NationStates Jolt Archive

As for topic, if possible, should we set our souls free of the Earth's Gravity and begin to live into Space Colonies or humankind shouldn't to avoid universe pollution?

There is not poll, just discussions...

As for topic, if possible, should we set our souls free of the Earth's Gravity and begin to live into Space Colonies or humankind shouldn't to avoid universe pollution?

There is not poll, just discussions...our bodies need the pull of gravity, any Space Colonies that become viable will produce people who cannot set foot upon any planet surface.

however, I believe we should colonize the stars, and if possible, terraform Mars.

Yes. But we'd need to have artificial gravity or we'd turn weak and die when we tried to land on planets again. Earth is the cradle of life as we know it but man cannot live in the cradle forever.

our bodies need the pull of gravity, any Space Colonies that become viable will produce people who cannot set foot upon any planet surface.

however, I believe we should colonize the stars, and if possible, terraform Mars.
Right, gravity rings and tubes should do the trick.

I don't think colonizing Mars is such a good thing though because you'd need to either add mass to it or make a bunch of gravity rings for your colonies or you'd get the same problem of weaklings due to reduced gravity. Every colony would look like a really deep pie-pan and could never really grow that large.

The "gravity" part was a quote...

I know that we need Gravity, as well I think that its absence should be a very pleasant feeling, at least for a while...

Also terraforming should be more expensive that building space colonies...

We will leave here - or we will die here. The Universe is a vast and uncaring place - the doom of Earth may already be winging it's way to us, an asteroid, a comet, even a rogue world in the great depths.

By splitting our population between two worlds we far more than double our chances of survival. If we spread to the near stars, only a few things will be able to take us all out. Spread through the galaxy, and Mankind becomes immortal.

That may take millions of years. But the journey of a million years begins with a single step.

Hell yeah!

Haven't you ever seen Star Trek? Space is the final frontier!

we could alter our dna so that we're more adapted to a space environment, it would be cheaper probably. But yeah, its absolutely imperative that we get properly space borne, otherwise we're fucked. Theres already a theoretical model for warp by Albucpierre which is virtually though not totally impossible to build. Thats an advancement from beforehand. So its just the laws of physics we'll have to circumvent, and its really important thats it will be feasible in reality to do this

We will leave here - or we will die here. The Universe is a vast and uncaring place - the doom of Earth may already be winging it's way to us, an asteroid, a comet, even a rogue world in the great depths.

By splitting our population between two worlds we far more than double our chances of survival. If we spread to the near stars, only a few things will be able to take us all out. Spread through the galaxy, and Mankind becomes immortal.

That may take millions of years. But the journey of a million years begins with a single step.

yeah, it sometimes seems like the universe is a shitty beta version of some other better universe, buts its pretty friendly as regards life. Mankind wont become immortal though cause the universe will end so before that we'll need to become gods

Hell yeah!

Haven't you ever seen Star Trek? Space is the final frontier!

I like a lot first timeline, the one with Kirk...

Returning to topic, I think first step should be Space Colonies around the earth and mining installaments on Moon...

I think the stars would incinerate us.

I was about to point out that we'd die before we could get near the stars, and would find living on a ball of exploding gas rather difficult. But Fass beat me to it. Curse your speedy fingers Fass!

I don't think colonizing Mars is such a good thing though because you'd need to either add mass to it or make a bunch of gravity rings for your colonies or you'd get the same problem of weaklings due to reduced gravity. Every colony would look like a really deep pie-pan and could never really grow that large.

Mars has enough gravity to not cause too much trouble though they will be a tad weaker than humans and it will take awhile to get used to another planets gravity regardless (and its not like the health risks ever stopped astronauts

So expect weedy tall people in the future…expect the Dutch really

edit: damn you Fass!

I was about to point out that we'd die before we could get near the stars, and would find living on a ball of exploding gas rather difficult. But Fass beat me to it. Curse your speedy fingers Fass!

Don't curse my fingers. Curse your lack of brevity.

Should Wee Human Beings move to the Stars?

Only the very wee. 5'2" or less.
http://www.coasterchild.com/flatrides/jesters/P1010748.JPG
Think of it as payback for all those amusement park rides they missed out on as kids.

What about a brown dwarf star? Those are not so hot.

Don't curse my fingers. Curse your lack of brevity.

Meh, as long as I get to curse something.
*begins elaborate curse dance/virgin sacrifice*

*begins elaborate curse dance/virgin sacrifice*

No, don't throw yourself into the flames!

No, don't throw yourself into the flames!

But.....but...the book said.....

hmmm I think I'd like us to understand our own planet first...but humans being human... :)

As for topic, if possible, should we set our souls free of the Earth's Gravity and begin to live into Space Colonies or humankind shouldn't to avoid universe pollution?

There is not poll, just discussions...

Absolutely YES YES YES. No discussion needed, it must happen. In space colonies say in Earth Orbit we really would need some sort of artificial gravity. The easiest to produce is centrepetal force, but even that is an engineering feat of Herculean proportions. Even a 100m Radius ring rotating at (quick math calc) approx 3rpm (for a simulated 1g acceleration) though would give the feeling of your head being lighter than your feet (coriolis effect), throwing a ball for example, if you threw it straight up it would land a few feet behind you (if you were facing in the direction of rotation). However this would be sufficient to stop the muscles atrophying due to a microgravity environment but there could be other effect. Basically a coriolis space station would need to be massive and extremely complex. Consider the problem of water needs of the humans aboard and balancing the of the station sufficiently that it does not "wobble" causing undue stress on the load bearing components).

But in a word YES. It can be done and it should be done. Pollution is such a problem because there are so many of us. Colonisation of other worlds is a (supremely difficult) but necessary step in my view. The other way of course is to introduce measures to severly cull the human population not one of which I can think of would be wecomed by the general population, anywhere.

Mother Earth has nurtured us and fed us and looked after us but there comes a time when all children must leave their mothers. I think the time for us is comming rapidly when we should leave and let her recover and do what we can to help her recover.

That sounds very hippyfied :D but I am tired having driven around 1200 miles in the last 10 days and endured the stress of the festive season :D (not much for a professional driver but I haven't had a car for a year).

