Post #275,461
12/11/06 11:22:10 AM
|
Pie-in-the-sky
Everything you propose trades a fragile environment for environments orders of magnitude more fragile - approaching 100% non-viable, extremely expensive, politically unacceptable and dehumanizing.
You propose to send along a few "moms" who's only function would be to stay pregnant with other peoples genetic material? Want me to give you the chances of them staying with that agenda? Or are you proposing they be chained down as breeder slaves?
At best you'd keep a few aerospace engineers occupied for a few years until there's a change of administration and their budget is not renewed.
Humanity needs to work on the problems at hand. Work that has some chance of succeeding.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #275,464
12/11/06 12:09:00 PM
|
Uh huh.
And the alternative?
Hope that unproven environmental science can fix problems when we don't even know the extent of them?
Or juggle the ecosphere and hope we get it right without ANY kind of a net, AT ALL? Oh yeah - it's good to work without backup - real good.
Just because you don't believe that it's possible to get viable colonies of mankind away from the womb that is earth - doesn't mean you're even close to right.
Personally I believe that we haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of stopping the storm that's coming - we'll be lucky if we can even slow it down. And when it does, the veneer of civilisation will fall off of humanity like a silk sheer scarf. You think we're scrabbling for resources now? That's just GREED. When survival (even if it's just 'mere' politica'/national survival) is at stake, you will see humans do more than just squabble over ideologies.
And then, of course, we won't be able to do ANYTHING but fight for survival. Real survival.
So yeah - advocate that we not spend the PITTANCE it would take (compared to our military spending, OR the amount it would take to clean up our environmental failures) to get viable colonies going on the Moon, or Mars. So that we can spend it on - what again are your ideas? Solar power maybe? What existing tech is gonna get us out of this? Oh - and be sure and check that it is POSSIBLE to create enough agri-fuel to farm enough to eat (remember, the energy-density of sunlight is a limiting factor here, as is the amount of land we are willing to farm - at our current growth rate there would soon be NO wild lands and NO diversity left) - and tell me how you're going to get everybody on the planet to agree not to breed our race out of existance - because no matter WHAT alternatives we come up with - it's only a stopgap compared with the supply and demand of food. And any grand gestures would have their OWN deleterious effect on the ecology, I assure you.
Like it or not, the ecology CANNOT sustain us. Not as we are. Without a seed, a possibility 'offsite' as it is, the race is doomed.
So - I'm waiting for you to say that that's a good thing.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
| |
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #275,465
12/11/06 12:35:09 PM
|
Speaking of which...
Skip (and anyone else), you'd be interested in these books:
S. M. Stirling, [link|http://www.amazon.com/Dies-Fire-Roc-Science-Fiction/dp/0451460413/sr=1-3/qid=1165858078/ref=sr_1_3/102-1779356-8853743?ie=UTF8&s=books|"Dies The Fire"], [link|http://www.amazon.com/Protectors-War-S-M-Stirling/dp/0451460774/sr=1-4/qid=1165858078/ref=sr_1_4/102-1779356-8853743?ie=UTF8&s=books|"The Protector's War"], and [link|http://www.amazon.com/Meeting-at-Corvallis-S-M-Stirling/dp/0451461118/sr=1-2/qid=1165858078/ref=sr_1_2/102-1779356-8853743?ie=UTF8&s=books|"Meeting At Corvallis"].
Premise: everything depending on electricity or explosions (engines, guns, steam engines, etc.) stops working, and civilization collapses when all the food and energy goes away. The people who come out on top are SCA members, history professors, and the like. In Oregon, three societies develop: in Portland, the Protector starts a medieval state based on street gangs, and opposing him are two free states, one of Wiccans and the other of mercenaries.
He also wrote a [link|http://www.amazon.com/Island-Sea-Time-S-Stirling/dp/0451456750/sr=1-7/qid=1165858078/ref=sr_1_7/102-1779356-8853743?ie=UTF8&s=books|series ]based on the premise that Nantucket gets sent back to the year 1300 BC, complete with guns, motors, airships, and the like. Basically the opposite premise of the other series. The Nantucket series came first, and is mentioned briefly in the Dies The Fire series, but it's not necessary to read one before the other.
