. The Daleks are already on Mars.

H.G. Wells book "The War of the Worlds" was based on a kernel of truth, but the microbes got the Daleks before they could do much damage. But what do you think really triggered the Krakatoa explosion? The truth is hidden in the archives of "The Deep State".

Honest Injun!

Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: crandles on December 21, 2018, 06:04:41 PM

It is doubtful. If the Earth's atmosphere as a result of a tectonic catastrophe warms up to 100-200 degrees Celsius, then it will be much easier to survive on Mars than in Earth's bunkers. Cooling technologies are much more complex than warming technologies. For example, you can compare how long the landing missions on Venus and Mars worked.

What is this "tectonic catastrophe"?

So far, I have seen a link to large quantities of carbon in the crust and mantle.

Much of this carbon is in solid form. Also 'Rock weathering' results in carbon being removed from atmosphere into solids. Yes, heat up these solid compounds with lava and throw it through atmosphere and some may well end up being oxidised to CO2. However Earth has been through lots of cycles of significantly increased volcanoes like yellowstone eruptions. AFAIK none of these have increased temperatures by anything like 100+ degrees celcius in the last couple of billion years.

So are you talking about something that has less probability than 1 in a billion in any given year?

If so? Yawn. If you think it is much more probable, then I am sceptical.

edit: maybe a couple of billion is pushing it a little but range over last 500 million years appears to be only about 20C:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png/800px-All_palaeotemps.png)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: TerryM on December 21, 2018, 10:13:52 PM
I think we'd need to boil off the oceans to reach anything like those temperatures.
Terry
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: sidd on December 21, 2018, 10:50:40 PM
Even the dino killer didn't boil off the oceans ...

sidd
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: crandles on December 22, 2018, 12:00:37 AM
Lethal levels of CO2 are about 84,000 ppm so about 200 times the current level. That only takes 8 doublings of the CO2 level and with climate sensitivity of 2-5C per doubling that would give warming of 16C to 40C. Therefore, it looks like we should worry about lethal CO2 levels before we worry about 100C temp rise.

And to get to 100C temp rise, getting to 100% CO2 atmosphere at current pressure levels is not enough so we would need to significantly increase the amount of gases around Earth to achieve that so there may well be a few other issues before reaching that 100C temp rise.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: NeilT on December 22, 2018, 12:41:13 AM
A key difference is that the moon lacks water, which is to be found in the martian poles IIRC.

The more important key fact is that the moon lacks an atmosphere.  One of the calculations by "scientists" was that, with the proposed systems, the habitats would suffer oxygen levels incompatible with life.

On mars you bottle the oxygen and let in some CO2.  On the Moon you have to fix the balance as you have no CO2 to let in.

The moon may be closer and cheaper to get to and easier to extract colonists from or even exchange people with, but with the impact of 1/6th G on musculature, no atmosphere and virtually no water, plus the same radiation issue as Mars (or more), the Moon is orders of magnitude harder to keep a permanent habitat.

Mars may be further away, hard to get to, more expensive to get to, but the climate is significantly more conducive to life than the Moon.

Also, yes, people could live underground on the Earth.  But would the rest of the planet simply let them live a comfortable life when they were all dying above ground?  Our species is pretty self destructive.  Mars gives distance from the "madding crowd" as well as challenges.

The point is fairly simple.  So long as the human race only lives on the third rock from the sun, it is possible that the whole species can be wiped out in one catastrophic event.  Once we go beyond the bounds of a single planet, that is no longer a consideration.

It just depends on how you look at it.  Species or cost or person.
Title: Re: How many people can fit in a space dinghy?
Post by: litesong on December 22, 2018, 04:13:04 AM
I think that within a few centuries of humans spreading to Mars, we'll have our first Solar System War, with such fierce weapons being employed, that both planets get wiped out.  ;)
That's what I believe..... & without the smiley face.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on December 22, 2018, 04:14:23 AM
Why is ZERO not an option? Humans probably can't live very far AT ALL away from earth. There are no verifiable examples of humans going beyond 300 miles from earth...(and here we go: yes, I am saying that the moon landings are not verifiable...they are not repeatable...the Nixon admin is renowned for lying...NASA claims to have lost/recorded over the original tapes...and no one has gone since the Nixon admin despite our technology drastically improving in every relevant realm.) There is all sorts of magnetic/electric/gravitational stuff that we have evolved here with. If we try to leave, and I mean even a single person, they will die. This is probably the case with every intelligent life form in the universe, which perfectly explains the Fermi Paradox. :P
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt1 on December 22, 2018, 11:19:10 AM
Why is ZERO not an option?

Ok, added.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt1 on December 22, 2018, 11:34:10 AM
So are you talking about something that has less probability than 1 in a billion in any given year?

In this regard, the fact that the atmosphere of Venus weighs 90 times more than the atmosphere of the Earth is very mysterious.

The atmosphere of Venus is as massive, which greatly slows the rotation of the planet. A recent example.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/120214-venus-planets-slower-spin-esa-space-science/

Quote
In the early 1990s scientists with NASA's Magellan mission calculated that a single rotation of Venus takes 243.015 Earth days, based on the speed of surface features passing beneath the orbiting spacecraft. But scientists now mapping Venus's surface with the European Space Agency's Venus Express orbiter were surprised to find the same features up to 12.4 miles (20 kilometers) from where they were expected to be, based on the previous measurements. According to the new data, Venus is rotating 6.5 minutes slower than it was 16 years ago, a result that's been found to correlate with long-term radar observations taken from Earth.

If over 16 years the period of rotation of Venus has slowed down by 6.5 minutes, then it can be calculated that the slowdown of the period of rotation of Venus from the earth day could happen in just 130 thousand years. This may mean that the tectonic catastrophe on Venus occurred relatively recently.

Unfortunately, Venus is studied very little. Everyone is trying to find a primitive life on a small and dry Mars. But probably seismic exploration and core drilling on Venus would be much more useful. This would solve the main mystery - why a planetary catastrophe occurred on Venus.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: oren on December 22, 2018, 12:28:38 PM
Quote
and here we go: yes, I am saying that the moon landings are not verifiable...they are not repeatable...the Nixon admin is renowned for lying...NASA claims to have lost/recorded over the original tapes...and no one has gone since the Nixon admin despite our technology drastically improving in every relevant realm.
GSY, you have fallen for the moon landing denial claptrap, very sad.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings)

No one has gone again simply because of a lack of political will to spend the required amounts and take the necessary risks. But maybe someone will soon - as a private endeavor. Thanks to the advancement of technology, costs have gone down significantly.
NASA has landed automated rovers that have been traveling for years on the surface of Mars, and still people believe it's impossible to land humans on the nearby moon for a few hours - a much easier undertaking.

What's next? Flat Earth? Chemtrails?
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Nemesis on December 22, 2018, 01:09:43 PM
What's all the fuzz about raising some funny flag on the moon 50 years ago? It was the cold war, it was about military domination of the orbit. Most of space exploration is rooted in military aspirations of some funny "superpowers" :)

What would the average Joe win from some funny men on funny Mars? Nothing. Funny gamez of the funny elite who fucked up the natural life-basis of mankind on Earth :)
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: crandles on December 22, 2018, 01:31:23 PM
This may mean that the tectonic catastrophe on Venus occurred relatively recently.

Why are you assuming that there was a "tectonic catastrophe" on Venus? I don't see why I should assume anything other than this is your hobby horse for which you have zero evidence.

Thick atmosphere does sound unusual but given that

Quote
The early Earth during the Hadean eon is believed by most scientists to have had a Venus-like atmosphere, with roughly 100 bar of CO2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#Evolution

perhaps it is not that surprising.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt1 on December 22, 2018, 01:54:14 PM
This may mean that the tectonic catastrophe on Venus occurred relatively recently.

Why are you assuming that there was a "tectonic catastrophe" on Venus?

Because Venus is much closer to the Sun than the Earth. In addition, there is no magnetic field on it. In this regard, it should lose the atmosphere much faster than the Earth.

The fact that Venus has a superdense atmosphere compared to the Earth is a very mysterious fact.

Recent studies suggest that in the past, ocean and life could exist on Venus.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-climate-modeling-suggests-venus-may-have-been-habitable

Quote
Venus may have had a shallow liquid-water ocean and habitable surface temperatures for up to 2 billion years of its early history, according to computer modeling of the planet’s ancient climate by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

Previous studies have shown that how fast a planet spins on its axis affects whether it has a habitable climate. A day on Venus is 117 Earth days. Until recently, it was assumed that a thick atmosphere like that of modern Venus was required for the planet to have today’s slow rotation rate. However, newer research has shown that a thin atmosphere like that of modern Earth could have produced the same result. That means an ancient Venus with an Earth-like atmosphere could have had the same rotation rate it has today.

In general, current knowledge suggests the similarity of the geology of Venus and the Earth.

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/venus/slide_40.html
Quote
This slide shows a comparison of rift zones on the three largest terrestrial planets. The Venus SAR image is of Devana Chasma as it runs from Theia Mons in the north to Phoebe Regio in the south. On Earth, digital topography and bathymetry are used to create this shaded relief portrayal of the East African rift system as it runs north and intersects at the Afar triple junction with the oceanic spreading centers of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. The Mars image is a Viking image mosaic of the Valles Marineris system.

Liquid water is needed to form rift tectonics.

But these are all hypotheses, because precisely the direct drilling of its surface can tell exactly about the geological past of Venus. Unfortunately, such a project will be extremely expensive and difficult. I fear that humanity will learn the terrible truth about Venus’s past too late to draw conclusions about the future of the Earth.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt1 on December 22, 2018, 02:46:18 PM
Quote
The early Earth during the Hadean eon is believed by most scientists to have had a Venus-like atmosphere, with roughly 100 bar of CO2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#Evolution

perhaps it is not that surprising.

There is an opposite opinion.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2713

Earth's air pressure 2.7 billion years ago constrained to less than half of modern levels

Quote
How the Earth stayed warm several billion years ago when the Sun was considerably fainter is the long-standing problem of the ‘faint young Sun paradox’. Because of negligible1 O2 and only moderate CO2 levels2 in the Archaean atmosphere, methane has been invoked as an auxiliary greenhouse gas3. Alternatively, pressure broadening in a thicker atmosphere with a N2 partial pressure around 1.6–2.4 bar could have enhanced the greenhouse effect4. But fossilized raindrop imprints indicate that air pressure 2.7 billion years ago (Gyr) was below twice modern levels and probably below 1.1 bar, precluding such pressure enhancement5. This result is supported by nitrogen and argon isotope studies of fluid inclusions in 3.0–3.5 Gyr rocks6. Here, we calculate absolute Archaean barometric pressure using the size distribution of gas bubbles in basaltic lava flows that solidified at sea level ∼2.7 Gyr in the Pilbara Craton, Australia. Our data indicate a surprisingly low surface atmospheric pressure of Patm = 0.23 ± 0.23 (2σ) bar, and combined with previous studies suggests ∼0.5 bar as an upper limit to late Archaean Patm. The result implies that the thin atmosphere was rich in auxiliary greenhouse gases and that Patm fluctuated over geologic time to a previously unrecognized extent.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on December 22, 2018, 02:55:19 PM
I can't believe there is genuine discussion on here about which other planet we could live on...as if it is a serious possibility. I understand as a purely theoretical sort of thing it might be fun to discuss, but colonizing another planet has about a 0.1% chance in any of our lifetimes. Mars, Venus, and the Moon are about 1000x less hospitable than Antarctica or Mount Everest or the Mariana Trench. Those who believe the Elon Musk line that "living on Mars is the easy part" are full blown delusional.

It took humans 65 years to get from the first powered flight to the "moon landing". In the 50 years since, we have regressed (or more likely no one ever went to the moon, but the point is simiilar). The idea that in the next 115 years we will not only but a person on other planets but colonize them is insane and totally unsupported by evidence.

People can't even live in enclosed systems here on earth for a sustained period of time! The best example being Biosphere 2, which is located in a place as conducive to easy living as possible (Oracle, AZ is prime from low tech passive structures). And they spent 4 years and hundreds of millions of dollars building the place. AND YET nobody is running closed-system experiments directly involving humans and they have not been for a quarter century because...it basically doesn't work.  As for the "Mars analog habitats", they are a total joke unless you happen to believe that Nunavut or Utah are analogous to Mars.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: crandles on December 22, 2018, 03:10:46 PM
Quote
The early Earth during the Hadean eon is believed by most scientists to have had a Venus-like atmosphere, with roughly 100 bar of CO2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus#Evolution

perhaps it is not that surprising.

There is an opposite opinion.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2713

Earth's air pressure 2.7 billion years ago constrained to less than half of modern levels

Quote
How the Earth stayed warm several billion years ago when the Sun was considerably fainter is the long-standing problem of the ‘faint young Sun paradox’. Because of negligible1 O2 and only moderate CO2 levels2 in the Archaean atmosphere, methane has been invoked as an auxiliary greenhouse gas3. Alternatively, pressure broadening in a thicker atmosphere with a N2 partial pressure around 1.6–2.4 bar could have enhanced the greenhouse effect4. But fossilized raindrop imprints indicate that air pressure 2.7 billion years ago (Gyr) was below twice modern levels and probably below 1.1 bar, precluding such pressure enhancement5. This result is supported by nitrogen and argon isotope studies of fluid inclusions in 3.0–3.5 Gyr rocks6. Here, we calculate absolute Archaean barometric pressure using the size distribution of gas bubbles in basaltic lava flows that solidified at sea level ∼2.7 Gyr in the Pilbara Craton, Australia. Our data indicate a surprisingly low surface atmospheric pressure of Patm = 0.23 ± 0.23 (2σ) bar, and combined with previous studies suggests ∼0.5 bar as an upper limit to late Archaean Patm. The result implies that the thin atmosphere was rich in auxiliary greenhouse gases and that Patm fluctuated over geologic time to a previously unrecognized extent.

>There is an opposite opinion.

My quote clearly suggest that it is "believed by most scientists" and therefore clearly allows the possibility of other opinions. However my quote was clearly about Hadean eon (4-4.6bn years ago) and you try to argue with something from 2.7 billion years ago which is towards end of Archean Eon. So it doesn't exactly refute what I said, does it.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt1 on December 22, 2018, 03:39:51 PM
As I understand it, it is only theoretically possible to judge the atmospheric pressure 4-4.5 billion years ago - sedimentary rocks with like age on Earth are simply not preserved. In this regard, recent studies of rocks with an age of about 3 billion years completely negate this opinion of the "majority". If 4 billion years ago there were very high atmospheric pressure, then it should have been higher than today and 3 billion years ago. However, recent studies do not confirm this.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt1 on December 22, 2018, 04:33:54 PM
Actually, Wikipedia provides a large number of alternatives to the superdense atmosphere of the ancient Earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox

Quote
The faint young Sun paradox or faint young Sun problem describes the apparent contradiction between observations of liquid water early in Earth's history and the astrophysical expectation that the Sun's output would be only 70 percent as intense during that epoch as it is during the modern epoch.

Quote
Greenhouse hypothesis[edit]
When it first formed, Earth's atmosphere may have contained more greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide concentrations may have been higher, with estimated partial pressure as large as 1,000 kPa (10 bar), because there was no bacterial photosynthesis to convert the CO2 gas to organic carbon and gaseous oxygen. Methane, a very active greenhouse gas that reacts with oxygen to produce carbon dioxide and water vapor, may have been more prevalent as well, with a mixing ratio of 10−4 (100 parts per million by volume).[9][10]

Based on a study of geological sulfur isotopes, in 2009 a group of scientists including Yuichiro Ueno from the Tokyo Institute of Technology proposed that carbonyl sulfide (OCS) was present in the Archean atmosphere. Carbonyl sulfide is an efficient greenhouse gas and the scientists estimate that the additional greenhouse effect would have been sufficient to prevent Earth from freezing over.[11]

Based on an "analysis of nitrogen and argon isotopes in fluid inclusions trapped in 3.0- to 3.5-billion-year-old hydrothermal quartz" a 2013 paper concludes that "dinitrogen did not play a significant role in the thermal budget of the ancient Earth and that the Archean partial pressure of CO2 was probably lower than 0.7 bar".[12] Burgess, one of the authors states "The amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere was too low to enhance the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide sufficiently to warm the planet. However, our results did give a higher than expected pressure reading for carbon dioxide – at odds with the estimates based on fossil soils – which could be high enough to counteract the effects of the faint young Sun and will require further investigation."[13] Also, in 2012-2016 the research by S.M. Som, based on the analysis of raindrop impressions and air bubbles trapped in ancient lavas, have further indicated a low atmospheric pressure below 1.1 bar and probably as low as 0.23 bar during an epoch 2.7 bn years from present.[14]

Following the initial accretion of the continents after about 1 billion years,[15] geo-botanist Heinrich Walter and others contend that a non-biological version of the carbon cycle provided a negative temperature feedback. The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere dissolved in liquid water and combined with metal ions derived from silicate weathering to produce carbonates. During ice age periods, this part of the cycle would shut down. Volcanic carbon emissions would then restart a warming cycle due to the greenhouse effect.[16][17]

According to the Snowball Earth hypothesis, there may have been a number of periods when Earth's oceans froze over completely. The most recent such period may have been about 630 million years ago.[18] Afterwards, the Cambrian explosion of new multicellular life forms started.

Quote
Greater radiogenic heat[edit]

The radiogenic heat from the decay of 4 isotopes affecting Earth's internal heat budget over time: 40K (yellow), 235U (red), 238U (green) and 232Th (violet). In the past the contribution from 40K and 235U was much higher and thus the overall radiogenic heat output was higher.
In the past, the geothermal release of decay heat, emitted from the decay of the isotopes potassium-40, uranium-235 and uranium-238 was considerably greater than it is today.[19] The figure to the right shows that the isotope ratio between uranium-238 and uranium-235 was also considerably different than it is today, with the ratio essentially equivalent to that of modern low-enriched uranium. Therefore, natural uranium ore bodies, if present, would have been capable of supporting natural nuclear fission reactors with common light water as its moderator. Any attempts to explain the paradox must therefore factor in both radiogenic contributions, both from decay heat and from any potential natural nuclear fission reactors.

The primary mechanism for Earth warming by radiogenic heat is not the direct heating (which contribute less than 0.1% to the total heat input even of early Earth) but rather the establishment of the high geothermal gradient of the crust, resulting in greater out-gassing rate and therefore the higher concentration of greenhouse gases in early Earth atmosphere. Additionally, a hotter deep crust would limit the water absorption by crustal minerals, resulting in a smaller amount of high-albedo land protruding from the early oceans, causing more solar energy to be absorbed.


Greater tidal heating[edit]
The Moon was much closer to Earth billions of years ago,[20] and therefore produced considerably more tidal heating.[21]

Alternatives[edit]

Phanerozoic Climate Change
A minority view, propounded by the Israeli-American physicist Nir Shaviv, uses climatological influences of solar wind, combined with a hypothesis of Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark for a cooling effect of cosmic rays, to explain the paradox.[22] According to Shaviv, the early Sun had emitted a stronger solar wind that produced a protective effect against cosmic rays. In that early age, a moderate greenhouse effect comparable to today's would have been sufficient to explain an ice-free Earth. Evidence for a more active early Sun has been found in meteorites.[23]

The temperature minimum around 2.4 billion years goes along with a cosmic ray flux modulation by a variable star formation rate in the Milky Way. The reduced solar impact later results in a stronger impact of cosmic ray flux (CRF), which is hypothesized to lead to a relationship with climatological variations.

An alternative model of solar evolution may explain the faint young Sun paradox. In this model, the early Sun underwent an extended period of higher solar wind output. This caused a mass loss from the Sun on the order of 5−10 percent over its lifetime, resulting in a more consistent level of solar luminosity (as the early Sun had more mass, resulting in more energy output than was predicted). In order to explain the warm conditions in the Archean era, this mass loss must have occurred over an interval of about one billion years. However, records of ion implantation from meteorites and lunar samples show that the elevated rate of solar wind flux only lasted for a period of 0.1 billion years. Observations of the young Sun-like star π1 Ursae Majoris matches this rate of decline in the stellar wind output, suggesting that a higher mass loss rate can not by itself resolve the paradox.[24]

Examination of Archaean sediments appears inconsistent with the hypothesis of high greenhouse concentrations. Instead, the moderate temperature range may be explained by a lower surface albedo brought about by less continental area and the "lack of biologically induced cloud condensation nuclei". This would have led to increased absorption of solar energy, thereby compensating for the lower solar output.[25]

On Mars[edit]
Usually, the faint young Sun paradox is framed in terms of Earth's paleoclimate. However, the issue also appears in the context of the climate on ancient Mars, where apparently liquid water was present, in significant amounts (hydrological cycle, lakes, rivers, rain, possibly seas and oceans), billions of years ago. Subsequently, significant liquid water disappeared from the surface of Mars. Presently, the surface of Mars is cold and dry. The variable solar output, assuming nothing else changed, would imply colder (and drier) conditions on Mars in the ancient past than they are today, apparently contrary to the empirical evidence from Mars exploration that suggest the wetter and milder past. An explanation of the faint young Sun paradox that could simultaneously account for the observations might be that the Sun shed mass through the solar wind, though sufficient rate of mass shedding is so far unsupported by stellar observations and models.[26]

An alternative possible explanation posits intermittent bursts of powerful greenhouse gases, like methane. Carbon dioxide alone, even at a pressure far higher than the current one, cannot explain temperatures required for presence of liquid water on early Mars.[27]
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt1 on December 22, 2018, 04:42:24 PM
There is also a hypothesis that a ocean on ancient Earth was formed as a result of meteorite bombardment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_early_Earth

Quote
Cool early Earth

The cool early Earth (CEE) theory posits that for part of the Hadean geological eon, at the beginning of Earth's history, it had a modest influx of bolides and a cool climate, allowing the presence of liquid water. This would have been after the extreme conditions of Earth's earliest history between 4.6 and 4.4 billion years (Ga) ago, but before the Late Heavy Bombardment of 4.1 to 3.8 Ga ago. In 2002 John Valley et al argued that detrital zircons found in Western Australia, dating to 4.0–4.4 Ga ago, were formed at relatively low temperatures, that meteorite impacts may have been less frequent than previously thought, and that Earth may have gone through long periods when liquid oceans and life were possible.[1]

In 2016 Gavin Kenny et al. replied to suggestions that zircons were formed by melting during tectonic subduction at plate boundaries, and argued that at least some of them were formed by meteorite impacts.[2]
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on December 22, 2018, 04:47:24 PM
Suggestions for further, mostly science-based, reading/viewing:

NatGeo‘s Mars series, now in season two. Much of the show is interviews with actual scientists and Mars researchers, and activists trying to save earth today.  The fictional Mars drama is good, but I wish they had knowledgeable consultants to guide their medical depictions.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/tv/mars/

Seveneves, by Neal Stephenson
Excerpt:
Quote
“We will have to do both,” the president said. “Go into space, and underground. Obviously the latter is easier.”
“Yes.”
“We can get to work building underground bunkers for . . .” and she caught herself before saying something impolitic. “For people to take refuge in.”
Doob didn’t say anything.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, “Dr. Harris, I’m an old logistics guy. I deal in stuff. How much stuff do we need to get underground? How many sacks of potatoes and rolls of toilet paper per occupant? I guess what I’m asking is, just how long is the Hard Rain going to last?”
Doob said, “My best estimate is that it will last somewhere between five thousand and ten thousand years.” …


The SpaceX Mars plan.
Musk:  “It will be like Shackleton’s ad for Antarctic explorers: ‘Difficult, dangerous, a good chance you’ll die, excitement for those who survive.’ That kind of thing.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/11/elon-musk-colonise-mars-third-world-war

https://www.inverse.com/article/51273-spacex-elon-musk-reveals-when-first-mars-colony-will-take-shape

http://www.visiontimes.com/2018/12/09/mars-colonization-comes-with-jobs-and-finance-options-for-tickets.html
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Nemesis on December 22, 2018, 05:08:06 PM
" “We can get to work building underground bunkers for . . .” and she caught herself before saying something impolitic. “For people to take refuge in.”