I do seriously believe that colonisation of other worlds is the way to go though. I doubt I will see it in my lifetime (say the next 60 years) which makes me sad.

I think the stars would incinerate us.Look at it from the bright side - no more cold, dark winters.

Right, gravity rings and tubes should do the trick.

I don't think colonizing Mars is such a good thing though because you'd need to either add mass to it or make a bunch of gravity rings for your colonies or you'd get the same problem of weaklings due to reduced gravity. Every colony would look like a really deep pie-pan and could never really grow that large.I believe it was calculated that Mars' gravity was close enough to Earth not to be detrimental... but that was a long time ago...

Also terraforming should be more expensive that building space colonies...but once done, the savings in logistics and support would be astronomical! :D

*begins elaborate curse dance/virgin sacrifice*:eek: *Runs and Hides*

we could alter our dna so that we're more adapted to a space environment, it would be cheaper probably. But yeah, its absolutely imperative that we get properly space borne, otherwise we're fucked. Theres already a theoretical model for warp by Albucpierre which is virtually though not totally impossible to build. Thats an advancement from beforehand. So its just the laws of physics we'll have to circumvent, and its really important thats it will be feasible in reality to do this
DNA is not the answer you inebriated jerksicle. You cannot simply engineer a person that doesn't need to breath or exterior pressure to survive. Even if you could make cloned organs to replace the ones you lose from old age in flight your brain would eventually die in less than 200 years and replacing brain tissue is next to impossible.

As far as FTL goes...
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/miracle.gif

Why does FTL violate the laws of physics? Well, that is complicated, but there are two main problems: the Light-speed barrier and Causality. Now keep in mind that Causality is more of a hope than a law but without it the whole structure of physics kind of crumbles.

There are a few semi-plausible FTL methods out there. One of the most famous is Dr. Miguel Alcubierre's (http://www.astro.cf.ac.uk/groups/relativity/papers/abstracts/miguel94a.html) "Warp Drive" (http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw81.html), along with Chris Van Den Broeck's improvement (http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw99.html). There are others at Dr. John Cramer's Alternate View archives (http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/av_index_sub.html#8), Edward Halerewicz, Jr.'s Warp Physics (http://members.tripod.com/da_theoretical1/wdphysics.html) site, Marcelo B. Ribeiro's Warp Drive Theory (http://omnis.if.ufrj.br/~mbr/warp/) site, Lawrence H. Ford and Thomas A. Roman's Scientific American article Negative Energy, Wormholes and Warp Drive (http://www.physics.hku.hk/~tboyce/sf/topics/wormhole/wormhole.html), David Waite's Modern Relativity (http://www.geocities.com/zcphysicsms/) site (if you can understand the math), and NASA's Warp Drive When? (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/warp.html)

More on the fringe is Burkhard Heim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkhard_Heim) and his theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory) of everything (http://www.heim-theory.com/). If the theory describes reality, it could give a form of FTL travel with an artifical gravity propulsion system at no extra charge.

Water may be recycled\extracted from other sources... Air may be refreshed by an artificial ecosystem...

Humanity will be dead long before we could even leave the solar system.

I believe it was calculated that Mars' gravity was close enough to Earth not to be detrimental... but that was a long time ago...


That's right. Calcium leeching from our bones should be counterable by as little as Mars' 1/3G Gravity; the Moon's 1/6G is probably too little. Marsborn would probably grow up tall, but weak compared to Earthborn.

That's right. Calcium leeching from our bones should be counterable by as little as Mars' 1/3G Gravity; the Moon's 1/6G is probably too little. Marsborn would probably grow up tall, but weak compared to Earthborn.

All the more reason to send the wee folk.

Humanity will be dead long before we could even leave the solar system.Hopefully. In its current state.

DNA is not the answer you inebriated jerksicle. You cannot simply engineer a person that doesn't need to breath or exterior pressure to survive. Even if you could make cloned organs to replace the ones you lose from old age in flight your brain would eventually die in less than 200 years and replacing brain tissue is next to impossible.

As far as FTL goes...
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/miracle.gif

Why does FTL violate the laws of physics? Well, that is complicated, but there are two main problems: the Light-speed barrier and Causality. Now keep in mind that Causality is more of a hope than a law but without it the whole structure of physics kind of crumbles.

There are a few semi-plausible FTL methods out there. One of the most famous is Dr. Miguel Alcubierre's (http://www.astro.cf.ac.uk/groups/relativity/papers/abstracts/miguel94a.html) "Warp Drive" (http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw81.html), along with Chris Van Den Broeck's improvement (http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw99.html). There are others at Dr. John Cramer's Alternate View archives (http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/av_index_sub.html#8), Edward Halerewicz, Jr.'s Warp Physics (http://members.tripod.com/da_theoretical1/wdphysics.html) site, Marcelo B. Ribeiro's Warp Drive Theory (http://omnis.if.ufrj.br/~mbr/warp/) site, Lawrence H. Ford and Thomas A. Roman's Scientific American article Negative Energy, Wormholes and Warp Drive (http://www.physics.hku.hk/~tboyce/sf/topics/wormhole/wormhole.html), David Waite's Modern Relativity (http://www.geocities.com/zcphysicsms/) site (if you can understand the math), and NASA's Warp Drive When? (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/warp.html)

More on the fringe is Burkhard Heim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkhard_Heim) and his theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory) of everything (http://www.heim-theory.com/). If the theory describes reality, it could give a form of FTL travel with an artifical gravity propulsion system at no extra charge.

I so hope Burkhard Heim is right. His equations do predict atomic masses more accurately than conventional methods and if you take more precise constants then they get even more accurate. There was an article on it in New Scientist earlier this year. Can't remember which issue and I'm not going looking for it tonight. Droscher expanded on some of Heim's work. I believe that it suggests that magnetism and gravity are linked and that a rotating conducting ring within a massive magnetic field (80T+) would produce the anti-gravity effects. I find this interesting as many UFOs are reported as having a rotating component to them. Though that may be thank's to James Blish's "Cities In Flight" (1958) where entire earth cities were propelled to the stars by utilising a "spindizzy"(rotating device which alters the gravitational constant of every atom within its field of effect).

People shouldn't lose genetical inherit traits in a generation or two, and forcing physical exercise (Also to prevent body defections) should let us retain our traits...

