Interstellar Colonisation

[Darkwave]

Hey guys, I already posted this as a post in the Mankind Being Wiped Out theories thread, but as it was off-topic anyway I thought I'd make a new thread about the subject.

I've actually been thinking a lot about interstellar colonisation recently and, the more I have, the more I've come to the conclusion that it's probably a complete and utter waste of time, energy and money. I mean, as you pointed out already there are hurdles in terms of travel time and such (though radiation would not be such a huge issue really), but there's also the actual issue of planets themselves.

Say you send a small fleet of generational colony ships to the nearest stars, you're going to find that it'll probably take too much time and effort to actually bother colonising any planets that might be there (and it's a big might, mind). Everything they could possibly need is already going to be in space: Food, shelter, etc.

I'm beginning to think that the future isn't in colonising planets, but setting up artificial colonies in the vacuum of space. I can't really see any huge need to colonise another planet other than to turn it into a holiday resort.

Somebody replied mentioning that artificial mavity would be a hurdle to cross before space stations and whatnot can be built, but this can be solved easily by simply having the station designed in a way that it rotates on an axis.

Discuss.

 

[Curio]

Yeah, I don't know if the cost and logistics of the whole thing will ever make it a viable option. I can certainly see a simple base on the moon and maybe even Mars, but that alone would take ages and cost a fortune - and with the current economy in the US (who would obviously be the main candidates) and the fact the government is busy pouring billions into wars, even that might be long way off as it stands now.

But maybe if they went for a moon/Mars base, and it was a huge success, it could possibly expand rapidly. If there was some potential money making as well like, I dunno, mining some rare mineral on Mars, it could help a lot due to having a workforce that would need supplies/entertainment/etc......like the way Las Vegas sprang up in the middle of the desert largely due to the Hoover Damn project. Hell, find some oil on a planet and the US will be up there in the blink of an eye

But if the cost of building on the moon/Mars was huge, the results were only so-so, and there was nothing to make it worth while anyway, it would probably just stay as simple research outposts and nothing more. In that case, yeah, maybe huge "space cities" would be a better and more practical option.

 

[Tefal]

Somebody replied mentioning that artificial mavity would be a hurdle to cross before space stations and whatnot can be built, but this can be solved easily by simply having the station designed in a way that it rotates on an axis.

Discuss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity

Explains quite a lot of the problems with rotation for AG, one being the massive size of the craft.

 

[Darkwave]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity

Explains quite a lot of the problems with rotation for AG, one being the massive size of the craft.

Lame, I didn't know that it would be such a problem.

That article does offer some interesting solutions though.

 

[chimaera]

Personally i think the moon will be colonised at some point in the distant future, i think space stations will definitely be used as well but it's also important to have landing and take off points.

I remember reading a while ago that a shuttle launch from the moon is better because the mavity means less fuel is required. If we're going to colonise the universe then i can imagine the moon having a large base of operations.

 

[Angilion]

Yes, a launch from the moon takes less fuel than a launch from the Earth.

That's no use to anyone on Earth. Even if humanity builds a moon base, it's still going to be the case that nearly everyone will be on Earth.

Since we're talking about interstellar travel and other theoretical possibilities, how about a skyhook as a launch system? Earth would then be a better launch site than the moon. The end of a 100-mile sling attached to a surface moving at about 1000mph is moving fast enough to be an effective launcher.

 

[Tefal]

Yes, a launch from the moon takes less fuel than a launch from the Earth.

That's no use to anyone on Earth. Even if humanity builds a moon base, it's still going to be the case that nearly everyone will be on Earth.

No but it's much easier to build a special craft for a trip to mars etc on the moon or in space than to build something that would be capable of surviving a launch from earth,for example no need for a heat shield etc for the majority of the craft, as only a small lander like pod would be required, or for it to be aerodynamic for launch.

 

[Spit]

Relativity is also a massive problem in colonising space were we ever to build ships that went fast enough.

 

[Schnippzle]

I dont see what the "massive hurdles" would be in creating a colony on a planet as opposed to one in space. If both environments lack oxygen, no or little mavity, I still think that building a colony would be easier on a planet as you have a fixed position to go from. Ok, so planetary storms and landing/taking off might be an issue but that all depends on the planet chosen to be colonised on and the orbit in which the planet circulates.

