Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

Thus far we have been unable to make sustainable farms in closed systems. This means we can't grow food in space, which means no serious colonization as transporting bulk food from Earth would be prohibitively expensive.

I have no clue what you mean.  Growing food in greenhouses was something that was mastered centuries ago.

[RedKing]

Wouldn't there be issues with mining out the moon, like the decreased mass would alter the effects the moon has on the Earth?

Drop in the bucket man, drop in the bucket.

Uhh...that was sort of the same thing the Victorian-era industrialists said as far as, you know...blowing the tops off mountains, dumping waste in the ocean, diverting rivers for irrigation, etc.

Thus far we have been unable to make sustainable farms in closed systems. This means we can't grow food in space, which means no serious colonization as transporting bulk food from Earth would be prohibitively expensive.

I have no clue what you mean.  Growing food in greenhouses was something that was mastered centuries ago.

Greenhouses are easy. Greenhouses without outside inputs are still tricky. 100% reutilization of water, for instance. Or having sufficient nitrogen replenishment. It actually does take more than just sunlight to grow food. Granted, I think levels of efficiency could eventually be reached where the only thing that would need to be transported would be water and highly concentrated fertilizer. But those are still going to be extremely expensive to transport, and if we get into a private-enterprise sort of situation, those commodities are going to be more valuable than gold for any colony.

[Heron TSG]

Wouldn't there be issues with mining out the moon, like the decreased mass would alter the effects the moon has on the Earth?

Drop in the bucket man, drop in the bucket.

Uhh...that was sort of the same thing the Victorian-era industrialists said as far as, you know...blowing the tops off mountains, dumping waste in the ocean, diverting rivers for irrigation, etc.

Yeah, but the moon doesn't really have an environment to destroy. Craters, I suppose.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's much easier to harm the environment than to significantly decrease the moon's mass. I'd be more worried about mining operations ejecting material into space around the moon, creating a field of micrometeorites that will decimate future operations. Environmental issues will be a problem if we try to terraform the moon, though.

[counting]

The last major technology needed was photovoltaic cells.  The technology exists today, all of it.

Living in space is really simple when you think about it.  You need a biosphere (plants), structure (steel), energy (solar), artificial gravity (centrifuge) and radiation shielding (sufficient mass of the station).  Once you have that, you have a sustainable system and everything else is just window dressing.

Able and WILLING. Using the train analogy, you cal build rail track even in Rome time, (iron/wood/stone foundation), but without the clear design of steam power transportation car, there is no incentive for people to build them. As in space transportation right now, rocket lunching is quite inefficient and costly without the support of infrastructures, so as of RIGHT NOW, it's not economical. It takes time to build and assemble the technologies of supporting the whole industries. But how long will it take is the question. And are we starting toward that?

I know the civilian space lunching project already started when the space shuttle program got cancelled. They've already trying to dock with the international space station. Right now, it's baby step. One at a time. Since most capitals are not focusing and used in this field. It will greatly increase the time of constructing the infrastructure needed for space colonization.

I think we are derailed enough to create a new thread like "Space Colonization in our life time"

[RedKing]

It's much easier to harm the environment than to significantly decrease the moon's mass. I'd be more worried about mining operations ejecting material into space around the moon, creating a field of micrometeorites that will decimate future operations. Environmental issues will be a problem if we try to terraform the moon, though.

My point though, is that there was a mentality of "disposing of waste in the ocean is harmless because it's SO BIG". In the case of an individual event, yes that's true. But what industrialization does is to massively scale things up until they can have quite a significant effect. Sure, the moon has a tremendous amount of mass. But as we develop newer and more effective ways to mine it, who's to say that we might not eventually be able to mine out a whole hell of a lot more mass than we think now? I'm not saying don't mine the Moon, and I'm not saying "OMG the Moon will fly off into space if we mine it", I'm saying that it's a valid point that should at least be looked at to determine where the thresholds of concern lie, not just hand-waved off.

[Nadaka]

@whomever said it could cost 100s of trillions of dollars:
IIRC, there is about 14trillion dollars of money globally, therefore the most a space program could cost is, you guessed it, 14 trillion dollars!

OT: if we make a colony on the moon, it will also make it easier to lauch spacecraft due to no atmosphere and decreased gravity, making it certainly more economical if we try to colonise mars or any other planets.

You need to create the autonomous self replicating industrial capacity to make every part of robots and every part of the autonomous industrial capacity to produce robots. Then you need to lift it into orbit at the cost of ~$10K per kilogram. Yes. It will literally take more than all the money in the world.

Look at what it takes to just make a modern CPU. That can only be shrunk so far, and because of the purity of materials needed, a lot of the process won't be able to share tools with your other processes to prevent contamination. Look at what it takes to produce something like a bulldozer. You need heavy machinery, a foundry, power, smelting, mining, etc.

