Notices
Results 1 to 44 of 44

Thread: Will we colonize the solar system in my life time?

  1. #1 Will we colonize the solar system in my life time? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3
    I am 20 and I want to live to be 100 and in that time period I hope that some day mankind will colonize the solarsystem in that amount of time? I wonder if in a century we will land people on the moon and Mars as well as living on other asteroids in that amount of time? Do you think this?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Colonize, in the sense of setting up permanent settlements with families - possibly, but probably not. Set up permanent bases with rotating personnel, as we have done in Antarctica - almost certainly. The colonisation would not be far behind.

    However, there are many variables at work here, any of which could push this strongly in either direction.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    908
    We landed people on the moon in 1969, which was in my lifetime. They didn't stay long and some still dispute the event. There would have to be some economic reason for us to set up a base there. When world population gets beyond 10 million we may have to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    When world population gets beyond 10 million we may have to.
    I realise it's a typo - but the nonsensical aspect of that number made me chuckle.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    908
    No, I meant 10 million! Sorry about that, I did of course mean 10 squillion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Gurgeh, I think the next big problem to solve before we can get to other planets is radiation protection.From the little bit I have read nobody has figured out a cheap, lightweight and effective way to shield the astronauts from cosmic and solar radiation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    The latter problem would be solved if we had an order of magnitude change in the price to orbit of a given mass. We could then put on adequate shielding to any craft, and/or sufficient fuel that we would not need to use Hohmann transfer orbits, or similar techniques for achieving deltaV.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    284
    Which can be solved by a space elevator > but... we need way more work on manufacturing carbon nanotubes in the appropriate lengths :P
    I can never know I'm right, but I can know that I'm wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I suspect a space elevator would come close to being two order of magnitude cost reduction depending upon how long you depreciated it over.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    284
    As long as we go into space (cos hey, carbon nanotubes are known for lasting quite a while). There goes the need for all the fuel necessary to get the load out of the atmosphere, which is the majority of it. As of this year, we can apparently only grow lengths of up to a few tenths of a meter, so we've got a long way to go :P
    I can never know I'm right, but I can know that I'm wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I suspect a space elevator would come close to being two order of magnitude cost reduction depending upon how long you depreciated it over.
    And if you could get the government to pay for it through cash incentives and tax relief plans, well..., lets just say the sky would no longer be the limit..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Gurgeh View Post
    I am 20 and I want to live to be 100 and in that time period I hope that some day mankind will colonize the solarsystem in that amount of time? I wonder if in a century we will land people on the moon and Mars as well as living on other asteroids in that amount of time? Do you think this?
    No.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    For a cosmic traveler you seem unenthusiastic about space travel.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    We landed people on the moon in 1969, which was in my lifetime. They didn't stay long and some still dispute the event. There would have to be some economic reason for us to set up a base there. When world population gets beyond 10 million we may have to.
    People also dispute the holocaust and the roundness of the globe. (;

    Regardless, the biggest problem with overpopulation is resources. There's certainly the space the have many tens of billions of people if having a two bedroom house is the only concern. There just wouldn't be room to harvest and process and deliver all those resources to everybody. Colonizing another planet is counterproductive to overpopulation concerns, at least in the short-medium term. To feed a person on Mars will take ten times or more the resources it would take to feed someone on Earth living in a population center. If he hit the point where we are starving from overpopulation, we certainly aren't going to spend the food and fuel and man hours to send a million people into space to free up some room.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    For a cosmic traveler you seem unenthusiastic about space travel.
    Oh contraire I want space travel but I'd like it to be safe first and foremost. Then speed is another thing that should be dealt with for the longer people are in space the more problems they will endure. Then costs should be brought down as much as safely possible. I was at a few Saturn lift offs when they were going to the moon so I do enjoy space travel. I saw the lift off that sent the astronauts to the moon.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    284
    Solving the problem of resources: Replicators
    I can never know I'm right, but I can know that I'm wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    For a cosmic traveler you seem unenthusiastic about space travel.
    Oh contraire I want space travel but I'd like it to be safe first and foremost.
    If humans focused on safety we would still be cowering in the trees. Space travel offers huge rewards; huge rewards carry huge risks. If we have lost the ability to take risks, then space is forever barred to us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post
    Solving the problem of resources: Replicators
    Replicators tend to ignore this tricky little thing called conservation of energy. Replicators are particularly inefficient because they never gain you energy. You always have to put more energy in than whatever you get back could produce.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Gurgeh, I think the next big problem to solve before we can get to other planets is radiation protection.From the little bit I have read nobody has figured out a cheap, lightweight and effective way to shield the astronauts from cosmic and solar radiation.
    Maybe not a lightweight way, but if we can get permanently into space, we could just bring big huge rocks up from the Moon and position them between a space station and the Sun.