 

[Andrew_McP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity
Explains quite a lot of the problems with rotation for AG, one being the massive size of the craft.

You could overcome that with a tethered system. Small asteroid on one end of the line (or a collection of assorted space-junk), habitation on the other, set them rotating, and you're in business.

Obviously you'd need quite a long and rather strong bit of string. But that'd be the very least of your problems if you're going to head for a habitable star system... should such a thing exist within 'reach'.

Better to concentrate on just getting away from the Earth/Moon if we're talking about ensuring that the human race survives something bad happening to Earth. If I was heading anywhere it'd probably be Jupiter. The moons have enough variation to offer a variety of resources, options, and potential.

First though we need highly independent robots capable of doing all the preparation for us soft, messy humans. Oh, and pocket fusion reactors to provide the 'free' energy required to live somewhere cold & inhospitable.

For me interstellar travel will -- sadly -- be confined to SF novels until such time as ET's mates show up and show us how how to kick-start an FTL project. My money's on that never happening though. Ever. I do believe other life exists, I just think the laws of physics will always trap us within our own little bubbles of possibility.

I'd like to be proved wrong though.

Andrew McP

 

[Darkwave]

Personally i think the moon will be colonised at some point in the distant future, i think space stations will definitely be used as well but it's also important to have landing and take off points.

I remember reading a while ago that a shuttle launch from the moon is better because the mavity means less fuel is required. If we're going to colonise the universe then i can imagine the moon having a large base of operations.

Aye there's something to be said about a lunar base but I don't think it'd be a colony. It'd probably be full of zero-g mining facilities and supply stations for ships launched from earth like you said.

Yes, a launch from the moon takes less fuel than a launch from the Earth.

That's no use to anyone on Earth. Even if humanity builds a moon base, it's still going to be the case that nearly everyone will be on Earth.

I think it could be useful to people on earth to be honest.

We could use very cheap, re-usable chemical rockets to get people into orbit but have the big stuff made in orbit with materials from lunar and asteroid mining facilities, and supplied with food etc. grown in orbital stations intended for hydroponics etc.

Since we're talking about interstellar travel and other theoretical possibilities, how about a skyhook as a launch system? Earth would then be a better launch site than the moon. The end of a 100-mile sling attached to a surface moving at about 1000mph is moving fast enough to be an effective launcher.

Aye skyhooks would definitely be a better option than chemical rockets.

I dont see what the "massive hurdles" would be in creating a colony on a planet as opposed to one in space. If both environments lack oxygen, no or little mavity, I still think that building a colony would be easier on a planet as you have a fixed position to go from. Ok, so planetary storms and landing/taking off might be an issue but that all depends on the planet chosen to be colonised on and the orbit in which the planet circulates.

The problem with creating a whole new colony is that you need to establish a whole new system of agriculture and industry/infrastructure. Not to mention environmental hurdles. There's not really much incentive to do this if you already have this stuff in space in the form of space stations or a convoy of ships.

Unless, of course, it's a really nice planet and enough people want to put the effort in to live there.

 

[Glaucus]

The problem with creating a whole new colony is that you need to establish a whole new system of agriculture and industry/infrastructure. Not to mention environmental hurdles. There's not really much incentive to do this if you already have this stuff in space in the form of space stations or a convoy of ships.

.

It's easier to mine, live, build on a planet rather in space. As you have mavity, and pressure it might not be breathable but at least there's no risk of decompression. You also have atmosphere to protect you against meteors and hopefully a magnetic field to protect against solar radiation.


As you say I think any initial colonise will be first. Proof of concept. Then essentially mining and manufacture plants. But once you have that, then you need stuff for the people to do and eventually everything will be set up.

 

[Richdog]

IMO the only time we will see large colonisation of planets is when the following happens:

• The world pools its' resources and financials into a single effort, reminiscent of Star Trek. This is imo the biggest hurdle we have, and I don't think humanity will reach it's next huge phase of development as long as the worlds economies and nations are competing against each-other. For technology and exploration on the scale we are talking about it will take more resources than any single country can provide, and the combined research of all the worlds finest scientists all focused on a single common goal. I think that's the only way true breakthroughs will be made at the level we require.

• Ship propulsion design massively increases, to the point where ship chassis can become huge and frigate-like, able of safely transporting massive loads of materials, people, livestock and agricultural materials. Think the Nostromo in Alien. It's the only way real colonisation will become viable, we will need ships that can transport huge amounts long distances in a reasonable amount of time.