People shouldn't lose genetical inherit traits in a generation or two, and forcing physical exercise (Also to prevent body defections) should let us retain our traits...

But if we send midgets to Mars, they'll grow tall and eventually be of average Terran height!

More than physical problem I think people should concern about psychical ones..

Like the fact that living in a space colony may induct claustrophobia...

living in a space colony may induce claustrophobia...

Score another point for short people!

If I may ask, how you're tall? (cm please not inches I'm lazy to do conversions...)

If I may ask, how you're tall? (cm please not inches I'm lazy to do conversions...)

I'm not short, if that's what you're wondering. I'm 181 cm.

Why do you ask?

Score another point for short people!

Midgets in SPAAAAAAACE!

The sciences and the technologies exist, and it has all been worked out over decades.

I believe it would be possible today that an Organization could build a Colony that could house a few thousand people to perhaps even 15,000 people, granted they get those people willing to become Space Citizens. An example of a space colony today would be the International Space Station. That is the Earth's Colony in Space. It's been proven, even though in the sort of weird environment they have, that it is possible and safe to live in space for lengthy times.

If you go to Wikipedia, they showcase a few designs that are actually very nice. It could take decades, but I could see Earth putting up more 'Science Centers' in Space and perhaps even eighty years there will be actual small colonies. We won't be alive for it, but it is our generation's choice to really push for this if we agree it is right. It is those generations that fall that must decide whether to put it into action.

Anyways...on a light note...

I would so effing love to live in a 'Space Colony'.

I'm not short, if that's what you're wondering. I'm 181 cm.

Why do you ask?

I'm taller than you >>...not by much...

DNA is not the answer you inebriated jerksicle. You cannot simply engineer a person that doesn't need to breath or exterior pressure to survive. Even if you could make cloned organs to replace the ones you lose from old age in flight your brain would eventually die in less than 200 years and replacing brain tissue is next to impossible.
But you could engineer a person so that their muscle mass would not deteriorate past a certain point, or as quickly. A lower metabolism would be handy, etc.

Trying to get people into space colonies is a waste of time and money. We'd be better off pouring as much as we can into getting working fusion plants.

Trying to get people into space colonies is a waste of time and money. We'd be better off pouring as much as we can into getting working fusion plants.

Let's do both and claim one was an offshoot of the other!

But you could engineer a person so that their muscle mass would not deteriorate past a certain point, or as quickly. A lower metabolism would be handy, etc.

No, we couldn't. It's not genetics that causes muscular atrophy. It's physics.

Let's do both and claim one was an offshoot of the other!

Fusions plants would come in handy on the Space Colonies.

I'm not short, if that's what you're wondering. I'm 181 cm.

Why do you ask?

Just curious about you wanting or not to "colonize space"...

No, we couldn't. It's not genetics that causes muscular atrophy. It's physics.

Actually, you're BOTH wrong. The muscular atrophy is caused by lack of exercize - it's a lot easier to get by without using a lot of strength in microgravity. Likewise, the calcium leeching in bones is caused by a lack of stress on the bones - the body, ever vigilant for ways to save resources, stops replacing the calcium that is naturally removed all the time because it doesn't recognize the need for it.

A genetic fix for the ca;cium leeching should be not only possible, but fairly easy - just change the instruction to replace the calcium as quickly as it is lost. Muscular atrophy is fightable with isometric exercises, and fixable with a return to high gravity.

I call the Kaiper belt object formely known as the planet Pluto.

Actually, you're BOTH wrong. The muscular atrophy is caused by lack of exercize - it's a lot easier to get by without using a lot of strength in microgravity.
And why does microgravity require less strength? Physics.

Consider that a fully functional colony need the same Gravity than earth, there is not only human to considerate but also plants...

I believe it was calculated that Mars' gravity was close enough to Earth not to be detrimental... but that was a long time ago...
If you're born and live in 1/10 Terran gravity for your whole life you'll have a hard time moving on Earth. It may be more than the moon but it's not enough.

but once done, the savings in logistics and support would be astronomical! :D
A station just makes more sense. Escape pods can always be dropped to the surface in the event of an emergency but it's a lot easier to coast along in space than to actually land on and then take off from planets. Stations can be made very large, have very heavy radiation sheilding and multiple layers of wimple sheilding, and atmospheric skimmers would be the perfect source of fuel for a station.

Actually, you're BOTH wrong. The muscular atrophy is caused by lack of exercize - it's a lot easier to get by without using a lot of strength in microgravity. Likewise, the calcium leeching in bones is caused by a lack of stress on the bones - the body, ever vigilant for ways to save resources, stops replacing the calcium that is naturally removed all the time because it doesn't recognize the need for it.

A genetic fix for the ca;cium leeching should be not only possible, but fairly easy - just change the instruction to replace the calcium as quickly as it is lost. Muscular atrophy is fightable with isometric exercises, and fixable with a return to high gravity.
If that were true then why was the Cosmonaut on Mir who started that whole exercise program still come back weak as a kitten and brittle as a corn chip?

If you're born and live in 1/10 Terran gravity for your whole life you'll have a hard time moving on Earth. It may be more than the moon but it's not enough.1/10th? all sites I visit place it at 38-40% more like a third.


A station just makes more sense. Escape pods can always be dropped to the surface in the event of an emergency but it's a lot easier to coast along in space than to actually land on and then take off from planets. Stations can be made very large, have very heavy radiation sheilding and multiple layers of wimple sheilding, and atmospheric skimmers would be the perfect source of fuel for a station.except one needs the facilites to process the fuel, and you have maintenance to worry about, and God forbid should your station break orbit...

with mars, even a thinner atmosphere will provide protection from most objects including radiation. with terraforming, you could thicken the atomosphere, and that will open up a planet for farming and producing food products. also seal breaches and other desaters won't occur on a terraformed planet. nevermind the resources that might be available right then and there.

If that were true then why was the Cosmonaut on Mir who started that whole exercise program still come back weak as a kitten and brittle as a corn chip?

I said fightable, not completely fixable. And unfortunately, isometrics does nothing for the bone leeching. Stay in microgee long enough and you come back a cripple whatever happens.