    If we get to the point where we can get a few reusable rockets on the Moon, and power them off some fuel that can be made from stuff that that is found in situ (some chemical we manufacture using solar energy to power the reaction), then from that point on we've pretty much got it made. The rockets would make frequent trips into Low Earth orbit, rendezvous with space shuttles, and then carry them back to the Moon with them.

    We could then use our increased lifting ability to bring up still more infrastructure, and keep going from there.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    If humans focused on safety we would still be cowering in the trees. Space travel offers huge rewards; huge rewards carry huge risks. If we have lost the ability to take risks, then space is forever barred to us.
    If humans didn't focus on safety they would have perished from this planet long ago. Safety is something almost everyone tries to be aware of when they are anywhere and take precautions to secure themselves , as best possible, from hazards.

    Rewards can be found right here on earth. Most everything that was made for spaceflight was made here not in space. Things that were invented for spaceflight would probably have been made anyway here on Earth but later on. I'm talking about the miniaturization of the computer as an example.

    Taking risks with other peoples lives isn't what our goal should ever be but trying to keep them safe would be the prudent way to go.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Maybe not a lightweight way, but if we can get permanently into space, we could just bring big huge rocks up from the Moon and position them between a space station and the Sun.
    You'd still have a problem of cosmic radiation which comes from all angles in space. That rock your suggesting would have to be enormous to protect the entire ship from radiation and to find a rock that size and then lift it into space would be a enormous task which , as I have stated, still won't protect the ship for all other radiation.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Maybe not a lightweight way, but if we can get permanently into space, we could just bring big huge rocks up from the Moon and position them between a space station and the Sun.
    You'd still have a problem of cosmic radiation which comes from all angles in space. That rock your suggesting would have to be enormous to protect the entire ship from radiation and to find a rock that size and then lift it into space would be a enormous task which , as I have stated, still won't protect the ship for all other radiation.
    Yeah. You might have to simply build the ship inside of a rock. Perhaps tether two very large rocks together and counter spin them like the ends of a bola.

    As for getting the rock up there, you'd probably use some kind of solar powered kinetic accelerator located on the Moon's surface, and bring the rock up a pebble or two at a time until you've got a big mass of it. Then heat it up to melt it together. Perhaps using mirrors to focus sunlight on it. Space is a great place to weld stuff, because there is no air for the object to transfer heat away from itself.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    985
    People will happily take risks to realize a goal that they see as important. Will they risk radiation to reach the Moon and Mars? Certainly they will. Will people bewilling to live in deep space? Yes if there is an adequate ecconmic incentive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    People will happily take risks to realize a goal that they see as important. Will they risk radiation to reach the Moon and Mars? Certainly they will. Will people bewilling to live in deep space? Yes if there is an adequate ecconmic incentive.
    What economic incentive? You know how hard it would be to make any sort of colony profitable within a generation?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    What economic incentive? You know how hard it would be to make any sort of colony profitable within a generation?
    Why are you restricting the payback time to a single generation? If humans are to continue their success and grow their wealth, then we shall have to think in much longer time frames than a mere generation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    What economic incentive? You know how hard it would be to make any sort of colony profitable within a generation?
    Why are you restricting the payback time to a single generation? If humans are to continue their success and grow their wealth, then we shall have to think in much longer time frames than a mere generation.
    Because if you'll be dead before a profit is turned, the reason clearly isn't an economic incentive as was said above. My point isn't that it can never happen, but that greed can't be the driving force.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    985
    Ecconomic incentive can be for the ecconomic well being of ones family/off spring. Making a better life for ones children. " Ecconomic incentive" does not necessarily translate as "greed" it can also be improved "chance of survival".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    Ecconomic incentive can be for the ecconomic well being of ones family/off spring. Making a better life for ones children. " Ecconomic incentive" does not necessarily translate as "greed" it can also be improved "chance of survival".
    And my point is that establishing a new colony on another planet or moon will cost more resources than it could possibly give back in anything but the long term.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Because if you'll be dead before a profit is turned, the reason clearly isn't an economic incentive as was said above. My point isn't that it can never happen, but that greed can't be the driving force.
    What strange views. Firstly you appear to think that economic incentive and greed are equivalent. Economic incentive means that following a course of action will increase wealth. Certainly, if one seeks to corral all that wealth for oneself, that would be greed.

