Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next?

"Tamas Feher" wrote in message
...
all those planets are potential colonies for future colonists.

No planet or other celestial body is inhabitable by homo sapiens sapiens,
unless it has gravity between 80% to 120% of Earth. Gravity is the most
fundamental force in the Universe and lack of enough gravity (less than
0.8G) depletes your bones and muscles, prevents successful reproduction
and
fetus formation. To much and you are flat.

And where exactly did you come up with those numbers?

The fact of the matter is we don't know for sure. We simply know that 1G is
good, 0G is not so great, and know nothing about in between.

It may be .6 G is enough... maybe not.



I don't get all the fuss about travel to Mars and Moon, casue what we need
is another Earth. Great pity Venus is in the wrong place, it would be
ideal.

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

"Tamas Feher" wrote in message
...
all those planets are potential colonies for future colonists.

No planet or other celestial body is inhabitable by homo sapiens sapiens,
unless it has gravity between 80% to 120% of Earth. Gravity is the most
fundamental force in the Universe and lack of enough gravity (less than
0.8G) depletes your bones and muscles, prevents successful reproduction
and
fetus formation. To much and you are flat.

And where exactly did you come up with those numbers?

The fact of the matter is we don't know for sure. We simply know that 1G is
good, 0G is not so great, and know nothing about in between.

It may be .6 G is enough... maybe not.

We don't even know if pregnancy will work in 0G.
Research has been done at high G (centrifuges, with animals living their
whole lives at multiple G (chikens get real meaty legs)) and 0.999G at the
tops of mountains, but there is little data below that.

There may be a "magic" G level at which everything works OK.
It's be nice if this was under 1/6th G, to allow moon colonies.

It may be rather more complex and the G needed varies with age (up to
18 or so) and for some of it a few hours a day at higher G will be needed.

Confining pregnant women in centrifuges, even rather large ones is
technically possible.
Interesting questions arise about inner ear development in a centrifuge.

We need some testing on animals.

Testing at under .999 or so G is hard, as you've got to go into space
to do it.
To do true tests of gravity fields, you've actually got to go to other
celestial bodies.
However, big centrifuges will probably do OK.

"Tamas Feher" wrote in message
...

I don't get all the fuss about travel to Mars and Moon, casue what we need
is another Earth.

Perhaps instead what we need is to give up on the idea of planets entirely.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the
best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the
Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely.
Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable - the best site is
"somewhere else entirely."

Gerard O'Neill - "The High Frontier"

"Mike Combs" wrote in message ...
"Tamas Feher" wrote in message
...

I don't get all the fuss about travel to Mars and Moon, casue what we need
is another Earth.

Perhaps instead what we need is to give up on the idea of planets entirely.


Not as places to orbit around I dare say. They keep stuff from drift-
ing apart and it's easier to go places through slingshooting...

It's interesting to speculate at what point more people will life in a
ring around Earth's geosynchronous orbit than on its surface...



--
__ “A good leader knows when it’s best to ignore the __
('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture.� '__`)
//6(6; ©OOL mmiv :^)^\\
`\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/'

Some years ago in the old CompuServe Space Flight forum, I came across a
profile, 3000 AD: A Guide for the Third Millenium. If anyone is interested,
I shall send him, her, or them a copy thereof by EMail.

--
Leonard C Robinson
"The Historian Remembers, and speculates on what might have been.
"The Visionary Remembers, and speculates on what may yet be."

all those planets are potential colonies for future colonists.

"Tamas Feher" wrote in message ...
No planet or other celestial body is inhabitable by homo sapiens sapiens,
unless it has gravity between 80% to 120% of Earth.

Correct. A Minshara class planet is the ideal condition for us. LOL!

"TKalbfus" wrote in message
...
I find it interesting that Sedna was discovered near its closest point in
its
10,500 year orbit around the Sun. What are the chances of that happening?
If
you only consider the planet Sedna, the chances of discovering it while it
is
near is closest point to the Sun are very small. Sedna spends most of its
time
further away, this leads to the question how many other "Sedna's" are
there?
What if we looked for a 10th planet 1000 years ago with the same
technology we
have today? Would we find another Sedna-like planet nearing its closest
point
to the sun. Sedna will spend 150 closer to the Sun than from where we
discovered it. statistically this leaves room for about 60 planets in
10,000
year orbits around the sun. all those planets are potential colonies for
future
colonists. The ones further away will be harder to find, but I'm sure we
can
eventually discover them.