What kind of people will take refuge in underground bunkers? Sure, the money elite (and some servants):

https://youtu.be/BQtjZFUyvSA
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Nemesis on December 22, 2018, 05:17:12 PM
Well then, good luck to these folks trying to escape from their predicament...

"... Oh, I see dreams
I see visions
Images I don't understand
I see Goya's
Paranoias..."


https://youtu.be/wFClDUvHpCc
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: kassy on December 22, 2018, 06:09:10 PM
Quote
Now there are many works that suggest the existence of life and oceans on Venus in the past. It cannot be ruled out that there once was also a rational civilization, which destroyed both itself and the planet.

The transition to Venus´ Greenhouse climate is thought to have happened 4 billion years ago. It happened because the sun increases in luminosity year over year slowly warming up the planet.

And then it got hotter. Non need for tectonic catastrophes there and the chance of a rational civilization is zero.

You have a billion year time frame and it took half a billion years from first live to evolving photosynthesis. On Earth it took another billion years before the Great Oxygenation Event which allowed multicellular life to thrive.

Crandles in #43 shows why an event in the range you obsess about is not even possible.

(I am still undecided whether Alderaan would have hit 100C... )

PS: thanks NeilT for some good points on the moon.

 
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on December 23, 2018, 01:32:54 PM
...
The SpaceX Mars plan.
Musk:  “It will be like Shackleton’s ad for Antarctic explorers: ‘Difficult, dangerous, a good chance you’ll die, excitement for those who survive.’ That kind of thing.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/11/elon-musk-colonise-mars-third-world-war

https://www.inverse.com/article/51273-spacex-elon-musk-reveals-when-first-mars-colony-will-take-shape

http://www.visiontimes.com/2018/12/09/mars-colonization-comes-with-jobs-and-finance-options-for-tickets.html

In answer to the the poll question:  Musk envisions eventually 100 persons per ship — with 1,000 ships making the trip during the Earth-Mars rendezvous period every two years.  He figures a Mars population of one million is the minimum to be self-sustaining.

Musk had teased some changes to the most recent Starship design....  But last night he shocked us with new information on Twitter, and we now have pictures of the prototype Starship being built in Texas (the diameter of the real thing, but shorter in length)  which should begin “test hop” flights by next spring!

Quote
Elon Musk: I will do a full technical presentation of Starship after the test vehicle we’re building in Texas flies, so hopefully March/April
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1076608579652616192

<< Wait... March/April 2019!? This is much sooner than expected, yes!?

EM:  Yes
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1076608854643814400

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says Starship (BFS) hop tests could start in early 2019
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-ceo-elon-musk-starship-bfs-hop-tests-early-2019/
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: sesyf on December 23, 2018, 01:40:50 PM
Weeeelll... moon dust just got a lot more dangerous...

https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm18/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/440491

From New Scientist:

To estimate how many radicals would be produced in humans after exposure to lunar dust, Donald Hendrix at Stony Brook University, New York, and his colleagues took dust from two iron-rich minerals – olivine and augite – found on the moon, and soaked it in a liquid that simulates human lung fluid.

After 15 minutes, the two minerals had released about nine times more hydroxyl radicals per litre of fluid than quartz dust, which is highly toxic.

I do suspect that as we are adapted to our environment the very technical environment we would be forced to live in Moon and Mars (and also the gravity is weaker among other things) would be very problematic on many levels...
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Archimid on December 23, 2018, 02:17:37 PM
Quote
and also the gravity is weaker among other things

I wonder what evolutionary changes are required for humans to be perfectly adapted to a g/3 environment. Taller humans? Shorter humans? More or less dense humans? Would the proportions of extremities change to optimize movement? In a few thousand years we will know if left to nature.
Technologies like gene editing might hasten that process considerably.

Then, whether by way of nature or by way technology, we have to ask ourselves, are these Homo Sapiens? I don't think so. Then humans can't colonize the universe because H. sapiens will eventually evolve to match their environment. However, humans can spread life to an otherwise lifeless solar system. Maybe,eventually the stars.

But before we do that, we must solve climate change.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt1 on December 23, 2018, 03:39:20 PM
In answer to the the poll question:  Musk envisions eventually 100 persons per ship — with 1,000 ships making the trip during the Earth-Mars rendezvous period every two years.  He figures a Mars population of one million is the minimum to be self-sustaining.

Good news. It is hoped that by the end of the 21st century millions of people will live and work in space. This will be a good insurance against disasters on Earth.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Nemesis on December 25, 2018, 05:11:17 PM
Trump surely is on the side of Elon Musk, the saviour of the world, when it comes to colonialization of Mars:

" 18.6.2018 - Trump’s Space Force Is Almost a Real Thing
The president on Monday announced he has directed the Department of Defense to create a sixth branch of the military

... While contemplating the infinite frontier during a meeting with the National Space Council, the president announced the creation of the “Space Force,” a new branch of the military that will be tasked with handling extraterrestrial affairs. “I am hereby directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish a Space Force as the sixth branch of the armed forces,” Trump said...

Trump also continued to tout the prospect of a mission to Mars, which he is more than happy to leave in the hands of the Elon Musks of the world – or at least of America...

... Trump signed White House Space Policy Directive 1, which called for the United States to work with the private sector in an effort to put more men on the moon and, eventually, Mars. “The directive I am signing today will refocus America’s space program on human exploration and discovery,” Trump said at the time. “It marks a first step in returning American astronauts to the Moon for the first time since 1972, for long-term exploration and use. This time, we will not only plant our flag and leave our footprints – we will establish a foundation for an eventual mission to Mars, and perhaps someday, to many worlds beyond."

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trumps-space-force-is-almost-a-real-thing-665983/

Also quite interesting:

" Trump presidency 'opens door' to planet-hacking geoengineer experiments

As geoengineer advocates enter Trump administration, plans advance to spray sun-reflecting chemicals into atmosphere...

Within Republican ranks, former House speaker and Trump confidant Newt Gingrich was one of the first to start publicly advocating for geoengineering.

Within Republican ranks, former House speaker and Trump confidant Newt Gingrich was one of the first to start publicly advocating for geoengineering.

“Geoengineering holds forth the promise of addressing global warming concerns for just a few billion dollars a year,” he said in 2008, before helping launch a geoengineering unit while he ran the right-wing think tank American Economic Enterprise. “We would have an option to address global warming by rewarding scientific innovation. Bring on American ingenuity. Stop the green pig.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/mar/27/trump-presidency-opens-door-to-planet-hacking-geoengineer-experiments

See also:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/14/geoengineering-is-not-a-quick-fix-for-climate-change-experts-warn-trump

Sure, Trump denies fossil fuel induced climate heating publically (being heavily supported by the fossil fuel industry, who denied fossil fuel induced heating for many decades despite their very own contrary scientific findings too^^), so it makes sense to quit the Paris agreement and to bet on technical solutions for *none-existing* fossil fuel induced climate heating while striving for Mars :) Denying fossil fuel induced climate heating despite one's very own scientific findings? Well, that's a well known strategy of the fossil fuel industry, isn't it? Yes, it is and Trump's presidency fits perfectly into that scheme. And at the same time parts of the fossil fuel industry admit fossil fuel induced climate heating is real. Supporting both sides of the coin to maintain overall control is a well known strategy as old as Empire.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Nemesis on December 25, 2018, 07:08:24 PM
What's going on behind all the smoke and mirrors?

"Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex."

https://youtu.be/8y06NSBBRtY

There is the president of the US (like Eisenhower or Bush or Reagan, Clinton, Obama, Trump and what have you) and then there is the Pentagon (and the CIA and the NSA) and it's military force. What's the engine of the military industrial complex? Fossil fuel delivered by the fossil fuel industry (who knows the science about fossil fuel induced climate heating and who supported Trump). Remember Dick Cheney (weapons industry)? Remember Rex Tillerson (oil industry resp Exxon)?

Space colonialization? Star wars? Geo- resp climate engineering since Svante Arrhenius? Fossil fueled geopolitics? Admitting to fossil fueled climate heating, then denying it? Signing to Paris, then resigning from Paris? Many sides, but one coin.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on April 19, 2019, 04:40:42 AM
When I was a kid, I fervently believed we would live like Star Trek some day soon. Maybe I am just a crotchety old man now, but I am dubious that it will work. I still follow sites like Centauri Dreams and read SF till it is coming out of my ears, and I still hope we will get into the Solar System somehow, but 99.9999% of the species will still be earthbound even if that comes off.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on April 19, 2019, 04:21:24 PM
What is the least habitable place that has been (at least semi) self-sustainably colonized?

I think La Paz in Bolivia at about 3,600 meters is. If anyone thinks there is a genuine established settlement in a harsher place, please do tell.

(Inuit settlements are probably more severe, but are functionally totally different because the people rely/relied on whaling and other ocean food sources.)

Anyways, La Paz is about 100 times more habitable than Antarctica.  The total amount of food ever grown in Antarctica is a joke.

And yet, Antarctica is 100 times more habitable than the moon or mars or a space dinghy.

Sustaining life in a space dinghy, or on another planets is hundreds of years off (if it is even possible).  Most cells in the human body are not human cells. And we NEED these cells. They come from our environment and without them the vigor of a human diminishes toward zero. There are countless other examples of why humans need the earth...gravity, magnetic sphere, etc. And of course, there are all sorts of things yet to be discovered.

Leaving earth is not possible (maybe in will be in a few centuries, but I doubt it). In the last 50 years, human space travel has regressed and no person has left low earth orbit in the last 47 years. (Personally I think that anyone ever did is highly questionable, and the Nixon administration lying to a gullible public is more probable.)


Additionally, the premise that leaving our planet isn't possible is the only plausible answer to Fermi's paradox...

Alien intelligent life, where ever in the universe it has ever developed, has never been able to travel very far from its origin.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on April 19, 2019, 04:26:15 PM
I wonder what evolutionary changes are required for humans to be perfectly adapted to a g/3 environment. Taller humans? Shorter humans? More or less dense humans? Would the proportions of extremities change to optimize movement? In a few thousand years we will know if left to nature.

Sorry. That isn't how evolution works.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on April 20, 2019, 12:43:37 PM
Additionally, the premise that leaving our planet isn't possible is the only plausible answer to Fermi's paradox...


No, GoSouthYoungins, there are other plausible answers. My personal favorite is that it is hyperastronomically improbable that a protobacterium capable of evolving into higher life could form  spontaneously.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Neven on April 20, 2019, 03:08:40 PM
Tom, is this an invitation for a discussion about creation?
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on April 20, 2019, 03:24:05 PM
neven:
no.
I specifically said this is very unlikely as an Astronomy BS from what I learned in my courses. I did not mention Creationism.

EDIT: To be more detailed, I know Darwinian Evolution is a very positive force (well, it's not a "force" in the physical sense, but you know what I mean). But it has to get started. To get started you need an organism with a genetic code that can reproduce, pass characteristics to its descendants, but on occasion change a characteristic in a way that is inherited itself. That is quite an organized structure. That is one explanation for the Fermi Paradox. There are others...development of macroscopic life may be very difficult...the Earth spent most of its habitable span with life you need a microscope to see, and other planets may not have that much longer windows (for example, red dwarfs are on the Main Sequence longer than Sol, but their planets probably quickly get tidal locked). Or maybe space colonization is possible in theory for a sufficiently advanced technology, but all the "passive" species live millions of years with a sustainable technology and all the "aggressive" ones self-destruct before colonizing space.

PS I am not a biologist. If someone is please help me understand how an evolvable organism "easily" arises before it can start evolving.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Neven on April 20, 2019, 09:44:08 PM
neven:
no.
I specifically said this is very unlikely as an Astronomy BS from what I learned in my courses. I did not mention Creationism.

OK, thanks. I misinterpreted.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: kassy on April 20, 2019, 11:15:29 PM
In a recent talk Erik Verlinde stressed that there is so much about the universe that we don´t know because we only started gathering data a short while ago.

Not too long ago we still surveyed the night skies with trained observers. They were quite good at estimating the correct brightness of stars but of course they worked much more slowly and they had much smaller telescopes which were all on earth.

Since then we have much better equipment and digital data handling but we tend to forget that all this is recent.

SETI is also pretty recent and they look for radiosignals. How long will we still use those ourselves?

So one simple reason for Fermi's paradox could be that civilizations can miss each other in time (and we don´t have good data on that since we only have 1 point and we could be either early or late).

As for the origins of life from simple cells that happened at least once (and possibly we can find it in multiple places in our own solar system).

As soon as there is a base life tends to re-evolve after disasters.

I also like Jeremy Englands idea of the origin of life as an inevitable outcome of thermodynamics.

TLDR: We think there are no aliens because we have not found anything yet but that should not be surprising if you look at the amount of time spend and technologies used.

The bottleneck might just be evolving the tech to take you to the stars before murdering your home with consumerism...time shall tell.

Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: oren on April 20, 2019, 11:39:19 PM
Surely the paradox is easily explained by intelligent civilizations running out of resources on their home planet before they manage the immense resource and energy expenditure associated with leaving the home planet and setting up viable habitats in other locations. In the same vein, these civilizations collapse after a cosmically short period of time, leaving no discernible trace for future astronomers.
As probably will happen to us as well. If all of humanity focused just on this one thing, we could probably make it. But evolution does not lead a species to such a selfless undertaking for the sake of some posterity without expending most resources on procreation and recreation.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on April 21, 2019, 12:35:55 AM
In a recent talk Erik Verlinde stressed that there is so much about the universe that we don´t know because we only started gathering data a short while ago.

Not too long ago we still surveyed the night skies with trained observers. They were quite good at estimating the correct brightness of stars but of course they worked much more slowly and they had much smaller telescopes which were all on earth.

Since then we have much better equipment and digital data handling but we tend to forget that all this is recent.

SETI is also pretty recent and they look for radiosignals. How long will we still use those ourselves?

So one simple reason for Fermi's paradox could be that civilizations can miss each other in time (and we don´t have good data on that since we only have 1 point and we could be either early or late).

As for the origins of life from simple cells that happened at least once (and possibly we can find it in multiple places in our own solar system).

As soon as there is a base life tends to re-evolve after disasters.

I also like Jeremy Englands idea of the origin of life as an inevitable outcome of thermodynamics.

TLDR: We think there are no aliens because we have not found anything yet but that should not be surprising if you look at the amount of time spend and technologies used.

The bottleneck might just be evolving the tech to take you to the stars before murdering your home with consumerism...time shall tell.

You are right, we have hardly looked.
But an easy way to communicate throughout the galaxy is to make a von Neumann probe that is also a Bracewell probe. Everything we have sent beyond the orbit of Saturn is a (crude) Bracewell probe...Pioneer plaque, Voyager record, New Horizons message. And the probe would just need the IQ of a bacterium. It just takes one out of 400,000,000,000 star systems over 13,800,000,000 years to do it.
Jeremy Englands...have to look him up.
ADDENDUM: No reason we can't both be right...maybe life almost never gets started and when it does it almost always self-destructs when it evolves intelligent tool users. The second makes almost no difference to the Fermi Paradox if the first is true (though it makes a big difference to us personally).
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Archimid on April 21, 2019, 04:59:10 AM
I wonder what evolutionary changes are required for humans to be perfectly adapted to a g/3 environment. Taller humans? Shorter humans? More or less dense humans? Would the proportions of extremities change to optimize movement? In a few thousand years we will know if left to nature.

Sorry. That isn't how evolution works.

That is exactly like evolution works. Or do you think humans are not subject to evolution?
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on April 27, 2019, 04:37:06 AM
I wonder what evolutionary changes are required for humans to be perfectly adapted to a g/3 environment. Taller humans? Shorter humans? More or less dense humans? Would the proportions of extremities change to optimize movement? In a few thousand years we will know if left to nature.

Sorry. That isn't how evolution works.

That is exactly like evolution works. Or do you think humans are not subject to evolution?

The short dense people will have more children survive to child bearing age? The gravity situation is serious but there would be larger threats to life on another planet.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on April 27, 2019, 04:39:15 AM
Additionally, the premise that leaving our planet isn't possible is the only plausible answer to Fermi's paradox...


No, GoSouthYoungins, there are other plausible answers. My personal favorite is that it is hyperastronomically improbable that a protobacterium capable of evolving into higher life could form  spontaneously.

You are saying a likely answer is that humanity is a tiny tiny possibility which just happens to be. That is possible, but it is a tiny tiny possibility.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Paddy on April 27, 2019, 12:10:05 PM
Eh, when it comes to space colonisation and speculating on what it might do, I feel we're like people at the time of the Wright Brothers speculating about future air travel.  We're just scratching at the surface of what may be achievable in terms of living in space with current projects like the ISS. 

Happy to admit I voted "do not know" on this poll. Far too many unknowns still with regards to space colonisation's potential challenges.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Archimid on April 27, 2019, 01:18:29 PM
Quote
The short dense people will have more children survive to child bearing age? The gravity situation is serious but there would be larger threats to life on another planet.

That is simple Darwinian evolution. Evolution happens at much deeper levels than just reproduction of the fittest. Or do you believe you are such a superior being that you are above evolution?
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt2 on May 23, 2019, 10:28:23 PM
There are only a few hours left until the first attempt to launch Starlink satellites again. If successful, the launch of the first 60 satellites company SpaceX will earn many billions to create on Mars a safe haven in case of greenhouse and tectonic catastrophe on Earth

broadcast launch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfbIMknNWks
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt2 on May 23, 2019, 11:47:34 PM
According to the forecasts of Starlink will make cheaper satellite broadband front transcontinental submarine cables.

For an example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_(cable_system)
Quote
Quote
Unity comprises a 10,000 km linear cable system with a "multi-terabit" capacity of up to 7.68 Tbit/s.[4] Construction of the cable was funded by a consortium formed in February 2008 comprising Bharti Airtel, Global Transit, Google, KDDI Corporation, Pacnet and SingTel.[4] Unity's installation cost around US$300 million, and its completion increased Trans-Pacific cable capacity by around 20 per cent.[2]

That's $ 42 million for a terabyte of bandwidth.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1128834111878193155
Quote
Starlink mission will be heaviest @SpaceX payload ever at 18.5 tons. If all goes well, each launch of 60 satellites will generate more power than Space Station & deliver 1 terabit of bandwidth to Earth.

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-secures-starlink-funding-launch-scrubbed/

Quote
As previously discussed on Teslarati, in the last four years, OneWeb has raised $3.4B of funding, while SpaceX – a company primarily focused on building and launching rockets – has raised $2B, half of which is known to be dedicated to Starlink. OneWeb’s constellation (either 650 or 2650 satellites) cost estimate has grown quite a bit recently and stands at ~$5B. Assuming all $2B of the funding SpaceX has raised is dedicated to Starlink, that would translate to a per-satellite cost – including all infrastructure and launch – of $450,000 for the first phase (~4400 satellites).

60 satellites (terabyte of satellite bandwidth) on 450 thousand dollars will cost 27 million dollars.

In General, satellite Internet will cost 1.5 times cheaper than wired. Additionally, the transfer on the radio channel will have a lower ping (the speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves in optics is much less than in vacuum).
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on May 23, 2019, 11:56:10 PM
Hi, ArticMelt2.  Good info.  There is a SpaceX thread hidden over in “The Rest” section.  See you there, later!  ;)

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2582.msg200439.html#msg200439
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt2 on June 07, 2019, 08:58:57 AM
The richest man in the world believes that we should build space colonies not on Mars, but in outer space (large space stations with artificial gravity).

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/08/jeff-bezos-mount-everest-is-a-garden-paradise-compared-to-mars.html

Quote
Jeff Bezos: Forget Mars, humans will live in these free-floating space pod colonies

Richest man alive Jeff Bezos says Mars is not a place humans would be comfortable living.

“My friends who want to move to Mars? I say, ‘Do me a favor, go live on the top of Mount Everest for a year first, and see if you like it — because it’s a garden paradise compared to Mars,’” Bezos said at the Yale Club in New York City in February, according to a Business Insider transcript.

That is not to say that Bezos, who founded Amazon and aerospace company Blue Origin, is not interested in sending regular people to space. Bezos says moving to space will become necessary as the population is expanding and Earth’s resources are finite. Eventually, an Earth-bound population would face population control and energy rationing, Bezos said.

”...[T]hat to me seems like a pretty bleak world. We don’t have to have that,” Bezos said.

There are currently over 7.6 billion people on earth, but if space becomes a viable place for humans to live, the solar system has enough resources to support 1 trillion humans, Bezos said. “Then we’d have 1,000 Mozarts and 1,000 Einsteins. Think how incredible and dynamic that civilization will be.”

However, said Bezos, “I don’t think we’ll live on planets.” Instead he envisions humans living in self-sufficient space structures, like those designed by Princeton physics professor Gerard O’Neil.

“The space colonies we’ll build will have many advantages. The primary one is that they’ll be close to Earth. The transit time and the amount of energy required to move between planets is so high,” Bezos said.

“Ultimately what will happen, is this planet will be zoned residential and light industry. We’ll have universities here and so on, but we won’t do heavy industry here. Why would we? This is the gem of the solar system. Why would we do heavy industry here? It’s nonsense.”

The artist rendering below is an artist rendering of inside of one of O’Neill’s space settlement cylinders, according to the National Space Society.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt2 on June 07, 2019, 09:01:42 AM
Below is an artist rendering of the exterior of what one of O’Neil’s space settlements would look like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Spacecolony1.jpg/800px-Spacecolony1.jpg)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flamcdn.net%2Flookatme.ru%2Fpost_image-image%2FsIxFID7p6e1tAAzgGY1wAA-wide.jpg&hash=1ec13cd22922359034e2a78ff78ffe18)

(https://www.puppiesandflowers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Kalpana-10-Bb2-2500.jpg)
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt2 on June 07, 2019, 09:09:02 AM
The simplest station with artificial gravity is featured in the movie Moon Racer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIHSxLYzc6Q
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt2 on June 07, 2019, 09:50:22 AM
In the future, Bezos will be Mask's main competitor in the colonization of space.

Reusable Bezos's missiles now can only make suborbital flights.

(https://www.blueorigin.com/assets/diagrams/new-shepard/BlueOrigin_NewShepard_FlightProfile.jpg)

But in the coming years it is planned to create a large reusable orbital rocket - the New Glen. This rocket is much larger than the Falcon:

(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/IyyjXmmJ6jOVS3qn3DEwsjI8Nzo=/16x0:785x513/920x613/filters:focal(16x0:785x513):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/50798867/Screen_Shot_2016-09-12_at_9.49.02_AM.0.0.png)

And besides, Bezos is much richer than Mask.
 
https://www.forbes.com/profile/jeff-bezos/?list=billionaires#7ce87d531b23

Quote
#1 Jeff Bezos & family
CEO and Founder, Amazon

REAL TIME NET WORTH
$144.6B
as of 6/7/19
2019 BILLIONAIRES NET WORTH
$131B

https://www.forbes.com/profile/elon-musk/?list=billionaires#5d2ab9f17999

Quote
#40 Elon Musk
CEO and Chairman, Tesla

REAL TIME NET WORTH
$18.6B
as of 6/7/19
2019 BILLIONAIRES NET WORTH
$22.3B
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt2 on June 07, 2019, 01:44:21 PM
It is proposed to make one of the ends of the space cylinder transparent, with a direction to the Sun. In this way, natural lighting in a space colony can be simulated.