As for topic, if possible, should we set our souls free of the Earth's Gravity and ?begin to live into Space Colonies or humankind shouldn't to avoid universe pollution

There is not poll, just discussions...

Sounds like youve been smokin the wacky tabbaky."Lets set our souls free of earths gravity."You have fun with that.

1/10th? all sites I visit place it at 38-40% more like a third.
You're right, sorry, I was going off the mass. Even 1/3 gravity wouldn't be enough. Maybe for a few months, I'd not want to stay more than a year.

except one needs the facilites to process the fuel, and you have maintenance to worry about, and God forbid should your station break orbit...
PROFAC (http://www.bisbos.com/rocketscience/spacecraft/profac/profac.html)
Drop a few of these in orbit around Jovian worlds and have them periodically dock and dump at a holding station. You've got yourself a gas station on the way to the Kuiper Belt. And HET (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_effect_thruster)'s are already used in station keeping.

with mars, even a thinner atmosphere will provide protection from most objects including radiation. with terraforming, you could thicken the atomosphere, and that will open up a planet for farming and producing food products. also seal breaches and other desaters won't occur on a terraformed planet. nevermind the resources that might be available right then and there.
Radiation is not an object. Radiation is energy in the form of waves and particles. And a thin atmosphere like that of Mars provides no protection against it. It doesn't even have a magnetosphere. And to thicken an atmosphere takes a lot of active volcanoes and other stuff we're not capable of. And once terraformed a planet will be vulnerable to the same natural distasters on Earth. And ships and stations can be made very safe with multiple failsafes.

A good station with a gravity ring just makes more sense.

Sounds like youve been smokin the wacky tabbaky."Lets set our souls free of earths gravity."You have fun with that.

As I said before, that part was a quote...

Whaaaat? And start a war with Martians, are you crazy? Next you'll be telling us they are the evil enemy. At least it'll take the focus off the Middle East.

however, I believe we should colonize the stars, and if possible, terraform Mars.

yes.

i think we should also dump our industrial waste and pollution on other planets in the solar system. dumping CO2 on Mars would help in the terraforming process by changing the atmosphere and stuff

yes.

i think we should also dump our industrial waste and pollution on other planets in the solar system. dumping CO2 on Mars would help in the terraforming process by changing the atmosphere and stuff

Not so easy to say...

"Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed" as I recall is a law of physics...

CO2 contain Oxygen that will pe processed by plants during lightime... Dumping that on Mars will deprive Earth of his supply...

We still need a lot of experiences and research to go there. We can barely predict how plants grow in ambients without gravity, much less predict how humans will grown in planets with micro-gravity. Its not just about growing, its about growing inside the uterus with micro-gravity.

And gravity is not the only major problem. Another is the radiation. IN space, the radiation is far greater than in Earth. Not only because of the ozone layer, but because of the entire atmosphere.

Up there in space, you cant stop it. It penetrates in your body 24/7. And it will produce mutations, cancer and other problems. That is another reason why astronauts cant stay in orbit for long.

You see, gravity is the main problem right now. Just to think that your heart is a muscle, and it has to work a lot to get your blood from your legs to your head, makes you understand how the lack of gravity would affect it. Its not just the bones that sufer, but all tissue.

Fortunaly the US is planing on building a moon base. That will help us a lot. Because the International Space Station is just there to show us how hard it is to explore space. The ISS already has showed far bigger problems that we had expected, and also costed far much more than its original budget.

No one said that we should pick up our things and move to space tomorrow... (While I'll take the opportunity even now... They had only to pick me at home...)

The question really was about doing it or not in a (Maybe distant) Future... Because Earth is our ancestral home, and someone said that we should not leave it...

Moving to space will mean that human eings will direct themselves the flow of evolution non only for them but for a lot of different animal and vegetal species...

The question really was about doing it or not in a (Maybe distant) Future... Because Earth is our ancestral home, and someone said that we should not leave it...

Moving to space will mean that human eings will direct themselves the flow of evolution non only for them but for a lot of different animal and vegetal species...

You forgot the part where the sun eats the planet.

You forgot the part where the sun eats the planet.

Even the part while atomic wars will toast it...

We will leave here - or we will die here. The Universe is a vast and uncaring place - the doom of Earth may already be winging it's way to us, an asteroid, a comet, even a rogue world in the great depths.

By splitting our population between two worlds we far more than double our chances of survival. If we spread to the near stars, only a few things will be able to take us all out. Spread through the galaxy, and Mankind becomes immortal.

That may take millions of years. But the journey of a million years begins with a single step.

Poor Galaxy. :(

Poor Galaxy. :(

It's better of without us isn't it? Thought so.

Staying here forever is too dumb. The only thing left for us here is to explore the oceans, and we still have a long way to achieve that.

After that, its space or nothing. Every generation has a number of members who are willing to explore beyong the frontiers, and nowadays they are the scientists and astronauts.

First, the moon. Then, Mars. Hopefully, Europa. But if it will happen in 100 or 1000 years, no one can know. Most sci-fi shows (Star Trek/Babylon 5) feature an alien species who comes to earth in the 21th century and share enough knowledge that we can start the exploration right away.

But, well, I dont think things will be that easy. A lot of research will have to be produced, and a lot of people will die. That is how things were in the past, and how they will be in the future. Considering the hardships space present us, it will take much longer than some ships crossing the Atlantic. And when crossing the Atlantic, none of the "monsters" under the sea or mermaid went to shore and shared their knowledge with humans. And I dont think the solutions will be as easy as making the sailors eat oranges and drink lemon juice.

Not to forget the hundreds of sailors who died or went mad from eating can food with lead solder.

But, well, I dont think things will be that easy. A lot of research will have to be produced, and a lot of people will die.

Unfortunately most people don't like sacrificing people for the good of mankind. This may hinder progress.

It's better of without us isn't it? Thought so.

If I were watching us from another world, it would be with great interest in our development as an intelligent life form and how it keeps pace with our technological advancement. And this watching would be down the barrel of a really big gun. *nod*

No, we couldn't. It's not genetics that causes muscular atrophy. It's physics.

People lose muscle mass when not in use to conserve energy. There is a gene that controls this process. It has been found in animals and it has been turned off.

I have a short list of people who should definitely be moved to the stars ...

Not so easy to say...

