Why Colonize Space?

"David DeLaney" wrote in message
...
William December Starr wrote:
What possible reason is there to expect that a long-term colony on
Mars would stimulate the search for faster-than-light communication
any better than would a long-term colony at CalTech or Oxford or MIT?

Duh. The colony on Mars won't be able to play World of Warcraft with any
sort
of reasonable ping UNLESS we crack the lightspeed barrier!

What "barrier"?

--
Match the caption to the gif:

A) http://tinyurl.com/lv2fl7
B) http://tinyurl.com/njgouh
C) http://tinyurl.com/klkfc9
D) http://tinyurl.com/l6lt4g
1) applies to light (in vacuum) and sound (in air)
2) applies to light but not sound
3) applies to sound but not light
4) applies to neither light nor sound

On Jul 27, 6:13*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
darwinist wrote:
On Jul 27, 5:18 pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
[...]
An asteroid on the scale of the one thought to have created
the chicxulub crater and possibly wiped out the dinosaurs,
would have created an earthquake stronger than any
we've recorded.

Trivial to make it earthquake proof to anything that could
happen.
So you are saying we couldn't be hit by anything bigger
than what our earthquake proofing could handle?

No, I was rather carelessly saying that while its certainly not
possible
to protect against say the impact of a Mars sized object, its
certainly
very possible to make it earthquake proof of something that would
not turn the earth into more unlivable than the moon and mars
already are.
In which case if we had extra-earth colonies, they might
allow us to survive if earth (or our settlement on it) doesn't.
Not worth the massive cost.
Well that depends on the cost then, doesn't it?

The cost will always be massively more than doing the same thing on earth..

There's more than one way to skin a space shuttle.

The cost will always be massively more than doing the same thing on earth..

If we had more competitions like the x-prize we could discover some of them more rapidly.

The cost will always be massively more than doing the same thing on earth..


But the "same thing" we're talking about is a colony that would
survive if the earth didn't. So we can't do the same thing on earth.



Preferably one that can be moved away if necessary.
Not even possible.
A movable space-station is impossible?

It cant be big enough to provide sufficient genetic diversity
for viable survival of the species and still be movable.
If a smaller, movable space station would be possible,
at what size do you think it become impossible?

Far smaller than would be needed to provide sufficient
genetic diversity for viable survival of the species.
Based on what?

Based on how big it would need to be to provide viable
genetic diversity of the species and all the other animals.

I'd be interested to know how you decided what size was too big to
be movable.

See above.
If it didn't need to carry all species, how big do you think it
could be and still be movable?

Not worth considering, because even if it just contained
enough humans, it still wouldnt be movable.

I'm just wondering what you think the cut-off point is.

I prefer to analyse it the other way.

If you accept that there is a size below which a space-
station could be movable (which seems obviously true,
if fairly meaningless by itself), then how big is too big?
I dont care.
If it's "not worth considering" how big it could be and you don't
care how big it could be, then what's the basis for your claim
that it couldn't be big enough to support a viable colony?

I know what is required to be viable genetics wise.

This suggests you have given some consideration to how big it could be.

Yes, but not in the sense of a formal calculation of that.


Even if it was a rough calculation, how have you decided it couldn't
be big enough to hold a genetically viable colony?

[...]
It would be nice to preserve as many species as possible but just
preserving enough to support human life would be better than
nothing.
I'd rather be dead than a vegan.
Well that's your choice to make,

It is indeed.

but don't begrudge others who might be tempted to accept a life
without
meat if it was the only kind they (or the species as a whole) could
have.

I will begrudge them while ever they want me to pay for it.
What if they don't?

There is no alternative, it will never be feasible for them to pay for it themselves.

Why do you say that? The ansari x-prize was won in 2004, which
required a privately built, reusable manned space-craft. There are
other prizes being offered and there are billion dollar companies
developing commercial space-travel. If such things continued it would
become more feasible every year.

Besides we don't need all other species in order
to have some kind of palatable meat products.
Sure, but just humans and a few eatable animal species doesnt appeal either.
If you can build one colony

You cant, we wont be paying for that.

you can build more. The combined habitable
volume inside them could become quite large.