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/56/d7/1d/56d71db79a1d5dbb91e5b027a3b66570.jpg)

To create cylinders it is mainly proposed to use material from small celestial bodies (asteroid and comets with minimum first cosmic velocity), and also possibly from the Moon and Mars.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt2 on June 07, 2019, 02:40:24 PM
In a recent film (2004), NASA is building a similar space cylinder to save all of humanity from an environmental disaster.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_(film)

Quote
In the mid-21st century, crop blights and dust storms threaten humanity's survival. Corn is the last viable crop. The world has also evolved into a post-truth society where younger generations are taught ideas such as the Apollo moon missions were faked

Quote
Based on their data, Professor Brand conceived two plans to ensure humanity's survival. Plan A involves developing a gravitational propulsion theory to propel a mass exodus, while Plan B involves launching the Endurance spacecraft carrying 5,000 frozen human embryos to colonize a habitable planet.

Space colony shown in the film:

https://interstellarfilm.fandom.com/wiki/Cooper_Station

(https://t1.daumcdn.net/cfile/tistory/277DF23B58D11EDA13)
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: kassy on June 07, 2019, 11:03:00 PM
Of course these are tech dreams.

How could you live in space if you cannot even manage a planet.

Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Shared Humanity on June 08, 2019, 07:59:07 PM
The last refuge for a doomed people is always fantasy. This thread is as good as most.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on June 08, 2019, 08:36:51 PM
NASA will allow private astronauts on the ISS for $11,250-$22,500 a day
The space agency wants to create a sustainable economy in low Earth orbit.
Quote
On Thursday morning, NASA held a press conference to announce that the International Space Station is now open for business. Previously, commercial organizations have only been able to use the ISS for research purposes; now NASA is open to letting them make a profit in low Earth orbit (LEO).
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/06/nasa-will-allow-private-astronauts-on-the-iss-for-11250-22500-a-day/

Quote
Bigelow Aerospace (@BigelowSpace) 6/7/19, 11:06 AM
Bigelow Space Operations has made significant deposits for the ability to fly up to 16 people to the International Space Station on 4 dedicated @SpaceX flights. Photo credit: @NASA
https://twitter.com/bigelowspace/status/1137012892191076353
Image below.
< < They've already sent an inflatable habitat module to ISS for testing, and NASA has a copy of it at Johnson Space Center for further validation

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Expandable_Activity_Module
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: kassy on June 08, 2019, 09:14:30 PM
Space tourism is not space colonization.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on June 08, 2019, 09:45:29 PM
Space tourism is not space colonization.

How do you think space colonization starts?
With those first brave explorers.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt2 on June 09, 2019, 06:49:22 AM
How could you live in space if you cannot even manage a planet.

Do you think that on large cruise ships there should be no lifeboats?

People need to build their own space colonies in order to insure against unexpected global catastrophes.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt2 on June 09, 2019, 06:53:02 AM
I think the creation of these colonies will be much cheaper than the full-scale implementation of carbon capture and storage projects.

Moreover, there is simply no place on Earth where you can safely store huge amounts of carbon:

(https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/235474/fenrg-05-00006-HTML/image_m/fenrg-05-00006-g001.jpg)

Need to send this carbon to space? Sending trillions of tons of carbon to space will require trillions of dollars. Such costs will be comparable to the creation of the largest space colonies.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on June 09, 2019, 02:40:29 PM
It’s likely that the technology developed to deal with the CO2-rich Martian atmosphere will lead to unexpected innovations that will help reduce CO2 on earth.  But the biggest effect may result from interest in the missions drawing attention of common folks worldwide to the need for immediate curtailment of CO2 emissions on our home planet.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Shared Humanity on June 09, 2019, 06:03:10 PM

Moreover, there is simply no place on Earth where you can safely store huge amounts of carbon:


Um...Plants?  :o

This statement is so stupid that I cannot even......for...fear...of losing...my shit...and going totally...over the line...and...I...don't...want...to...be...abusive.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: oren on June 09, 2019, 07:07:13 PM
Quote
Do you think that on large cruise ships there should be no lifeboats?
Wrong analogy. Do you think that on large cruise ships there should be a single lifeboat for just one or two persons?
Even worse: Do you think it's worth the cost of this single lifeboat if you need to give up some safety features of the cruise ship?
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: gerontocrat on June 09, 2019, 07:51:08 PM
It’s likely that the technology developed to deal with the CO2-rich Martian atmosphere will lead to unexpected innovations that will help reduce CO2 on earth.  But the biggest effect may result from interest in the missions drawing attention of common folks worldwide to the need for immediate curtailment of CO2 emissions on our home planet.
Mars lost its magnetosphere 4 billion years ago.
No protection from harmful solar radiation.
Density at the surface is 0.6% of that of the Earth

Mars's atmospheric mass of 25 teratonnes compares to Earth's 5148.  i.e. 0.5%.
It is 95% CO2, i.e. 23.75 teratonnes.

The total CO2 floating in our atmosphere is just over 3 teratonnes (say 415 ppmv, 0.63% by weight)).

To get this down to 350 ppm (ha ha) requires CO2 in our atmosphere to be reduced by about 0.5 teratonnes (Just over 500 gigatonnes). This apparently requires a mass mobilisation by the entire World's scientists, industries and politicians. Mars is a 50 times heavier task and you end up with an atmosphere equivalent to 35 km above the earth's surface.

So Musk is going to transform Mars with a few people and some truckloads of stuff. Go to it !!
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on June 10, 2019, 12:12:56 AM
It’s likely that the technology developed to deal with the CO2-rich Martian atmosphere will lead to unexpected innovations that will help reduce CO2 on earth.  But the biggest effect may result from interest in the missions drawing attention of common folks worldwide to the need for immediate curtailment of CO2 emissions on our home planet.

...
So Musk is going to transform Mars with a few people and some truckloads of stuff. Go to it !!

I said nothing about transforming Mars.  However, a Mars colony will need to develop efficient methods of making CO2 into methane and O2 to fuel ships to get home, and to scrub CO2 out of the air in the habitat. Unexpected innovations will no doubt result, leading to new developments on earth.

Just as a multitude of private companies are performing R&D on the International Space Station today, they will be researching ways to improve life on Mars (and ways to make money doing it).  Musk/SpaceX are providing the transportation; others will design and build the infrastructure, the supplies, and the government.

Edit:  And as I mentioned, inspiring a majority of the world’s population to unify to act to preserve life on Planet A has the biggest potential for increasing action against climate change.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on June 10, 2019, 04:48:27 AM

Moreover, there is simply no place on Earth where you can safely store huge amounts of carbon:


Um...Plants?  :o

This statement is so stupid that I cannot even......for...fear...of losing...my shit...and going totally...over the line...and...I...don't...want...to...be...abusive.

Thanks for getting to this before me. You managed to be least offensive than I possibly could have, and I don't want to be put back on moderation.


The great irony is that the carbon should go into soil and foliage, which are actually assets. It builds value to store carbon in this way and makes the earth's carrying capacity much greater. And it is the most basic human task. It is good for us...spiritually and physically healthy.

But apparently some people think it makes more sense to do something that has never been done. Not even close. Not even close to close. Likely bordering on impossible. Even if it could be done, it would be the least natural environment possible...akin to a prison.

Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: kassy on June 10, 2019, 04:10:00 PM
Space tourism is not space colonization.

How do you think space colonization starts?
With those first brave explorers.

But would you count 16 rich people flying up to the ISS among them?
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on June 10, 2019, 04:15:20 PM
The International Space Station has been continously occupied for 20 years, by astronauts, scientists — and tourists — from many countries.

New video:
Quote
NASA (@NASA)6/7/19, 10:17 AM
.@Space_Station is open for commercial business! Watch @Astro_Christina talk about the steps we're taking to make our orbiting laboratory accessible to all Americans.
https://twitter.com/nasa/status/1137000745922957313
1-minute video at the link, from Christina Koch aboard the ISS.
(I don’t know why they state the opportunity is limited to Americans. Maybe that’s a Trump thing.)
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on June 10, 2019, 04:32:28 PM

Moreover, there is simply no place on Earth where you can safely store huge amounts of carbon:


Um...Plants?  :o

This statement is so stupid that I cannot even......for...fear...of losing...my shit...and going totally...over the line...and...I...don't...want...to...be...abusive.


I think he thinks that there is not enough suitable land to grow enough trees to contain the trillions of tons of Carbon going into the atmosphere (“huge”).
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on June 12, 2019, 01:59:22 PM
Space is cool.  And kids, including girls, are now drawn to science and engineering studies because of it.

Almost half of UK children believe Mars colony will be established in their lifetime, poll finds
Quote
Nearly half of all children surveyed for a new poll believe humans will establish a colony on Mars within their lifetime. Six in 10 children felt anxious about climate breakdown, with more than a third saying they did not think enough was being done to solve Earth’s environmental problems.
As a result, 61 percent believed mankind would look to space for other places to live in future, while 59 percent expected to holiday in space.

Worries about the future of Earth were not solely confined to the younger generation, as two thirds of parents admitted they were “future-proofing” their children to ensure they have the engineering skills required to tackle a future threatened by climate change. The idea of living on another planet in the future has led to 46 percent of children to develop an interest in engineering and technology.

In total, 1,000 children aged six to 16 and their parents were polled by the Institution of Engineering and Technology. It found that engineering was now the third most popular profession among the children polled (15 percent), with the career only falling behind being a YouTuber (18 percent), or footballer (17 percent). Of those who chose engineering, 16 percent of children said space exploration would be the number one field they would want to work within.

While the profession has historically suffered from a gender imbalance, 36 percent of children who expressed interest in such a career were girls. A total of 37 percent of parents said they would like to send their children to an extra-curricular activity such as a mathematics, coding or science club.
And STEM extracurricular activities proved to be more popular than music (34 percent) and drama (33 percent) lessons. ...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mars-colony-life-climate-change-breakdown-iet-engineering-a8954896.html
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Neven on June 12, 2019, 02:50:47 PM
Space is cool.  And kids, including girls, are now drawn to science and engineering studies because of it.

Isn't conditioning, like, the best thing ever?
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on June 12, 2019, 03:33:24 PM
Space is cool.  And kids, including girls, are now drawn to science and engineering studies because of it.

Isn't conditioning, like, the best thing ever?

When it’s for something we really, really need to make happen?  You betcha!
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt2 on July 05, 2019, 02:50:56 PM

Moreover, there is simply no place on Earth where you can safely store huge amounts of carbon:


Um...Plants?  :o

This statement is so stupid that I cannot even......for...fear...of losing...my shit...and going totally...over the line...and...I...don't...want...to...be...abusive.

Thanks for getting to this before me. You managed to be least offensive than I possibly could have, and I don't want to be put back on moderation.


The great irony is that the carbon should go into soil and foliage, which are actually assets. It builds value to store carbon in this way and makes the earth's carrying capacity much greater. And it is the most basic human task. It is good for us...spiritually and physically healthy.

But apparently some people think it makes more sense to do something that has never been done. Not even close. Not even close to close. Likely bordering on impossible. Even if it could be done, it would be the least natural environment possible...akin to a prison.

News on the topic, which shows that there is very little free land on Earth for new forests.

https://www.sciencealert.com/tree-planting-is-still-the-best-way-to-fight-climate-change-but-only-if-we-act-fast

Quote
"If we all get planting, roughly 4.4 billion hectares of our planet's surface could be shaded by trees – enough to pull decades of carbon we've pumped into the atmosphere."

Their calculations revealed 1.7 to 1.8 billion hectares of land areas now covered in sparse vegetation and bare soil qualify as tree-worthy.

If the right kinds of trees could be grown across all of that, Earth would have another 0.9 billion hectares of canopy containing around 200 gigatonnes of carbon.

These numbers could be even higher if we got a little crazy and also planted on agricultural land and throughout urban centres. Roughly 8.7 billion hectares in total could theoretically support trees.

Moreover, due to the growth of the population of the planet and improving its quality of life, the free land area is constantly decreasing.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326903301_Global_land_change_from_1982_to_2016

Quote
Here we analyse 35 years' worth of satellite data and provide a comprehensive record of global land-change dynamics during the period 1982-2016. We show that-contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally5-tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level). This overall net gain is the result of a net loss in the tropics being outweighed by a net gain in the extratropics. Global bare ground cover has decreased by 1.16 million km2 (-3.1%), most notably in agricultural regions in Asia.


Quote
The total area of tree cover increased by 2.24 million km2  from 1982 to 2016 (90% confidence interval (CI): 0.93, 3.42 million km2), which represents a +7.1% change relative to 1982 tree cover (Extended Data Table 1). Bare ground area decreased by 1.16 million km2  (90% CI: −1.78, −0.34 million km2 ), which represents a decrease of 3.1% relative to 1982 bare ground cover. The total area of short vegetation cover decreased by 0.88 million km2 (90% CI: −2.20, 0.52 million km2), which indicates a decrease of 1.4% relative to 1982 short vegetation cover.

Quote
India and China had the largest bare ground loss among all countries (India, −270,000 km2, −34%; China, −250,000 km2, −7%). India also ranked second in short vegetation gain
(+195,000 km2 , +9%), after Brazil (+396,000 km2, +12%). While the short vegetation gain in Brazil is mainly due to the expansion of agricultural frontiers into natural ecosystems, short vegetation gain in India is primarily due to intensification of existing agricultural lands—a continuation of the ‘Green Revolution’.


This means that we are passing the point of no return.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt2 on July 05, 2019, 02:56:12 PM
Also consider that even more arable land will be needed in the future to replace fossil fuels with biofuels. I’m not saying that at present, billions of people are simply starving.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: magnamentis on July 05, 2019, 09:15:30 PM
https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2019/07/how-trees-could-save-the-climate.html

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/07/how-to-erase-100-years-carbon-emissions-plant-trees/

In the "Space Colonization" thread?
You're proposing space forests?  Genius!!

sorry, error, will delete

EDIT: deleted, the arable land had me LOL was meant for another thread however, thanks for the hint.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Shared Humanity on July 05, 2019, 10:02:27 PM
Also consider that even more arable land will be needed in the future to replace fossil fuels with biofuels. I’m not saying that at present, billions of people are simply starving.

90% of the arable land dedicated to agriculture is for raising meat. We simply need to quit eating all types of meat, let the freed up land revert back to its natural state as quickly as possible by reintroducing plants that thrive in the various ecosystems.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: TerryM on July 05, 2019, 10:28:09 PM
After carefully studying the documentary "Earth Girls are Easy" I'ved determined that the scientific breakthrough that will most benefit mankind is the ability to shrink humans.


Once properly sized the problems of sending brave, but tiny humans to Mars colonies shrinks to a manageable size.


Envision a colony capable of housing a million souls that weighs but a few kilograms and fits easily in a size 9 shoebox!


We could start by simply cross breeding Pygmy tribes with members of the Little People of America organization - but this is too slow a process, wouldn't result in the needed size reduction and might retain undesirable traits such as the squeaky voices so prominently featured in films such as the original version of the Wizard of Oz.


CRISPER technology is where we should be looking.


Once we've reduced humans to the size of small kittens we may find that we've genetically engineered our way out of the food, water and housing crises that we're soon to face.


McMansions with 10 square feet of living space will require little heating or cooling. Electric trains and EVs will run off a few "C" cell batteries, and a thin goat could provide sustenance for hundreds.
Christ's feeding the masses a few loafs and fishes will seem wasteful.


Robots will take over all the jobs requiring strength. Our sciences will continue to develop better and smaller micro-technology and micro men. Our problems will shrink away until we will no longer dream of leaving our so recently relatively enlarged home planet.


Are we men, or are we mice. Squeak up boys.
Terry
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: gerontocrat on July 06, 2019, 12:31:46 AM
Terry,
Anyone would think you don't take space colonisation seriously.

Shame on you. Tut, tut.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on July 06, 2019, 12:58:32 AM
Step One:  Getting there.

SpaceX has a new job posting for “Launch Engineer, Starship Operations” at Cape Canaveral.

Launch Engineer, Starship Operations
Cape Canaveral, FL, United States
Quote
SpaceX was founded under the belief that a future where humanity is out exploring the stars is fundamentally more exciting than one where we are not. Today SpaceX is actively developing the technologies to make this possible, with the ultimate goal of enabling human life on Mars.

LAUNCH ENGINEER (STARSHIP OPERATIONS)
The Cape Starship Operations Engineer plays a critical role, and is responsible for design, build, and operations for Starship and Super Heavy vehicle development and initial launch capability from Launch Pad 39A. Engineers will be working in multiple disciplines: fluids, structures, instrumentation, civil, and manufacturing. ...
https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/4342965002?gh_jid=4342965002

(Cross-posted from SpaceX thread.)
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: TerryM on July 06, 2019, 01:55:10 AM
Terry,
Anyone would think you don't take space colonisation seriously.

Shame on you. Tut, tut.
Au Contraire Mon Frere
But only when done on the correct scale.  ;D
Terry
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on July 09, 2019, 04:06:05 AM
Step One:  Getting there.

SpaceX has a new job posting for “Launch Engineer, Starship Operations” at Cape Canaveral.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/science/spacex-moon-tourists.html

29 months ago, SpaceX was going to be taking people to moon within 10 to 22 months. Still no real plans to do so. Just hopium/ideas/lies.


I cannot count the number of outrageous things Musk claimed were about to happen years ago and there is still basically no completion of these things in sight.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Shared Humanity on July 09, 2019, 02:50:56 PM
Space travel? Maybe. Space colonization? 
Never.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: crandles on July 09, 2019, 03:11:32 PM
Link dated Feb 2017 suggests 'by late 2018' by Falcon Heavy. So I would suggest that is 20-22 months rather than 10 to 22 months.

When has a project like that ever run to time?

In Feb 2018 SpaceX announced they would not attempt to man rate the Falcon Heavy so it is going to be a starship launch. Last I knew it is "no earlier than 2023". Aim seems to be 7 to 9 people rather than just 2 so more ambitious and not surprising the date has slipped.

Won't be surprised if it slips further.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DearMoon_project

'Lies' suggest intent was different to that stated. Yes Musks timelines are aggressive but he usually end up doing what he promised which I think shows the intent was there. Keeping to time suggested when the timeline is aggressive is difficult and there is likely to be slippage. So what? This doesn't justify suggestion of deliberate deception IMO. I think this is just deliberately trying to wind up fans.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on July 09, 2019, 04:01:38 PM
Link dated Feb 2017 suggests 'by late 2018' by Falcon Heavy. So I would suggest that is 20-22 months rather than 10 to 22 months.

When has a project like that ever run to time?

In Feb 2018 SpaceX announced they would not attempt to man rate the Falcon Heavy so it is going to be a starship launch. Last I knew it is "no earlier than 2023". Aim seems to be 7 to 9 people rather than just 2 so more ambitious and not surprising the date has slipped.

Won't be surprised if it slips further.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DearMoon_project

'Lies' suggest intent was different to that stated. Yes Musks timelines are aggressive but he usually end up doing what he promised which I think shows the intent was there. Keeping to time suggested when the timeline is aggressive is difficult and there is likely to be slippage. So what? This doesn't justify suggestion of deliberate deception IMO. I think this is just deliberately trying to wind up fans.

Total hogwash. The number of things this guy says he is doing in a few months and then years pass should clue you in that these are not just "aggressive" timelines, but intentionally deceptive lies.

A person running a company and claiming publicly that something is going to happen in "3 months maybe, 6 months definitely", but then nothing ever happens...HAS TO BE LYING. Plans have to be in place far ahead of time. Things have to be in order.

You should buy some property on Mars. Musk will have us there soon. And living on Mars is the easy part.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: kassy on July 09, 2019, 10:43:28 PM
We need the spaceship program as featured in the Hitchhikers Guide (Important People First, really....).  ;)

Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on July 20, 2019, 07:57:03 PM
American kids would much rather be YouTubers than astronauts
Quote
It is not clear why kids in the Western world are less interested in space or space professions than those in China. Perhaps it is because America has been there and done that, in terms of lunar exploration, with the Apollo program. Perhaps it is that America's kids today grew up with continuous national human representation in space, aboard the International Space Station, and do not find an orbiting outpost in low-Earth orbit stimulating. Or perhaps the education system in China places a higher emphasis on the value of science and space exploration.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/american-kids-would-much-rather-be-youtubers-than-astronauts/
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: SteveMDFP on July 20, 2019, 08:31:42 PM
American kids would much rather be YouTubers than astronauts
Quote
It is not clear why kids in the Western world are less interested in space or space professions than those in China. Perhaps it is because America has been there and done that, in terms of lunar exploration, with the Apollo program. Perhaps it is that America's kids today grew up with continuous national human representation in space, aboard the International Space Station, and do not find an orbiting outpost in low-Earth orbit stimulating. Or perhaps the education system in China places a higher emphasis on the value of science and space exploration.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/american-kids-would-much-rather-be-youtubers-than-astronauts/

Totals across all choices are significantly lower in UK/US than China.  Either Western kids predominantly have some other career in mind, or are simply more apathetic.  I wonder what relative rates of childhood depression are.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on July 20, 2019, 09:56:32 PM
American kids would much rather be YouTubers than astronauts
Quote
It is not clear why kids in the Western world are less interested in space or space professions than those in China. Perhaps it is because America has been there and done that, in terms of lunar exploration, with the Apollo program. Perhaps it is that America's kids today grew up with continuous national human representation in space, aboard the International Space Station, and do not find an orbiting outpost in low-Earth orbit stimulating. Or perhaps the education system in China places a higher emphasis on the value of science and space exploration.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/american-kids-would-much-rather-be-youtubers-than-astronauts/

Totals across all choices are significantly lower in UK/US than China.  Either Western kids predominantly have some other career in mind, or are simply more apathetic.  I wonder what relative rates of childhood depression are.

Perhaps they simply want to leave “this ruddy rock” and ply a simple trade on Mars — making pizza, repairing equipment, or being a First Responder.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on July 20, 2019, 09:59:18 PM
Quote
Bobak Ferdowsi (@tweetsoutloud) 7/20/19, 10:50 AM
one rough part of rewatching all of the Apollo footage has been not seeing people who look like me. It's a testament to Apollo that it is still such a motivator to work in space, but I'm very happy we've made some progress better representing what society looks like
https://twitter.com/tweetsoutloud/status/1152591534082142208
Images below.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: TerryM on July 20, 2019, 11:41:50 PM
Can the earth afford to divert it's finite resources by sending people to various planets? If people insist on living in hostile environments allow them access to warmer regions of the Sahara, or colder regions of Antarctica.


Let them burrow far underground beneath the Mariana Trench, build cave cities high in the Himalayas where oxygen is scarce, or create metropolises that float high in the stratosphere. - but eliminate off planet joy rides unless a definite scientific need is found for such an inherently dirty mode of transportation.


It's the filthy rich that brought us to where we are. Demand that they cease in their attempts to escape the planetary catastrophe that they themselves created.
Terry
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on July 21, 2019, 05:17:50 PM
Can the earth afford to divert it's finite resources by sending people to various planets? If people insist on living in hostile environments allow them access to warmer regions of the Sahara, or colder regions of Antarctica.


Let them burrow far underground beneath the Mariana Trench, build cave cities high in the Himalayas where oxygen is scarce, or create metropolises that float high in the stratosphere. - but eliminate off planet joy rides unless a definite scientific need is found for such an inherently dirty mode of transportation.


It's the filthy rich that brought us to where we are. Demand that they cease in their attempts to escape the planetary catastrophe that they themselves created.
Terry

So we should make sure they do not develop technology that could be the solution to the consequences of the comfortable lifestyle you now enjoy?