Very good stuff all around. Meticulously researched and interesting from a simple historical perspective as well.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #275,467
12/11/06 1:00:46 PM
|
A viable, non-toxic backup plan would be nice.
Every rocket sent into space burns huge amounts of kerosene and rubber fuel and does severe and direct damage to the ozone layer as it goes through. Your plan would increase this damage by orders of magnitude.
Creating self sustaining colonies on the Moon or Mars is not likely possible - and it most certainly would not cost a "pittance" as you say. Even if a self contained system could be created it would certainly break down in short order from either technical or human failures. More likely such colonies would die immediately after support from Earth was cut off.
If you really believe a super-technological solution of this sort can be achieved, you would have a much better chance of your closed system survival colonies surviving if created here on Earth.
The earth has been through far more severe temperature swings than the one projected now - and life survived. The ecology most certainly can sustain humanity, perhaps not with all its current excesses, but sustain it will - and in a more human form than your techno/breeder slave solution could provide.
Yes, some populations will suffer severely or even be wiped out, but others will adapt. It's called evolution and it occurs in social structures as well as in physical structure.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #275,477
12/11/06 1:47:49 PM
|
As mentioned before...
Every rocket sent into space burns huge amounts of kerosene and rubber fuel and does severe and direct damage to the ozone layer as it goes through. Your plan would increase this damage by orders of magnitude. Orders of magnitude IF I thought it was viable to send signifigant percentages of the population to said colonies. IF the idea of donors was used, the number of people that would need to be sent to establish a safe gene pool is vastly reduced. Further, for the bulk of us, well - we're stuck here. That's why this is not an either/or proposition. I think you may be having difficulty with planetary scale - both for the ecological problems, and the difficulty of solutions. it most certainly would not cost a "pittance" as you say Oh, it would be expensive, all right - but NOTHING compared to 'fixing' the problems here. If things ARE fixable. If our 'ecological solutions' don't make things worse. If you really believe a super-technological solution of this sort can be achieved, you would have a much better chance of your closed system survival colonies surviving if created here on Earth. As mentioned [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=275429|here]. Of course, off-planet colonies would be far less likely to have to deal with roving bands of starving and foraging marauders. Certainly they would not have to deal with expeditions from Earth. The earth has been through far more severe temperature swings than the one projected now - and life survived. The ecology most certainly can sustain humanity, perhaps not with all its current excesses, but sustain it will - and in a more human form than your techno/breeder slave solution could provide. Techno-breeder? Really now, that's YOUR imagination at work. I just want to increase the genetic diversity of a small group of humans over the generations. And as for the ecology sustaining humanity, I'm not so sure - especially if we end up starting the whole mess over again from the stone age. And we WOULD. I've said many times before that the Earth will shake off humanity like a bad cold. The thing is, I DON'T want that to be the end of us. It's called evolution and it occurs in social structures as well as in physical structure. And we are only now beginning to pull our 'social structure' out of the muck of 'might makes right'. Yeah, we might be on our knees (as opposed to on our bellies) instead of being truly civilised - but starting all over again - IF that is possible and we don't just die when our population wanes, our food supply goes, and poisons and UV radiation floods the earth - is NOT the way to go.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
| |
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #275,482
12/11/06 2:17:01 PM
|
Re: As mentioned before...