Not large enough when even the first one wont be built.



Completely impossible to make that moveable.

darwinist wrote:
On Jul 27, 6:13 pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
darwinist wrote:
On Jul 27, 5:18 pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
[...]
An asteroid on the scale of the one thought to have created
the chicxulub crater and possibly wiped out the dinosaurs,
would have created an earthquake stronger than any
we've recorded.

Trivial to make it earthquake proof to anything that could
happen.
So you are saying we couldn't be hit by anything bigger
than what our earthquake proofing could handle?

No, I was rather carelessly saying that while its certainly not
possible
to protect against say the impact of a Mars sized object, its
certainly
very possible to make it earthquake proof of something that would
not turn the earth into more unlivable than the moon and mars
already are.
In which case if we had extra-earth colonies, they might
allow us to survive if earth (or our settlement on it) doesn't.
Not worth the massive cost.
Well that depends on the cost then, doesn't it?

The cost will always be massively more than doing the same thing on
earth.

There's more than one way to skin a space shuttle.

The cost will always be massively more than doing the same thing on
earth.

If we had more competitions like the x-prize we could discover some
of them more rapidly.

The cost will always be massively more than doing the same thing on earth.

But the "same thing" we're talking about is a colony that would
survive if the earth didn't. So we can't do the same thing on earth.

Not worth the massive increase in cost of that approach, given how unlikely it is.

Preferably one that can be moved away if necessary.
Not even possible.
A movable space-station is impossible?

It cant be big enough to provide sufficient genetic diversity
for viable survival of the species and still be movable.
If a smaller, movable space station would be possible,
at what size do you think it become impossible?

Far smaller than would be needed to provide sufficient
genetic diversity for viable survival of the species.
Based on what?

Based on how big it would need to be to provide viable
genetic diversity of the species and all the other animals.

I'd be interested to know how you decided what size was too big
to be movable.

See above.
If it didn't need to carry all species, how big do you think it
could be and still be movable?

Not worth considering, because even if it just contained
enough humans, it still wouldnt be movable.

I'm just wondering what you think the cut-off point is.

I prefer to analyse it the other way.

If you accept that there is a size below which a space-
station could be movable (which seems obviously true,
if fairly meaningless by itself), then how big is too big?
I dont care.
If it's "not worth considering" how big it could be and you don't
care how big it could be, then what's the basis for your claim
that it couldn't be big enough to support a viable colony?

I know what is required to be viable genetics wise.

This suggests you have given some consideration to how big it could
be.

Yes, but not in the sense of a formal calculation of that.

Even if it was a rough calculation, how have you decided it
couldn't be big enough to hold a genetically viable colony?

From the number of humans that would be necessary to be genetically viable.

It would be nice to preserve as many species as possible but
just preserving enough to support human life would be better
than nothing.
I'd rather be dead than a vegan.
Well that's your choice to make,

It is indeed.

but don't begrudge others who might be tempted to accept a life
without
meat if it was the only kind they (or the species as a whole)
could have.

I will begrudge them while ever they want me to pay for it.
What if they don't?

There is no alternative, it will never be feasible for them to pay for it themselves.

Why do you say that?

Because its true. Novel concept I realise.

The ansari x-prize was won in 2004, which required
a privately built, reusable manned space-craft.

Pity that the cost of a viable independant colony is so much more than that.

No prize can ever fix that problem.

There are other prizes being offered and there are billion
dollar companies developing commercial space-travel.

Not one of which is actually commmercially viable.

If such things continued it would become more feasible every year.

Wrong.

Besides we don't need all other species in order
to have some kind of palatable meat products.
Sure, but just humans and a few eatable animal species doesnt
appeal either.
If you can build one colony

You cant, we wont be paying for that.

you can build more. The combined habitable
volume inside them could become quite large.

Not large enough when even the first one wont be built.



Completely impossible to make that moveable.

Wayne Throop wrote:
Rod Speed wrote

And its just not practical to have all the animal and insect species
on Mars in enough numbers to provide useful genetic diversity anyway.