We do have the capability to do many different things at once!  NASA’s budget is only pennies per person, and the technical advances it has brought benefit almost everyone.  If you don’t like the cheaper and faster internet, better satellite phones and GPS, or emergency tracking of planes, ships and cargo that space exploration brings... don’t use them! 

Those explorers in Antarctica or out at sea are betting their lives on advanced life support systems and personal satellite tracking to enable their rescue if needed.  Lessons in space are teaching us about bone and cell degradation, and allowing the purification of new drugs and new metal alloys.  Forbidding space exploration would be like forbidding the education of a child who may someday spur the development of planet-saving tech.  Like the boy from South Africa who grew up to run a company which forced ICE carmakers to finally begin their transition to EVs, and which showed the world that batteries fed by renewables could save the grid and make solar+ batteries more available to low income people.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: SteveMDFP on July 21, 2019, 05:47:34 PM
...
It's the filthy rich that brought us to where we are. Demand that they cease in their attempts to escape the planetary catastrophe that they themselves created.
Terry
....
We do have the capability to do many different things at once!  NASA’s budget is only pennies per person, and the technical advances it has brought benefit almost everyone.  If you don’t like the cheaper and faster internet, better satellite phones and GPS, or emergency tracking of planes, ships and cargo that space exploration brings... don’t use them! 
....

Terry didn't dispute that satellites and probes to distant places have been more than useful.
But colonizing space or Mars with people is hideously expensive, risky, carries a huge carbon footprint, and benefits very few.  Not even the colonists.  With current technology, it's a fundamentally stupid idea.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on July 21, 2019, 06:20:43 PM
...
It's the filthy rich that brought us to where we are. Demand that they cease in their attempts to escape the planetary catastrophe that they themselves created.
Terry
....
We do have the capability to do many different things at once!  NASA’s budget is only pennies per person, and the technical advances it has brought benefit almost everyone.  If you don’t like the cheaper and faster internet, better satellite phones and GPS, or emergency tracking of planes, ships and cargo that space exploration brings... don’t use them! 
....

Terry didn't dispute that satellites and probes to distant places have been more than useful.
But colonizing space or Mars with people is hideously expensive, risky, carries a huge carbon footprint, and benefits very few.  Not even the colonists.  With current technology, it's a fundamentally stupid idea.

I guess we won’t be adding your name to the list of folks who want to go, then. ;)

I suppose Europeans felt the same way about the first ships daring to explore the new world.  “No reason for them to go — our amazingly modern life here is perfectly fine!  Anyway, they’ll all die when they sail over the edge of the horizon!  They should just stick with sailing the coast and its harbors.”
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on July 21, 2019, 06:55:31 PM
Quote
human Mars  (@human_Mars) 7/21/19, 12:02 PM
Official renders of @SpaceX #dearMoon #Starship orbiting the #Moon from @dearmoonproject Instagram profile:
     SpaceX #dearMoon Starship orbiting the Moon
     https://www.humanmars.net/2019/07/spacex-dearmoon-starship-orbiting-moon.html
https://twitter.com/human_mars/status/1152972229543636992
Image below.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on July 21, 2019, 07:10:59 PM
New interview, tying in with the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 manned moon landing.

”SpaceX CEO Elon Musk on the next giant leap for mankind”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPrb50ZDphc

More here (See especially the last items):
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2582.msg214598.html#msg214598
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: SteveMDFP on July 21, 2019, 07:56:22 PM
On the other hand,

5 Reasons Going To Mars is a TERRIBLE Idea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESQ1bKd7Los&t=6s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESQ1bKd7Los&t=6s)

and an interview with Bill Nye on the topic:

Should you go to Mars? ft Bill Nye
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDYDdr4HVdQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDYDdr4HVdQ)

Between radiation, need for oxygen and food, and toxic Martian soil and dust, human beings are far too fragile for such a scheme. 

Send AI-controlled robots to build habitats and ecosystems and industry.  In a century, with improved technology, we can deliver people to a self-sufficient, tolerable home.  But it would still be a pretty miserable life.

If society can't survive another century, we just don't deserve to expand beyond Earth.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Villabolo on July 21, 2019, 09:34:44 PM
Moon colony first. Kalpana 1 and O’Neill Cylinders second. Mars afterthought.

My plan would be:

Constructing the Sea Dragon. Originally designed in 1962, the Sea Dragon is a massive rocket capable of lifting 500 tons of materiel into low earth orbit and somewhat less to the moon. Its design and components are of utmost simplicity, making it extremely reliable as well as the safest possible rocket. Construction within five to ten years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e5B7EKVg48

A lunar colony of 500 with the establishment of an industry capable of constructing a space habitat. Within ten to twenty years to be fully operational.

A Kalpana style habitat housing several thousand inhabitants. Within twenty to thirty years.  https://vimeo.com/92732220

Construction of an O’Neill Cylinder, housing several hundred thousand inhabitants. Within thirty to fifty years.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTDlSORhI-k

An ‘Orion’ style nuclear pulse rocket to explore our solar system. Within ten to fifteen years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSK_mymJvkM&feature=youtu.be

Total cost for all projects: $20 billion a year times 50 years - One trillion dollars; the cost of the Iraq war or one thirtieth of the yearly cost of the United States defense budget.

There would be no emphasis whatsoever in colonizing Mars or any of the other planets. It’s simply not cost effective compared to free-floating space habitats. What’s more, O’Neill cylinders can replicate a terrestrial habitat, and provide a full earth-like gravity.


(https://i.redd.it/cvn902qgugr21.png)
Sea Dragon rocket in comparison with other rockets.


(https://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/Kalpana/Kalpana-40-Aa2-1920.jpg)
Kalpana 1. Courtesy of Bryan Versteeg.


(https://i.imgur.com/0NtdZt4.jpg)
O’Neill Cylinder.


(https://i.imgur.com/B5HlKyU.jpg)
Orion nuclear pulse rocket.

Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on July 22, 2019, 04:53:24 PM
..
My plan would be:

Constructing the Sea Dragon. Originally designed in 1962, the Sea Dragon is a massive rocket capable of lifting 500 tons of materiel into low earth orbit and somewhat less to the moon. Its design and components are of utmost simplicity, making it extremely reliable as well as the safest possible rocket. Construction within five to ten years.
...

Sorry, but there are many, many reasons why that rocket will never be built.  For one:  very high-pressure propellant tanks require very strong, and very heavy, tanks to contain it — thus requiring more fuel be spent on just lifting them.  And even more fuel to lift that extra fuel....   Pressurizing the fuel outside of lighter-weight tanks by using fuel pumps may not be “simple,” but it is much lighter and thus more efficient.

Great video here if you’d like to learn more about rocket engines (and SpaceX’s currently most powerful on earth Raptor engine, in particular):
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2582.msg201113.html#msg201113
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on July 25, 2019, 03:22:27 AM
For everyone who voted for anything other than NULL in the original poll...


(We "went" to the moon 50 years ago.)

The first rocket ever built to go to mars...

-blew over in a 40mph wind.

-broke in half.

-rebuilt the "functional" half.

-"test hops" = "suborbital" (a few cms, apparently), typically resulting in fireball and abort.


So, mars in about 10 years, ya?!?
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: oren on July 25, 2019, 03:50:39 AM
GSY, I must say denying the moon landings does not improve your credibility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings)
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: DrTskoul on July 25, 2019, 04:45:29 AM
GSY, I must say denying the moon landings does not improve your credibility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings)

Which what???
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: oren on July 25, 2019, 05:08:35 AM
(We "went" to the moon 50 years ago.)
This implied denial is what I was referring to, maybe i wasn't clear enough.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: DrTskoul on July 25, 2019, 05:29:19 AM
Was sarcastic sorry. His denial was oozingly apparent...
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Tony Mcleod on July 25, 2019, 06:22:05 AM
Antactica (a frozen desert) is warmer and wetter than anywhere on Mars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CYn0cpFuaw
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on July 25, 2019, 03:49:47 PM
GSY, I must say denying the moon landings does not improve your credibility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings)

I'm not denying it happened. I'm suggesting that it is suspect.

There is NO third party evidence that PEOPLE went to the moon. The closest thing is people tracking the spaceships coming to and from the moon and really low resolution photos which show basically nothing.

Meanwhile...
-only the US has ever been able to complete this feat.
-only under an administration that ended in resignation over lying and cheating
-nobody has been able to repeat the feat despite HUGE advances in all the relevant scientific fields.

Don't swallow everything you see on TV hook, line, and sinker. Especially from known liars.


(Attached is the best evidence from NASA: a 9 pixel photo. And finally, the best third party confirmation: a reconstruction from images from a Japanese lunar orbiter which shows a background very similar to a background from Apollo 15 photos.) Hint: none of this is compelling evidence.
 
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: SteveMDFP on July 25, 2019, 04:05:29 PM
GSY, I must say denying the moon landings does not improve your credibility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings)

I'm not denying it happened. I'm suggesting that it is suspect.

There is NO third party evidence that PEOPLE went to the moon.

So Apollo 11 only had robots to set up the Laser Ranging Retroreflector?  It's been in use since then.  You can still aim a laser at it to determine the distance to the moon, within centimeters.

Laser Ranging Retroreflector
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/ (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/)

The reason nobody has sent people there again is simply that the task is hideously expensive.  Much of the expense cannot be reduced much, despite technological advances, as long as chemical rockets are used.  And then, there's not much of importance for a human to do there any more.  We already have the rocks and soil.  Robotic probes are better and cheaper for anything else.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on July 25, 2019, 04:07:08 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Znyx2gTh3HU

From 4:25-5:00

"Today we have with us a group of students, among America's best. To you we say, we have only completed a beginning. We leave you much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered. Breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers. There are places to go, beyond belief."

Really sounds to me like a guy subtly hinting that we never went to the moon. Anyone have any other guesses at what he could be referring to as "one of truth's protective layers"?
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on July 25, 2019, 04:09:41 PM

So Apollo 11 only had robots to set up the Laser Ranging Retroreflector?  It's been in use since then.  You can still aim a laser at it to determine the distance to the moon, within centimeters.

Laser Ranging Retroreflector
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/ (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/)

The reason nobody has sent people there again is simply that the task is hideously expensive.  Much of the expense cannot be reduced much, despite technological advances, as long as chemical rockets are used.  And then, there's not much of importance for a human to do there any more.  We already have the rocks and soil.  Robotic probes are better and cheaper for anything else.

Unmanned crafts can collect rocks. Unmanned crafts can drop off a reflector. Do you honestly disagree?
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: oren on July 25, 2019, 04:13:41 PM
I did mention that the moon landings denialism was tarnishing your credibility. Then you denied being a denier, and immediately proceeded to list the denier talking points. Oh well.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on July 25, 2019, 04:20:19 PM
The reason nobody has sent people there again is simply that the task is hideously expensive.

Yes, that is a reason. But there is nothing definitive about it. It is expensive to live on mars, but that is not why nobody does.

It cost NASA a quarter trillion dollars (of today's currency) for the Apollo program. Most of that was figuring out how to do "it". The costs from there should drastically reduce. Of course there are some fixed costs which are still pretty expensive. But not prohibitively so.

Crewed expeditions are always a few years away. Russia, China, US, everyone: "About to go back to the moon."

China loans the US more money in a year to buy their products, than the cost of the entire Apollo program. Why wouldn't the Chinese go to the moon if it is doable?!? They claim to want to. The advances in science and industry in the last 50 years are HUGE, and would make the whole thing MUCH easier than it was back then.


Is everyone less advanced than the US was in the 1960s?

OR

Did the Nixon administration lie to everyone?

Hint: this is very easy, don't overthink it
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on July 25, 2019, 04:22:46 PM
I did mention that the moon landings denialism was tarnishing your credibility. Then you denied being a denier, and immediately proceeded to list the denier talking points. Oh well.

I said the whole thing was suspect, and then I made claims showing why.

You can't even make a point other than a link (which I showed proves NOTHING), but instead have a predetermined belief you are unwilling to question. This sort of intellectual weakness is common but sad. Oh well.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: SteveMDFP on July 25, 2019, 04:25:59 PM

So Apollo 11 only had robots to set up the Laser Ranging Retroreflector?  It's been in use since then.  You can still aim a laser at it to determine the distance to the moon, within centimeters.

Laser Ranging Retroreflector
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/ (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/)

The reason nobody has sent people there again is simply that the task is hideously expensive.  Much of the expense cannot be reduced much, despite technological advances, as long as chemical rockets are used.  And then, there's not much of importance for a human to do there any more.  We already have the rocks and soil.  Robotic probes are better and cheaper for anything else.

Unmanned crafts can collect rocks. Unmanned crafts can drop off a reflector. Do you honestly disagree?

They can today.  In 1969?  No, robotics weren't sufficient then.  A 25 lb rock?  And then return to earth, with nobody knowing there were no people in the reentry vehicle?  Utterly absurd.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: SteveMDFP on July 25, 2019, 04:29:15 PM

From 4:25-5:00

"Today we have with us a group of students, among America's best. To you we say, we have only completed a beginning. We leave you much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered. Breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers. There are places to go, beyond belief."

Really sounds to me like a guy subtly hinting that we never went to the moon. Anyone have any other guesses at what he could be referring to as "one of truth's protective layers"?

In the context of students and scientific discovery, the meaning is clear.  Science proceeds by discovering previously unknown truths about the universe.  Until such inquiry, these hard-won truths are indeed hidden by nature's "protective layers."

Or, one could indulge in paranoid thinking about the text, and extrapolate to the utterly absurd.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on July 25, 2019, 04:31:53 PM
They can today.  In 1969?  No, robotics weren't sufficient then.  A 25 lb rock?  And then return to earth, with nobody knowing there were no people in the reentry vehicle?  Utterly absurd.

This is rich. A 3 million kilo machine can fly to the moon, but a machine can't pick up a 25 lb rock. Ya, utter absurdity is correct.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on July 25, 2019, 04:34:04 PM

From 4:25-5:00

"Today we have with us a group of students, among America's best. To you we say, we have only completed a beginning. We leave you much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered. Breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers. There are places to go, beyond belief."

Really sounds to me like a guy subtly hinting that we never went to the moon. Anyone have any other guesses at what he could be referring to as "one of truth's protective layers"?

In the context of students and scientific discovery, the meaning is clear.  Science proceeds by discovering previously unknown truths about the universe.  Until such inquiry, these hard-won truths are indeed hidden by nature's "protective layers."

Or, one could indulge in paranoid thinking about the text, and extrapolate to the utterly absurd.

ONE of truth's protective layers.

Seriously, just take a stab at it. What do you think he is referring to?
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: SteveMDFP on July 25, 2019, 04:39:53 PM

ONE of truth's protective layers.

Seriously, just take a stab at it. What do you think he is referring to?

Paranoid ideation aside, science is a process that typically proceeds one major finding at a time.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: oren on July 25, 2019, 05:27:03 PM
I do not normally argue with deniers. It is a useless endeavor as they never listen. DNFTT is my policy. I will give you one shot though.

So to understand your position:
* Were there any manned Apollo missions? Or were they all unmanned? Or maybe they were never launched? Which of these.
* Were there any moon landings at all? Or there were but unmanned?
* Did a computerized autopilot fly the landing craft to the moon surface, and took off back to the lunar orbiter?
* Did a robot install the laser reflector and collect the rocks?
* Is it impossible to send manned missions beyond Earth orbit? Or just expensive? Or technically difficult? Which of these.
* As everything according to you can be done by unmanned missions; and yet you cite the fact that no more manned missions were sent to the moon after Apollo as proof that Apollo was a hoax; what in your opinion would be the reason for other countries or the US to want to send manned missions to the moon?
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on July 25, 2019, 06:09:20 PM
I do not normally argue with deniers. It is a useless endeavor as they never listen. DNFTT is my policy. I will give you one shot though.

Let's start with this: the epithet "denier" is only relevant if you mean I deny that humans definitely went to the moon. I'm not arguing that the earth is flat and that the moon is a disc, or that the american flag flapped in the wind. I'm just saying that the whole thing is very suspicious for many GLARING reasons. Most people are unwilling to engage with these issues cuz they will be labelled a denier or they just can't handle the intellectual complexity of the societal implications of a fake moon landing.

So thanks for at least engaging is semi-good-faith.


* Were there any manned Apollo missions? Or were they all unmanned? Or maybe they were never launched? Which of these.
* Were there any moon landings at all? Or there were but unmanned?

I think people almost definitely went into low earth orbit during the Apollo missions. Did anyone ever orbit or land on the moon? I'm not sure.

* Did a computerized autopilot fly the landing craft to the moon surface, and took off back to the lunar orbiter?
* Did a robot install the laser reflector and collect the rocks?

I think installing a laser reflector is totally possible for a robot, even back then. And same with collecting rocks. I'm also not convinced that the "moon rocks" are from the moon, although they probably are.

* Is it impossible to send manned missions beyond Earth orbit? Or just expensive? Or technically difficult? Which of these.

My guess is that humans can't survive beyond low earth orbit.

* As everything according to you can be done by unmanned missions; and yet you cite the fact that no more manned missions were sent to the moon after Apollo as proof that Apollo was a hoax; what in your opinion would be the reason for other countries or the US to want to send manned missions to the moon?

Well no, I do not cite anything as proof of a hoax.

As for why anyone would want to go:
-everyone makes declarations that they will try to go to the moon.
-it makes sense to build a base there for many reason: science, industry, low-gravity launchpad for space exploration, tourism.
-human desire to explore.
-feminism: a woman should walk on the moon.


Now can you respond to some things?

-is it not suspicious that despite enormous improvements in all the relevant fields, no other country or company has put a man on the moon?
-is it not suspicious that all the moon landings happened during the Nixon administration?
-is it not suspicious the way Niel Armstrong speaks about the moon?
-is it not suspicious that NASA lost/taped over the original moon landing tapes?
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: kassy on July 25, 2019, 09:42:55 PM
I think one of the reasons why this meme popped up is that the US actually lies about a lot of stuff all the time. And they actually wage their own war on science which does not help either.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on July 25, 2019, 11:21:00 PM
GSY wrote:
Quote
I think people almost definitely went into low earth orbit during the Apollo missions. Did anyone ever orbit or land on the moon? I'm not sure.

NASA engineers had to shed every possible ounce to get the Apollo ships (in full view of the world before launch) to the moon.  There certainly was not an additional lunar lander in the stack.  In-flight broadcasts showed astronauts in the capsule, the command model, and the lunar lander.  In weightlessness.  Which cannot be faked within the 45 seconds of weightlessness a Vomit Comet plane can provide. 

Second launch?  No.  Remember, this was during the cold war.  All the major powers were keeping constant watch for unexpected launches — they might mean an ICBM attack!   And, military and astronomers tracked every item in space even back then.  The sudden appearance of a spacecraft in low earth orbit would be front page news!  Was everyone in NORAD in on the conspiracy??  And no one has ever said anything??

Re-entry from lunar orbit is much different than re-entry from low earth orbit.  Astronomers would not be fooled.  And they would have been following the spacecraft since it launched.

Why bother with all those Apollo space-rendezvous-practice and around-the-moon missions?  They could have simply made Apollo 8 a fake landing mission.  Done!

Were the Apollo 13 astronauts — close to death for five days — really in near earth orbit, but NASA wouldn’t let them land, because they had to pretend to complete their lunar orbit, else it would “ruin the plan”? ? ?   

And everyone at every network and all aeronautical journalists and astronomers and sky trackers AROUND THE WORLD were tricked for years, and NOT ONE realized it, or revealed the hoax?

No.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: DrTskoul on July 26, 2019, 12:50:59 AM
Oy vey... what's next, contrails ???
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on July 26, 2019, 01:01:42 AM
Well, I have to admit that 50 years later we can’t go back.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on July 26, 2019, 02:00:42 AM
I'm impressed that I ask a series of questions about whether or not people find certain things suspicious and no one touches it. Cuz you can't say it isn't suspicious, but you also can't admit there are suspicious things, cuz then POOF: you are a denier.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Shared Humanity on July 26, 2019, 02:08:19 AM


Let's start with this: the epithet "denier" is only relevant if you mean I deny that humans definitely went to the moon. I'm not arguing that the earth is flat and that the moon is a disc, or that the american flag flapped in the wind. I'm just saying that the whole thing is very suspicious for many GLARING reasons. Most people are unwilling to engage with these issues cuz they will be labelled a denier or they just can't handle the intellectual complexity of the societal implications of a fake moon landing.

So thanks for at least engaging is semi-good-faith.


Congratulations. You have just earned the quickest ignore decision That I have ever made...
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: wili on July 26, 2019, 02:12:21 AM
SH, what took you so long!  :D
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Shared Humanity on July 26, 2019, 02:14:10 AM
SH, what took you so long!  :D

Wasn't paying attention?
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on July 26, 2019, 02:14:17 AM
In-flight broadcasts showed astronauts in the capsule, the command model, and the lunar lander.  In weightlessness.  Which cannot be faked within the 45 seconds of weightlessness a Vomit Comet plane can provide.

There is no reason the videos of the astronauts could not have been taken ahead of time in low earth orbit.

All the major powers were keeping constant watch for unexpected launches — they might mean an ICBM attack!   And, military and astronomers tracked every item in space even back then.  The sudden appearance of a spacecraft in low earth orbit would be front page news!  Was everyone in NORAD in on the conspiracy??  And no one has ever said anything??

The astronauts have gone up in a planned low earth orbit flight a year before Apollo 11, and taken videos then. There would not be any need for an unexpected spacecraft.

Re-entry from lunar orbit is much different than re-entry from low earth orbit.  Astronomers would not be fooled.  And they would have been following the spacecraft since it launched.

No reason to re-enter from low earth orbit. An unmanned spacecraft could have made the flight around the moon.

Why bother with all those Apollo space-rendezvous-practice and around-the-moon missions?  They could have simply made Apollo 8 a fake landing mission.  Done

Buy time. Get footage for the fake. Add to the public's acceptance of the plausibility of going to the moon.

Were the Apollo 13 astronauts — close to death for five days — really in near earth orbit, but NASA wouldn’t let them land, because they had to pretend to complete their lunar orbit, else it would “ruin the plan”? ? ?

How do you know they were "close to death"? Everything might have gone perfectly according to plan.

And everyone at every network and all aeronautical journalists and astronomers and sky trackers AROUND THE WORLD were tricked for years, and NOT ONE realized it, or revealed the hoax?

No.

A significant number of people questioned the veracity of the whole thing right from the beginning, so the idea that NOT ONE person "realized it" is silly.

Everything that every astronomer and sky tracker thought they observed they probably did observe. I'm not familiar of any astronomers who through a big telescope saw people walk on the moon.

It is all super suspicious. Just admit it. Doesn't mean you know it was a fake or anything of the sort.

Yes.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on July 26, 2019, 02:15:55 AM


Let's start with this: the epithet "denier" is only relevant if you mean I deny that humans definitely went to the moon. I'm not arguing that the earth is flat and that the moon is a disc, or that the american flag flapped in the wind. I'm just saying that the whole thing is very suspicious for many GLARING reasons. Most people are unwilling to engage with these issues cuz they will be labelled a denier or they just can't handle the intellectual complexity of the societal implications of a fake moon landing.

So thanks for at least engaging is semi-good-faith.


Congratulations. You have just earned the quickest ignore decision That I have ever made...

As the old saying goes, "He who questions the least, is the wisest!" Maybe I have that backwards...
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Shared Humanity on July 26, 2019, 02:25:50 AM
It is not my preference to ignore someone. All learning occurs when a person encounters information that is currently unknown. This can be from a book or a discussion where views distinct from your own cause you to reconsider something you consider to be true.