"Nothing is created, nothing is destroyed" as I recall is a law of physics...

CO2 contain Oxygen that will pe processed by plants during lightime... Dumping that on Mars will deprive Earth of his supply...

not all of it, obviously. just the excess that is leading to the greenhouse effect etc

Most people seem to be impylign that we'd all leave Earth but we wouldn't only small portions of the population would leave to populate colonies and help them grow etc , etc so were not really leaving Earth many people will stay we'll just have alot of spatial colonials and the human race will of multiplied in terms of population until we start blowing each other to hell with space age warships and nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately most people don't like sacrificing people for the good of mankind. This may hinder progress.

Yes, that is unfortunate. But I´m also sure almost all astronauts are willing to risk (not sacrifice) their lives for science development.

Well, most astrounauts are engeniers, scientists, doctors etc.

About terraforming mars, that would take centuries, and, in fact, we are not able to do it yet with our current technology.

Scientists say that on mars there is frozen carbon dioxide , so if we were to heat up the planet abit the carbon dioxide will thaw and create atmosphere and all we have to do is put plant life on that planet with irrigation ( water taken from Earth)and we'd create a atmosphere breathable for humans.

Yes, but how long would it take?

And how could we produce enough energy to defroze all that CO2?

Ideas are easy. Methods arent.

Scientists say that on mars there is frozen carbon dioxide , so if we were to heat up the planet abit the carbon dioxide will thaw and create atmosphere and all we have to do is put plant life on that planet with irrigation ( water taken from Earth)and we'd create a atmosphere breathable for humans.

Sounds great, but ... heat up the planet? How would we do that? And can you imagine how much water we'd have to ship to Mars and how expensive that would be? A better idea would be to capture a comet or two and use them. We've a ways to go but I think it'd be fun to try.

I´ve seen an idea about using orbitary mirrors that would channel the energy of the sun and direct it towards the atmosphere.

Again, how to take the mirrors there is another problem.

There are a few things we will have to make sure are functional before we attempt to start a colony either in space or on another planet/satellite.

First off, you need artificial gravity. Turning people into human corn chips is not a small price to pay. I'm sure it can be done, likely with magnetism.

Next up, an artificial, self-regenerating atmosphere. Learning to grow trees in space would solve that problem if we have enough of them; if we can create machines that turn CO2 into pure O2 and can duplicate our atmosphere, we're golden. Forget the trees, although we probably should at least learn tree DNA.

While we're at it, all those nutrients we get from the sun? We need to learn to duplicate those. I would suggest some kind of pill or something that has all the essential amino acids, vitamins, and minerals that people need in order to survive. Then, people are healthy and can eat pretty much whatever they want, which will consist primarily of things that keep well in space.

Also, we need to learn how to do construction in space. If we can whip the artificial gravity, atmosphere, and nutrients into shape, we need to learn how to expand. A large station would support the entire population of the Earth...if it's large enough. Let's say we managed to cover the entire workable surface of the Moon...and are able to get around that pesky "it's fucking cold out there" problem. We would need to be able to expand that to accomodate more people, more stuff, etc.

Also, disease. For the serious stuff, we would probably quarantine people who have serious illnesses and not allow them into space until they are free of that disease, provided that it's in any way contagious. Cruise ships usually supply some kind of rubbing alcohol in dispensers for people after meals and after coming back onto the ship in order to prevent disease from spreading; at least for some time, that may be what space colonies need to do.

Finally, the question is of materials and renewable energy. If we're burning fossil fuels, there's no way in hell to make a space colony viable. If we have a renewable source of energy, it can work. And if we run out of materials and can't get more (i.e. metal, ore) then a space colony will be unworkable.

Once all these problems are solved, we should go into space and encourage more people to do the same.

I´ve seen an idea about using orbitary mirrors that would channel the energy of the sun and direct it towards the atmosphere.

Again, how to take the mirrors there is another problem.

Okay, well, the mirrors would probably be easier to ship than water. Assuming we do this in stages, we could set up bases on the Moon, manufacture the mirrors there and launch them toward Mars from there. A lot easier launching out of the Moon's gravity well than the Earth's.

Unfortunately most people don't like sacrificing people for the good of mankind. This may hinder progress.

But a lot of people will risk their life to explore unknown places...

Scientists say that on mars there is frozen carbon dioxide , so if we were to heat up the planet abit the carbon dioxide will thaw and create atmosphere and all we have to do is put plant life on that planet with irrigation ( water taken from Earth)and we'd create a atmosphere breathable for humans.
No, Mars is outside the habitable zone of our G-type star. And even with all the CO2 in the Martian Ice Caps there wouldn't be nearly enough for an atmosphere. And there's no magnetosphere on Mars to deflect cosmic radiation. And no oxygen to absorb UV rays from the sun to create an ozonosphere. And 1/3 g simply isn't enough. And just how would we heat up Mars? Do you have any idea the amount of energy that would be required for this sort of endenvor?

First off, you need artificial gravity. Turning people into human corn chips is not a small price to pay. I'm sure it can be done, likely with magnetism.
No, it can't be done with magnetism. There are 3 ways to produce simulated gravity and they are: accelerating at 1 g in any direction constantly, spinning a large ring or tube (see Spin Calc (http://www.artificial-gravity.com/sw/SpinCalc/SpinCalc.htm) or the Rotational Gravity Calculator (http://www.talisiorder.ca/template.php?T=Rotational%20Gravity%20Calculator&P=worldbuilding/spingrav.html) for how big and how fast), or placing a large mass underneath (like landing on a planet).

Next up, an artificial, self-regenerating atmosphere. Learning to grow trees in space would solve that problem if we have enough of them; if we can create machines that turn CO2 into pure O2 and can duplicate our atmosphere, we're golden. Forget the trees, although we probably should at least learn tree DNA.
Yeah, you would need mechanical scrubbers in case your crops failed. But there is no god damn way anyone will ever make a dyson tree.

The more you seriously thing about it the more you come to the conclusion that a very large space station is better than actually landing on and terraforming planets. The primary concern should be gravity with the second being its proximity to the star and the third being it having an atmosphere at all.

Also, something I think is often overlooked as a way to reduce the amount of fuel needed to get into orbit is the blimp. If you float the rocket halfway up on a giant blimp or airship you won't have to burn as much fuel to get it all the way up.