Orders of magnitude IF I thought it was viable to send signifigant percentages of the population to said colonies. \r\n\r\nOrders of magnitude for the construction and supply effort you propose.\r\n\r\n Oh, it would be expensive, all right - but NOTHING compared to 'fixing' the problems here. If things ARE fixable. If our 'ecological solutions' don't make things worse. \r\n\r\nA vast expense creating a great deal of damage to the Earth for the highly unlikely benefit of a very few. \r\n\r\n As mentioned here [*]. Of course, off-planet colonies would be far less likely to have to deal with roving bands of starving and foraging marauders. Certainly they would not have to deal with expeditions from Earth. \r\n\r\nQuite wrong. Your space colonies, should things be getting bad here, would be at the mercy of the infrastructure that supported their construction.\r\n\r\n Techno-breeder? Really now, that's YOUR imagination at work. \r\n\r\nNot mine. It's your solution that includes 100% technology and breeder slaves to maintain genetic diversity. That isn't going to work.\r\n\r\n And we are only now beginning to pull our 'social structure' out of the muck of 'might makes right'. \r\n\r\nI see, so the inhabitants of these colonies will be supermen completely free of human foibles and will work harmoneously in tight quarters under strenuous unnatural conditions to achieve the goal you have set out for them.\r\n\r\n One guy off his nut will be sufficient to destroy the colony and that'll probably happen in short order. \r\n\r\n\r\n [link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #275,485
12/11/06 2:48:19 PM
|
Completely wrong.
Orders of magnitude for the construction and supply effort you propose. No. A vast expense creating a great deal of damage to the Earth for the highly unlikely benefit of a very few. A moderate expense to ensure the future of the human race - as opposed to a huge expense that doesn't actually address the problem, and is instead devoted to prolonging symptoms by mitigating (too late) our own actions. Quite wrong. Your space colonies, should things be getting bad here, would be at the mercy of the infrastructure that supported their construction. Only if you believe that it is impossible to have colonies without direct support. I want self-sustaining entities. Was this not clear? Or do you believe that life can ONLY exist on the womb of Earth, and if outside the womb, must forever be tied via an 'umbilical cord'? Not mine. No. Entirely your fantasy. Unless you consider all females to be 'breeder slaves'. Unless your Mom was a 'breeder slave'. I assure you mine was NOT. I see, so the inhabitants of these colonies will be supermen completely free of human foibles and will work harmoneously in tight quarters under strenuous unnatural conditions to achieve the goal you have set out for them. Oh, humans cannot live and work under those conditions, I guess. That will come as news to submarine crews. And of course they would never be apart or allowed on the surface. Riiiight. Your are making up reasons why it can never work. You are wrong, quite simply. I may be dreaming; I certainly wouldn't be young enough to go when it happens - but at least my dreams include the survival of the human race as more than barbarians or plains monkeys.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
| |
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #275,496
12/11/06 4:36:07 PM
|
Submarine crews . . .
. . have always been selected with extreme care and are held to very strict routines under very controlled conditions for limited periods at a time.
You could similarly select for your "self sustaining" colonies but that would break down with the second generation - if it lasted that long which I doubt very much that it would. Imagine rebelious teenagers lose in the colony, and love triangles, and all the other stuff we have here.
Yes, breeder slaves. Women are going to want children of their own with their own man - to say nothing of the men - unless you force them - breeder slaves.
And you say your space colonies will nuke the infrastructure that built them from orbit? I imagine there'll be plenty of "just in case" hardware ready to fuel.
Yes you are dreaming - you've read too much science fiction.
No, humanity will not become barbarian plains monkeys, though social structures may have to change quite a lot in response to environmental pressure. It will still be a culture far less dehumanizing than that of your underground colony on the moon.
But then maybe you'd really enjoy living on a nuclear submarine for the rest of your life. Have at it.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #275,527
12/11/06 11:22:38 PM
|
Sure. Whatever.
Social order breaks down in the second generation in smaller groups.
Women that don't choose their donors (though there's no problem choosing partners) are slaves.
I somehow mention nuking infrastructure from orbit.
You're hallucinating.
Whatever.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
| |
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #275,540
12/12/06 3:12:29 AM
|
In smaller groups . . .
. . social order tends to break down in the first generation, not the second.
I have watched any number of well meaning non-profit groups become successful organizations, then suddenly collapse in disarray due to a power struggle or jealousy among its leaders.
You don't like "nuke from orbit"? Then explain to me by what method the massive infrastructure necessary to build a space colony is going to simply disappear. Having been involved first hand in the Apollo project (on the manufacturing side) I can assure you the supporting infrastructure is many, many times the size of the visible part.