The sad thing is I can't see the above happening until the worlds powers, including rising superpowers such as China and India, have solidified their postion in the world arena. At the moment there are to many countries all with something to prove, viewing each-other suspiciously. Economies are in turmoil, and many nations have opposite political views that don't allow them to see eye to eye on a level that would allow full co-operation. I wouldn't like ot hazard a guess to how logn that will take to rectify, if at all.

 

[Darkwave]

It's easier to mine, live, build on a planet rather in space.

Mining and building are definitely easier in space to be fair. You have near unlimited resources in the way of low/zero mavity moons and asteroids (mining equipment can be as big or clumbsy as you like in low/zero mavity), and the raw materials are easier to transport to orbital stations or a convoy of ships through simple inertia whereas you would need to invest heavily in a ground/air vehicle economy on a planet's surface.

Living in the vacuum of space is really as easy as the habitat you build to be fair, and there are a number of good suggestions in this thread about overcoming the issues of rotational artificial mavity.

As you say I think any initial colonise will be first. Proof of concept. Then essentially mining and manufacture plants. But once you have that, then you need stuff for the people to do and eventually everything will be set up.

Aye it's only natural a society would spring up around any mining or manufacturing complex set up on a celestial body like a planet or moon. Hats off to them especially if they can turn it into a happy and productive colony.

Ship propulsion design massively increases, to the point where ship chassis can become huge and frigate-like, able of safely transporting massive loads of materials, people, livestock and agricultural materials. Think the Nostromo in Alien. It's the only way real colonisation will become viable, we will need ships that can transport huge amounts long distances in a reasonable amount of time.

If the first priority of said utopian world culture was to establish a workable mining and production industry in space (again on low/zero mavity moons and asteroids through our solar system) then vessel size and resources required wouldn't really be a problem as it could be done very cheaply.

I agree with the rest of your post though. Like you said, we need to solve a lot of problems here on earth before we ever even consider founding colonies in space (especially as there's a chance those colonies could go to war with Earth/eachother in the future as well).



Side note: IMO it's only natural that new colonies also become new independent nations, especially if the "home government" back on planet earth make any mistakes in helping to encourage growth and prosperity on said colonies. I think inter-colony war will be a huge, common thing in the future. Unfortunately.

 

[Glaucus]

Mining and building are definitely easier in space to be fair. You have near unlimited resources in the way of low/zero mavity moons and asteroids (mining equipment can be as big or clumbsy as you like in low/zero mavity), and the raw materials are easier to transport to orbital stations or a convoy of ships through simple inertia whereas you would need to invest heavily in a ground/air vehicle economy on a planet's surface.

Trouble is it's very hard to repair in zero grav with no atmosphere. Also if we are taking about the asteroid belt. the chances of machines being obliterated is fairly high due to random collisions. Even a small stone can complete destroy a machine.

 

[Darkwave]

Trouble is it's very hard to repair in zero grav with no atmosphere.

I agree if we're talking about our current methods to repair things like the ISS, but I imagine orbital colonies and the like would be able to build small vessels dedicated to the purpose or orbital repair if not completely reinvent the space suit to make space-walking a much easier task.

Also if we are taking about the asteroid belt. the chances of machines being obliterated is fairly high due to random collisions. Even a small stone can complete destroy a machine.

This I also agree with but said machines would probably be extremely cheap as they'd be made from the very same asteroids they are mining, which would be abundant. It'd probably be a simple task for an established orbital colony to just replace the mining machinery than attempt repairs.

 

[the_candyman]

Colonising on another planet would require animals to fertilise/breed/eat etc. This would be very stressful for animals to go into space, well the first 10 times amount for mavity forced apon them by takeoff.

 

[Biohazard]

We are parasites.

 

[Darkwave]

Colonising on another planet would require animals to fertilise/breed/eat etc. This would be very stressful for animals to go into space, well the first 10 times amount for mavity forced apon them by takeoff.

As much as I hate the idea, I can see vegetarian diets quickly becoming the norm for both planetary and orbital colonies. Hydroponics and other methods for growing plants and things would be pretty easy without the hassle of feeding them or making tons of room for them to run around in.

We are parasites.

Could you elaborate? The comment has me curious.

 

[Biohazard]

Thats where genetics comes in, making space cows.