Colonies that far away from the Sun? Unlikely. Mankind can multiply like
rabbits and it would still take at least 300 years to fill up the inner
planets and moons. Sedna or its denizen's aren't likely candidates for
colonization and when they are, mankind will probably have developed FTL
(faster than light) propulsion and reach for planets beyond our solar
system.

In article ,
"Uddo Graaf" wrote:

Colonies that far away from the Sun? Unlikely. Mankind can multiply like
rabbits and it would still take at least 300 years to fill up the inner
planets and moons. Sedna or its denizen's aren't likely candidates for
colonization and when they are, mankind will probably have developed FTL
(faster than light) propulsion and reach for planets beyond our solar
system.

Unless, of course, FTL travel is impossible.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

Uddo Graaf wrote:

"TKalbfus" wrote in message
...
I find it interesting that Sedna was discovered near its closest point in
its
10,500 year orbit around the Sun. What are the chances of that happening?
If
you only consider the planet Sedna, the chances of discovering it while it
is
near is closest point to the Sun are very small. Sedna spends most of its
time
further away, this leads to the question how many other "Sedna's" are
there?
What if we looked for a 10th planet 1000 years ago with the same
technology we
have today? Would we find another Sedna-like planet nearing its closest
point
to the sun. Sedna will spend 150 closer to the Sun than from where we
discovered it. statistically this leaves room for about 60 planets in
10,000
year orbits around the sun. all those planets are potential colonies for
future
colonists. The ones further away will be harder to find, but I'm sure we
can
eventually discover them.

Colonies that far away from the Sun? Unlikely. Mankind can multiply like
rabbits and it would still take at least 300 years to fill up the inner
planets and moons. Sedna or its denizen's aren't likely candidates for
colonization and when they are, mankind will probably have developed FTL
(faster than light) propulsion and reach for planets beyond our solar
system.


Even with FTL, colonising Oort cloud may be easier than plants around
far-away stars. At 4c it still takes 9months for a one-way trip to
Alpha Cenaturi - and much longer for other stars. FTL - unless it
is high multiples of lightspeed - only makes interstellar travel and
colonisation slightly easier. You will pobably still need generation
ships - just the number of generations born on-ship will be lower.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
Uddo Graaf wrote:

"TKalbfus" wrote in message
...
I find it interesting that Sedna was discovered near its closest point
in
its
10,500 year orbit around the Sun. What are the chances of that
happening?
If
you only consider the planet Sedna, the chances of discovering it
while it
is
near is closest point to the Sun are very small. Sedna spends most of
its
time
further away, this leads to the question how many other "Sedna's" are
there?
What if we looked for a 10th planet 1000 years ago with the same
technology we
have today? Would we find another Sedna-like planet nearing its
closest
point
to the sun. Sedna will spend 150 closer to the Sun than from where we
discovered it. statistically this leaves room for about 60 planets in
10,000
year orbits around the sun. all those planets are potential colonies
for
future
colonists. The ones further away will be harder to find, but I'm sure
we
can
eventually discover them.

Colonies that far away from the Sun? Unlikely. Mankind can multiply like
rabbits and it would still take at least 300 years to fill up the inner
planets and moons. Sedna or its denizen's aren't likely candidates for
colonization and when they are, mankind will probably have developed FTL
(faster than light) propulsion and reach for planets beyond our solar
system.


Even with FTL, colonising Oort cloud may be easier than plants around
far-away stars. At 4c it still takes 9months for a one-way trip to
Alpha Cenaturi - and much longer for other stars. FTL - unless it
is high multiples of lightspeed - only makes interstellar travel and
colonisation slightly easier. You will pobably still need generation
ships - just the number of generations born on-ship will be lower.

Mostly colonization will be done by 'system hopping' and will therefore be
doable. Someone calculated once that if we started now, we could colonize
the entire Galaxy in 3000 years.