Space Exploration

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 08 Jul 2009, 18:21

If you (successfully) colonised Mars or The Moon, why would you want to come back?

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 08 Jul 2009, 18:32

If we could persuade all the politicians, owners of multi-national companies, celebrities, PO and climate change deniers, and BNP members that an enormous mutant star goat was about to devour Earth, do you think we could get them to fly off to a new life on a distant planet? Of course we'd tell them that the rest of us would follow on later

. It's been done before!

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 08 Jul 2009, 20:38

RGR wrote:... I just am a raging realist I guess. To much science fiction

A (wo?)man full of contradictions, as ever

Kieran · Post by **Kieran** » 16 Jul 2009, 19:15

AndySir wrote:There's a gentleman at NASA named Geoffrey Landis - fellow that designed the Mars Rover - who believes that Venus is the logical target for ET colonisation. It makes sense - I would suggest that the big barrier to ET civilisation is not resources, technology or even politics but the human body and it's ability to cope with micro-gravity.

If we did colonise Mars (forget about the moon for long term living - our body couldn't cope) it would be a one way trip for all colonists and their decendants. They would be completely unable to cope with the crushing effects of 1g. Venus does not suffer that problem.

Have a look at the Landis station, or even at his proposed plane for exploring the upper atmosphere. Conditions on Venus are almost perfect for human colonisation if you ignore the fact that the grounds a few kilometers too low. I think the only tech problem is dealing with the sulphuric acid in the atmosphere.

Need to speed up the rotation though, and give it a large moon to keep the axis stable too.

Hmmm...just come across a thought provoking article.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80bea ... ike-earth/

So, that makes Venus another good candidate for where life could have first evolved.

AndySir · Post by **AndySir** » 16 Jul 2009, 21:11

Kieran wrote: Need to speed up the rotation though, and give it a large moon to keep the axis stable too.

Rotation is not a problem, given you're airborne. Shunt yourself into an orbit nearer the poles and you can have yourself a 24hr day if you wish. The manouverability of a base allows you to correct for the axis too. Lack of a magnetic field is a problem, given the exposure to cosmic rays, but that's a problem you'd face on Mars or anywhere else you decided to colonise too.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 17 Jul 2009, 12:08

Living on a planet that is not this one.

Can anyone tell me, what would be the point of it?

AndySir · Post by **AndySir** » 17 Jul 2009, 13:06

emordnilap wrote:Living on a planet that is not this one.

Can anyone tell me, what would be the point of it?

Yup: redundancy.

goslow · Post by **goslow** » 17 Jul 2009, 14:26

Can't imagine there's many reasons for wanting to colonise the Venus atmosphere, what's the advantage. Any "floating city" would be highly dependent on Earth supplies, and what is there to export?

Mining asteroids makes more sense. Smaller gravity wells and precious metals to find. And that could be done by robotic stations.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 17 Jul 2009, 14:39

AndySir wrote:
emordnilap wrote:Living on a planet that is not this one.

Can anyone tell me, what would be the point of it?
Yup: redundancy.

Well, I think I know what you mean.

Still doesn't make sense, though. I mean, living on this planet is fairly pointless.

Kieran · Post by **Kieran** » 18 Jul 2009, 13:14

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandte ... nding.html

One in four...

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 18 Jul 2009, 17:01

[quote="Kieran"]

WolfattheDoor · Post by **WolfattheDoor** » 18 Jul 2009, 18:05

Kieran wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandte ... nding.html

One in four...

There was a documentary on TV this morning which took most of the "evidence" of a conspiracy and explained them easily. In most cases, the explanations only required a basic education and knowledge.

It's hard to believe that 25% of British people are that stupid. I would like to see more details of the survey.

Cabrone · Post by **Cabrone** » 20 Jul 2009, 09:15

clv101 wrote:
Adam1 wrote:Yes, of course. I am sure, assuming we don't die off, we will have evolved beyond all recognition, although whatever form a sentient, successor species may take, a few eons from now, it will still need a biosphere with liquid water, or is that too limited a view of what form life can take? If the earth can no longer offer provide a suitable biosphere for that species and those it depends on, it would have to deal with the problem of the sun's collapse.

Perhaps we have to accept that, just as an individual's life will always comes to an end, species' lifespans are also limited: they always either evolve or die off.
This is a really good book on the time-scales involved. One of their conclusions is that complex life will only exist for a short period, maybe a tenth of the planet's life. Complex life is a temporary aberration.

I read that book recently, good read.

If I remember correctly the book was saying that that the sun is getting hotter all the time and because of this life has a 500 mm -1 bln year window of habitable temperatures left (although Earth still has 7bln years to go before being absorbed into the swollen sun).

I think if we can survive the near future our descendants will be smart enough to extend this habitable window out - unfortunately I'm not sure whether we can survive the near future though.

mobbsey · Post by **mobbsey** » 20 Jul 2009, 13:33

JohnB wrote:If we could persuade all the politicians, owners of multi-national companies, celebrities

Surely they are the population of the 'A' ark, not the 'B' Ark? (Anyone seen the recent remake of 'The Day the Earth Stood Still' -- I think that also makes the point quite well.)

The whole problem with space travel is that it runs up against, consciously or subconsciously, one of the great difficulties with the debate on energy and sustainability today -- the value of ecosystem services.

We take air, water, etc. for granted, and in most economic models these values are disregarded because to pay for such 'externalities' would ruin the present business model -- it's for the same reason that most governments/agencies still use the discredited values of GDP or GNP when we should be using more inclusive measures that include the value of natural capital.

Manned space exploration fails because of the costs of 'ecosystem services' on the project -- unmanned project come in a factor of fifty to a hundred times cheaper, and certainly it's what a lot of scientists argue for because they get far more tangible results for the budget available. Of course, given problems like energy and resource depletion, we should be taking the same approach here on Earth, but that's not the case precisely for the same reasons. Paying for the depletion of natural capital would invalidate the present economic model that governs most decisions around the globe -- but if we did we'd get far better results for the future of humanity and the environment in general.

Let's put it another way: The cost savings due to the fall in oil and gas prices in Britain, about 25 billion quid in the last year or so, would pay to put a British lunar mission. But are we? No!, because space exploration and similar mega-projects are an item of national conspicuous consumption rather than an economic imperative; anyone remember Blue Streak? -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Streak_(missile)

If the public could really understand the significance of the ecosystem services argument in the costs of manned space travel, I think it might influence not just the debate on 'man in space', but also the ecological flaws in present economic policy.

Adam1 · Post by **Adam1** » 20 Jul 2009, 13:41

I have just read the book and it reminded me why I liked reading about astronomy and cosmology. It puts everything in proper perspective.

Even if humanity does destroy itself (and a lot of other species with it) this time round, there is still time for another sentient species to emerge. If we survive PO/CC, even if our numbers are much reduced and human social development and knowledge are lost, we, or whatever we evolve into, still have time to develop further.

The book makes clear that our time and place here are both quite rare - we are lucky to exist: there are relatively few times and places where all the necessary prerequisites are in place. Let's hope that, collectively, we act accordingly.