That said, I have no interest in discussing the merits of abiogenesis, that life can spontaneously emerge from nonliving matter on a time scale of minutes, weeks, or years despite that a man as brilliant as Aristotle had developed the theory and that it was generally held to be true for a couple of millennia.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on July 26, 2019, 02:48:11 AM
Can someone ask SH how life does begin, please? Or can he see my comments? (I don't really understand the whole "ignorant" "ignore" thing.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: oren on July 26, 2019, 03:54:03 AM

I will try to respond to your points, just this once. TBH, I have no hopes of reaching the target audience, but here goes.

"I think people almost definitely went into low earth orbit during the Apollo missions. Did anyone ever orbit or land on the moon? I'm not sure."
Apollo 8 was a manned mission that orbited the moon in December 1968, one month before Nixon was inaugurated as president. So was Lyndon Johnson's administration part of the hoax too?

"I think installing a laser reflector is totally possible for a robot, even back then. And same with collecting rocks. I'm also not convinced that the "moon rocks" are from the moon, although they probably are."
I am 1000% certain that designing an auto-pilot capable of landing a spacecraft on the moon and taking off with it to rendezvous back with a lunar orbiter was a technically impossible task back then. Should I remind the state of computerization? Punch cards? A whole room for a computer? The use of human "computers" to make calculations?
It was certainly much cheaper to use experienced test pilots, willing to risk their lives for glory and a thrill and their country. The same applies for all stages of the lunar mission. Humans were simply much better, lighter and cheaper than computers or robots back then. The cost and difficulty of tanks of oxygen and a good vacuum-tight pressure suit were certainly bearable.

"My guess is that humans can't survive beyond low earth orbit."
This is the most preposterous "doubt" of the whole list. Any special reason why they cannot? Need oxygen and protection from vacuum, actually easier than diving the deep oceans.
If you might claim that radiation could kill humans beyond Earth, radiation is a long-term killer. why would the lying administration care about the radiation dangers for a few expendable humans, compared to the risk of someone discovering the purported hoax?
Maybe you might claim that lack of gravity could kill them? Or maybe you don't realize a reason is needed for humans being unable to survive somewhere.

"As for why anyone would want to go:
-everyone makes declarations that they will try to go to the moon.
-it makes sense to build a base there for many reason: science, industry, low-gravity launchpad for space exploration, tourism.
-human desire to explore.
-feminism: a woman should walk on the moon."
All are important reasons, but would you vote for a president that would offer to spend $250B to fulfill one of these goals, taking the money away from fighting poverty, providing education to children, rebuilding the country's infrastructure, or fighting climate change? In reality, once the prestigious goal was achieved, the public pressured to spend the money elsewhere.
In reality, the overarching desire to get to the moon was to get there first. If you check the history of South Pole expeditions, once Amundsen reached the pole in 1911, and Scott immediately after him, and Shackleton's aborted mission in 1914, there were no south pole surface missions until 1956! I can imagine the south pole "doubters" having a field day in 1952 claiming that Amundsen was a hoax, citing as proof that no one repeated a South Pole visit for over 40 years despite all the advances. Admit it - it's highly suspicious!
Do you seriously believe that the Soviets would admit losing the moon race just because Nixon was good at lying and photoshop?

"-is it not suspicious that despite enormous improvements in all the relevant fields, no other country or company has put a man on the moon?"
No. It was an extremely expensive endeavor, still is. Launch costs beyond earth orbit have not come down that much, with the most major advance (SpaceX's reusable rockets, which you claim are a hoax as well) only achieved in the last few years. Governments are notoriously short on budgets, and the advent of electronics and robotics enable sending unmanned missions at a fraction of the cost.
Companies would not do it without a commercial reason, which there isn't or wasn't until recently (maybe tourism could be a future reason). But the whole private undertaking is only made possible by the existence of crazy and filthy-rich billionaires willing to throw money away at the problem. These billionaires did not exist in the 70s and 80s and even 90s, before economic inequality shot through the roof.

"-is it not suspicious that all the moon landings happened during the Nixon administration?"
No. Apollo 8 happened during Johnson's administration, and the whole program was put together many years before 1969. the people on the program would not have cooperated with a hoax just because the president was changed. A better "doubter/denier" claim would have been that the Johnson administration set up the program as a hoax in the first place. But there's also what Sig wrote - hundreds of thousands of people watched the launches,  every capable country tracked them, a lot was televised, the contents of the spacecraft were analyzed, the hoax would have been discovered in near real time. There were so many powerful countries with an interest to uncover such a hoax, are you not suspicious that no rival ever came forward with the accusations?
Of the huge number of people that were part of the program, aren't you suspicious that no one ever came forward and confessed the "hoax"?

"-is it not suspicious the way Niel Armstrong speaks about the moon?"
What, this: "Breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers."? Seriously, Neil Armstrong knows the truth and is trying to signal the public secretly? No, he is just using a metaphor that to make discoveries you have to break through walls around the scientific truth. And as the main "hero" of the Apollo program, the one who gained the most from the "hoax", why would he of all people hint at its fake-ness?

"-is it not suspicious that NASA lost/taped over the original moon landing tapes?"
No. The "master tapes" were an afterthought, and no one ever looked for them. At some point, such tapes were hard to come by, and someone decided to reuse a heap of tapes, including those from Apollo 11 (only these are missing AFAIK).
Read this. https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-original-moon-landing-footage-is-missing-or-was-erased-If-this-is-true-isnt-this-a-gold-mine-for-conspiracy-theorists (https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-original-moon-landing-footage-is-missing-or-was-erased-If-this-is-true-isnt-this-a-gold-mine-for-conspiracy-theorists)

"I'm not arguing that the earth is flat and that the moon is a disc, or that the american flag flapped in the wind. I'm just saying that the whole thing is very suspicious for many GLARING reasons."
I am not arguing that you are gullible beyond belief. I'm just saying that the whole hoax claim/"doubt" thing is suspicious for many glaring reasons.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: etienne on July 26, 2019, 11:37:43 AM
National Geographic Apollo 11 birthday t-shirt in organic cotton if you look for a present for somebody born in 1969 https://rapanuiclothing.com/collection/mens-national-geographic-x-rapanui/
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on July 26, 2019, 03:22:09 PM
Most of your response consists of red herrings, which I will ignore rather than wade through.

Any special reason why they cannot? Need oxygen and protection from vacuum, actually easier than diving the deep oceans.
If you might claim that radiation could kill humans beyond Earth, radiation is a long-term killer. why would the lying administration care about the radiation dangers for a few expendable humans, compared to the risk of someone discovering the purported hoax?
Maybe you might claim that lack of gravity could kill them? Or maybe you don't realize a reason is needed for humans being unable to survive somewhere.

Maybe the thalamus needs earth's electromagnetic field. Maybe scientist still don't understand a lot of what is required for humans to survive. (Or is that over and done, the learning new things part of science?)

"-is it not suspicious that NASA lost/taped over the original moon landing tapes?"
No. The "master tapes" were an afterthought, and no one ever looked for them. At some point, such tapes were hard to come by, and someone decided to reuse a heap of tapes, including those from Apollo 11 (only these are missing AFAIK).

"No, it is not suspicious that the most important tapes ever were just discarded or destroyed."
(seriously, can you suggest any more worthy tape for humanity to save? i doubt it)

I am not arguing that you are gullible beyond belief. I'm just saying that the whole hoax claim/"doubt" thing is suspicious for many glaring reasons.

Yes, the moon hoax thing is super suspicious. So is the the moon landing thing. Not fully accepting incomplete explanations is the definition of NOT being gullible.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: etienne on July 26, 2019, 03:45:31 PM
GSY I believe the biggest hoax is the american independence. Why do you think Trump is so happy with Johnson? Because he has a prime minister he likes. If facts can't be facts anymore, than we better stop discussing. Do you remember Galileo and the question of what falls faster? Well, check the facts and leave your feelings on the side.
------------
Added: I agree that history is not physics, but walking on the moon is like the roman empire, the french and the american revolutions, the gas chambers in Auschwitz, Christopher Columbus, the chinese empire, the world colonisation by european countries, slavery, apartheid..., nobody should have doubts that it once was true. These are milestones in human history and if you don't accept it, you're probably trying to support some weird non democratic ideology.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: oren on July 26, 2019, 03:54:05 PM
GSY, I suspected in advance you would not listen, so no surprise there. But the least you could do was to relate to the Apollo 8 timing and whether you believe LBJ administration was also part of the hoax or not.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: etienne on July 26, 2019, 05:25:56 PM
Believing that man could not have walked on the moon is somehow believing that something (some god?) puts a brake on what man can do. Only physics are the limit. This was already known a long time ago, it is the story of Adam and Eva, they received the earth and the knowledge of good and bad. We who inherited of it are still in the same situation, fully responsible with no one else as ourselves to solve the problems. No god stopped the fight between Cain and Abel, no god is going to stop climate change. Lets face reality and go to work. We don't need a guide, we are all fellows on earth (and in front of God if you are a believer). Don't forget the apocalypse, to be saved doesn't require to be a believer, but to be good.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on July 26, 2019, 08:59:20 PM
Quote
Quote
Quote from: Sigmetnow on July 25, 2019, 11:21:00 PM
Re-entry from lunar orbit is much different than re-entry from low earth orbit.  Astronomers would not be fooled.  And they would have been following the spacecraft since it launched.

No reason to re-enter from low earth orbit. An unmanned spacecraft could have made the flight around the moon.
And followed to touchdown, where the capsule would be opened and... no astronauts inside!

Quote
Quote
Quote from: Sigmetnow on July 25, 2019, 11:21:00 PM
Were the Apollo 13 astronauts — close to death for five days — really in near earth orbit, but NASA wouldn’t let them land, because they had to pretend to complete their lunar orbit, else it would “ruin the plan”? ? ?
How do you know they were "close to death"? Everything might have gone perfectly according to plan.
How do you know they weren’t?  All the evidence we have says they were — including the astronauts themselves.  To ignore that is to ignore reality — which is exactly what you are doing.

The plethora of contortions you cite to create a moon landing hoax would have been more expensive, and less likely to succeed, than the real thing.  And your rejection of the science, and grasping at “suspicions” to support the theory, clearly illustrates your lack of knowledge about space travel.  You admit you are not sure.  Research the science, rather than the conspiracy videos, and see what you find.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on July 27, 2019, 01:48:58 PM
For those who are interested in what’s actually happening, these days, to get us closer to space colonization:  SpaceX just completed a successful first free flight of its Starhopper test vehicle for its new, most-powerful Raptor rocket engine.  Previous test firings have shown the Raptor can provide enough thrust to get their future Starship (with a Superheavy booster) to the moon, and Mars — with payload capability of up to 100 people.

Starship is the spacecraft (currently under development/ being built) that is most likely to take humans back to the moon, and on to Mars, within the next decade.  The recent Starhopper test (liftoff just 20 meters, hover and translate to the side 6 meters and land) is much like the early flights of the Grasshopper test bed for the Falcon 9 rocket, which developed its ability to land and re-launch.  Two Starship prototypes are being built today; Starship prototype test hops/flights are expected before the end of the year.

From Reddit:
Quote
< This is the first flight of a full-flow staged combustion engine. Not only is the most challenging rocket cycle, they've managed to get it throttling (and gimbaling) so that it can hover a water tower with precision :-O
Well done SpaceX, the reason all us engineers across the world are cyber-stalking you is that you're doing the coolest goddamn engineering we've ever seen.

SpaceX’s Starhopper nails first untethered flight as CEO Elon Musk teases next test
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starhopper-nails-first-untethered-flight-elon-musk/

Starhopper test, annotated:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-guuMr53Uw

Historical Grasshopper test:  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HXdjxPY2j_0

Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: oren on July 27, 2019, 06:02:43 PM
Beautiful, though wrong thread...
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on July 27, 2019, 06:39:25 PM
Beautiful, though wrong thread...

Simply wanted to catch people up on the most likely colonization program out there, and provide a historical baseline for future developments.  Of course, most details will be in The Rest > SpaceX thread.  Although Musk’s upcoming update on Starship will probably also be relevant here....

Just realized the Starhopper article I posted had no good photos to show scale.  So here’s the hopper in a more quiet time, plus the two sections (so far) of the Starship being constructed in Texas. Click to see the entire photo.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Shared Humanity on July 27, 2019, 07:57:54 PM
Maybe Elon could ship a fleet of Tesla's and a boring machine to Mars. Want to get that high speed underground mass transit up and running for the masses that are sure to follow.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: kassy on July 27, 2019, 09:37:09 PM
There is a really good colonization program in THGTTG.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: TerryM on July 27, 2019, 09:53:13 PM
Why would any sane person even consider moving to a different planet?
How could such an undertaking be looked upon with approval?
Terry
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: oren on July 28, 2019, 12:36:19 AM
For adventure? To get away from it all? To be first?
Not for me, but I can see how for some it could be desirable.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on July 28, 2019, 03:31:08 PM
Let’s see what NASA, Blue Origin, and China, have in the works for getting humans to the moon and Mars.

NASA to Mars:  Maybe in the late 2030’s?
Independent Report Concludes 2033 Human Mars Mission Is Not Feasible [for NASA]
https://www.space.com/human-mars-mission-is-not-feasible.html

——
So, how about NASA’S moon ambitions?
EM-1 is NASA’s uncrewed moon mission;  EM-2 is to be crewed.  The plan, to use an Orion space capsule and the yet-to-be-flown big Space Launch System (SLS) rocket has been sped up due to the current president’s wish to go back to the moon by 2020. (Which is not likely to happen.)  NASA has long envisioned a three-stage approach, using a big rocket to reach a small “Lunar Gateway” space station in a (weird) HALO orbit around the moon, plus a separate lunar lander.

Here’s a long read on NASA’s desperate attempts to get back to the moon using Orion and… a big rocket of some sort.
< tl;dr: Orion is big and fat, for reasons better not remembered
NASA Launch Services Program outlines the alternative launcher review for EM1
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/04/nasa-lsp-studies-alternate-orion-options/

Concerning Orion – Amid SLS push, Orion requires Life Support testing
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/04/concerning-orion-sls-push-orion-eclss-testing/

NASA looking at SLS certification schedule changes in ‘Drive to EM-1’
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/05/nasa-sls-certification-schedule-changes-drive-em-1/

NASA Moving Ahead with Return to the Moon, with or without SLS
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/05/nasa-return-moon-with-without-sls/
Considering inflatable habitats or even a single-stage earth-orbit-to-moon-landing craft like the SpaceX Starship.

—-
From 2018
Blue Origin: Jeff Bezos' Space Firm Targets Moon Colony First Step in 2023
https://www.inverse.com/article/46697-blue-origin-jeff-bezos-space-firm-targets-moon-colony-first-step-in-2023

—-
50 years after US moon landing, China is catching up in the space race
Quote
The architect of China's lunar exploration program, Wu Weiren, said in March that the Chinese government would launch a Mars probe in 2020. Beijing is also planning to launch a permanent space station by 2022.
There are even preliminary plans to become the second country in the world to put a person on the surface of the moon, possibly in the 2030s.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/19/asia/china-apollo-us-space-race-intl-hnk/index.html
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on July 30, 2019, 05:16:57 PM
Why would any sane person even consider moving to a different planet?
How could such an undertaking be looked upon with approval?
Terry

There are plenty of people who are competent but not sane. Very useful for stupid endeavors.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: TerryM on July 30, 2019, 06:11:17 PM
Why would any sane person even consider moving to a different planet?
How could such an undertaking be looked upon with approval?
Terry

There are plenty of people who are competent but not sane. Very useful for stupid endeavors.


 ;D


Terry
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: vox_mundi on July 30, 2019, 09:23:14 PM
Humans Will Never Colonize Mars
https://gizmodo.com/humans-will-never-colonize-mars-1836316222

The suggestion that humans will soon set up bustling, long-lasting colonies on Mars is something many of us take for granted. What this lofty vision fails to appreciate, however, are the monumental—if not intractable—challenges awaiting colonists who want to permanently live on Mars. Unless we radically adapt our brains and bodies to the harsh Martian environment, the Red Planet will forever remain off limits to humans.

Mars is the closest thing we have to Earth in the entire solar system, and that’s not saying much.

... many people today fail to appreciate how difficult it’ll be to sustain colonies on the Red Planet.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on July 31, 2019, 03:12:39 AM
... many people today fail to appreciate how difficult it’ll be to sustain colonies on the Red Planet.

We have sustained a small “colony” on the International Space Station for 20 years, and it has NO in situ resources (except solar power).  The surface of Mars is bountiful in comparison.  Mars even has gravity, and a day-length not too different from earth.

No one has said space colonization would be easy!  It will be our biggest challenge, and perhaps our biggest achievement.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: karl dubhe2 on July 31, 2019, 03:41:13 PM
... many people today fail to appreciate how difficult it’ll be to sustain colonies on the Red Planet.

We have sustained a small “colony” on the International Space Station for 20 years, and it has NO in situ resources (except solar power).  The surface of Mars is bountiful in comparison.  Mars even has gravity, and a day-length not too different from earth.


Ummm, Really the ISS is an outpost, not a colony.   Nobody lives there permanently, nor will someone do something like that for quite a while.   No one has been born up there, nor has anyone died of old age (or violence from warfare).   There's no local foodstuffs up there, nor is there on Mars (that we know of, I suppose it's possible there some kind of divine Manna there.).

The gravity on Mars isn't really enough gravity for our species to live there, not comfortably anyhow.   We'd do better to terraform Venus.   (If we're allowed to speculate wildly, that is.)   If we could develop 'artificial' gravity, I'm thinking we'd do better to stick to space ships rather than a very hostile glorified moon.   :) 
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: SteveMDFP on July 31, 2019, 04:10:24 PM
... many people today fail to appreciate how difficult it’ll be to sustain colonies on the Red Planet.

We have sustained a small “colony” on the International Space Station for 20 years, and it has NO in situ resources (except solar power).  The surface of Mars is bountiful in comparison.  Mars even has gravity, and a day-length not too different from earth.

No one has said space colonization would be easy!  It will be our biggest challenge, and perhaps our biggest achievement.

In addition to what Karl said, low-earth orbit has several advantages over Mars.  Chiefly, shielding by earth's magnetosphere.  But also, quick transit time from earth--hours instead of months.  Also much cheaper to get to.  Also, no toxic soil full of perchlorates.

Any Mars "colony" should be limited to AI-controlled autonomous robots.  They don't need food, water, or air.  They don't mind radiation.  Perchlorates won't kill them.  They can mine and produce rocket fuel, even grow food to send to a space "colony" if Earth breaks down and can't supply help.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Shared Humanity on July 31, 2019, 06:12:34 PM
... many people today fail to appreciate how difficult it’ll be to sustain colonies on the Red Planet.

We have sustained a small “colony” on the International Space Station for 20 years, and it has NO in situ resources (except solar power).  The surface of Mars is bountiful in comparison.  Mars even has gravity, and a day-length not too different from earth.

No one has said space colonization would be easy!  It will be our biggest challenge, and perhaps our biggest achievement.

And those no in situ resources necessitates regular resupply from earth in order to function.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2018/04/30/what-does-it-take-to-keep-the-station-stocked-with-supplies/

Good luck making toilet paper on Mars...
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on July 31, 2019, 06:16:32 PM
Quote
Good luck making toilet paper on Mars...

At least there’s no need for a zero-gravity toilet! ;)
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: DrTskoul on July 31, 2019, 06:19:01 PM
A vacuum toilet with washing jets... (hate those but what can u do)
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on July 31, 2019, 06:42:39 PM
A vacuum toilet with washing jets... (hate those but what can u do)

Making more advanced options like this more available, socially acceptable, and less expensive... here on earth... is an excellent example of how efforts for life in space can make life better and more sustainable here.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: SteveMDFP on July 31, 2019, 07:43:25 PM
A vacuum toilet ...
Just make sure you're not sitting there when the vacuum turns on.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: DrTskoul on July 31, 2019, 07:45:23 PM
A vacuum toilet ...
Just make sure you're not sitting there when the vacuum turns on.

In space I think they are sitting with vaccum on ...
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: TerryM on July 31, 2019, 08:31:12 PM
Recall that an oxygen mask will only keep one alive for ~75 seconds on the surface of Mars. A full body pressure suit, or a pressurized cabin is the only way to evade the Armstrong Limit or Armstrong Line. When water boils at body temperature, you lose consciousness rapidly, you're dead in less than a minute and a half.


A colony at the bottom of the Marianas Trench is pretty far fetched, but compared to permanently colonizing Mars it seems almost reasonable. When Maye and Errol were envisioning vicariously ruling Mars by giving birth to their very own Elon, atmospheric pressure on Mars was assumed to be much higher than it was later found to be. Wernher even envisioned his spacecraft's landing ships flying in a thick Martian atmosphere!


It was decent science fiction - for the time, but probably not the kind of thing to use as a lullaby to implant dreams into the head of a baby.


or is it all just a very unlikely coincidence?
Terry
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on July 31, 2019, 09:51:21 PM
Quote
2021 - Surface habitats/In Situ Propellant Production
“Initially, [we’ll use] glass panes with carbon fiber frames to build geodesic domes on the surface [of Mars], plus a lot of miner/tunnelling droids. With the latter, you can build out a huge amount of pressurized space for industrial operations and leave the glass domes for green living space.”
- Elon Musk
Boring Company tunnels...?

Quote
The whole closed-cycle idea may be closer than you would think. The ISS has effectively been a nearly two decade long experiment in making resources last as long as possible. They have effective air and water recycling to say the least.
- Reddit comment

New article/discussion in Reddit on the SpaceX timeline revealed so far.
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/ck91az/starship_plan_coming_together/

The Russian Progress spacecraft that launched and docked to the ISS this morning (!) has ensured Station food supplies (the shortest item on the consumables list) to February 2020.  NASA has two decades of experience managing supplies in space.  Starship has the cargo capacity of an Airbus A380 (so, orders of magnitude larger than current supply ships); SpaceX is already making two of them, and Musk has mentioned making hundreds of Raptor engines a year. 

Progress MS-12 docks with ISS to restock Station supplies through early-2020
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/07/progress-ms-12-restock-station-through-early-2020/
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on August 01, 2019, 02:25:11 PM
Will Antarctica be colonizable with AGW?
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: DrTskoul on August 01, 2019, 02:40:47 PM
Will Antarctica be colonizable with AGW?

With everybody else underwater sure...
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: crandles on August 01, 2019, 03:22:27 PM
'Antarctica would be easier to live on than Mars' and 'there are only bases for temporary research purposes' are being used for why it doesn't make sense for people to go to live on Mars.

But does
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Environmental_Protection_to_the_Antarctic_Treaty

make it rather difficult with requirements such as:

Quote
Article 8 requires environmental assessment for all activities, including tourism.
Article 3 states that protection of the Antarctic environment as a wilderness with aesthetic and scientific value shall be a "fundamental consideration" of activities in the area.
"Any activity relating to mineral resources, other than scientific research, shall be prohibited.

If you can't use the resources there, why go live there?

The other example used is living permanently underwater. Does this make sense? If you can get there in a sub and get back to the surface even if you need slow depressurisation for a week, and this allows you to do what you want while there, is there much reason to go live there when it is easier to live on surface?

By comparison, if you can use the resources on Mars and it is not easy to travel back and forth (several months not just a week), does this give an incentive to go there and develop a colony?


Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 01, 2019, 04:54:53 PM
...
By comparison, if you can use the resources on Mars and it is not easy to travel back and forth (several months not just a week), does this give an incentive to go there and develop a colony?

