Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,800
NVM
Last edited:
Interplanetary Colonisation - Why are we not funding/focussing human efforts towards it?
- Thread starter Oxide™
- Start date
I wonder how many comets one would have to crash onto Mars to raise the atmospheric pressure to 2-3 PSI?. (Interestingly, Humans can survive with breathing apparatus down to just over 60mb before our blood boils. Though obviously one would really want a bit of a safety margin for practicality. 2-3PSI would be more than adequate)
That would be fine for walking around in metaphorical shirt sleeves even if you had to wear an oxygen mask and would also provide protection from metiorites which would otherwise represent a major hazard.
Even a thin unbreathable atmosphere would make living on Mars orders of magnitude easier.
(See also the Moon, though proximity to Earth makes attempting to crash comets onto it somewhat more hazardous)
Would copulation work in zero-G?
Like you smash pasty on the way to Mars with a female crew member, what would appear after 9 months?
Just asking.
Copulation was something that was actually considered quite seriously in the 60's.
Back then there were indeed people seriously considering deep space missions lasting many years on which they would have wanted their families to come along as well.
The problem isn't copulation as such. It is conception and gestation.
It might well be the case that this might simply not Work in zero/low G environments.
As I said earlier. The tech issues with off-Earth colonisation might well pale into utter insignificance compared to the biological issues...
The way I see it no chance.
Your sperm does not have a clue what is up or down, left or right, what it will do go into orbit around a ovarian egg. By which time it will die before it can kick the doors in.
Would a tadpole turn into a frog in 0G environment? Would a fish swim in 0G in a tank sealed in water? Would a fly, fly in 0G?
The is loads of aspects to think about.
Your sperm does not have a clue what is up or down, left or right, what it will do go into orbit around a ovarian egg. By which time it will die before it can kick the doors in.
Would a tadpole turn into a frog in 0G environment? Would a fish swim in 0G in a tank sealed in water? Would a fly, fly in 0G?
The is loads of aspects to think about.
The simple answer is that it's currently impossible to make a colony on another planet, would be mind-bogglingly expensive if it was possible and would be utterly pointless if it was possible.
Maybe, just maybe, with years (probably decades) of extremely expensive research we might be able to establish an unsustainable base on another planet in which a few people might be able to survive with constant support from Earth. But not a colony. This isn't at all like establishing a colony in a different place on Earth. Everywhere else in the solar system will kill humans in numerous different ways, some quick and some slow.
Mars is the usual target...an utterly desolate wasteland that's constantly exposed to very dangerous levels of radiation, has no atmosphere other than a thin wisp of gases that are fatal to humans, has woefully inadequate mavity for humans, can't provide any food for humans, can't provide anywhere near enough power for human technology, is covered in extremely dangerous dust that gets everywhere, frequently has extreme dust storms that would destroy anything above ground...etc, etc. It would be a herculean task to establish a small base there and even that would be very dangerous because it would require continuous support from Earth and the travel window from Earth to Mars is a couple of months every couple of years. Any problem, any problem at all, and the only point of a support mission would be to recover the bodies.
We'd really need to terraform somewhere before a colony was viable and as yet there isn't even a particularly reliable theory on how to do that. There are some decent hypotheses, but of course none have been tested to any extent and therefore don't have any solid evidence. It's not even just a matter of terraforming Mars - keeping it terraformed would be another set of problems. A powerful enough magnetic field would be required for starters and that's not a small problem. Even if a technological solution to that problem is devised and does work, that would mean that all life on Mars is dependent on the constant operation of the entirety of that technological solution.
Even if we assume that it automagically becomes possible to make a colony on another planet in this solar system, what purpose does it serve? There's the general purpose of exploration and of doing things because they haven't been done before, but that would be better done by missions than by an attempt to make a colony.
Maybe, just maybe, with years (probably decades) of extremely expensive research we might be able to establish an unsustainable base on another planet in which a few people might be able to survive with constant support from Earth. But not a colony. This isn't at all like establishing a colony in a different place on Earth. Everywhere else in the solar system will kill humans in numerous different ways, some quick and some slow.
Mars is the usual target...an utterly desolate wasteland that's constantly exposed to very dangerous levels of radiation, has no atmosphere other than a thin wisp of gases that are fatal to humans, has woefully inadequate mavity for humans, can't provide any food for humans, can't provide anywhere near enough power for human technology, is covered in extremely dangerous dust that gets everywhere, frequently has extreme dust storms that would destroy anything above ground...etc, etc. It would be a herculean task to establish a small base there and even that would be very dangerous because it would require continuous support from Earth and the travel window from Earth to Mars is a couple of months every couple of years. Any problem, any problem at all, and the only point of a support mission would be to recover the bodies.
We'd really need to terraform somewhere before a colony was viable and as yet there isn't even a particularly reliable theory on how to do that. There are some decent hypotheses, but of course none have been tested to any extent and therefore don't have any solid evidence. It's not even just a matter of terraforming Mars - keeping it terraformed would be another set of problems. A powerful enough magnetic field would be required for starters and that's not a small problem. Even if a technological solution to that problem is devised and does work, that would mean that all life on Mars is dependent on the constant operation of the entirety of that technological solution.
Even if we assume that it automagically becomes possible to make a colony on another planet in this solar system, what purpose does it serve? There's the general purpose of exploration and of doing things because they haven't been done before, but that would be better done by missions than by an attempt to make a colony.