Compare the massive size of the Apollo vehicles and the far more massive size of the support and manufacturing infrastructure that built and launched those vehicles to the size of the Moon Lander itself. Consider the minimum size for a colony to achieve self sufficiency and the duration of the project before it achieves that state. Proportion that to the size of the moon lander and the duration of its mission. Now proportion back to find the size and cost of the infrastructure needed to build that colony and support it to self sufficiency.
Science fiction can be a great deal of fun because it gets to ignore the tawdry details of reality and of human nature. A real project can't.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #275,543
12/12/06 7:36:01 AM
12/12/06 7:38:23 AM
|
OK, wrong again. I am *shocked*
- Then small tribes never existed, and island cultures are imaginary. The people alway die out, right? Riiiiight. We'll just ignore the idea that there are whole worlds that could be expanded into, so it needn't remain tiny forever, nor do the people need to be huddled together all the time.
- Oh, let's see now. I talk about civilisation falling apart, and you wonder how infrastructure will disappear. And since moving supplies is so expensive, don't expect 'raiders from Earth, either. Duh.
You confuse science fiction with fantasy set in a technical background. Science fiction has a funny tendency to come true in one form or another. We WILL go to other worlds to live, despite your reactionary 'don't go! It's DANGEROUS out there' attitude. I truly hope that we do it fast enough to preserve us through what I think is to come. Your way, social collapse and the 'social evolution' (talk about fantasy!) preserves nothing and leaves the door to the death of humanity as a species even wider. edit: damn that title was harsh
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
| |
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
Edited by imric
Dec. 12, 2006, 07:38:23 AM EST
|
Post #275,555
12/12/06 10:27:13 AM
|
The death of humanity as a species is a given.
Time is the only variable. You think our technology will extend that time - I do not. Current science and cosmology provide no practical way to expand even to the most nearby (and very hostil) worlds, and finding another that is actually habitable is entirely out of the question.
There may be a way out of here but it's not through technology. You'd need to come up with a whole new definition of how the universe works and demonstrate that it works that way.
The massive expenditure and depletion of resources you propose to set up one or two doomed colonies would be far better spent fixing problems here, and that would also avoid the severe damage to the upper atmosphere your project would cause.
As for your small tribes and island peoples - point me to one where power struggles and fits of jealousy were/are not a feature. They live in a highly resiliant environment that can absorb damage done, and for those who can't get along, there's the option of leaving. In your colony just one person with a grudge and suicidal frame of mind could easily destroy the entire colony.
And even if it did survive into a second or third generation, expecting the people there to adhere faithfully to your plan is simply absurd. They will have their own agenda.
Living as a tribe of Siberian nomads would be far richer and less dehumanizing than living in your underground moon base would be anyway.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #275,556
12/12/06 10:44:43 AM
|
amen on your last sentence
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #275,560
12/12/06 11:09:30 AM
|
So - Let's sum up your points
- Small colonies are impossible wherever they go, small groups are intriniscally non-viable. Expansion is impossible away from Earth.
- It's cheaper to UNDO damage we've done, with unspecified technologies that do NOT exist, change all existing cultures, and it is safer to meddle further with an ecosystem we don't know how to manage now, than to plant seeds elsewhere. This is more viable than to improve existing technologies to go to places out of reach of the coming disaster as a backup. Above all, the attempt should be avoided.
- A rocket adds so much more (on a global scale) damage to the ecosphere that extra-terrestrial (planetary/lunar) colonies would doom us all. Well, more doomed.
- Humans having their own agenda is a bad thing. Central planning and control is all - their agenda would certainly have not include survival (the goal involved here).
- Humanity would be better off with a nomadic/tribal lifestyle - after all it is idyllic and wouldn't have the problems you cite for colonies.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
| |
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #275,581
12/12/06 6:11:23 PM
|
"Mein Fuhrer, I Can Walk!"