“Incentive” is also a personal thing.  People pay upwards of $60,000 for the privilege of climbing Mount Everest, where a moment without gloves to take a summit photo results in loss of fingers from frostbite; oxygen deprivation causes brain and lung edema; and frozen dead people are landmarks on the route to the top.  But people still go.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: kassy on August 01, 2019, 08:19:01 PM
And they are in a line to get there.

If you want to live somewhere you have to grow your own food so you only have to fly in the technical supplies. Then you need to built material from local so some mining and industry if you want to expand.

But how do you grow all the food you want? You cannot start from just seeds because you would miss all the co evolved bacteria and fungi in the soil. So you might want to bring some soil for seeding. Then you still have no animals.

No Brie no colony! (for me)

Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: philopek on August 01, 2019, 08:40:59 PM

If you can't use the resources there, why go live there?


There currently at least 3 nations that will give a sh..t about those treaties but take advantage that less powerful nations didn't dare to brake it and carry the entire pot home.

I don't doubt the tiniest bit that you see that too, your statement in isolated reply to the quoted post is therefore correct while there, as usual, is/will be much more to it ;)
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 03, 2019, 02:13:28 PM
Astronauts will bake cookies in space to see how they cook in zero gravity
Quote
Dessert sounds like such a triviality when confronted by all the challenges of deep space, from keeping humans alive to repairing spacecraft. But the science learned from these edible experiments explore bigger engineering questions about thermodynamics, state changes, and even the psychology of supporting humans working in isolation.

“Sometimes in our space world, we have trouble relating to the everyday person and struggle to explain why space exploration is so important,” Dickes says. “So we really have a great opportunity here to teach the world about the Space Station, why cooking in space is so important for long-term exploration, and how space-science is one of the coolest, strangest, and most important things on our planet.”
https://qz.com/1680054/astronauts-plan-on-baking-cookies-on-the-iss/
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: DrTskoul on August 03, 2019, 03:20:04 PM
Why would thermodynamics change in space ??? The magnitude of the various phenomena will, but thermodynamics ? I am disappointed of today's scientific writers.....
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on August 03, 2019, 03:40:59 PM
... many people today fail to appreciate how difficult it’ll be to sustain colonies on the Red Planet.

We have sustained a small “colony” on the International Space Station for 20 years.

I don't think you understand what a colony is. You need relationships with the ecosystem around you to have a colony. No ecosystem, no colony.

In todays world of detached nonsense, it is easy to forget the biological basis of life.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: TerryM on August 03, 2019, 08:42:01 PM
... many people today fail to appreciate how difficult it’ll be to sustain colonies on the Red Planet.

We have sustained a small “colony” on the International Space Station for 20 years.

I don't think you understand what a colony is. You need relationships with the ecosystem around you to have a colony. No ecosystem, no colony.

In todays world of detached nonsense, it is easy to forget the biological basis of life.


Perhaps a colony of mites, a colony of bacteria that somehow escaped sterilization efforts? It sounds very unlikely, but -


Terry
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt2 on August 21, 2019, 10:53:03 AM
There is less and less time for salvation from a global catastrophe in space shelters.

At the top of Greenland, a new melting event happened.

This means that now the frequency of thawing events there has grown to once every 7 years.

http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

Quote
At summit: The highest temperatures in the past 12 years

The NOAA 2-meter air temperature data from Summit Station on the July 30, 2019 was at or above freezing for more than 11 hours, a record in the last 12 years, which has seen a period of increased temperatures overall. Furthermore, this melting event on July 30 also sets the record for the preceding century. Prior to 2012, melt layers at summit have been absent since 1889, and only appear again 680 years earlier.

Only two other melt events occurred here in the last 12 years, both shorter: On July 11, 2012 melting lasted for about 6.5 hours and on July 31, 2019 for more than five hours. The highest 1-hour average of above-freezing temperatures were set in 2012 at 0.79 degrees Celsius (33.4 degrees Fahrenheit) and in 2019 at 0.92 degrees Celsius (33.7 degrees Fahrenheit). Cooling on the evening of July 30 to 31 was minimal, to approximately -2.5 degrees Celsius (27.5 degrees Fahrenheit), and an unprecedented second day of above-freezing maximum temperatures occurred on July 31, 2019, when temperatures were above freezing for more than five hours and reached a maximum of 1.1 degrees Celsius (34.0 degrees Fahrenheit).

For comparison, in the past 10 thousand years, such events did not occur more often than once every 25 years.

https://climatechange.umaine.edu/gisp2/data/alley1.html

The unprecedented nature of the current disaster in Greenland can be displayed on the graph:
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: kassy on August 21, 2019, 02:39:14 PM
There is less and less time for salvation from a global catastrophe in space shelters.

And the duration of the global catastrophe added to our inability to actually live in space means that it will never offer salvation. Let´s fix the only liveable place we have first...
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Archimid on August 21, 2019, 02:46:26 PM
 Neither  mars nor space can offer shelter. They are the next frontier. To conquer it we first must save ourselves from climate change.

If we show the discipline and technological prowess necessary to save ourselves from the mess we are in, space is the reward.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: TerryM on August 21, 2019, 04:23:29 PM
Neither  mars nor space can offer shelter. They are the next frontier. To conquer it we first must save ourselves from climate change.

If we show the discipline and technological prowess necessary to save ourselves from the mess we are in, space is the reward punishment for our past transgressions.
I made a minor alteration to your post. ;)


Having visited some of the most desiccated places on this planet, I can assure all that these places haven't remained uninhabited because we've built huge fences to keep people out. They're uninhabited because people don't want to live there.


The moon in a bubble? Mars in an artificial underground cavern? Someone at sometime might be forced to flee to such an environment, but their dreams would be filled with visions of idyllic times spent overwintering in Antarctica, summers at Furnace Creek in Death Valley, or being perched on a Himalayan peak where breathing bottled oxygen made life possible.


Space has been within our grasp for half a century, but has enticed no colonists. Even volcanic calderas seeping noxious gas would provide a better, safer and more enjoyable environment for our species.


Space Fantasies gripped the fancy of many a prepubescent male. Most outgrow such foolish notions.
Terry
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on August 21, 2019, 04:27:42 PM
Neither  mars nor space can offer shelter. They are the next frontier. To conquer it we first must save ourselves from climate change.

If we show the discipline and technological prowess necessary to save ourselves from the mess we are in, space is the reward.

No. Mars in 2 years. Trust in your Muskiah.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Archimid on August 21, 2019, 04:41:47 PM
Why did you visit such places if they were so horrible? Resources? Curiosity? We’re you a pioneer, trailblazing through uncharted lands machete in hand or the locals showed you around? Get it? The locals?
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt2 on August 21, 2019, 05:29:46 PM
Neither  mars nor space can offer shelter. They are the next frontier. To conquer it we first must save ourselves from climate change.

If we show the discipline and technological prowess necessary to save ourselves from the mess we are in, space is the reward.

I think civilization on Earth can no longer be saved. There is no time left for this. Recent studies indicate the approach of the Venusian scenario (an increase in the number of strong earthquakes and the death of the biosphere).


For example new study:

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/8/eaax1396

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-stopped-getting-greener-20-years-ago/

Quote
The world is gradually becoming less green, scientists have found. Plant growth is declining all over the planet, and new research links the phenomenon to decreasing moisture in the air—a consequence of climate change.

The study published yesterday in Science Advances points to satellite observations that revealed expanding vegetation worldwide during much of the 1980s and 1990s. But then, about 20 years ago, the trend stopped.

Since then, more than half of the world’s vegetated landscapes have been experiencing a “browning” trend, or decrease in plant growth, according to the authors.

Climate records suggest the declines are associated with a metric known as vapor pressure deficit—that’s the difference between the amount of moisture the air actually holds versus the maximum amount of moisture it could be holding. A high deficit is sometimes referred to as an atmospheric drought.

Since the late 1990s, more than half of the world’s vegetated landscapes have experienced a growing deficit, or drying pattern.

Offers to save the Earth reminds me of the end of a film where a television announcer says that it is necessary to escape in underground shelters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkC6OKBYVLI

While highly developed aliens are transporting the best earthlings to their planet - watch the end of the video clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO_W7cMWBMg
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt2 on August 21, 2019, 05:45:05 PM
Offers to save the Earth reminds me of the end of a film where a television announcer says that it is necessary to escape in underground shelters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkC6OKBYVLI

But most of all, idiots are surprised, who believed that terrestrial vegetation could absorb anthropological carbon. For several decades, people have burned hydrocarbons that nature has accumulated for hundreds of millions of years. And some continue to believe that this process can be easily reversed.

I do not think that in such conditions the planet can be saved. It’s easier to start from scratch - in space. So it happened 4 billion years ago, when the first life appeared on Earth - or meteorites brought it.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: DrTskoul on August 21, 2019, 06:26:28 PM
To people that think space is the answer, good luck with that!!
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt2 on August 21, 2019, 06:28:47 PM
For example new study:

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/8/eaax1396

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-stopped-getting-greener-20-years-ago/

Quote
The world is gradually becoming less green, scientists have found. Plant growth is declining all over the planet, and new research links the phenomenon to decreasing moisture in the air—a consequence of climate change.

The study published yesterday in Science Advances points to satellite observations that revealed expanding vegetation worldwide during much of the 1980s and 1990s. But then, about 20 years ago, the trend stopped.

Since then, more than half of the world’s vegetated landscapes have been experiencing a “browning” trend, or decrease in plant growth, according to the authors.

Climate records suggest the declines are associated with a metric known as vapor pressure deficit—that’s the difference between the amount of moisture the air actually holds versus the maximum amount of moisture it could be holding. A high deficit is sometimes referred to as an atmospheric drought.

Since the late 1990s, more than half of the world’s vegetated landscapes have experienced a growing deficit, or drying pattern.

And this is just the beginning. Then the planet will begin to further turn into a total wasteland - with a growing population of 10 billion.

Even conservative models say this - without taking into account the tectonic catastrophe with the destabilization of tectonic plates:

(https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/5/8/eaax1396/F1.large.jpg)

Quote
Fig. 1 Global mean vapor pressure deficit (VPD) anomalies of vegetated area over the growing season.
Anomalies are relative to the mean of 1982–2015 when data from all datasets are available. Vegetation areas were determined using the MODIS land cover product. Blue line and gray area illustrate the mean and SD of VPD simulated by six CMIP5 models under the RCP4.5 scenario.

Obviously, this is the beginning of the total destruction of the Earth's biosphere. This process cannot be reversed.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt2 on August 21, 2019, 06:30:00 PM
To people that think space is the answer, good luck with that!!

Thank. Elon Musk directly says that you need to build colonies on Mars as quickly as possible.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: DrTskoul on August 21, 2019, 06:36:31 PM
I am just saying...I'd rather fight it on the only habitable planet of the solar system. Some people have seen too much sci-fi....turning Mars habitable will take several hundred to a thousand years with more advanced tech than today
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: TerryM on August 21, 2019, 07:16:11 PM
I am just saying...I'd rather fight it on the only habitable planet of the solar system. Some people have seen too much sci-fi....turning Mars habitable will take several hundred to a thousand years with more advanced tech than today


ie Magic!


This isn't Science, this isn't Science Fiction - this is Science Fantasy with no grounding in reality.
Terry
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Archimid on August 21, 2019, 07:17:24 PM
There is no hope of surviving climate change unscathed. Climate change deniers and their minions won, hands down. As the prize for their victory we will have to adapt to climate change or die trying. The time for prevention alone ran out. But there is still time to prevent much worse thing, or at least get ready for them.


However, the human species is still powerful and much can be done to save as many of ourselves as possible. In fact, if people like Musk, Greta, many scientists, social leaders  and many others creating real change succeed, then we can make the world a better place while avoiding the worst of climate change. That is still possible.

Your tectonics argument is indeed a real possibility discarded  by most of consensus science, but even that can be stopped with enough knowledge, energy and will power.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Archimid on August 21, 2019, 07:28:24 PM
Nope. Colonization of the solar system is well within the realm of science. As proof, the ISS has been continuously occupied for decades. Space is a more inhospitable environment than mars and we can already inhabit it. The trick is that it has to be continuously resupplied.

In the same way a Mars colony would have to be continuously supplied for decades or centuries. That requires a prosperous Earth. Mars is not a life boat.

Colonizing the solar system is not science fiction, it is destiny and our duty to life. Using space colonization as a life boat for climate change is science fiction.

Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: TerryM on August 21, 2019, 08:42:04 PM
Nope. Colonization of the solar system is well within the realm of science. As proof, the ISS has been continuously occupied for decades. Space is a more inhospitable environment than mars and we can already inhabit it. The trick is that it has to be continuously resupplied.

In the same way a Mars colony would have to be continuously supplied for decades or centuries. That requires a prosperous Earth. Mars is not a life boat.

Colonizing the solar system is not science fiction, it is destiny and our duty to life. Using space colonization as a life boat for climate change is science fiction.


Not science, or science fiction, Space colonization is Science Fantasy.

and ISS isn't a "proof of concept"


Salyut 1 - The 1st Space Station was launched in April 1971 and manned in June of that year.
SkyLab  - The 1st American Space Station launched in May 1973, and orbited until Feb 1974.
MIR - Launched in 1986 was the largest manmade object in space until it's deorbiting in 2001

The Salyut 7 module DOS-8 still orbits as a core module of the ISS.


In the first 48 years of Space Station history we've probably learned much more about how ill adapted to space humans are than how to overcome these barriers.


Terry
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Archimid on August 22, 2019, 12:03:31 PM
There is no known laws of physics that prohibits the colonization of the solar system. The only limits right now are the economics of space travel. As technology advances, the economics will improve.

You haven't answered my questions Terry.

Quote
Why did you visit such places if they were so horrible?

I admit it is a bit of a trick question because the fact that you visited those desolate places means you had an interest in such barren places. For similar reason we will colonize space if we somehow manage to survive climate change.

You mention that you lived in Vegas, among several million residents and tourists. Las Vegas was/is a desert.  100 years ago it would have been unimaginable to sustain the population and lifestyle of current Las Vegas. Today it is a reality. We can do the same with mars and indeed the whole solar system, once the technology and economics are there.

And even if we couldn't people will spend their lives trying, because that is what people do.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: SteveMDFP on August 22, 2019, 01:06:04 PM
Nope. Colonization of the solar system is well within the realm of science. As proof, the ISS has been continuously occupied for decades. Space is a more inhospitable environment than mars and we can already inhabit it. The trick is that it has to be continuously resupplied.

In the same way a Mars colony would have to be continuously supplied for decades or centuries. That requires a prosperous Earth. Mars is not a life boat.

Surviving within the Earth's magnetic shielding makes survival possible on the ISS.  On the moon or Mars, people would have to live underground.  Mars soil is toxic, and the Moon has no atmosphere.  Mars doesn't have much atmosphere, either.

You're right that humans on Mars or the Moon would need regular resupply, and some urgent trips back for medical treatment.  These resupply missions would each be very expensive (hideously expensive in the case of Mars).  You're right that it might well take a century or two to be able to develop self-sustaining colonies.  Building a whole industrial civilization in those environments would take many trillions of dollars.  The earthly carbon footprint of each human in these places would probably be equivalent to a small town.  Ultimately, support from Earth will at some point falter, and the colonies will fail.

The only beings we should send should be AI-controlled autonomous robots.  They don't need air, food, water, or medical care.  Given the ravages of deep space on humans, they'd probably be more effective and versatile.  Give them a century to construct an industrial base and palatial living quarters, and then, maybe, we can send humans.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: KiwiGriff on August 22, 2019, 01:11:34 PM
I do not doubt that we could see destabilization of parts of the Antarctic over the next few century's.
Resent research has found more active or dormant volcanoes than were formally know.
It seems that we will cause the collapse of thwaits and pine island glaciers both active volcanic zones. The resulting tectonic plate movement could very well effect the volcanic region presently under ice. Earth quakes in the regions losing mass from ice sheets are another possibility.
A few volcanoes or earthquakes in a remote region is not a huge problem. Providing nothing like the Yellowstone or Taupo calderas goes kaboom we will be fine .

As to space.
We will get there.  A Man or woman stepping on mars is a possibility within a decade or two.
There has always been an urge for mankind to see over the horizon.
Space in another one our curiosity will lead us over.
Sci fi colony's?  With our present technology we could  not sustain a viable outpost as a reservoir for man kinds DNA without an ongoing earth based effort to support it. Maybe in a generation or two we might.
There is a reasonable chance  due to AGW we will run out of time first.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on August 22, 2019, 04:13:00 PM
There is no known laws of physics that prohibits the colonization of the solar system.

I thought that humans evolved in earth's magnetic field...but I guess that is either unknown or not physics.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: TerryM on August 22, 2019, 06:56:38 PM
Why did you visit such places if they were so horrible? Resources? Curiosity? We’re you a pioneer, trailblazing through uncharted lands machete in hand or the locals showed you around? Get it? The locals?
Archi
I suspected that this was directed at me, but thought it presumptuous to reply without that being confirmed.


For 12 years the wife and I lead "expeditions" to Racetrack Playa, the dry lakebed where rocks dash about for no apparent reason.
We went on St. Patrick's Day, because the weather then is usually endurable - and Halloween, be cause it is in Death Valley you know.


3 day weekends gave us 2 nights in the desert with little other than some emaciated coyotes and a few very raggedy ravans for company. Some times there were just 4 of us, once there were 27.


The newspaper in Las Vegas got wind of our activities and wrote up a few "B" section articles. Our S. N. Mensa Chapter grew with the free publicity, and after 10+ years we believe we solved the mystery.


So curiosity is probably the answer to your first question.


We weren't pioneers in any sense of the word. We were there to solve an unsolved riddle, to gain a little local recognition for our group, to film a short documentary, and to have great stories to tell for the next 6 months.
You won't find machete wielding "locals" in the area because there have been no locals since Spanish horse thieves killed or enslaved the one family that had lived off "Hunters Trail" a little after the Spanish set up the Mission Slave Culture much closer to the coast. There are places not so far away where people had and do live, but some places just have never enticed anyone to take up residency.


We had some wonderful adventures there - but nobody even considered going when it was hot, with less than 2 spares/vehicle, or horror of horrors actually colonizing such inhospitable places.


Weekend rubbernecking can't be compared with colonising.


Will someone stay for a short period on the moon? That's not predicting the future, that's reading history. Will something similar occur on Mars - probably. Will anyone colonize either location - not in a thousand years. That's Fantasy.
Terry
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 22, 2019, 08:13:59 PM
”If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”

- Arthur C. Clarke
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: TerryM on August 22, 2019, 09:46:35 PM
”If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”

- Arthur C. Clarke
Any idea of the distinguished Arthur C. Clarke's age when he said this? ::)
Terry
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 22, 2019, 10:44:07 PM
”If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”

- Arthur C. Clarke
Any idea of the distinguished Arthur C. Clarke's age when he said this? ::)
Terry

Clarke was born in 1917 and apparently said this in 1962.  So he was 45. 
Quote
Clarke further suggested that in the domains of physics, mathematics, and astronautics elderly meant over the age of thirty. In other areas of science the label of elderly may postponed into the forties. Clarke also admitted that there were glorious exceptions to his rather harsh ageism.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: TerryM on August 23, 2019, 12:53:54 AM
WoW


Thirty is a little harsh!


My friend just got her PhD at 28, doesn't give her much time to come up with something extraordinary.


Terry



Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 25, 2019, 01:39:06 PM
Elon Musk’s plans to terraform Mars: Who knew clean energy could be so controversial?
Quote
Musk has doubled down on his terraforming strategy, tweeting “Nuke Mars!” and then, “T-shirt soon.” He explained a little more a few days later in response to radiation concerns with, “Nuke Mars refers to a continuous stream of very low fallout nuclear fusion explosions above the atmosphere to create artificial suns. Much like our sun, this would not cause Mars to become radioactive.” Numerous articles were then written or referred back to in response, all arguing that the calculations for such a feat were either highly unlikely or near impossible as a viable terraforming solution. I won’t pretend to have a numbers-based opinion on the matter because, frankly, I always wondered whether it would even matter if it was possible.
...
A different concept that seems to be a bit more acceptable to the science community involves reflective satellites. Musk floated this option in a tweet, saying “Might make sense to have thousands of solar reflector satellites  to warm Mars vs artificial suns (tbd).” Since SpaceX is already in the business of manufacturing satellites at the scale that would be needed for such an undertaking with Starlink, the feasibility factor has more points than the thousands of nuclear bombs needed for an artificial sun near Mars. And, hey! Solar power (amplification) for the win, right?

However, I’m not sure whether NASA would acknowledge this strategy, either, since they’ve basically already scrubbed terraforming as an option in their opinion. A study released by the agency in July 2018 was pretty clear in its conclusions:

“Mars does not retain enough carbon dioxide that could practically be put back into the atmosphere to warm Mars, according to a new NASA-sponsored study. Transforming the inhospitable Martian environment into a place astronauts could explore without life support is not possible without technology well beyond today’s capabilities.” – Bill Steigerwald / Nancy Jones for NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. ...
https://www.teslarati.com/elon-musk-terraform-mars-clean-energy-plan-controversy
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: kassy on August 25, 2019, 04:28:58 PM
Can´t the space Tesla just tow it closer to the sun? Much more environment friendly way to terraform too.  8)
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 25, 2019, 04:53:36 PM
Can´t the space Tesla just tow it closer to the sun? Much more environment friendly way to terraform too.  8)

 ;D  I like this idea!  Let’s get Starman on it immediately; he’s in the area.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Archimid on August 25, 2019, 05:00:31 PM
A couple hundred reflective satellites reflecting light away from the Arctic could buy us the time we need to lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere before irreparable damage is done to the NH climate system.

The Arctic is the ideal place to block sunlight because very low level of photosynthesis happen on top of the ice, minimizing possible negative side effects. Also if unforeseen events happen the satellites can be immediately de-orbited. Spraying chemicals to manage solar radiation is very dangerous. Satellites? not so much.

This would serve as a great starter for the eventual colonization of Mars and the solar system.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: vox_mundi on August 26, 2019, 08:59:52 PM
Unfortunately, there's no stable orbit to park a satellite or mirror that covers just the arctic. Polar orbits don't work. The Lagrange point L1 cover the equator.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 27, 2019, 02:25:13 AM
Unfortunately, there's no stable orbit to park a satellite or mirror that covers just the arctic. Polar orbits don't work. The Lagrange point L1 cover the equator.

SpaceX is offering rideshare missions to polar, sun-synchronous orbits (which circle the earth in a north-south inclination) from Vandenberg.
Could use large solar-sail type reflectors on satellites that orient toward the sun when they are in the polar region, and turn away elsewhere.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2582.msg219424.html#msg219424
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: TerryM on August 27, 2019, 03:09:55 AM
Unfortunately, there's no stable orbit to park a satellite or mirror that covers just the arctic. Polar orbits don't work. The Lagrange point L1 cover the equator.

SpaceX is offering rideshare missions to polar, sun-synchronous orbits (which circle the earth in a north-south inclination) from Vandenberg.
Could use large solar-sail type reflectors on satellites that orient toward the sun when they are in the polar region, and turn away elsewhere.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2582.msg219424.html#msg219424 (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2582.msg219424.html#msg219424)
Any word on when Spacex will put those Canadian satellites into that polar orbit? They've been gathering dust for a long time now.
Terry
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 27, 2019, 03:24:51 AM
...
Any word on when Spacex will put those Canadian satellites into that polar orbit? They've been gathering dust for a long time now.
Terry

Launched successfully back in June.  No dust!

Quote
A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket fired through a dense shroud of coastal fog and climbed into orbit Wednesday from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, deploying a trio of radar observation satellites to begin a $900 million mission surveying the Arctic, maritime waters, forests and farmland for the Canadian government.