Because it's insanely expensive, and we're not even close to solving the logistical problems.
Which planets do you think we should be colonising, and how would we go about doing this?
No idea which planets - maybe Mars or a more suitable moon.
I know we aren't close to it yet but the sooner we start to focus efforts the sooner we will make breakthroughs and find ways
It could be done now. I mean it would be a miserable existence for any pioneer and probably fatal. But we could do it
Space belongs to our technological decedents, AI and robotics. Humans have no business off of Earth imo, too inefficient and prone to dying for no good reason. I.E. asphyxiation, dehydration, starvation, radiation, boredom etc
Leaving aside the awkward fact that it takes at least 300 days to reach Mars—a brutal logistics problem all by itself—what exactly are we supposed to live on while we're there? How do we get power? Clean water? Oxygen? Food?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,306
If you look at the reasons for population movements/migrations throughout history its always driven by outside force i.e. the goths and other germanic tribes pushed west across the borders of the ex Roman Empire as they were coming under pressure from the east Huns and other asiatic horsemen. Vikings set sail across dangerous open oceans with nothing more than carved sticks indicating the position of the sun and hope because apart from plunder land to farm is is short supply in Norway its mostly mountains and fjords, pretty but as someone once said you can't eat the scenary. People migrated from 18th and 19c Europe to escape poverty, landlessness, despair and the hope of grabbing a piece of whatever was on offer for the chance of a better life. People spent literally years in rickety tubs circumnavigating the globe in search of wealth and profit the british East India Company was the largest trading company in the world and still one of the largest that has ever existed.
Right now theres no pressure, no desire and no drive to do any of those thing. Maybe in a generation or two when climate change warms the planet dramatically forcing mass migration of peoples into Europe and other perceived wealthy places and conflict grow over dwindling resources and available land then maybe the pressure will be there. But not right now life in general for the West at anyrate is far too comfortable.
Right now theres no pressure, no desire and no drive to do any of those thing. Maybe in a generation or two when climate change warms the planet dramatically forcing mass migration of peoples into Europe and other perceived wealthy places and conflict grow over dwindling resources and available land then maybe the pressure will be there. But not right now life in general for the West at anyrate is far too comfortable.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 8,390
- Location
- Hampshire
Why?
Ignore for the moment that you have absolutely no understanding of the degree of difficulty involved, that you have given the matter so little thought that you don't even have any idea where this pie in the sky colony would be - why make it at all, even if we could? We can't, of course, but even if we could what would be the point? The only point I can see is nationalist one-upmanship and that's not really a good idea unless we have another cold war and need to avoid it being more of a shooting war by diverting to a perceived contest of political/economic/social ideologies.
Tell me one thing that a colony on "maybe Mars or a more suitable moon" would do that couldn't be done better by machines. Not that there are any "more suitable" moons in this solar system.
It's not even like the previous migrations under pressure that Blackjack Davy referred to because in those cases people were moving from one habitable place to another. Often more habitable (often a factor in the pressure to move). That's completely different to moving to a place that will kill all humans in dozens of different ways, including guaranteed instant or almost instant death in the event of equipment failure. You'd be lucky to survive a minute on Mars, but on the plus side you'd be unconscious in less than 15 seconds so at least you wouldn't suffer for long. You would, however, suffer for much longer without equipment failure as you were killed by cancer or poisoning (the Martian dust is toxic to humans) or maybe thirst or starvation or disease while knowing that a "rescue" mission would take 1-3 years depending on the relative position of Earth and Mars at the time and therefore isn't rescue at all.
A colony is a ridiculous idea unless we can terraform the body first and keep it terraformed and even then it would be an almost completely useless idea unless there's something there we have a really major use for and which for some unexplained reason can't be mined by machines.
Exploring, yes, there's a purpose to that. But exploring is a completely different thing to colonisation.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,524
- Location
- Rollergirl
This thread takes me back. I (vaguely) remember getting through an eighth bit before driving home at around 01:00 for an 08:00 start the next morning.
I think it's only a matter of decades until we mining on the moon:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/31/bil...-moon-for-trillions-of-dollars-in-riches.html
the costs are high but the rewards will be astronomic (forgive the pun)!
Once there is a viable moonbase that is able to tap into water/materials needed to build colonisation ships to Mars.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/31/bil...-moon-for-trillions-of-dollars-in-riches.html
the costs are high but the rewards will be astronomic (forgive the pun)!
Once there is a viable moonbase that is able to tap into water/materials needed to build colonisation ships to Mars.
A.I. will put a stop to us as it out competes us for resources. Enjoy it while you can, we've not that long left.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 9,552
- Location
- Birmingham
Why didnt that happen in 2017 like the company promised?
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,800
NVM
Last edited:
The thing about market prices is they change. Gold and platinum are valuable because of their properties and scarcity. You bring back £50 trillion worth of either back and its value will drop to that of any common metal. De Beers withold diamonds from the market to artificially manipulate the price.
Also helium-3 is fairly worthless outside of academic circles despite its high price and scarcity on earth. Without commercial fusion power becoming a reality, it'll stay that way
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,363
isn't the primary reason radiation?
and nowhere is habitable and how do you tansform a barren planet with extreme temperature changes into a fruitful one with oxygen, etc? also lack of water or where there is water it is frozen.
basically it's impossible to get a planet that meets the conditions which suit us.