A crash coruse in hard space and space travel (http://projectrho.com/rocket/index.html). I really suggest you read it.

Still we can get resource from mars, estabilishing a line of colonies between mars and earth shouldn't be a bad start...

Okay, well, the mirrors would probably be easier to ship than water. Assuming we do this in stages, we could set up bases on the Moon, manufacture the mirrors there and launch them toward Mars from there. A lot easier launching out of the Moon's gravity well than the Earth's.

Oh yes, its a good idea. I think one of the main reasons why the US want to create a base there is to serve as a starting point for other missions.

Man, we are infants when dealing with space technology. Yet I sure would like to see, in my lifetime, something worth, like the space elevator or a functioning civilian transport between the earth and the moon.

We need new propulsion systems too. Taking 6 months to get to Mars is a pain.

And yes, I´ve also thought about the airship idea. It could be a good way to ship ressources to high altitudes. But it would be really hard to raise a rocket with an airship.

Anyone knows about Joe Kittinger? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Kittinger) He was the first man to get 31 km high on a baloon, and free fell from there, using a parachute after getting inside the atmosphere. Its a very interesting read, and there are some videos that are amazing.

I mean, can you imagine going up 31 km on a ballon, almost outside the atmosphere, and JUMPING from there? The guy has balls of steel.

Still we can get resource from mars, estabilishing a line of colonies between mars and earth shouldn't be a bad start...
The 11 Billion Dollar Bottle of Wine
The Possibilities of Interstellar Trade (http://www.costik.com/inttrade.html)
Granted that deals more with interstellar trade but things going through space will cost a hell of a lot more than something manufactured right where it's needed.

Okay, well, the mirrors would probably be easier to ship than water. Assuming we do this in stages, we could set up bases on the Moon, manufacture the mirrors there and launch them toward Mars from there. A lot easier launching out of the Moon's gravity well than the Earth's.
The biggest problem with this idea is that it'd be like going from Murderapolis to Chicago and making your first stop in Bloomington and then not stopping until you hit Chicago. It'd also be a hell of a lot easier to simply coast along in space than land on and then take off from a second gravity well.

Also, I think the Soviets tried a mirror array on Earth once to see if they could warm the Siberian tundra into farmland and it failed. Horribly.

Rockets can be made pretty damn small and still do everything the shuttle can. See the McDonnell Douglas DC-X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Clipper).

if humans go to the the stars.

i think the the first thing to do, is have a cheap way of delivering humans and equipment into space first.
Realistically rockets are not the answer. A better method would be some sort of space elevator. As soon as this is achievable every other endevour becomes alot more feasible and economical.

With such an elevator in place all other projects simply come down to time. To build mirrors around mars would involve simply moving a asteriod with the right properties into martian orbit. I assume this could be done by say, a probe with some automated maching being sent to the relevant rock and start by building a mine, for raw material, then a refinery to make the material into useful stuff, followed by a factory to build the engines to move it into the relevant orbit. Once in orbit, more machinery would be needed to build the mirrors to magnify/reflect the sunlight.
Hell the same machinery could push asteroids made mostly of ice into the planet to boost water content and thicken the atmosphere.

With an elevator in place, the rest pretty much seems to boild down to programming.

As for topic, if possible, should we set our souls free of the Earth's Gravity and begin to live into Space Colonies or humankind shouldn't to avoid universe pollution?

There is not poll, just discussions...

How?

What?

terraforming ftw.

if humans go to the the stars.

i think the the first thing to do, is have a cheap way of delivering humans and equipment into space first.
Realistically rockets are not the answer. A better method would be some sort of space elevator. As soon as this is achievable every other endevour becomes alot more feasible and economical.
...
With an elevator in place, the rest pretty much seems to boild down to programming.
Great idea! Except that there is no material strong enough for a sky hook unless what you're after is a rigid tower in which case it would simply be too damn massive.

Look, there are more efficient and powerful rocket systems available than chemical rockets. The fornt runners of feasability are the NERVA and the NPR. Both ideas were tinkered with back in the 50's and 60's and the NERVA even got as far as a few prototypes before getting shutdown. Why? To be blunt, Euphorians. Tree-hugging, dirt-worshipping hippies protesting against things they didn't understand and so feared. Politics too often kills nascent tehcnologies. Usually the more powerful and potentially helpful it is the more likely it is that some idiot protesters and politicians will shut it down.

Until there is a material that is proven strong and flexible enough to actually make a sky hook the idea will be nothing but a pipe dream.

Only those nations with the means to do so should move to the stars. The rest should be left behind.

It's inevitable. Humanity is innovative, vastly intelligent and possesses an extreme desire to continue existing. In time we'll outgrow this planet and will have to move on.

Great idea! Except that there is no material strong enough for a sky hook unless what you're after is a rigid tower in which case it would simply be too damn massive.

Look, there are more efficient and powerful rocket systems available than chemical rockets. The fornt runners of feasability are the NERVA and the NPR. Both ideas were tinkered with back in the 50's and 60's and the NERVA even got as far as a few prototypes before getting shutdown. Why? To be blunt, Euphorians. Tree-hugging, dirt-worshipping hippies protesting against things they didn't understand and so feared. Politics too often kills nascent tehcnologies. Usually the more powerful and potentially helpful it is the more likely it is that some idiot protesters and politicians will shut it down.

Until there is a material that is proven strong and flexible enough to actually make a sky hook the idea will be nothing but a pipe dream.

We're approaching this level of materials technology. Look into carbon nanotubes and what it means for durable, diamond-hard yet flexible and lightweight materials.

We should move our POOP to the stars first.

Each human produces an average of 0.16 kilograms of solid waste per day. With six billion people pooping per year, they produce 350.4 million metric tons. We'll have NASA astronauts herding the poop into one giant clump. Over the years, the clump gets big enough to have it's own gravity well. Then we use it as a space base!

We should move our POOP to the stars first.

Each human produces an average of 0.16 kilograms of solid waste per day. With six billion people pooping per year, they produce 350.4 million metric tons. We'll have NASA astronauts herding the poop into one giant clump. Over the years, the clump gets big enough to have it's own gravity well. Then we use it as a space base!