    I made a decision yesterday to vote for Scottish independence. There were many reasons, one of which is that I believed Scotland would be economically better off in the long term as an independent country. I also believed that independence would be personally very damaging to me. Since I have at most twenty years left, and more likely ten, I was clearly making an economic decision that would benefit my country, but not me. Such decisions are made by individuals, families, groups and nations all the time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Such decisions are made by individuals, families, groups and nations all the time.
    I have life assurance.
    By definition, I will never directly benefit from it.
    But it is financially beneficial to my family.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Such decisions are made by individuals, families, groups and nations all the time.
    I have life assurance.
    By definition, I will never directly benefit from it.
    But it is financially beneficial to my family.
    Excellent example. I was looking for esoteric, almost quixotic examples and there is one that most adults in "the West" have direct experience of.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Such decisions are made by individuals, families, groups and nations all the time.
    I have life assurance.
    By definition, I will never directly benefit from it.
    But it is financially beneficial to my family.
    I don't for I'm worried that they might kill me to get at that money.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Because if you'll be dead before a profit is turned, the reason clearly isn't an economic incentive as was said above. My point isn't that it can never happen, but that greed can't be the driving force.
    What strange views. Firstly you appear to think that economic incentive and greed are equivalent. Economic incentive means that following a course of action will increase wealth. Certainly, if one seeks to corral all that wealth for oneself, that would be greed.

    I made a decision yesterday to vote for Scottish independence. There were many reasons, one of which is that I believed Scotland would be economically better off in the long term as an independent country. I also believed that independence would be personally very damaging to me. Since I have at most twenty years left, and more likely ten, I was clearly making an economic decision that would benefit my country, but not me. Such decisions are made by individuals, families, groups and nations all the time.
    I still think it is incredibly odd to say the reasons why someone would fund a space colony is because of an 'adequate economic incentive' when neither they nor probably their children will ever see a dime. I don't buy it. That isn't an 'economic incentive.' Doing something because it is best for your country in the long term is making a patriotic decision, no one is offering you an economic incentive. Not how I'd put it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    I'm very dubious that colonising space will happen soon and I think it won't happen at all except as an extension of a healthy and wealthy Earth economy. I just think the harshness of the conditions make the minimum technical requirements - and therefore costs - too high. Incentives like mineral resources may drive ongoing efforts to fund feasibility studies but I don't see how it can happen on the cheap - a hugely big, long term space program with extravagant infrastructure required and payoff is too remote to justify it. I struggle to see how it can be done incrementally on the cheap as incremental requires payoffs along the way. If drasitically cheaper advanced technology does come along they'll probably be used here on Earth to better effect and undercut the very financial incentives that underpin efforts to exploit space. Very long term goals like saving humanity from inevitable global destruction are too far off and can't do anything that deep bunkers can't over the shorter term. And if humanity is forced to retreat into bunkerdom I suspect colonising space will be further off than ever.

    I think it takes a huge and hugely diverse economy to support the R&D to create the minimum technology needed and it has to be very wealthy and healthy to support investments in long term goals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Bachelors Degree GoldenRatio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    For a cosmic traveler you seem unenthusiastic about space travel.
    Oh contraire I want space travel but I'd like it to be safe first and foremost.
    If humans focused on safety we would still be cowering in the trees. Space travel offers huge rewards; huge rewards carry huge risks. If we have lost the ability to take risks, then space is forever barred to us.
    Humans play it safe, a person however does not. risks & rewards are not taken by the masses but by select few individuals or groups. For example, a group of people might crawl off onto a space shuttle & take the risk of going to space, a large portion of the population however will not.


    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Such decisions are made by individuals, families, groups and nations all the time.
    I have life assurance.
    By definition, I will never directly benefit from it.
    But it is financially beneficial to my family.
    I don't for I'm worried that they might kill me to get at that money.
    I dont have life insurance for the exact reason it will never directly benefit me. Im dead, screw em XD.

    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post
    Solving the problem of resources: Replicators
    Replicators tend to ignore this tricky little thing called conservation of energy. Replicators are particularly inefficient because they never gain you energy. You always have to put more energy in than whatever you get back could produce.
    True, however the is an overabundance of energy on earth & being delivered to earth, if solar panel technology was perfected to use 100% of solar energy, you could simply stick one ontop of your replicator & have a work around for the conservation of energy.

