Colonizing Space

[charles brough]

What is the whole purpose of space exploration if it is not to ultimately let us expand out into the universe? After all, we are very crowded on our little planet, so much so we are pressing hard on its diminishing resources.

Apparantly, our society just drifts along teleologically without any real plan and no clear goals. Moving in the sluggish way we are to this goal, it could easily illude us entirely. Don't you all get the feeling that the people on the Fox network would be happy to pull the plug on the whole space effort? They are just not quite ready to openly say so . . .

charles, HOME PAGE

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by charles brough

What is the whole purpose of space exploration if it is not to ultimately let us expand out into the universe? After all, we are very crowded on our little planet, so much so we are pressing hard on its diminishing resources.

Apparantly, our society just drifts along teleologically without any real plan and no clear goals. Moving in the sluggish way we are to this goal, it could easily illude us entirely. Don't you all get the feeling that the people on the Fox network would be happy to pull the plug on the whole space effort? They are just not quite ready to openly say so . . .

charles, HOME PAGE

think you will find, space exploration was founded with a military intent. the first rockets where meant to destroy an enemy, etc. To some degree much, may still be...

not very many scientist, feel man will ever "colonize space". research stations with short term habitation in our solar system, the closest idea to CS.

diminishing resources; this a very complicate issue to address, since each resource has a different potential outcome if lost. much of what we currently use is for economical reasons. many things we use steel or wood for, for instance, can be replaced by aluminum product but with additional cost.
oil, of course can be replaced with many other products including solar power. Food/water are another topic, but food can in theory be produced to feed 20-30 billion people today if required and fresh water can be produced from sea water, which is done today.

the crowded plant; put into a perspective, is all the people not on the planet where moved into Texas, the density of that State, would be less than that of metropolitan NYC or LA/Orange counties in California, today.

it may seem we are drifting unconcerned, but there are people, in/out of government that are planning for every conceivable problem that could effect mankind. many alternative energy, nanotech and other corporate facilities are working on solutions in hopes of capitalizing on a pending problem.

[charles brough]

Anyone else less optimistic? No reason to be hungry, we could feed 20 billion people. No need to worry that just another loss of life in a space project and Congress may cut out NASA funding. No need to worry that nations that are on the edge of fighting over water supply; we can just desalt sea water. Energy too, no problem, we just use renewable energy. Oh, and the space goal, well, not to send Columbus back to the New World to colonize it, we have enough space here in the Old World. Crossing the sea is only for military purposes . . .

charles, HOME PAGE

[Tormod]

The first uses of rockets in space was definitely not military (read a Robert Goddard biography, for example). However, as soon as the military realized the potential of rockets, they basically took the cake and ate it.

I am optimistic that we will colonize space. It will happen slowly but I do think it's inevitable.

[charles brough]

Originally Posted by Tormod

I am optimistic that we will colonize space. It will happen slowly but I do think it's inevitable.

Yes, either we do it or the next civilization does it. . .

charles

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by jackson33

not very many scientist, feel man will ever "colonize space". research stations with short term habitation in our solar system, the closest idea to CS.

Please back up this claim. Is it based on a poll of scientist of all or a particular discipline?

Please note that the Space forum is not one of the hypography forums where the “back up your claims” rule is commonly disregarded in favor of lively, if unsupported, debate.

[blamski]

i think there is a huge amount of research being undertaken to test the viability of partial or full migration. partial migration, the need to travel to exploit resources, is obviously the prime mover right now - the humanitarian saving of planetary life is probably not too profitable unless its run along similar lines as those who pack 100 north africans into a dinghy and push it towards spain or italy.

the iss and every shuttle mission carry experiments on how plants (crops) and animals will behave/breed/develop in low or zero gravity. there is research into how the human body reacts to extended time is zero gravity. space probes are examining the moon, mars and other planets to see how much potential for supplying water and fuel they have. terrestrial biospheres such as the eden project are examining how to build a fully functioning artificial ecosystem. all this at a cost billions of pounds, dollars, euros, roubles and yen.

we'll be out there cocking it up sooner or later.

[jackson33]

Not saying many in the area of rocket development were interest in things other than military, the actual developing were military fronted. Highlights of German Rocket Development 1927-1945, shows the the process, success and by way of the German Military...

NASA, as well as many others are testing the feasibility of making objects in our solar system habitable for humans. others studies involve orbiting settlements and the like. However the thread author went straight to UNIVERSAL, which (If preferred IMO) i see no mass desire to explore that potential for the foreseeable future at least in the universe.

since there was a touch of over population, over extending our purpose or in short destroying our planet, I would suggest the need to CS, should not be to solve perceived problems. we could build 100 floating colonies on the planets 70% water surface, with all the amenities we now have and self sufficient, for the cost of one orbiting sanctuary.

since, this would seem to make me anti-NASA, I will tell you my desire to see the private sector get involved and a little cost effective economics applied.
BUT, I favor and support every NASA project, period....

[TheFaithfulStone]

The universe or nothing at all.

Take your pick.

TFS

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by TheFaithfulStone

The universe or nothing at all.

Take your pick.

TFS

preferably "universe", practical application "solar system".

The head of NASA, pretty much sums it up. "at some point man will have to become a two-three or four world community", giving times frames in the 100's of thousands or "millions of years". as mankind continues to solve problems, allowing longer life spans, fertility, famine, war, etc., the populations will increase. terraforming of current objects, Venus, Mars, the Moon and a moon or two of Jupiter, large orbiting objects are all possible solutions. unless C speed is achieved and to a great degree, to colonize under any scenario, planets outside our Solar systems are not going to be discussed. sending out probes, yes and they are now and many more planned.

the needs and the point of the thread, IMO are thousands of years off. keeping to opinion, I would say 100k years, when technology may have developed to the point, application is no more than our sending a Shuttle into space.

Michael Griffin quotes taken from Enc Wik, Space Colinization...