No more Futurama for you! :D

Absolutely. It is imperative for our continued economic, social, and technological growth that we move beyond this planet and colonize the vast frontier of space. We should seek to colonize everywhere we possibly can in order to secure the resources and space for ourselves and those who will come after us. It's already starting to happen; the private sec

Not to mention we may eventually contact extraterrestrial civilizations or find evidence of life, both of which would totally change society forever.

Great idea! Except that there is no material strong enough for a sky hook unless what you're after is a rigid tower in which case it would simply be too damn massive.
Until there is a material that is proven strong and flexible enough to actually make a sky hook the idea will be nothing but a pipe dream.

well carbon nanotubes has the right tensile strength. And at the moment I believe we can produce sheet of it at about 7 metres per minute.
So with the right level of industrial/scientific involvement this pipe dream could become a reality within our lifetime.

Also the tree-huggers would'nt be able to bitch because it would be a very green way of getting into space. And in the long run very energy cost effective.

Look, there are more efficient and powerful rocket systems available than chemical rockets. The fornt runners of feasability are the NERVA and the NPR. Both ideas were tinkered with back in the 50's and 60's and the NERVA even got as far as a few prototypes before getting shutdown. Why? To be blunt, Euphorians. Tree-hugging, dirt-worshipping hippies protesting against things they didn't understand and so feared. Politics too often kills nascent tehcnologies. Usually the more powerful and potentially helpful it is the more likely it is that some idiot protesters and politicians will shut it down.


well i also think the fact that NERVA (at the time) did not generate more thrust than more conventional rockets and the radioactive exhaust put alot of people off at the time.

We should move our POOP to the stars first.

Each human produces an average of 0.16 kilograms of solid waste per day. With six billion people pooping per year, they produce 350.4 million metric tons. We'll have NASA astronauts herding the poop into one giant clump. Over the years, the clump gets big enough to have it's own gravity well. Then we use it as a space base!

or have a new moon with a methane atmosphere! might smell a bit funny, but so do some places on earth

In time we'll outgrow this planet and will have to move on.

The question is whether we'll outgrow the planet first or gain the tech/ability to leave it first. If it's the former, we're pretty much screwed.

We'd need a new energy source first.
Fossil fuels don't have it ikn them to power mankind to the stars, I'd say nuklear/ hydrolisis is the only possible way to go but there's also the cost...Anyway if I was running the show I'd have the entire planet focussed on spce travel.

As for topic, if possible, should we set our souls free of the Earth's Gravity and begin to live into Space Colonies or humankind shouldn't to avoid universe pollution?

There is not poll, just discussions...

If we colonize other planets, then we can play Halo Combat Evolved for real!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b7/Halobox.jpg

As for topic, if possible, should we set our souls free of the Earth's Gravity and begin to live into Space Colonies or humankind shouldn't to avoid universe pollution?

There is not poll, just discussions...

ZOMG Gundam reference! Are you really Char Aznable in disguise behind a computer? And are you going to try to drop large asteroids and/or non-existent space colonies onto the Earth to fulfill your father's twisted philosophy?

Either way, space colonies and possibly terraforming other planets will need to happen in the future by necessity. Eventually, there would be too many people living on Earth, and we would need to do something about it.

Sorry not ready yet. First we have to learn how to live under the ocean for a while. Build a couple ocean cities on the surface then underwater. From there try to get a moon base going. From moon base to asteroid mining. From there go to mars permanent base on mars. Then the oort cloud for more mining. Then lagrange point colonies. We have a long way to go.

First we have to fix what we have. You can't go to mars until you can bring your habitat with you long term. That means we have to be able to build a biosphere that works. This means more environmental, biological, and ecological research.

well carbon nanotubes has the right tensile strength. And at the moment I believe we can produce sheet of it at about 7 metres per minute.
So with the right level of industrial/scientific involvement this pipe dream could become a reality within our lifetime.

Also the tree-huggers would'nt be able to bitch because it would be a very green way of getting into space. And in the long run very energy cost effective.

You should reduce that by several powers of 10.
Also the problem with space elevators is that you spend abount 2 days in the vanallen belts (no more eco freindly a way to get irradiated and die).

As for topic, if possible, should we set our souls free of the Earth's Gravity and begin to live into Space Colonies or humankind shouldn't to avoid universe pollution?

There is not poll, just discussions...
No. That would just bring more greed and imperialism.

*considers the old adage about eggs and a basket*
Yep. Let's go!

Also the problem with space elevators is that you spend abount 2 days in the vanallen belts (no more eco freindly a way to get irradiated and die).It's just charged particles, so you can effectively shield against it. Certainly with a space elevator where weight is much less of an issue than with rockets or shuttles.

Sorry not ready yet. First we have to learn how to live under the ocean for a while. Build a couple ocean cities on the surface then underwater. From there try to get a moon base going. From moon base to asteroid mining. From there go to mars permanent base on mars. Then the oort cloud for more mining. Then lagrange point colonies. We have a long way to go.

First we have to fix what we have. You can't go to mars until you can bring your habitat with you long term. That means we have to be able to build a biosphere that works. This means more environmental, biological, and ecological research.

Yes, but I think building a ocean city would be far harder than building one in the Moon or Mars. Building, not maintaining. You see, pressure sure is a bitch. Every 10 meters you have an extra atmosphere.

And I agree with the biosphere. They should keep working on it. I dunno why they stoped.

And about the space elevator: you dont need to make it too big. If you could send things up 10kg at a time, that would be good enough.

Exactly how will power be transmited to the climbing capsule?

Exactly how will power be transmited to the climbing capsule?

That is a very good question. There were some experiments in space done with conductors that use the basic electromagnetic law that fluctuations in a magnetic field produces electricity. If you could use the earth magnetic field to produce energy, you could get free energy for the space elevator.

And you could use that energy to create a magnetic field that, just like the maglev, uses magnetism to produce movement. So, in short, you would use the earth magnetic field to produce energy, which could be used to create magnetic variations in the elevator grid which could make the cargo move upwards.

Its just an idea. But a very hard to implement idea.

Yes, we definitely have to move on. Not necessarily as soon as possible, lets not dive into this head first ;).