    A dyson sphere would probably be the best solution to overpopulation & need for expansion/energy/resources/ect However, even if we had the technology we do not have enough raw materials in our solar system to ever make this happen. Also...radiation XD
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Bachelors Degree GoldenRatio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Maybe not a lightweight way, but if we can get permanently into space, we could just bring big huge rocks up from the Moon and position them between a space station and the Sun.
    LOL what? This confused the hell out of me, its also highly inefficient.

    A much easier & simpler solution would simply put a water jacket shell around your space craft. Water is a good insulator against radiation, plus its a resource we would be required to carry with us anyways, thus no extra weight.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldenRatio View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Maybe not a lightweight way, but if we can get permanently into space, we could just bring big huge rocks up from the Moon and position them between a space station and the Sun.
    LOL what? This confused the hell out of me, its also highly inefficient.

    A much easier & simpler solution would simply put a water jacket shell around your space craft. Water is a good insulator against radiation, plus its a resource we would be required to carry with us anyways, thus no extra weight.

    Yeah. I have to admit that using our supplies as a shield is a good improvement over just rocks. Also if we can get at the Asteroid belt, some of the asteroids have the water we need. The biggest known asteroid in the belt, Ceres, is a good example of that.

    Ceres - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Bachelors Degree GoldenRatio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldenRatio View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Maybe not a lightweight way, but if we can get permanently into space, we could just bring big huge rocks up from the Moon and position them between a space station and the Sun.
    LOL what? This confused the hell out of me, its also highly inefficient.

    A much easier & simpler solution would simply put a water jacket shell around your space craft. Water is a good insulator against radiation, plus its a resource we would be required to carry with us anyways, thus no extra weight.

    Yeah. I have to admit that using our supplies as a shield is a good improvement over just rocks. Also if we can get at the Asteroid belt, some of the asteroids have the water we need. The biggest known asteroid in the belt, Ceres, is a good example of that.

    Ceres - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Your still going to need to bring enough water to make it there & water can be filtered, recycled, & reused. Severely decreasing the amount you need to resupply on or bring with you initially.

    Ceres also has a rocky shell, which means drilling equipment would need to be brought with you. Ceres also has very little atmosphere so any liquid you bring up will be boiled off rather quickly, if not turned to ice. Ice, if harvested would require energy to melt. Also, it would likely need to be filtered. Probably nothing in the water that would harm humans, but it likely would have some form of contaminants such as rock/clay/possibly salts.

    Not saying its impossible, just lots to overcome when you can simply bear grylls it up & recycle your piss
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldenRatio View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldenRatio View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Maybe not a lightweight way, but if we can get permanently into space, we could just bring big huge rocks up from the Moon and position them between a space station and the Sun.
    LOL what? This confused the hell out of me, its also highly inefficient.

    A much easier & simpler solution would simply put a water jacket shell around your space craft. Water is a good insulator against radiation, plus its a resource we would be required to carry with us anyways, thus no extra weight.

    Yeah. I have to admit that using our supplies as a shield is a good improvement over just rocks. Also if we can get at the Asteroid belt, some of the asteroids have the water we need. The biggest known asteroid in the belt, Ceres, is a good example of that.

    Ceres - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Your still going to need to bring enough water to make it there & water can be filtered, recycled, & reused. Severely decreasing the amount you need to resupply on or bring with you initially.
    True. And the more water you have, the easier it will be to refilter it.


    Ceres also has a rocky shell, which means drilling equipment would need to be brought with you. Ceres also has very little atmosphere so any liquid you bring up will be boiled off rather quickly, if not turned to ice. Ice, if harvested would require energy to melt. Also, it would likely need to be filtered. Probably nothing in the water that would harm humans, but it likely would have some form of contaminants such as rock/clay/possibly salts.

    Not saying its impossible, just lots to overcome when you can simply bear grylls it up & recycle your piss
    If energy is the big issue, then why not bring up just a couple of tons of uranium, rather than millions of tons of water? x

    As for filtering, that's also fairly straightforward in space. Just build a big centrifuge. In space, after you get your centrifuge spinning, you don't have to do anything to keep it spinning. (Which, incidentally, also will help you in refining your uranium.)

    This is the other thing I don't understand about why people doubt the value of a space colony. There are quite a lot of useful industrial activities that would be much, much easier to achieve in a zero G, frictionless, environment. If the process is energy intensive, then put it closer to the Sun. If it prefers cold temperatures, then put it far away from the Sun.