It is going to take dramatic miraculous technology to produce a self replicating industrial capacity at less than several million tons, and even millions of tons may be optimistic.

[RedKing]

@whomever said it could cost 100s of trillions of dollars:
IIRC, there is about 14trillion dollars of money globally, therefore the most a space program could cost is, you guessed it, 14 trillion dollars!

OT: if we make a colony on the moon, it will also make it easier to lauch spacecraft due to no atmosphere and decreased gravity, making it certainly more economical if we try to colonise mars or any other planets.

Just looking at currency is a poor measure, such much of the economy is virtualized. Annual global GNP for 2009 was valued at $71.77 trillion. Any kind of program like this would take multiple years. Hence, if total global output were focused on the program (which would be impossible, but..) then the maximal "cost" would be $72 trillion or so per year.

[MorleyDev]

So trying to find out what term is used to describe years for which the 3rd number is 1 sparked a five-page debate on the global economy? I love this forum xD

[Nadaka]

So trying to find out what term is used to describe years for which the 3rd number is 1 sparked a five-page debate on the global economy? I love this forum xD

Yes, we when we derail something, its not just one or two cars that go over the edge, we launch the whole damn thing into space!

[counting]

Focus, Focus, Focus on the derailed topic

As long as I am not putting out my text wall. The economic scale isn't a topic at all, you all got the idea of "money" in economics so wrong , it's capitals that count, not cash. "Money" can be M1, M2, M3, etc,it can be annul measure, or measure of stock. it's pointless to debate if the others doesn't even know what they are talking about.

[mainiac]

@whomever said it could cost 100s of trillions of dollars:
IIRC, there is about 14trillion dollars of money globally, therefore the most a space program could cost is, you guessed it, 14 trillion dollars!

OT: if we make a colony on the moon, it will also make it easier to lauch spacecraft due to no atmosphere and decreased gravity, making it certainly more economical if we try to colonise mars or any other planets.

You need to create the autonomous self replicating industrial capacity to make every part of robots and every part of the autonomous industrial capacity to produce robots. Then you need to lift it into orbit at the cost of ~$10K per kilogram. Yes. It will literally take more than all the money in the world.

No, that's not how it would work at all.  It would be a small human colony on the moon producing the materials for a self sustaining human colony in space.  Yes automation would help, but the humans would be there to make everything work.  The reason it's advantagous is that once you reach a population threashhold, it's much easier to live in space.  You are supposing complex technology when simple technology would work.

[counting]

If you are interested in how to colonized in outer space with current technology, and what will actually take to go there, Robert Zubrin wrote several books about how we could get there cheap and efficient with resources at hands.

The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must (1997)

Entering Space: Creating a Spacefaring Civilization (2000)

How to Live on Mars: A Trusty Guidebook to Surviving and Thriving on the Red Planet (2008)

I recommended the case for mars first, since it's basically telling the story when the economy in 90's are still able to afford massive 4,500 billions projects travailing to Mars, but he envision a plan that only takes 200 billions. (10 missions each 20 billions, which is very cheap). And by his idea, it's easier to colonized not near earth space, or the moon, but the mars. It's as easy going to the Moon as going to Mars.[1]

[1] Once you overcome the escape velocity of Earth gravity, there is no extra fuel required. There is nearly no resistance in space. All you need is time. And 6 month trip isn't that long, and the packages for a crew of 6 is small enough that you can pack all the food and water to Mars with no problem. And once you get there, you can produce extra water, and even fuels to get back if necessary. In the long run, even growing crops on Mars. Mars soil and conditions are quite suitable for agriculture. (Plants need CO2 not O2, which is abundant in Mars, but not on the Moon)

[mainiac]

Mars is a horrible place to go, doubly so now that we have found water on the moon.  Why go to all the bother of escaping gravity just to go down another gravity well?

[counting]

Atmosphere, soil, UV protection, even the amount of water is also a question. Mars has fairly sure amount of water just frozen underground not far from surface, but water on the moon are just in the polar region. And you can't easily make propellent on the moon with the materials on the moon locally. (The most important C is hard to find on the moon and transport). Unless we develop nuclear rockets techs first. (Which the He3 can be used).

There are many things Robert Zubrin mentioned in his book, although not always true, but in engineering point of view, quite doable with only 80's or 90's techs, we can build colonies on Mars. (He even designed the machine of making propellent and O2 with only Mars available resources with high readabilities back in 90's. And about gravity well problem, it's more of a problem to slow down on the moon since you can't using atmosphere deceleration, but you CAN in Mars. Which means less fuel when take off, but you need extra fuel to slow down when touch down on Moon, and take off. Generally speaking it's not much of a different beside traveling time about fuel consumption to Moon or Mars. The rockets in 70s can already done both easily.