The Radarsat Constellation Mission, made up of three identical Earth-observing satellites, is led by the Canadian Space Agency, and is one of the most expensive missions in the history of the country’s space program.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/06/12/three-canadian-radar-surveillance-satellites-ride-spacex-rocket-into-orbit/
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: TerryM on August 27, 2019, 03:41:51 AM
...
Any word on when Spacex will put those Canadian satellites into that polar orbit? They've been gathering dust for a long time now.
Terry

Launched successfully back in June.  No dust!

Quote
A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket fired through a dense shroud of coastal fog and climbed into orbit Wednesday from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, deploying a trio of radar observation satellites to begin a $900 million mission surveying the Arctic, maritime waters, forests and farmland for the Canadian government.

The Radarsat Constellation Mission, made up of three identical Earth-observing satellites, is led by the Canadian Space Agency, and is one of the most expensive missions in the history of the country’s space program.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/06/12/three-canadian-radar-surveillance-satellites-ride-spacex-rocket-into-orbit/ (https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/06/12/three-canadian-radar-surveillance-satellites-ride-spacex-rocket-into-orbit/)


Thanks so much!
I was under the misapprehension that they were still "gathering dust".
Do you happen to know if the company that built them was able to avoid the wolves at the door?


Good news indeed!
Terry
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Archimid on August 27, 2019, 04:04:20 AM
Unfortunately, there's no stable orbit to park a satellite or mirror that covers just the arctic. Polar orbits don't work. The Lagrange point L1 cover the equator.

I'm using a first principles perspective. 

When a solar eclipse happens solar radiation is highly reduced on the parts of the Earth affected by the moon's shadow. In the same way, any space object that passes between the Earth and the Sun reduces the radiation Earth receives, however immeasurably small that radiation reduction may be.

If any object that is between the Earth and the Sun reduces radiation, then it is a matter of having enough objects cross in front of the Earth for long enough to reduce radiation by the desired amount.

We have all the technologies required to block as much solar radiation as we want. Is a matter of deploying enough satellites, and that is a "simple" matter of money.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: oren on August 27, 2019, 08:02:07 AM
And the simple matter of facing the unintended consequences.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Archimid on August 27, 2019, 10:54:50 AM
And the simple matter of facing the unintended consequences.

Unintended consequences are an entirely different conversation from being possible or not.

The best thing about space borne SRM is that if there are unintended consequences, the effect of the satellites can be turned off like a switch and in a worst case scenario the satellites can be de-orbited.

It would be more productive to try to imagine the unintended consequences instead of pointing a their possible existence.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 27, 2019, 02:37:44 PM
...
Do you happen to know if the company that built them was able to avoid the wolves at the door?

From the article:
Quote
More than 125 Canadian companies from seven provinces helped develop and build the three new Radarsat satellites. Canada’s new fleet of Earth-observing spacecraft follows Radarsat 1 and Radarsat 2 — launched in 1995 and 2007 — and are designed to continue operations of the country’s flagship satellite system through at least 2026.

Not sure which company you mean, but:  in space flight, delays are inevitable.  You only get one chance to do the thing, so the work up front to assure success is long and rocky, and once built, another thousand things must all go right for a launch to be a success. 

It’s rare that a mission goes off on time — that’s why launch dates are almost always phrased as “NET” : No Earlier Than. ;)  And thus the novelty of SpaceX’s new rideshare program (linked above), which says that if any of the cargo isn’t ready, the launch will go ahead with those that are.

Edit:
To return to the thread topic:  it’s such regular/repeating/dependable schedules that will make space colonization possible.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: vox_mundi on August 28, 2019, 01:04:40 AM
To shade the arctic would require 10s of 1000 of reflectors. Whatever the challenge of getting them into a stable orbit, the other problem is the Kessler syndrome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome)

The Kessler syndrome is troublesome because of the domino effect and feedback runaway wherein impacts between objects of sizable mass spall off debris from the force of the collision. The fragments can then hit other objects, producing even more space debris: if a large enough collision or explosion were to occur, such as between a space station and a defunct satellite, or as the result of hostile actions in space, then the resulting debris cascade could make prospects for long-term viability of satellites in low earth orbit extremely low.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rWQkY5n50zk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzhtc-rFbvM
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: TerryM on August 28, 2019, 01:07:00 AM
A good thought but a bad movie. :P
Terry
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: DrTskoul on August 28, 2019, 01:08:47 AM
Go for the twofer:

Quote
Presidential candidate Andrew Yang's climate plan aims to get the U.S. to net-zero carbon emissions with a range of new initiatives -- including investing in major geoengineering projects like giant mirrors in space.

Colonize space with the laborers needed to build the space mirrors...
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 28, 2019, 03:11:48 AM
The SpaceX Starlink satellites are aware of their surroundings and can adjust their orbits to avoid collisions.  Expect this capability to be built into future satellites, particularly those operating “closely” together.

Space is really big. 

And this discussion should probably be moved to the GeoEngineering thread.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: TerryM on August 28, 2019, 04:37:25 AM
Go for the twofer:

Quote
Presidential candidate Andrew Yang's climate plan aims to get the U.S. to net-zero carbon emissions with a range of new initiatives -- including investing in major geoengineering projects like giant mirrors in space.

Colonize space with the laborers needed to build the space mirrors...


Mirror mirror hung in space
Ain't you got no better place
That you could hang
To help poor Yang
To win his presidential race


Doggerel for the Damned
Terry
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Archimid on August 28, 2019, 12:37:43 PM
shading what percentage of the Arctic requires 10,000+ solar sails?
100% bad idea. 10%? Still too much. At 5% of solar radiation deflection during summer we are starting to talk numbers that shouldn’t be too dangerous but are still useful and payable. Probably thousands of satellites, maybe hundreds.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: kassy on August 28, 2019, 01:40:41 PM
Space is really big. 

But we park most crap around this globe.

There are already many tiny fragments in near orbit. Do those spacelink sats see them? (or alternatively what is the smallest objects they react too?).
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: vox_mundi on August 28, 2019, 02:12:17 PM
shading what percentage of the Arctic requires 10,000+ solar sails?
100% bad idea. 10%? Still too much. At 5% of solar radiation deflection during summer we are starting to talk numbers that shouldn’t be too dangerous but are still useful and payable. Probably thousands of satellites, maybe hundreds.
Hundreds indeed?

The Arctic Ocean. Covers 14.06 million km² or 14,000,000,000 m²

During summer (the time you want to shade it) at least > 95% is under sunlight.

Since you would be shading from an oblique angle the area needing 100% coverage would be closer to somewhere near 2,000,000,000 m²

Let's take 5% of that = 100,000,000 m²

Now consider that the largest solar shade or sail we've deployed is less than 1000 m².

Let deploy 100 of them = 100,000 m²

This wouldn't shade a single ice flow.

And you still need 99,900,000 m² of coverage for just 5% of an off-axis shade.

Meanwhile, ocean heat content will continue to erode the ice via bottom melt.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: vox_mundi on August 28, 2019, 02:39:01 PM
Space is really big. 

But we park most crap around this globe.

There are already many tiny fragments in near orbit. Do those spacelink sats see them? (or alternatively what is the smallest objects they react too?).
Most all satellites are blind to fragments flying around them. The DoD, NASA and others monitor for debris. They can only see objects larger than a few centimetres.

A bolt flying at orbital velocity (~ 17,000 mph (27,359 kph)) would impact with the same force as a SUV driving into a brick wall a 100mph.

One satellite becomes 6000 pieces each traveling 17,000 mph

Rinse; repeat.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: crandles on August 28, 2019, 02:41:08 PM
Correction: 14.06 million km² = 14,000,000,000,000 m^2

the sun is larger, so the further away, the bigger the shade needs to be.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 28, 2019, 03:20:00 PM
The ISS has 2,500 square meters of solar panels — about 1/2 a football field.  A solar sail could be much larger.

The SpaceX Starlink constellation (as approved) will be made up of 12,000 satellites.  So, “tens of thousands of satellites” for a project is already in the works.

Given the precision — down to millimeters — of the spacecraft docking with the ISS while traveling at 17,000 mph, it could even be possible for several satellites flying in formation to have solar sail material extended between them….

A meteorite would simply pass through a lightweight solar sail.  Causing no extra debris.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: kassy on August 28, 2019, 03:20:30 PM
Thanks Vox.


I also had a really genius idea!!!
What if we just nuke the sun?  ::)
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on August 28, 2019, 03:37:57 PM
kassy, what is the translation and language of your signature?
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: kassy on August 28, 2019, 03:55:46 PM
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,416.1500.html

See this thread #1500 page 31.  :)
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Shared Humanity on August 28, 2019, 04:03:45 PM
Maybe we should try becoming carbon neutral instead.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Shared Humanity on August 28, 2019, 04:06:24 PM
When our collective focus shifts to geoengineering you’ll Know we are truly screwed.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: vox_mundi on August 28, 2019, 04:12:42 PM
Thanks crandles

So multiply the number of satellites that are needed by another thousand.

Re: 2500 m^2 solar panels - They took 10 years to install.

And remember we need to get this done in the next 5-10 years. Once the ice is gone, it's gone.  It may not be reversible.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmpe.dimacs.rutgers.edu%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F09%2FFigure-from-4.png&hash=e303bd876a0ed9f58c3435c7c41415ae)

Also, how much of this shade is umbra v. penumbra

(https://c.tadst.com/gfx/750x500/annular-solar-eclipse-all-shadows.png)

Quote from: SH
When our collective focus shifts to geoengineering you’ll Know we are truly screwed.
Appears so... :-\
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Archimid on August 28, 2019, 04:53:59 PM
Maybe we should try becoming carbon neutral instead.

 We must become Carbon negative and find ways to save earth systems like the Arctic from changing too much. 

When our collective focus shifts to geoengineering you’ll Know we are truly screwed.

No, we are screwed when we can't even talk about possible solutions because they seem scary or difficult.

Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 28, 2019, 05:02:44 PM
The moon orbits about 250,000 miles / 400,000km from earth.
Low Earth Orbits are from about 124miles/200km  to  1,200 mi / 2,000 km.
(The ISS orbits about 250 miles/ 400km up.)
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: vox_mundi on August 28, 2019, 05:41:08 PM
The umbra, penumbra and antumbra are three distinct parts of a shadow, created by any light source after impinging on an opaque object. Assuming no diffraction, for a point source only the umbra is cast.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/Kernschatten_und_Halbschatten.svg/440px-Kernschatten_und_Halbschatten.svg.png)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbra,_penumbra_and_antumbra

(https://sm.mashable.com/t/mashable_in/photo/default/sun-nasa-cover_whbu.910.jpg)
ISS against the sun

The sun is not a point source, so at no time does the ISS block the entire face of the sun. Only a partial shadow appears below. It's partial shadow is visible across a strip approximately 1.0 km wide. The ISS passes across the face of the sun in 0.4 sec.

To cast some shade a string of objects the size ISS would have to pass every 0.1 sec - 24 hours a day (that's 864000 satellites the size of the ISS) . And that would cool just that 1 km strip across the Arctic.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Archimid on August 28, 2019, 06:26:55 PM
Re: 2500 m^2 solar panels - They took 10 years to install.

Yeah, decades ago  and installing solar panels in space is a whole different matter than launching spacecraft with very large solar sails. The launch cadence would have to be accelerated significantly. Something similar to what space x is doing would have to be replicated all over the world in the most massive space project ever. This would have to happen at the same time we switch all our energy infrastructure to non emitting sources and at the same time we build the defenses against the climate change already baked in.


Quote
And remember we need to get this done in the next 5-10 years. Once the ice is gone, it's gone.  It may not be reversible.


Even if we lose the Arctic, having spacecraft blocking the sun that falls on the Arctic will help.


Quote
Also, how much of this shade is umbra v. penumbra

All of it if when the sails are close to earth and none of it when they are far. When they are far it will be all antumbra.

Quote
Appears so... :-\

The time for just prevention is over.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 28, 2019, 08:40:35 PM
The width of the moon covers about half a degree of the sky.  The sun is about 400 times bigger, but it is 400 times farther away, so it is the same angular size (that’s why a total eclipse just barely blocks out the sun).

Polar, sun-synchronous orbits are generally between 375-500 miles (600-800km) high.  As they circle the earth in a north-south inclination (every 100 minutes or so), the earth rotates beneath them, and they pass over the same points on earth at the same solar time every day.

At a 400-mile-high orbit, four screens flying next to each other, each 5,000 feet (1,500 m) long (perhaps suspended between multiple satellites), would cover more than half a degree of arc.  But it would not be necessary to block the entire sun, merely to lessen it’s effect — a “partial eclipse,” if you will.  The screens could be semi-permeable, acting like a momentary cloud cover.

The satellites’ orbits could be designed so that they appear over precise areas of the arctic at precise times each day.  The more satellites in orbit, the more “clouds.”  Satellites could adjust the inclination of the screens during each orbit so that their effect on other areas of the planet is minimized, as desired.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: vox_mundi on August 28, 2019, 11:00:02 PM

Dimensions of the ISS is approximately 356 feet (109 meters) by 240 feet (73 meters)

It orbits at 245 miles

It covers 60 arcseconds or 0.0167 degrees of arc when observed at 90 degrees above the horizon (directly overhead)

But in the arctic the sun never rises above 21 degrees.

When observed during a transit 21 degrees above the horizon it covers less than 15 arcseconds or 0.004 degrees of arc.

So if we looked at an object 10 times larger (1000 meters x 1000 meters) it would only mask 0.04 degrees, not  0.5 degrees. And that's at an orbit of 245 miles. At an orbit of 400 miles divide that 0.04 degrees of arc by ~ 2.

To be effective any sail would have to transit ( cast a shadow) no higher than 21 degrees to block solar radiation. That means that the shadows length (c) will be substantially longer than the orbital altitude (a). Closer to 1200 miles.

(https://etc.usf.edu/clipart/41400/41491/rt_tri_69-21_41491_sm.gif)
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: oren on August 28, 2019, 11:20:26 PM
What would be the cost of this huge number of satellites? For a fraction of that cost, the whole world can be switched to solar and wind energy with batteries, and solve the root cause of warming.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 29, 2019, 12:27:51 AM
What would be the cost of this huge number of satellites? For a fraction of that cost, the whole world can be switched to solar and wind energy with batteries, and solve the root cause of warming.

No one (or at least, certainly not I) is saying, “Let’s try this space thing and not do anything about reducing carbon emissions on earth.”  But ‘necessity is the mother of invention,’ and if seemingly weird solutions might help, we should investigate them, not simply dismiss them out of hand.  A few years ago, people were adamant that mainstream EVs and grid batteries could not be solutions, either.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 29, 2019, 12:49:38 AM
Quote
But in the arctic the sun never rises above 21 degrees.

Good point!  One way to address this would be to have an orbital perigee (lowest point) slightly south of the arctic.  The solar screens could be more opaque, since less of the sun would be covered.  And the screen area would need to be measured in miles (kilometers), not feet.  Doable, if we’re talking “tens of thousands” of satellites, and/or material strung between satellites flying in tandem, as I mentioned above.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Archimid on August 29, 2019, 04:29:16 AM
What would be the cost of this huge number of satellites? For a fraction of that cost, the whole world can be switched to solar and wind energy with batteries, and solve the root cause of warming.

Correct. But what if the carbon cycle breaks with things like massive fires increasing short term emissions and decreasing annual carbon sinks? permafrost warming? What if a 0 emissions society is not enough to stop the changes already happening. What if we can't drawdown CO2 fast enough to stop the Arctic from passing a point of no return?
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: cognitivebias2 on August 29, 2019, 01:41:34 PM
I was thinking how impractical this approach seems.  What about a reflective coating on all paved surfaces.  Sounds more practical to me...  Found this LA test in my first search:

http://mentalfloss.com/article/501146/los-angeles-testing-reflective-roads-keep-neighborhoods-cool

Los Angeles Testing Reflective Roads to Keep Neighborhoods Cool
BY SHAUNACY FERRO MAY 23, 2017

The urban heat island effect is a well-documented part of city living. Cities are simply hotter than their surrounding regions, thanks to their miles and miles of dark surfaces like asphalt roads, brick buildings, and black tar roofs that absorb heat during the day. When night falls, these hard surfaces release the heat they’ve been taking in all day, keeping cities several degrees hotter than their greener neighbors long after the sun has set. Green roofs and more parklands help, but they can't cancel out the enormous areas of paved surfaces in most metropolises.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 29, 2019, 03:12:55 PM
Elon Musk just teased a “next generation” Starship which would be 18 meters/59 feet in diameter (compared to the current Starship builds of 9m/30 feet diameter.  A 747 cabin is 6.5m).  :o

It would make sense as a “colony ship,” versus the Starship as an “exploration ship.”

Reddit discusses it (and more) here:  https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/cwsz8u/elon_musk_on_twitter_aiming_for_20km_flight_in/

Note to Villabolo:  The only rocket ideas bigger than an 18m Starship are Sea Dragon and Von Braun's rocket!

Edit: Article:
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says Starship could be followed by a dramatically larger rocket
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-elon-musk-starship-the-next-generation/
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 29, 2019, 07:59:22 PM
Elon Musk and Jack Ma discuss AI's risks, Mars, and how humans can secure the future
Quote
MAKING HUMANS MULTI-PLANETARY
Musk noted that humans have an opportunity today because this is the first time in history that it’s “possible to extend life beyond Earth.” He added that the window for this could either be open for a long or short time. Thus, it is in humanity’s best interest to secure its multi-planetary opportunities as quickly as possible.

Ma, for his part, argued that he has no interest in multi-planetary initiatives. “I’m not a fan of going to Mars,” he noted. Instead, Ma stated that it’s more pertinent for humans to try and preserve Earth. The Alibaba chairman nevertheless stated that the world needs innovators like Elon Musk, in as much as it needs people who are willing to do what needs to be done to save the planet. “We need heroes like you (who want to go to Mars), but we need heroes like us (who will fix Earth),” Ma said.

Musk explained that preserving Earth is a notable part of Tesla’s mission, from transitioning the transportation sector towards sustainability to fostering energy independence through solar power and batteries. Responding to Ma’s statements about using resources to focus on solving Earth’s problems, Musk noted that it will only take a fraction of the world’s GDP to make humans multi-planetary, comparable or even less than what people spend on something like makeup annually. “Spending resources on making life multi-planetary would be enough with just 1% of the earth’s GDP,” Musk noted.
...
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-elon-musk-alibaba-jack-ma-ai-debate-video/

The main Mars discussion begins about minute 10:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ5w11Cm3gM
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: kassy on August 29, 2019, 10:07:17 PM
Musk noted that humans have an opportunity today because this is the first time in history that it’s “possible to extend life beyond Earth.” He added that the window for this could either be open for a long or short time. Thus, it is in humanity’s best interest to secure its multi-planetary opportunities as quickly as possible.

Viable life beyond earth needs earth life for a long time yet.

The only viable pathway to space is keeping this planet habitable.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: vox_mundi on August 30, 2019, 01:18:45 AM
Satellite Photos Show Burning Iran Space Center Launch Pad
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-satellite-photos-iran-space-center.html

(https://scx2.b-cdn.net/gfx/news/2019/2-satellitepho.jpg)

A rocket at an Iranian space center that was to conduct a satellite launch criticized by the U.S. apparently exploded on its launch pad Thursday, satellite images show, suggesting the Islamic Republic suffered its third failed launch this year alone.

State media and officials did not immediately acknowledge the incident at the Imam Khomeini Space Center in Iran's Semnan province.

However, satellite images by Planet Labs Inc. showed a black plume of smoke rising above a launch pad there, with what appeared to be the charred remains of a rocket and its launch stand. In previous days, satellite images had shown officials there repainted the launch pad blue.

On Thursday morning, half of that paint apparently had been burned away.

"Whatever happened there, it blew up and you're looking at the smoldering remains of what used to be there," said David Schmerler, a senior research associate at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies.

Schmerler told The Associated Press that the images of the space center suggested that the rocket either exploded during ignition or possibly briefly lifted off before crashing back down on the pad. Water runoff from the pad, likely from trying to extinguish the blaze, could be seen along with a host of vehicles parked nearby.

... The U.S. alleges such launches defy a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on Iran to undertake no activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

------------------------------------------

We did the same thing with North Korea 2 years ago. This sort of thing is going to come back and bite us one day ...

(https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-once-is-happenstance-twice-is-coincidence-three-times-is-enemy-action-ian-fleming-9-77-18.jpg)

-------------------------------------

The cyber conflict between Iran and the U.S. is now a constant—it doesn't diminish simply because the headlines go away.

(https://q.publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/USCC-CyberSpectrum_Page_17.jpg)

(https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/USCC-CyberSpectrum_Page_16.jpg)

U.S. Cyber Command Presentation: Assessing Actions Along the Spectrum of Cyberspace Operations
https://publicintelligence.net/uscc-cyber-spectrum/

Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 30, 2019, 09:02:13 PM
”After all, NASA has fostered some of the greatest technological developments in all of human history.”

The International Space Station Is More Valuable than Many People Realize
Quote
Aboard the ISS, an array of basic and applied research programs are underway with participation of companies such as Boeing, Anheuser-Busch, Sanofi, LambdaVision, Space Tango, Airbus, and Teledyne Brown Engineering. The ISS is effectively the premier space R&D lab, and companies are utilizing microgravity at the edge of the human frontier 250 miles up to solve problems here on Earth.
...
Over its lifespan, more than 2,400 experiments have been conducted by more than 230 visitors from 18 countries. 
...
Over their lifetime, teenagers have seen a constant revolution in technology, some of it exclusively the result of space access and research.
...
The lion’s share of onboard station research is aimed at solving long-term challenges for human survival in deep space. The ISS is the tethered ship from which astronauts will hone spacefaring skills to venture beyond the proverbial horizon.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-international-space-station-is-more-valuable-than-many-people-realize/
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: vox_mundi on August 30, 2019, 11:54:04 PM
President Trump Tweets Sensitive Surveillance Image of Iran
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/30/755994591/president-trump-tweets-sensitive-surveillance-image-of-iran

(https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2019/08/30/diptych2_custom-4bc2930cfcc026c911831ef828463eb5a65f1078-s700-c85.jpg)
A commercial satellite image from the company Maxar (bottom); the image tweeted by President Trump (top) appears to be of better quality.

President Trump has tweeted what experts say is almost certainly an image from a classified satellite or drone, showing the aftermath of an accident at an Iranian space facility.

"The United States of America was not involved in the catastrophic accident during final launch preparations for the Safir [Space Launch Vehicle] Launch at Semnan Launch Site One in Iran," the president said in a tweet that accompanied the image on Friday. "I wish Iran best wishes and good luck in determining what happened at Site One."
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1167493371973255170

Some of the highest-resolution imagery available commercially comes from the company Maxar, whose WorldView-2 satellite sports 46-centimeter resolution.

But the image shown in the president's tweet appears to be of far better quality, says Ankit Panda, an adjunct senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists, who specializes in analyzing satellite imagery. "The resolution is amazingly high," says Panda. "I would think it's probably below well below 20 centimeters, which is much higher than anything I've ever seen.

It was not entirely clear where the president's photo came from. Panda believes it was most likely taken by a classified U.S. satellite. But Melissa Hanham, deputy director of the Open Nuclear Network at the One Earth Foundation, believes that the resolution is so high, it may be beyond the physical limits at which satellites can operate. "The atmosphere is thick enough that after somewhere around 11 to 9 centimeters, things get wonky," she says.