"Not practical" is quite a step down from "there isn't any way".

I never ever said that it isnt possible.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Wayne Throop wrote:

An impactor the size of the one that created the moon

You dont know thats how the moon was created.

There's really not all that much that's "known" with absolute certainty.

That is just one of the obvious possibilitys for the
formation of the moon and isnt even the most likely.

Actually it's the one that is currently considered the most likely based on
current known science.

I believe "To a Rocky Moon" discusses the theory in depth.



The impactor theory of the moon's origin is very nearly as much
"known" as the fact that there was a large impactor at the K/T boundary.

Irrelevant to how it was actually formed.




--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Wayne Throop wrote

An impactor the size of the one that created the moon

You dont know thats how the moon was created.

There's really not all that much that's "known" with absolute certainty.

That is just one of the obvious possibilitys for the
formation of the moon and isnt even the most likely.

Actually it's the one that is currently considered the most likely based on current known science.

Pity about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_i...s#Difficulties

I believe "To a Rocky Moon" discusses the theory in depth.

Who cares if it cant explain those difficultys with that theory.

The impactor theory of the moon's origin is very nearly as much "known" as the fact that there was a large impactor
at the K/T boundary.

Irrelevant to how it was actually formed.

Wayne Throop wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Wayne Throop wrote

An impactor the size of the one that created the moon

You dont know thats how the moon was created.

There's really not all that much that's "known" with absolute certainty.

That is just one of the obvious possibilitys for the formation of the
moon and isnt even the most likely.

What, Wikipedia is wrong?

It doesnt say its the only possibility.

Say it ain't so!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Formation
The prevailing hypothesis today is that the Earth\u2013Moon system
formed as a result of a giant impact

Doesnt make it gospel that that is what actualy happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis
The giant impact hypothesis (sometimes referred to as the
big whack, or, less frequently, the big splash) is the currently
favored[1] scientific hypothesis for the formation of the Moon,
which is thought to have formed as a result of a collision between
the young Earth and a Mars-sized body that is sometimes called
Theia for a Greek Titan who ruled the Sun.

Pity about

There remain several unanswered issues surrounding this hypothesis.
These include lunar samples which do not have expected ratios of
volatile elements, iron oxide, or siderophilic elements, as well as a
lack of evidence to suggest that the Earth ever had the magma
ocean implied by this hypothesis.

And
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_i...s#Difficulties

And whatever it says, it isnt the only viable explanation and isnt what actually happened anyway.

On Jul 27, 7:28*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
darwinist wrote:
On Jul 27, 6:13 pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
darwinist wrote:
On Jul 27, 5:18 pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
[...]
An asteroid on the scale of the one thought to have created
the chicxulub crater and possibly wiped out the dinosaurs,
would have created an earthquake stronger than any
we've recorded.

Trivial to make it earthquake proof to anything that could
happen.
So you are saying we couldn't be hit by anything bigger
than what our earthquake proofing could handle?

No, I was rather carelessly saying that while its certainly not
possible
to protect against say the impact of a Mars sized object, its
certainly
very possible to make it earthquake proof of something that would
not turn the earth into more unlivable than the moon and mars
already are.
In which case if we had extra-earth colonies, they might
allow us to survive if earth (or our settlement on it) doesn't.
Not worth the massive cost.
Well that depends on the cost then, doesn't it?

The cost will always be massively more than doing the same thing on
earth.

There's more than one way to skin a space shuttle.

The cost will always be massively more than doing the same thing on
earth.

If we had more competitions like the x-prize we could discover some
of them more rapidly.

The cost will always be massively more than doing the same thing on earth.
But the "same thing" we're talking about is a colony that would
survive if the earth didn't. So we can't do the same thing on earth.

Not worth the massive increase in cost of that approach, given how unlikely it is.


Things often get cheaper with technological advances. Why should this
field be any different?


Preferably one that can be moved away if necessary.
Not even possible.
A movable space-station is impossible?