[link|http://www.correntewire.com/mein_fuhrer_i_can_walk|http://www.correntew...fuhrer_i_can_walk]
|
Post #275,522
12/11/06 10:50:14 PM
|
Techno Possibility is subordinate to species mindset,
always. No?
What we have here is.. an idea that 'technology' can solve a basic Existential question - for a species which has demonstrated its willingness to "eat all the seed corn" [pick whichever simile makes for saving a few thousand words.]
Whether the "tipping points" limned in Gore's - or any other of the now many extrapolations from present data - are at all accurate in time estimates: the few mechanisms already mapped / detected, inspected / are demonstrably at Work.
More study will produce refinement. But IMO No 'Study' shall, in. time. - reprogram the people we have allowed (by default of popular disinterest, sloth and inertia) to control the Wealth? "Total Energy/Effort Distribution"? - of the planet. Yet the skills of (some.. of those Czars/Tsars of the mega-scale) could be very useful, were they employed for survival-of-the Many VS Wealth-of Me.
If we don't address, 'solve' *that* psych problem in incredibly short time, all the rest is / will remain just air noises. IMhO. Econ theory has no spreadsheet entry for - Planetary nest maintenance Tax. And those who worship that Gawd, shall resist conversion as much as ... a Hottentot will use a GameBoy for a poi dish.
Place your bets: decimation via whimper -or- amidst wholesale Tribal slaughter?
(with the Grated Compounds being razed early-on.)
With the Net, cooperative News could travel fast, maybe even faster than Jihad.. unless..
Unless..
that stubbornest X% will Still opt for the notion, God Wants US Dead next..
..we became a Cosmic Embarrassment? Hmmm, one could understand such a recap. No?
|
Post #275,528
12/11/06 11:24:27 PM
|
*sigh*
Which is one of the reasons why we have to have a permanent, self sustaining presence elswhere.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
| |
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #275,546
12/12/06 7:47:55 AM
|
s/species/society/g
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #275,571
12/12/06 2:38:51 PM
|
Remember Biosphere 2?
There's a lot of stuff on the Web about it, but here's one:
[link|http://www.permanent.com/s-bio2m1.htm|http://www.permanent.com/s-bio2m1.htm]
[...]
"The purpose of the facility is no longer habitats for space, but is for studying earth's ecosystems. There will be no more sealed missions of people inside the habitat, and the work does not look directly applicable to space habitats any more. Space Biosphere Ventures is out, and Biosphere 2 Science Consortium is in. "
Who will fund space exploration?
|
Post #275,822
12/14/06 11:04:24 PM
|
Re: Remember Biosphere 2?
Who will fund space exploration? I haven't reached any conclusions re assigning some exact(?) priority of 'space exploration' VS all else; clearly It is There - and we are wired to forever ask Why (usually a bad question) and always, How. The morphing of Biosphere 2 sounds even more appropriate now, especially as the focus massively accelerates on matters of Local habitat survival. Perhaps the 'deep space' funding shall have to suffer until some equilibrium occurs twixt the inveterate Deniers and the manic Alarmists re climate change extrapolations. That Bio article though, indeed applies to climate matters -- in a perspicuous (if a bit snide) characterization of the 'types' of naysayers/boosters who are forever leveraging egos in disgustingly Rovian ways. I see that ignoble facet of the Science equivalent of Suits [and Corporations! specially] as one of the major time-wasters which shall inevitably produce waste.. in the next efforts to coalesce (without simplistically conflating) a massive data-hunt and analysis project we see we Must speedily construct. No idea if.. a %sufficient of the competent and dedicated can overcome the neurotic personalities next [???] THIS is one of those 'cases' - no longer theoretical - where multiple forks must be simultaneously funded \ufffd l\ufffd Manhattan Project (U? or Pu? or Both?! == Yes.) There Will be waste because there Must be - for all the giant holes in our present comprehension of the near-infinite dimensions of the planetary feedback system (and for our disdain in improving that knowledge: till faces rubbed in it.) I see the major problems being more of this human/class/caste kind, than in the merely onerous work of measuring, sorting, weighting and digesting - via normal scientific criteria. It seems we shall have to improvise a crash program in adulthood for a planet of overgrown teens / at the same time as work tries to proceed. 'Grow Up or Die?' has a nice ring to it. Will such propositions counter Greed? How Many of the super-rich shall opt to die Super-rich, rather than not-die.. but lose the Lear? Imagine... if a cretin like Shrub were 'managing' >This< !! And, even if he's sent back to cut wood in Crawdad/whatever - we certainly have many mini-Shrubs ever anxious to 'manage'. ie short form: it's [still] a crap shoot, especially when Religio schism rears its ugly head - and, It Will. Yet there are some encouraging signs from certain evangelicals, abetted by a few soft-spoken scientists (one from Harvard on Charlie Rose, a few nights back) - in putting aside the liturgies and cooperating on common moral grounds. E. O. Wilson, was it? Pity no transcripts from that now very-commercial, Bloomberg-rich guy. :-/ Still: a hopeful presentation. We'll need lots of such surprises.