Eventually, via our own idiotic practices or by things we can't control, Earth will not be habitable. We bicker as much as we like now about global warming and nuclear artilleries, but there are bigger, if not as immediate, things to worry about, out there.

As I have not read this topic in its entirety, the chances are the potential problems and solutions with terraforming Mars have already been mentioned, but I'm going to babble on about them for a bit just in case.

Mars lacks plate tectonics, so its very easy for gaseous material to get trapped in its sediments. It also lacks a magnetosphere, which might allow (and be allowing even now) the atmosphere of Mars to be stripped away by solar winds. Lacking a magnetosphere, it also means inhabitants could be exposed to unhealthy amounts of radiation every time a major solar eruption occurred (not that people on Earth aren't willing enough to dose their bodies up with the stuff as it is).

Doing my best not to sound like a children's craft show, to terraform Mars, you will need


To heat it up.
To thicken the atmosphere.


In some respects, these two will fuel each other - the problem with matter being trapped in the sediment can be solved by heating up the atmosphere. This would increase chemical erosion on the surface and release gases, in particular carbon dioxide. This will thicken the atmosphere, and help heat the planet...

As well as kicking the greenhouse effect into motion, you can begin to heat up the planet by darkening the planet itself (so it absorbs more sunlight). Dumping soot would be an easy way, but planting various dark fungi would be more attractive as you are beginning to introduce an ecosystem as you do so. There have been suggestions of nuking the poles to thicken up the atmosphere, and of microwaving the entire planet, also.

Oh, and you could slam Mars' moon into it.

Living underwater should be harder than living into space...

Even if it may seem absurd, people should be able to adapt themselves more likely to space rather than underwater...

Also there is no limit about how much space colonies we may create, while there is about underwater colonies... Plant should be able to adapt to space, where they can receive solar light, than underwater where that light isn't really available... Claustrophobia should be more heavily present underwater where we are limited in enviroment dimensions (A bigger underwater dome is subject to a bigger pressure...) rather than space ones...

Meh. It's going to have to get pretty bad down here on earth before some overcrowded pod city on mars looks like a good idea.

Meh. It's going to have to get pretty bad down here on earth before some overcrowded pod city on mars looks like a good idea.

Are you sure?

Yes, living in a colony must be pretty bad.

Maybe now that we have underwear that doesnt get dirty, things will improve. But, can you imagine how it would be to live in Mars with NO toilet paper, since there are no trees in Mars and toilet paper is too big for transportation?

At least as long as we live down here, there will always be toilet paper.

Yes, living in a colony must be pretty bad.

Maybe now that we have underwear that doesnt get dirty, things will improve. But, can you imagine how it would be to live in Mars with NO toilet paper, since there are no trees in Mars and toilet paper is too big for transportation?

At least as long as we live down here, there will always be toilet paper.

I find the whole logic...

...scary...

Well, who said space exploration was all about funny suits and blinking lights?

Sometimes you have to get dirty.

Btw, I always wondered why they never ever showed a bathroom in any Star Trek movie/series. And I also wondered why the Enterprise was so big, considering its always the same people who show up, and the ones that arent regulars usualy end up dying before the show is over.

Then it got me: The majority of the cargo space in the enterprise is filled with toilet paper. I mean, they go on a 5 years journey through space, and they can recycle food and water. But would things look so white if the paper was recycled? ANd would people would be in such a good mood if they had to share and recycle toilet paper? I dont think so.

No. That would just bring more greed and imperialism.

It's a million times better than poverty and stagnation.

Well, who said space exploration was all about funny suits and blinking lights?

Sometimes you have to get dirty.

The scary things was about the fact that you consider that as a severe impedment to space colonization...

Btw, I always wondered why they never ever showed a bathroom in any Star Trek movie/series. And I also wondered why the Enterprise was so big, considering its always the same people who show up, and the ones that arent regulars usualy end up dying before the show is over.

Maybe because ST was always maked with low founds?

Then it got me: The majority of the cargo space in the enterprise is filled with toilet paper. I mean, they go on a 5 years journey through space, and they can recycle food and water. But would things look so white if the paper was recycled? ANd would people would be in such a good mood if they had to share and recycle toilet paper? I dont think so.

People in ST are in good mood? :\

Maybe now that we have underwear that doesnt get dirty, things will improve. But, can you imagine how it would be to live in Mars with NO toilet paper, since there are no trees in Mars and toilet paper is too big for transportation.

Bidets?

Good call Vetalia! :) Obviously the way to go.
I'm in favor of colonizing space. Whether it is in stations and wheel cities or on other planets or both. :)

You should reduce that by several powers of 10.
Also the problem with space elevators is that you spend abount 2 days in the vanallen belts (no more eco freindly a way to get irradiated and die).

this article says otherwise
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003330.html

A team of researcher from the University of Texas, Dallas, and Australia's CSIRO has come up with a way to make strong, stable macroscale sheets and ribbons of multiwall nanotubes at a rate of seven meters per minute. These ribbons and sheets, moreover, already display -- without optimization of the process -- important electronic and physical properties, making them suitable for use in an enormous variety of settings, including artificial muscles, transparent antennas, video displays and solar cells -- and many, many more. The breakthrough was announced in the latest edition of Science. As usual, the article itself is behind a subscriber-only wall, but the abstract and supplementary information are available with a free site registration. The press release from UTD (carried by Eurekalert) provides abundant information, however; an article in the UK Guardian gives additional detail.


of course there is still a long way to go, but we're getting there.

Exactly how will power be transmited to the climbing capsule?

my assumption would be the following.

a solar array at the top to benefit from solar power.
also
if there is a capsule moving downwards at the same time, maybe the kinetic energy can be used to help power the ascending capsule.

People in ST are in good mood? :\

You dont see them bitching off very often, at least the New Generation guys. BTW, the original characters were much better.

Bidets? You mean to use the most valuable comodity in space exploration - water - to clean butts?

As for topic, if possible, should we set our souls free of the Earth's Gravity and begin to live into Space Colonies or humankind shouldn't to avoid universe pollution?

There is not poll, just discussions...

"Pollute space?" Isn't it supposed to be like, infinite or something? But to the question, yeah, moving outward is a great idea, if there are those who want to do so. I'll stay right here, thanks. :D