Why Colonize Space?

In sci.physics trag wrote:
On Jul 27, 11:45 am, wrote:
In sci.physics trag wrote:

On Jul 25, 5:28 pm, Walter Bushell wrote:

The pilgrims did not. They were city people and didn't bring one plow
with them.

Was clearing land an issue? I seem to remember reading that the
areas where they initially landed were heavily forested. It may have
taken too much time to cut the trees, and clear the timber to open the
land so the crops could be planted...

Not bringing a plow is not a show stopper.

Wood plows are still in use in some of the poor parts of the world.

While Walter referred to plows, I was referring specifically to
clearing land. You don't need the plow until you've cleared the
land.

My point was simply that not bringing a plow to a forested region at a
time when plows were made of wood is irrelevant.

Actually, at first the pilgrims took over the fields the Indians had
cleared.

Keep in mind the pilgrims arrived at the beginning of winter, too late
to plant anything.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

trag wrote:
On Jul 25, 5:38 pm, "Jim Jones" wrote:
Walter Bushell wrote:
In article ,
"Jim Jones" wrote:
Given that just to send "colonists" off the planet would cost
trillions of dollars up front, and billions per year for resupply
just to keep them alive, the "good old American public" doesn't
have
that much money. What the first paragraph means is only a giant
company could even contemplate
such an "adventure" and the directors of a giant company have to
report to the stock holders.
Ah, I beleive the biggest company in the world is contemplating
it,
You're wrong, as always.

the good USA Inc.

Not only isn't that a company, biggest or otherwise, it's not
comtempating it either.

We could have gone to Mars, instead we went to Iraq. Mars made more
sense.

And would have cost a hell of a lot more.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to not bother with either.

Not when you add in the lost lives and medical and retirement benefits
for the thousands of maimed and permanently disabled from Iraq... I
think it's something like for every one dead there are three or four
maimed... So figure income for something like 20,000 soldiers for the
rest of their lives,

Thats a lie. They dont get to do nothing fo rthe rest of their lives.

plus medical treatment for their disability.

You havent established that many of them who dont end up dead
have much in the way of medical expenses for their alleged 'disability'

Wayne Throop 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".

"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.

That was just saying it isnt practical, not that it isnt possible.

Yes, that could have been more carefully stated. So sue me.

Sean O'Hara wrote:
In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Pat Flannery
declared:

Every time I look at the lack of success of SETI...and the Drake
Equation, I keep thinking that there's a way to do FTL communication
that any civilization finds in fairly short order after developing
radio...say a few hundred years.
And I'm willing to bet it involves instantaneous communication
point-to-point in the whole universe somehow using the collapsed
dimensions.
Even a very pessimistic interpretation of the Drake Equation should
have left hundreds, if not thousands, of civilizations that would
have been picked up via SETI by now if radio wavelengths were being
used.

It is extremely unlikely that SETI could pick up a radio broadcast
across interstellar distance. What they're really looking for is
someone pointing a dish in our direction and sending, "Hello, is
there anyone out there?" The odds of SETI looking in the right
direction at the right time is extremely slim.

But even assuming they could detect radio broadcasts, broadcasts are
a primitive technology. Here on Earth, they've been in use for about
a century and we're already phasing them out for short-range
transmitters (cellular, wifi), satellite relays, and landlines. In
another century, the UHF/VHF/AM/FM bands are likely to be blank.

Nope, because they work fine for mobile communication.

darwinist wrote:
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?

They'll get cheaper back on earth too.

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?

From the number of people that would be necessary.

I dont expect too many would be too keen on 'living' like sardines.

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?

The cost.

It seems pretty clear that it's not feasible
right now, but why do you think it never will be?

The cost.

Many things that weren't possible a century ago, or even a few
decades ago are now commonplace, thanks to technological advances.

You can waffle on about anything, including moving our sun around that way.

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?

I can and do.

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.

Nope, bugger all actually. In spades now that the world
financial system has just imploded completely, again.

They're doomed, you watch.

If that continues

It wont, you watch.

then private development is likely to continue.

And that will never colonise space, you watch.

Why do you think it will never become commercially viable?

Because of the immense cost.

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.

wrote in message
...

Optical laws say we can't even detect the presense of an Earth sized
planet at steller distances, much less give a detailed analysis of
the atmosphere.


You might want to alert NASA and others of this law, since they and others
are actively working on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrestrial_Planet_Finder



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.



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

In sci.physics "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
wrote in message
...

Optical laws say we can't even detect the presense of an Earth sized
planet at steller distances, much less give a detailed analysis of
the atmosphere.


You might want to alert NASA and others of this law, since they and others
are actively working on it.

Nope, the project is dead.

Even then it would hardly give sufficient detail to tell if a human could
survive unprotected even within it's tens of light-years range.

The original premise was planets on the order of a hundred light-years.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article ,
David Johnston wrote:

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:47:40 -0400, (David
DeLaney) wrote:

wrote:
David DeLaney wrote:
wrote:
Even below c, if a suitable planet was identified, and some kind of
reliable
long-term hybernation technique was around, then people might be
interested
to go, even if from our pov it would take then 100 years to get there.
From
their own it would just be seconds, potentially. Funnily enough they
might
be woken up in mid flight by a faster than light ship-crew who left 50
years
after them, to give them a lift the rest of the way in a few hours.

Yeah, only two things that aren't currently possible have to be invented
for that to happen.

There's a big difference between "aren't currently POSSIBLE" and "aren't
currently INVENTED". The above has the latter, not the former.

Neither supposition is currently invented or currently possible, or
even theoretically possible with any known science.

You haven't been paying attention then. Various methods for making closed
time-like loops exist, though we don't have the MATERIALS needed,

Of course the physical qualities of the materials needed look kind of
impossible.

Like negative mass?

In article , (Wayne Throop)
wrote:

Of course... the effort put into establishing such a thing is better
spent elsewhere, for the foreseeable future, IMO. I mean, given how many
planet-sized impactors go whizzing by per million years lately, and all.
You can get much better survival bang for your preparation buck worrying
about other threats, just now. IMO.

I think that detection and change of path of potential impacts has to be
orders of magnitude cheaper.

On Jul 28, 5:38*am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
darwinist wrote:
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?

They'll get cheaper back on earth too.





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?

From the number of people that would be necessary.

I dont expect too many would be too keen on 'living' like sardines.


Why don't you think it could be big enough to house them comfortably
and still be movable? You keep saying with confidence that it can't
be, and yet you give no indication of why it can't be big enough for
this purpose, or even how big you think it can be.


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?

The cost.

It seems pretty clear that it's not feasible
right now, but why do you think it never will be?

The cost.

Many things that weren't possible a century ago, or even a few
decades ago are now commonplace, thanks to technological advances.

You can waffle on about anything, including moving our sun around that way.

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?

I can and do.

Ok then, how far? So far you've made a lot of denials with no
explanations. You acknowledge that the technology advances, but don't
say why or when you think it will cease doing so.

You haven't denied that costs have or can decrease somewhat from new
developments, but insist that the cost will always be prohibitive,
again without saying what would cause costs to stop falling.

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.

Nope, bugger all actually. In spades now that the world
financial system has just imploded completely, again.

They're doomed, you watch.

If that continues

It wont, you watch.

then private development is likely to continue.

And that will never colonise space, you watch.

Why do you think it will never become commercially viable?

Because of the immense cost.



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.