    If you're worried about shipping materials around the solar system, don't. All you have to do is calculate the right trajectory and speed you want to accelerate an object to, then just give it a good push in that direction and it will coast all the way to its target, no matter how far away it is.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Just realized another benefit of using water as your radiation blocker is you can use the radiation itself as part of your water purification process. Just make sure all of the water eventually cycles through the outermost tank, and spends enough time there so the radiation can kill any remaining bacteria. (Depending on how strong it is, anyway.)
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldenRatio View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    For a cosmic traveler you seem unenthusiastic about space travel.
    Oh contraire I want space travel but I'd like it to be safe first and foremost.
    If humans focused on safety we would still be cowering in the trees. Space travel offers huge rewards; huge rewards carry huge risks. If we have lost the ability to take risks, then space is forever barred to us.
    Humans play it safe, a person however does not. risks & rewards are not taken by the masses but by select few individuals or groups. For example, a group of people might crawl off onto a space shuttle & take the risk of going to space, a large portion of the population however will not.


    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Such decisions are made by individuals, families, groups and nations all the time.
    I have life assurance.
    By definition, I will never directly benefit from it.
    But it is financially beneficial to my family.
    I don't for I'm worried that they might kill me to get at that money.
    I dont have life insurance for the exact reason it will never directly benefit me. Im dead, screw em XD.

    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post
    Solving the problem of resources: Replicators
    Replicators tend to ignore this tricky little thing called conservation of energy. Replicators are particularly inefficient because they never gain you energy. You always have to put more energy in than whatever you get back could produce.
    True, however the is an overabundance of energy on earth & being delivered to earth, if solar panel technology was perfected to use 100% of solar energy, you could simply stick one ontop of your replicator & have a work around for the conservation of energy.

    A dyson sphere would probably be the best solution to overpopulation & need for expansion/energy/resources/ect However, even if we had the technology we do not have enough raw materials in our solar system to ever make this happen. Also...radiation XD
    Unfortunately, we aren't that good at capturing that energy. When you compare how much energy we have to expend in order to capture that energy, the trade off isn't too good. That might change in the future, of course. But enough to actually convert solar energy into real matter?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Bachelors Degree GoldenRatio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    415
    Unfortunately, we aren't that good at capturing that energy. When you compare how much energy we have to expend in order to capture that energy, the trade off isn't too good. That might change in the future, of course. But enough to actually convert solar energy into real matter?
    of course, were horrible at capturing said energy currently. However this entire thread is about future technology

    & realistically speaking, we are making much better progress at making solar technology more efficent than the other things people have mentioned such as space elevator & planetary colonization. Those technologies seem 50-70 years off easy. Achieving 50% or better in solar panels technology is within a 10-20yr timespan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldenRatio View Post
    Unfortunately, we aren't that good at capturing that energy. When you compare how much energy we have to expend in order to capture that energy, the trade off isn't too good. That might change in the future, of course. But enough to actually convert solar energy into real matter?
    of course, were horrible at capturing said energy currently. However this entire thread is about future technology

    & realistically speaking, we are making much better progress at making solar technology more efficent than the other things people have mentioned such as space elevator & planetary colonization. Those technologies seem 50-70 years off easy. Achieving 50% or better in solar panels technology is within a 10-20yr timespan.
    Absolutely. But so much better that converting pure solar energy into matter, machines, food, etc. is more efficient than just making said products through conventional means? I doubt it. Maybe it will be possible one day, but I find it hard to believe it will ever be cheaper to create something with a replicator than to use other means.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Bachelors Degree GoldenRatio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    415
    Oh I agree. I never meant that it would be efficient or practical to do replicators or something of that nature, nor to use solar power to power them. Simply that it could be feasibly possible & work around that pesky little conservation of energy thing. I mean, conservation of energy would still apply but it would be in abundance, thus would not matter.

    but yeah, replicators are a pipe dream
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: September 12th, 2013, 01:29 AM
  2. Creation of Solar System and Primitive Life?
    By Voltaire in forum Biology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 19th, 2010, 01:34 PM
  3. The solar system
    By Shaderwolf in forum Physics
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: October 29th, 2007, 06:16 PM
  4. The solar system
    By Jim Colyer in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 17th, 2006, 10:56 AM
  5. The Solar System is life body
    By tianman32 in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: December 20th, 2005, 11:45 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •