Actually, were we to seriously consider the colonization of other planets like Mars within our system, or to play with even more ambitious projects, a base on the moon, once established would cut future economic burden of projects drastically. And as I mentioned previously, it's all about cost.
The truth is that planetary colonization will not be a useful paradigm for a very long time. We just can't travel fast enough to make it economically viable. What could make the Moon economically viable is the presence of helium-3, which is one proposed source of fuel for a second-generation fusion power-source. Not that this will necessarily work out.
Very true. The thing that will likely most likely cause planet colonization to expand beyond our solar system would be the presence of rare resources (or at least rare on Earth). Though main thing that will drive humanities spread throughout the Sol System (our solar system) will be our numbers. Earth can only handle so many people so we'll have one of two options. Either A: give people the chance to live off of Earth or B: destroy a large portion of the population and I doubt option B will be a popular choice. So in like three or so generations, we'll likely see the first cities popping up on Mars, the start of terraforming it and the first few city sized space stations. Speed is a major problem. Using fossil fuel engines, it'll take several months just to reach Mars and several decades to reach the nearest solar system.
time is not an important factor as long as your crew population is sufficient and capable. even for trips that exceed lifetimes, crew responsibilities could be passed on to the children.
Er... we don't use fossil fuel engines in space. Two popular choices are ion drives and nuclear drives, particularly Orion. Ion drives take a long time to accelerate, but they require very little mass in terms of fuel. Nuclear engines can achieve massive acceleration, and could concievably launch from a planet's surface. In terms of terraforming Mars, terraforming takes a very, very long time. And "cities" are incredibly large. You would need a terraformed planet to have true cities. Smaller colonies and bases are a possibility, though. And I'd hate to imagine what it would take to get a city-sized space station in space. Arcologies sound nice, but actually building them is a very complicated and time-consuming process.
Well, the arcologies would be built in space by take up parts and putting them together in space. Will it be complicated and time consuming? Of course. However, humans have built rather large and complicated things in the past so I doubt that'll stop us. If a group of companies sees it as a chance at profit or a country sees it as a need, then it will be possible. it's just a matter of man power, resources and motivation. Also, while I don't think it's used for sattelites, I think most space ships that carry people (the U.S. space shuttle and Russia's space rockets) generally use rocket fuel. Ion drives couldn't get off of Earth, but it's not a bad idea for ships that'll stay in space. Thought, nuclear reactors will likely be implemented in the near future for space travel.
To get stuff into space will be relatively cheap in the future. I give you the inflatable space elevator: http://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/?p=1600 Because rockets and cables are for suckers. The ORION system was planned with launching city sized bases to the moon in mind. It would take roughly 100,000 nukes to do so (IIRC). I can't imagine the ecological consequences.
"Rockety fuel" isn't exactly a specific term. We currently use a combination of LOX and kerosene for the lower stages of many rockets, including Russian and Chinese boosters. But we use LOX and liquid hydrogen for the space shuttle, and for the upper stages of most rockets. So in one sense, yes, we do sort of use fossil fuels. But not entirely. And not at all in the space shuttle, though yes in the rockets that get it to space.
This is incorrect. The moon has Uranium on it (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090629-uranium-moon.html). This means that lunar bases could serve as vital fueling ports for longer ranged missions. Combine that with a space elevator and Mars is a stack of shielding (and ****-tons of money) away.
Scaled Composites' 'Space ship one' used Nitros Oxide and ground up car tires in a hybrid rocket system. I suppose that is a fossil fuel rocket as well.
The Moon is covered in an extremely rare(on Earth anyway) isotope of Helium called H-3 which can be used in fusion reactions. It's also thought to be found in gas giants and the proposed mining of both of them for fuel is incentive enough for exploration and colonization.
I can't find the link, but there is a recent(ish) news article where a science team showed that FTL travel is possible by warping space-time. Sadly, it will require power levels that have never been seen before (in a controlled setting).
I know that is one theoretical approach, but I am unaware of any actual proof of concept. And if we don't even have the ability to manage it on earth, the poor space ships aren't getting even close. Space elevators are still a long way off. Though we might be able to manage them someday. Mitchell-- I think "covered" is stretching it a bit, at .01ppm.
It's a thin layer but it's there and the Moon's low gravity and sans atmosphere would make it easy to move large mining machinery and materials.
Technically if you put like.... 10-20 people 50% men and 50% women in a huge spaceship powered by the solar sail technology you could get very far. This spaceship would have to be filled with plants to maintain the oxygen level, and of course getting it up and into space to begin with is fairly unrealistic. If they assembled the parts via the IST (international space station) then they might get it up there.( I think when they start making multi-part spaceships, and assemble them at the space station will be the breakthrough needed for longer space travels. It can be like a space-dock ^^) The problem lies with supplies. Therefore you'd have to fill the ship with plants that produce food, whether edible and nutritious leaves or fruits/vegetables. And also the humans on the ship would have to give birth to children in space lol, not sure what that would do to their growth, but if we want humans to get to a planet where it's possible to stay for us, that's the way we would have to go about it. Of course they would also have to train the children in space. The other option being something like.... building huge structures with greenhouse-like effects on the closer planets. The moon even.
10-20 seems a bit low-ball to me...I would go for at least a few hundred so you could get by a few generations without inbreeding.
I was trying to keep the size of the spaceship something we could manage within a few years from now, to get a few hundred and all the plants and training devices and everything else would make the ship the size of a small town. Also possible but kind of a pretty long term project. Plus you'd have to find people willing to spend the rest of their lives in space only to bring their next generation closer to a new habitable planet. Given the fact that most people won't even stop driving much less protest to help the next generation I'd say that you'd have to look close, but it's probably not impossible. ^^ Valid point though. Inbreeding would be the case after not too many generations I guess.
and not 50/50 you need more females, as gestation times are long. It has been suggewsted that insects would make excellent protine sources in deep space due to quick reporduction and their ability to process human waste.
But isn't the inflatable elevator project only a partial elevator? It would definitely be an improvement if it works though.
Yes that makes sense Kyle, and also I don't know how much oxygen insects use, but I'm guessing if there should be enough of them to be the sole protein source you would need a few more plants. Oh and I totally forgot about water, other than recycling piss I don't really have any idea as to how they would be able to bring enough water. Would distillation even work in space?
A closed system is a closed system. So long as you are not venting water to space, you can reuse all of it. Yes, the inflatable elevator will not go 100% of the way, but it can be used in conjunction with an orbital platoform, or use thrusters to make the final jump (in lower gravity and without atmospheric drag)
People would wear sweat suits(suits that collect sweat)? And even if what you say is true we would need to supply water to the plants.
Again, closed is closed. Plants use water, that water passes through their skin, and becomes atmospheric. It can all be recycled without the need for sweat suits. If you are still unsure, ask yourself 'Where does all that water go?'