That could mean it was taken by a drone or spy plane, though such a vehicle would be violating Iranian airspace.
Hanham also says that the European company Airbus has been experimenting with drones that fly so high, they are technically outside the atmosphere and thus operating outside national boundaries. But she says she doesn't know whether the U.S. has such a system.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: TerryM on August 31, 2019, 01:53:48 AM
I never thought the US was involved - until Trump insisted that they weren't. ::)
Terry
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: vox_mundi on August 31, 2019, 03:00:42 AM
 U.S. Revives Secret Program to Sabotage Iranian Missiles and Rockets
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/us/politics/iran-missile-launch-failures.amp.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49532408

The Trump White House has accelerated a secret American program to sabotage Iran’s missiles and rockets, according to current and former administration officials, who described it as part of an expanding campaign by the United States to undercut Tehran’s military and isolate its economy.

Officials said it was impossible to measure precisely the success of the classified program, which has never been publicly acknowledged. But in the past month alone, two Iranian attempts to launch satellites have failed within minutes.

The launch failures prompted The New York Times to seek out more than a half-dozen current and former government officials who have worked on the American sabotage program over the past dozen years. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the covert program.

The officials described a far-reaching effort, created under President George W. Bush, to slip faulty parts and materials into Iran’s aerospace supply chains. The program was active early in the Obama administration, but had eased by 2017, when Mr. Pompeo took over as the director of the C.I.A. and injected it with new resources.

The C.I.A., with help from the National Security Agency, searched for ways to subvert factories, supply chains and launchers.

It did not take much, according to officials from both the Bush and Obama administrations. Flight disruption could take no more than a small design change in a critical valve, a modest alteration in an engine part or guidance system, or a contaminated alloy for making launcher fins, crucial for aerodynamic stability.

... The C.I.A. declined to comment on the sabotage efforts. Government officials asked The Times to withhold some details of its reporting, mostly involving the identities of specific suppliers to the Iranian program, because the effort is continuing.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on September 13, 2019, 07:14:47 PM
Drexler makes a good case that molecular nanotechnology will enable colonization of space.
This is the best hope for it.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: crandles on September 13, 2019, 08:15:38 PM
Manufacture something like SF6 on Mars?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49567197

Quote
However, the significant downside to using the gas is that it has the highest global warming potential of any known substance. It is 23,500 times more warming than carbon dioxide (CO2).

Just one kilogram of SF6 warms the Earth to the same extent as 24 people flying London to New York return.

It also persists in the atmosphere for a long time, warming the Earth for at least 1,000 years.

Maybe it wouldn't persist long in Mars atmosphere?
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on September 13, 2019, 09:34:49 PM
That stuff is the anti-helium...it makes your voice sound like Smaug the Dragon instead of Alvin the Chipmunk.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on September 17, 2019, 04:12:22 PM
A tour of a Bigelow expandable space module prototype. The company has dropped plans to send tourists to the ISS for now, and is concentrating on being a part of NASA’s Lunar Gateway project.

Bigelow’s next-generation inflatable space habitat is shooting for the Moon
https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2019/9/13/20863143/bigelow-aerospace-b330-inflatable-space-habitat-nasa-nextstep-astronauts
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on October 23, 2019, 02:23:02 AM
Feeding off-world colonies: Leeks and tomatoes can be grown in Martian soil
Quote
...With the exception of spinach, which didn’t grow well, all nine other plants were able to grow even in the nutrient-poor regolith. The researchers were also able to harvest seeds from radishes, cress, and rye, which is important as germination is key to long-term crop cultivation. This means it is potentially possible to grow edible crops away from Earth, which brings us closer to being able to build a sustainable off-world base.

“We were thrilled when we saw the first tomatoes ever grown on the Mars soil simulant turning red,” Dr. Wamelink said in a statement. “This means that the next step towards a sustainable closed agricultural ecosystem had been taken.”
https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/martian-soil-grow-plants/
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on October 24, 2019, 10:54:14 PM
Feeding off-world colonies: Leeks and tomatoes can be grown in Martian soil

No. Nothing has ever been grown in Martian soil. No.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on October 26, 2019, 06:20:04 PM
The biggest barrier to future space exploration is in our heads
With enough time, the technological challenges of sending humans to Mars and beyond are solvable. But psychologically, we’re not ready to leave our home.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90419017/the-biggest-barrier-to-future-space-exploration-is-in-our-heads
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on October 28, 2019, 02:56:39 PM
Space Colonization begins with non-astronauts visiting space.

The Fraught History (and Inevitable Future) of Space Tourism
https://lithub.com/the-fraught-history-and-inevitable-future-of-space-tourism/
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Shared Humanity on October 28, 2019, 03:55:08 PM
Space Colonization begins with non-astronauts visiting space.

The Fraught History (and Inevitable Future) of Space Tourism
https://lithub.com/the-fraught-history-and-inevitable-future-of-space-tourism/

How in the hell is putting wealthy people into earth orbit represent a step towards space colonization when we have successfully put astronauts into space orbit for the past 6 decades?
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on October 28, 2019, 04:19:50 PM
Space Colonization begins with non-astronauts visiting space.

The Fraught History (and Inevitable Future) of Space Tourism
https://lithub.com/the-fraught-history-and-inevitable-future-of-space-tourism/

How in the hell is putting wealthy people into earth orbit represent a step towards space colonization when we have successfully put astronauts into space orbit for the past 6 decades?

Because astronauts are test pilots and scientists who have trained for years and must pass strenous physical tests, not to mention government acceptance.  Tourists, not so much.  It moves toward the time when “regular people” can go to space — and the time when huge personal finance or a lifetime of relevant study is not a requirement.

Even Yusaku Maezawa has left his day job to start training for his (2023?) SpaceX flight around the moon.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on October 28, 2019, 04:23:35 PM
Joe previously did a video on the problems of living on Mars.  Here he talks solutions with Andy Weir, author of “The Martian.”

How We Could Survive On Mars - Feat. Andy Weir | Answers With Joe - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cvZ9NWgsws
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Shared Humanity on October 28, 2019, 05:50:06 PM
Even Yusaku Maezawa has left his day job to start training for his (2023?) SpaceX flight around the moon.

So, something we did 57 years earlier. I suppose if some ultra wealthy person included his pet Schnauzer on the trip around the moon that would be even more compelling evidence we are ready to colonize space.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on October 29, 2019, 03:44:21 PM
Yusaku Maezawa is paying for all the open seats on his Dear Moon circum-lunar flight so six to eight accomplished artists can travel with him for free and use their experience to inspire others to do more.
Quote
Maezawa expects this flight will inspire the artists in their creation of new art, which will be presented some time after their return to Earth, he hopes this project will help promote peace across the world.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DearMoon_project

As the video above discusses, research into the increased risk of such conditions as cataracts and cancer related to space flight could lead to new treatments or cures on earth. 

As we do more, we learn more.  And the harshness of space inspires us to take better care of the earth, and each other.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on November 05, 2019, 06:34:55 AM
It is a total joke.

SpaceX is a fraud.

I mean yes, they launch rockets. Any monkey can for enough money,

But there is no innovation. And the business model is built on hopes and dreams. Very Muskian.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: vox_mundi on November 21, 2019, 05:41:10 PM
Building a Mars Base with Bacteria
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-mars-base-bacteria.html

How do you make a base on Mars? ... Benjamin Lehner, a Ph.D. student at Delft University of Technology with a background in both nanotechnology and biology, has now come up with a plan that does not involve any human beings in the first couple of years. His plan also eliminates the need to send heavy materials to Mars. In his dissertation, Lehner proposes the use of unmanned capsules containing three components: a rover, a bioreactor and a 3-D printer.

The rover is not much more than a shovel on wheels. During the day, it scoops up the iron-rich Martian soil (called regolith) and brings it to the bioreactor. This reactor is filled with bacteria of the Shewanella oneidensis species. "In its natural form, we can't use much of the iron in the Martian soil," explains Lehner. "But S. oneidensis has the ability to turn part of the soil into magnetite, a magnetic oxide of iron."

(https://scx2.b-cdn.net/gfx/news/2019/2-buildingamar.jpg)

After the bacteria have done their work, the magnetite can be extracted with magnets. Using a technique called Lithography-based Ceramic Manufacturing (LCM), the 3-D printer then converts the raw material into screws, nuts, iron plates and other objects—everything that future settlers need to build a Martian base.

Some major advantages of bacteria are that they are self-reproducing, easy and cheap to transport and that they can withstand high amounts of radiation. In Lehner's plan, micro-algae feed the bacteria. These algae convert sunlight and CO2 from the Martian atmosphere into nutrients and oxygen. They also produce residual waste, which will be an important resource for the first settlers of Mars since it can be used as compost. The biomining reactor itself also produces such organic waste.

... Lehner and his team have calculated how much iron one unmanned capsule with a 1400 liter reactor could produce: about 350 kilograms per year. "After 3.3 years, it would produce more iron than can fit inside the capsule," he says. "By sending several of these unmanned modules to Mars, we can produce a good amount of iron in a few years' time."

... ESA and NASA have already indicated that they would like to develop Lehners ideas further.

https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:acd7102b-339b-45b5-972e-fe3a2ad9c52e?collection=research
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on November 21, 2019, 06:30:56 PM
Building a Mars Base with Bacteria
... Lehner and his team have calculated how much iron one unmanned capsule with a 1400 liter reactor could produce: about 350 kilograms per year. "After 3.3 years, it would produce more iron than can fit inside the capsule," he says. "By sending several of these unmanned modules to Mars, we can produce a good amount of iron in a few years' time."

Several?  Well, it would take about 2,857 of them and one year to make the 100 tons of iron/steel/parts that one SpaceX Starship could bring in a single load. ;)  But once a colony is up and running, this might be a good source for a sustainable supply of material for small fabrications.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: TerryM on November 22, 2019, 10:02:06 AM
Mars is too close to the neighbors. Pluto's where you can let the dogs bark all night. ::)
Terry
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on November 23, 2019, 02:13:07 PM
Findings like this will accelerate development of artificial gravity for prolonged space flight (by spinning the ships).

An Alarming Discovery in an Astronaut’s Bloodstream
A study has turned up a newly found side effect of human spaceflight: low bloodflow in the jugular vein resulting in the blood clotting there.
Quote
Seeing stagnant blood flow in this kind of vein is rare, she says; the condition usually occurs in the legs, such as when people sit still for hours on a plane. The finding was concerning. Stagnant blood, whether it’s in the neck or in the legs, can clot. Blood clots can dissolve on their own or with the help of anticoagulants, but the blockages can also cause serious problems, such as lung damage.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/11/astronaut-blood-clot/602380/
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on November 25, 2019, 09:16:48 PM
We’re going to move to Mars and it will change life on Earth forever
Quote
The technology developed to achieve the monumental feat of landing and settling on Mars will also be used to improve life back on our own planet – and there’s a precedent for this because NASA’s Apollo missions led to the creation of several major technologies which are still in general use today.

…‘One of the most exciting things about working on this project was realising how much of the technology developed for a mission to Mars will have very relevant Earth applications.
‘The Martian habitats will have to generate zero waste and use low energy, high yield farming systems, for instance.
‘This feels very pressing given our own situation on Earth.’



We’re a long way off building a Martian habitat, but Nasa has already launched a bid to work out how to construct basic buildings on the Red Planet. It recently named the winner of a competition called the 3D-Printed Habitat Challenge, which asked companies to devise a robotic system capable of building structures without human intervention.  The $500,000 top prize went to New York-based AI SpaceFactory, which devised a way of using the Martian ‘regolith’ to print structures whilst in residency at The Autodesk Technology Center in Boston. Regolith is the material covering a planet and, on Mars, contains the volcanic rock basalt.

AI SpaceFactory combined basalt with a biopolymer called PLA that’s made from a plant extract found in corn or sugar cane. This allowed them to produce a material that is stronger than concrete and does not require vast quantities of water – a substance in short supply on Mars.

It’s already demonstrated the technique of printing out structures using Martian regolith during the Nasa competition and is working on its first buildings on Earth – with a small structure in upstate New York expected to be be opened to visitors by March next year.

Best of all, its innovative basalt fibre material is recyclable, meaning old buildings can be pulled down and the materials used again.

He’s also excited about the first Earth development built using the technique, which will be called Tera. ‘It’s the literal transformation of space technology for Earth applications,’ Malott added. ‘We were printing in the woods recently and it was so quiet you could hear the crickets. ...
https://metro.co.uk/2019/11/25/going-move-mars-will-change-life-earth-forever-10913234/
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on November 26, 2019, 02:37:13 PM
SpaceX Falcon 9 rideshare will test the tools needed to build space stations in orbit
Quote
“As a member of the Outpost program team, Maxar will develop a new articulating robotic arm with a friction milling end-effector for this mission. This friction milling will use high rotations per minute melting our metal material in such a way that a cut is made, yet we anticipate avoiding generating a single piece of orbital debris.

The mission is targeting a Q4 2020 dedicated rideshare mission, will fly on an ESPA ring, and will activate after the deployment of all other secondary payloads is complete. As our mission commences, we will have 30 minutes to one hour to complete the cutting of three metal pieces that are representative of various vehicle upper stages, including the Centaur 3. Nanoracks plans to downlink photos and videos of the friction milling and cutting.”
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon-9-rideshare-space-stations-test/


Nanoracks Books CubeSat Rideshare and Habitat Building Demonstration in Single SpaceX Falcon 9 Launch
Quote
Recently, Nanoracks announced the Company’s first in-space Outpost demonstration mission in a letter from CEO Jeffrey Manber. Nanoracks, in collaboration with Maxar, will be building and operating a self-contained hosted payload platform that will demonstrate the robotic cutting of second stage representative tank material on-orbit. This test will be the first of its kind to demonstrate the future ability to convert spent upper stages in orbit into commercial habitats – a long-term goal of Nanoracks. ...
http://nanoracks.com/rideshare-habitat-building-demonstration/


Nanoracks Announces In-Space Outpost Demonstration
http://nanoracks.com/in-space-outpost-demonstration/
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on December 05, 2019, 07:06:49 PM
Successful Falcon 9 launch and Cargo Dragon deployed to orbit just a few minutes ago!  Expected to reach the Space Station just after 5am Eastern US Time Sunday morning (11am UTC).

SpaceX cargo mission combines mighty mice, fires and beer research – Spaceflight Now
https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/12/03/spacex-cargo-mission-combines-mighty-mice-fires-and-beer/

SpaceX CRS-19 Research Overview: Mighty Mice in Space
On SpaceX CRS-19, the Jackson Laboratory is sending to station female mice, including a few that lack the gene for producing myostatin, a growth factor that normally acts to limit muscle growth in both mice and humans. Microgravity induces rapid muscle and bone loss, providing accelerated models of disease for research aimed at improving therapeutics for patients on Earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN70iTWoPgc
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on December 10, 2019, 04:18:43 AM
Scientists Are Contemplating a 1,000-Year Space Mission to Save Humanity
Relocating the human race to a more hospitable planet would mean that multiple generations would be born in-transit
Quote
Even by generous estimates, traveling one light year in a vessel large enough to transport humans will take centuries; reaching a planet in the range of Proxima b would take a thousand years or more.

This means that no one cohort of crew members would be able to survive the journey from start to finish, so those on the craft for the launch would have to pass on the torch to the next generation, and the next, and the next, and the next.

While it might sound like science fiction, a small network of researchers is tackling the problem of multi-generation space travel in a serious way. “There’s no principal obstacle from a physics perspective,” Andreas Hein, executive director of the nonprofit Initiative for Interstellar Studies — an education and research institute focused on expediting travel to other stars — tells me in a call from Paris. “We know that people can live in isolated areas, like islands, for hundreds or thousands of years; we know that in principle people can live in an artificial ecosystem like Biosphere2. It’s a question of scaling things up. There are a lot of challenges, but no fundamental principle of physics is violated.”

As one might expect from such an undertaking, the difficulties are many and broad, spanning not just physics but biology, sociology, engineering, and more. They include conundrums like artificial gravity, hibernation, life support systems, propulsion, navigation, and many problems that are nowhere near to being solved. But even if we never make it to Proxima b, in the process of exploring the question of how to escape Earth, some of the scientists involved in the work may stumble upon solutions for surviving on our planet, as resources like energy and water become increasingly scarce. ...
https://onezero.medium.com/scientists-are-contemplating-a-1-000-year-space-mission-to-save-humanity-70882a0d6e47
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: TerryM on December 11, 2019, 02:25:04 AM
The author apparently believes that Biosphere 2 experiments proved that "humans can live in artificial ecosystems". While cockroaches and "crazy" ants multiplied, vertebrates died off along with the pollinating insects.
Biosphere 2 certainly proved Barnum's observation correct when Ed Bass spent $150,000,000 on the $250,000,000 project that he eventually placed under Steve Bannon's management - yea that Steve Bannon!

Even injecting oxygen and providing food from outside for the hungry 8 "biospherians" couldn't rescue the project.
If you drive to Tucson it's worth at least drive by. I think UA owns the property now, but it was in a sad state of disrepair the last time I dropped by.


The Biosphere 2 story has been known for decades. I'd be leary of anyone claiming that it was a success.
Terry



Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: kassy on December 11, 2019, 11:20:14 AM
Plus there is the non trivial task to figure out a target that is hospitable too life. We can more or less work out it the planet is in a goldilocks zone and we can see maybe some organic compounds but that still leaves a lot of unknowns.

Just around the corner on Mars digging holes is harder then we thought because of the soil properties...

 
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: TerryM on December 12, 2019, 04:17:13 AM
I once thought we'd "Expand Humanity to the Stars"


That was before I learned about AGW, and how little time we have left.


To have any chance at all the world needs to concentrate her resources on solving the problems we've created here on earth.
The time for childish fantasies is over, ask Greta. She travels by sailboat, not Gulfstream!
Terry
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on December 12, 2019, 07:26:10 PM
A refrigerator could also include a fully unabridged guide to rebuilding all of civilization.

This 3D-printed Stanford bunny also holds the data for its own reproduction
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/12/scientists-used-dna-to-store-blueprint-data-for-3d-printed-stanford-bunny/
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on January 10, 2020, 12:58:24 AM
Thinking ‘outside the box’ — outside the planet ;) — results in benefits here at home.

Quote
AI SpaceFactory (@AISpaceFactory) 1/8/20, 6:34 AM
While we were designing for sustainable life on Mars, we realized our materials and technology had the potential to be leaps and bounds more sustainable than traditional construction (especially concrete and steel). It could transform the way we build on Earth.
https://twitter.com/aispacefactory/status/1214872891860365312
Image below.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on January 12, 2020, 11:08:05 AM
https://365tomorrows.com/2020/01/12/the-obvious-choice/
Quote
The Obvious Choice
by submission | Jan 12, 2020 | Story | 0 comments

Author: Katlina Sommerberg

Everything started with a star burping out an interesting tidbit. Buried amongst the electromagnetic radiation hiccups the same messages on repeat, looping endlessly. One species tamed this red giant, a fiend who swallowed half its planets, into the galaxy’s most creative loudspeaker.

Five years after its discovery, the collective work from thousands of scientists twisted the translation out of the ultraviolet spectrum. The other light bands remain, but this one was trivial.

“This system holds the ancient ruins of our pre-space civilization, and this star all our philosophical lessons. Be warned, once you cut the tether to your planet, your species will never be the same. Ours cannot go back.”

Plastered on every newspaper, the entire world inhaled the message and choked on its implications. Articles cranked out of every news source, from the most prestigious journals to the smallest internet bloggers, and millions of children revoked their career choice of ‘astronaut.’ Questions peppered government officials, from city council members to United Nations janitors.

Everyone wanted to know, but few knew what they wanted to know.

Space programs revived under new waves of funding, expanding to personnel counts higher than in their heyday before Climate Change. Piece by piece, the rest of the message unraveled in secret rooms. The masses lost interest in the century’s strangest puzzle, but those invested in the message never lost their drive.

When Earth lost the last of her bees, the message was unraveled at last. The world raced to hear the news, eyes running quickly across the words detailing the scientists’ arduous process. All eyes stared fixed on their screens and papers when they reached the aliens’ philosophy.

“We regret ruining our world, only to chase the dream of a paradise across the stars.”
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on January 17, 2020, 08:19:39 PM
Elon Musk drops details for SpaceX Mars mega-colony
SpaceX CEO wants to put a million people on the Red Planet by 2050.
Quote
Musk doesn't just want to launch a few intrepid souls to Mars, he wants to send a whole new nation. He tossed out a goal of building 100 Starships per year to send about 100,000 people from Earth to Mars every time the planets' orbits line up favorably.
Quote
Building 100 Starships/year gets to 1000 in 10 years or 100 megatons/year or maybe around 100k people per Earth-Mars orbital sync
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 17, 2020
A Twitter user ran the figures and checked if Musk planned to land a million humans on Mars by 2050. "Yes," Musk replied. The SpaceX CEO has suggested this sort of Mars population number before. This new round of tweets give us some more insight into how it could be done, though "ambitious" doesn't do that timeline justice. Miraculous might be a more fitting description.

The distance between Earth and Mars gets reasonably close roughly every 26 months. Musk's vision involves loading 1,000 Starships into orbit and then sending them off over the course of a month around prime time for a minimal commute. Travelers would still be looking at spending months on board before reaching the Red Planet.
Quote
Loading the Mars fleet into Earth orbit, then 1000 ships depart over ~30 days every 26 months. Battlestar Galactica …
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 17, 2020
Expanse fans, rejoice. Musk said there will be plenty of jobs on Mars. When asked how people would be selected for the Red Planet move, Musk tweeted, "Needs to be such that anyone can go if they want, with loans available for those who don't have money." ...

In the meantime, Musk is stockpiling money for a reason. "Helping to pay for this is why I'm accumulating assets on Earth," he tweeted. His anticipated Tesla pay package should give him a nice boost.
https://www.cnet.com/news/elon-musk-drops-details-for-spacexs-million-person-mars-mega-colony/
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Bruce Steele on January 17, 2020, 08:27:56 PM
“We regret ruining our world, only to chase the dream of a paradise across the stars.”
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on January 17, 2020, 08:35:57 PM
“We regret ruining our world, only to chase the dream of a paradise across the stars.”

What if we don’t ruin our world?  What if we figure it out and turn ourselves around... only for the earth to be obliterated by an asteroid a few decades or millenia later?  A cataclysm will occur eventually; it makes sense to have a resource saved elsewhere for backup.

——-
Edit: related Reddit thread:
@elonmusk: Needs to be such that anyone can go [to Mars] if they want, with loans available for those who don’t have money - spacex
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/eq2u6y/elonmusk_needs_to_be_such_that_anyone_can_go_to/

One reason cited for going to Mars:  to reduce one’s footprint on earth.
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: kassy on January 17, 2020, 09:01:25 PM
Local menu: several interesting flavors of what we would call sand here?
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: ArcticMelt2 on February 12, 2020, 11:38:00 PM
Iran also wanted be space civilization

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_dPG0_a4xs
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: philopek on February 13, 2020, 12:43:15 AM
Iran also wanted be space civilization

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_dPG0_a4xs

Of course they can't have it that once they rule the exhausted and overpopulated planet earth, that the infidels conquer and rule the universe ;) [sarc]
Title: Re: Space colonization
Post by: Sigmetnow on February 13, 2020, 01:25:50 AM
Iran fails in satellite launch attempt
February 10, 2020
Quote
A Simorgh rocket lifted off Sunday from Iran but could not place its satellite payload into orbit.

Iranian government officials admitted Sunday that an attempt to place a small Earth-imaging satellite into orbit was unsuccessful, the fourth consecutive launch failure for the country’s space program. ...
https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/02/10/iran-fails-in-satellite-launch-attempt/

Edit:
Iran's failed Zafar launch: where did it go?
https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2020/02/irans-failed-zafar-launch-where-did-it.html