It cant be big enough to provide sufficient genetic diversity
for viable survival of the species and still be movable.
If a smaller, movable space station would be possible,
at what size do you think it become impossible?

Far smaller than would be needed to provide sufficient
genetic diversity for viable survival of the species.
Based on what?

Based on how big it would need to be to provide viable
genetic diversity of the species and all the other animals.

I'd be interested to know how you decided what size was too big
to be movable.

See above.
If it didn't need to carry all species, how big do you think it
could be and still be movable?

Not worth considering, because even if it just contained
enough humans, it still wouldnt be movable.

I'm just wondering what you think the cut-off point is.

I prefer to analyse it the other way.

If you accept that there is a size below which a space-
station could be movable (which seems obviously true,
if fairly meaningless by itself), then how big is too big?
I dont care.
If it's "not worth considering" how big it could be and you don't
care how big it could be, then what's the basis for your claim
that it couldn't be big enough to support a viable colony?

I know what is required to be viable genetics wise.

This suggests you have given some consideration to how big it could
be.

Yes, but not in the sense of a formal calculation of that.
Even if it was a rough calculation, how have you decided it
couldn't be big enough to hold a genetically viable colony?

From the number of humans that would be necessary to be genetically viable.

So how did decide it couldn't be big enough to hold that many people?

It would be nice to preserve as many species as possible but
just preserving enough to support human life would be better
than nothing.
I'd rather be dead than a vegan.
Well that's your choice to make,

It is indeed.

but don't begrudge others who might be tempted to accept a life
without
meat if it was the only kind they (or the species as a whole)
could have.

I will begrudge them while ever they want me to pay for it.
What if they don't?

There is no alternative, it will never be feasible for them to pay for it themselves.
Why do you say that?

Because its true. Novel concept I realise.

I know you believe it to be true, but what leads you to such a
conclusion? It seems pretty clear that it's not feasible right now,
but why do you think it never will be? Many things that weren't
possible a century ago, or even a few decades ago are now commonplace,
thanks to technological advances.

The ansari x-prize was won in 2004, which required
a privately built, reusable manned space-craft.

Pity that the cost of a viable independant colony is so much more than that.

No prize can ever fix that problem.

If they continue to encourage new, cheaper means of space-flight then
they will lead in that direction. Who can say how far?

There are other prizes being offered and there are billion
dollar companies developing commercial space-travel.

Not one of which is actually commmercially viable.

Regardless, they're putting a lot of money into it. If that continues
then private development is likely to continue. Why do you think it
will never become commercially viable?

If such things continued it would become more feasible every year.

Wrong.



Besides we don't need all other species in order
to have some kind of palatable meat products.
Sure, but just humans and a few eatable animal species doesnt
appeal either.
If you can build one colony

You cant, we wont be paying for that.

you can build more. The combined habitable
volume inside them could become quite large.

Not large enough when even the first one wont be built.

Completely impossible to make that moveable.

In article tatelephone, Pat Flannery writes:
John Stafford wrote:

We don't know if they were _ever_ primarily fishermen other than shellfish
gatherers and seal hunters. Seal was a more caloric profitable enterprise
than fishing.

But they fish now!

The original native population is extinct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_Aborigines
A lot of them ended up as skeletons in museums, as they were considered
the most biologically primitive of humans - living ape men.
In fact, killing them to get their skeletons to sell to museums became
one factor in their extinction.

For which the obligatory SF is "Now Let Us Sleep", by Avram Davidson.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include Standard_Disclaimer
This email is to be read by its intended recipient only. Any other party
reading is required by the EULA to send me $500.00.

::: And its just not practical to have all the animal and insect species
::: on Mars in enough numbers to provide useful genetic diversity anyway.

:: "Not practical" is quite a step down from "there isn't any way".

: "Rod Speed"
: I never ever said that it isnt possible.

Technically, I never said you said it isn't possible.
I said you said "there isn't any way". Specifically,

Message-ID:
Sure, if say a Mars sized body did collide with the earth,
we would indeed have a problem, but there isnt any way
to protect against that by colonising anywhere else.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw