Colonizing the Solar System

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

People shag too much. Bottom line!

...not that it's a bad thing, of course...

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Yes...

I remember a time when the published Earth Population Figure was someting like 3.5 billion. And I'm not old at all. Not by any measure!

People shag too much. Bottom line!

So... just so I have a proper point of comparison, how much is too much?

[InfiniteNow]

A quick thought on colonization is that it's just an expensive form of theme park or roller coaster ride. We might do better to divert resources currently being spent on putting humans on other worlds (within our tiny solar system mind you) toward figuring out some bigger cosmological questions which themselves could help us with many other, more local and palettable, issues.


EDIT: even wormhole dynamics...

[Jay-qu]

of course not! its polititians that ban drugs like RU486 - its happening here now, they are getting all ethical about an abortion drug.. and i dont want to spark up another abortion discussion!

I think wormhole dynamics may be a little out of reach at the moment, but I see what you mean. If we spend money on finding better ways of doing things then it will become cheaper and easier in the long run

[Skywyze]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

We are not evolved for life in zero g. We need to overcome theno gravity issue or we cannot colonize space.

No, we are certainly not evolved for life in zero G, which means we would have to either adapt biologically (which would take too long), or use artificial gravity to exercise a few times every day. For this we can use a centrifuge on the Moon or Mars, and live in spinning colonies in space.

Also, if Heim theory is correct (or any number of others), we should be able to produce artificial gravity fields at some point in the next century.

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

The elevator you suggest shoud be much longer. I read about them being 62000 miles long so that geosync is the center of balance, and the end is actually well in excess of escape velocity. So to launch space missions you would just crawl them to a high point, let go at the correct moment, and you are launched into space.

Yes I think I've read something like that as well, and that's probably the best way to do it.

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

Putting them on the moon might prove difficult because it turns so slowly, despite the lower gravity.

Yeah, I've since done a little reading on lunar geosync and it seems its a bit too far away from the moon to be of much use... However, it's pretty easy to land a lot of material on the moon so a luna elevator isn't all that important.

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

So if you want to build your vision of the future, what are the technologies that we need to be working on today to make it happen? What will be the key breakthroughs?

Bill

We need to develop strong/long nanotube ribbons.

It would be nice to also have faster propulsion, artificial gravity fields, hyperspace travel, anti-gravity, and indefinately extended life spans...

But I'll be happy with the elevators for now. We can do a lot with just that.

[CraigD]

Assume for a moment that Earth-space elevators are not achievable for the next several centuries. Despite a lot of optimistic enthusiasms for them, the engineering challenges are truly daunting, and may prove practically insurmountable.

All that is really necessary for the colonization of the solar system is the creation of habitats capable of sustaining large numbers of human beings, and a launch capability comparable to our current. Once an artificial “ecological nitch” for human beings exists, humans can do there what they have historically proven to do best – reproduce exponentially. With current artificial fertilization and implantation technology, and launches of one or a few small payloads of sperm and ova, problems of viable breeding population size can be circumvented.

What’s critical for the creation of livable extraterrestrial environments is large amounts of energy. Assuming that launch capability prohibits supplying extraterrestrial colonies with fissionables (eg: uranium, plutonium), that generating useful energy with artificial nuclear fusion remains beyond human capability for several centuries, and that fuel is difficult to obtain outside of earth, this leaves 2 obvious feasible sources for large amounts of energy: solar radiation, and planetary magnetic induction.

These 2 energy sources reveal 2 “sweet spots” for colonization: inward, toward the sun, where solar radiation is most intense, and the vicinities of giant planets, expecially Jupiter, where the mechanical energy of the orbit of great and lesser moons is most easily obtainable through magnetic induction with the planet’s strong moving magnetic field.

Mars and the asteroids are not within these sweet spots. So, while the asteroids may provide valuable, energy-efficient access to material resources, I suspect Mars is of limited value for colonization in the next few centuries, compared to the greater and lesser moons of Jupiter, or the empty space near the Sun.

I’m optimistic that, even if dramatic improvements in Earth launch capabilities, such as space elevators, or dramatic improvements in compact power generators, such as controlled fusion, fail to be realized anytime soon, space colonization is still possible, by virtue of sheer human fecundity.

[Skywyze]

Originally Posted by CraigD

I’m optimistic that, even if dramatic improvements in Earth launch capabilities, such as space elevators, or dramatic improvements in compact power generators, such as controlled fusion, fail to be realized anytime soon, space colonization is still possible, by virtue of sheer human fecundity.

I agree that colonization is possible without these technologies, and in fact I think colonization is possible NOW. However, I believe you are underestimating the rate of technological advancement, which is proceeding at an exponential rate itself. A few centuries is a VERY long time for technological growth, just look at the last century...

[Skywyze]

Originally Posted by Racoon

Not a bad idea, but it seems comletely unfeasible.
What about the Intense Heat of entering and exiting the Atmosphere?

This wouldn't be a problem. The heat of reentry is caused by friction when a high-velocity object comes in contact with the atmosphere. A slow moving elevator wouldn't generate the same intense heat as a high-speed spacecraft.

Originally Posted by Racoon

Plus what about all that space debris hitting it?
A paint chip in space impacts like a .44 caliber at close range. (or so I heard)
What happens if there is a break in the elevator somewhere?

Space debris IS a potential problem. The solution would probably be an electromagnetic shield. Carbon nanotubes have been shown to be able to carry a current. (I believe they can also generate a current by moving through a magnetic field) This property could be used to generate a field that would repulse most small debris. Larger stuff would have to be removed by orbiting robots or clean-up crews.

The elevator would need to consist of several ribbons, so if one breaks we will be able to go up and repair it with relative ease. If they all break, the outer end flys off into space, and the lower end falls to the earth, causing much damage to the surrounding area. (Imagine several miles of cable and equipment falling from space...)

Originally Posted by Racoon

PS. I see you're from Portland.
Seems we Got a good percentage of Hypo's from Portland Area!!
Including Myself, Turtle, and BioChemist!

Portland is a great place to live! Glad there are so many of us on here.

[Racoon]

Originally Posted by Skywyze

Space debris IS a potential problem. The solution would probably be an electromagnetic shield. Carbon nanotubes have been shown to be able to carry a current. (I believe they can also generate a current by moving through a magnetic field)

Portland is a great place to live! Glad there are so many of us on here.

Yeah, I love it here too.
I'm from VanCrazy!!

I think you got a great idea.
Now assuming that the Tech can be implemented..
The problem becomes paying for it!???
We can't even fund schools as you well know..
Let alone some thing of this magnitude..

My solution to that is We Divert Billions from the Military Budget, and get International support as well.

Robots cleaning large space debris doesn't seem that great/possible. Because of the sheer speed at which it travels.
I think firing something at it,like an Electromagnetic PulseRay Like in the video game Asteroids to divert its course might be more feasible..

Interesting thread.
Thought provoking!

Still, I'm wondering how Han Solo walked around the Millenium Falcon??
Is there a way to induce Earth like-Gravity??
Gravity Inducer..??

[TheFaithfulStone]

If they all break, the outer end flys off into space, and the lower end falls to the earth, causing much damage to the surrounding area. (Imagine several miles of cable and equipment falling from space...)

Not exactly true. The outer end flys off into space (beginning at GEO I think, and the rest comes down, but it has to fall for such a long distance, and nanotubes are so light that it would be more like a world wide ticker tape parade than anything, plus, it would fall right around the equator, which of course, is a spot on earth where there just aren't that many people.

A space elevator collapse would be more of a disaster because it took a long time to build that damn thing than it would for stuff falling to earth.

TFS
[just picking a nit.]