We may at least Hope that Gaia proves a smarter feedback-manager than the cretins to whom Power remains their main aphrodisiac; She may be a metaphor or She may be ___ something Else, this 'Nature' Thing. But hubris wouldn't consider the idea even worth a glance..
First we kill all the Neocons. Then . . .
|
Post #275,869
12/15/06 9:40:41 PM
|
Wuzzat the one with Pauly Shore?
===
Kip Hawley is still an idiot.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #275,542
12/12/06 7:08:42 AM
|
Eventually, we do need to leave.
But I think that will be sometime before the Sun enters its [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_giant|red giant] phase. But Mars probably won't be far enough away to make much of a difference, and the Moon certainly won't.
Some of the problems with the psychology of small groups can probably be addressed if necessary (e.g. doping the food), but there are things like loss of bone mass in reduced gravity that may be more difficult to compensate for. Our bodies have had a very long time to adjust to our particular g and we don't really know how we'd do on Mars or the Moon where gravity is much less intense. And that's one simple thing that we do know something about. What about the circulatory system? Are the risks of [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulmonary_edema|pulmonary edema] higher? Stroke? Infectious disease? Etc.
As Andrew indicates, it costs a lot in terms of infrastructure and energy to get stuff out of our gravity well. Apollo cost an estimated [link|http://www.speculist.com/archives/000662.html|$105B in 2003-dollars], and those were very short duration missions that only moved a few thousand pounds to the Moon. You're talking about a project that is orders of magnitude larger. Even a few women in a colony will need a large support infrastructure there (they won't be able to do much while they're recovering from childbirth).
For the next few thousand years, it's hard for me to imagine it being better to have large-scale settlement on another planet than living here. Even if we have to build something under the ocean because the ozone's gone or because everything's too radioactive, it'll be cheaper here.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
(Who thinks that small-scale settlements are a good idea, but not because we need to leave Earth soon.)
|
Post #275,545
12/12/06 7:46:50 AM
|
Apollo
Didn't have a shuttle, or the possibility of commercial companies contracting the work. Spaceship one didn't cost as much in real terms as Mercury - not by a long shot.
As for the problem with g - true they might be there - but the 'problem' might just be with free fall, not reduced gravity. Of course, we'll never know if we stay here.
And waiting 'till Red Giant phase? The Neanderthals didn't last that long, and they lasted longer than we have so far. I really don't think we have that long.
And - a few thousand years? The length of time the West has been 'civilised'? 10 times the length of time we've had an industrial civilisation? Again, I dunno. I don't think we have the time to dawdle.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
| |
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #275,564
12/12/06 12:37:58 PM
12/12/06 8:32:29 PM
|
SpaceShipOne - 100 km at peak of a burnout . . .
. . trajectory (could have gone a little higher) with a velocity rapidly approaching 0 at the peak of the trajectory.
The Mercury capsule did 22 orbits between 160 and 282 km requiring a speed of about 8 km/second (17,892 miles/hour). A rather huge difference in scale there. When SpaceShipOne completes 22 orbits we can compare costs.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
