Why Colonize Space?

In article
tatelephone,
Pat Flannery wrote:

At .99 C you will certainly experience it, but it's not like your second
equals a century back on Earth.

About a factor of 7.1 time wise. Even at .9999c one second is about 1
minute 11 seconds. At .999999c 11.7 minutes.

Each two 9s added to the end bump the dilation factor by a multiple of
ten as the is easy to see from the formula.

In article
tatelephone,
Pat Flannery wrote:

The big problem with interstellar flight at relativistic speeds over any
distance is something almost no one points out, and that's figuring out
exactly where your target star is going to be at when you arrive.
Even a slight error in figuring out its future position at 100 light
years could leave you billions of miles from it on arrival, or worse
yet, _inside of it_ on arrival.

I thought a bigger problem is any particle is likely moving at
relativistic speed with respect to you. Every molecule, or even worse an
pea sized metorite will impact your ship an release an amount of energy
that is equivalent to a fair size fraction of its rest mass. Oh, and
visible light become x-rays, and x-rays become exceedingly hard. Or
perhaps the solid matter just passes through your ship, like a bullet
through butter.

In article
,
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, plus medical treatment for their disability.t

Oh, an families disrupted. Who can make accounting for that,t and you
won't find it on the bottom line of any report. And the mental problems
that don't get reported. We are still finding more illness from Agent
Orange we used in Vietnam.

Not to mention making Iraq the regional power and opening up territory
in which (anti American -- same flag as our except its on fire)
terrorists can operate freely. And the Kurdistan problem, if the Kurds
get a state, it will disrupt the entire region. Turkey does not like
that at all, but Kurds will try to liberate their countrymen.

The costs are still to be reckoned.

wrote in message
...
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.

Umm, nope what? Reality factly contradicts your claim which is still quoted
above. No optical law prevents it.

But if you wnat to start to qualify your statement until you can claim "I
was right" go right ahead, but the fact is your statement was wrong.



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.



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

darwinist wrote:
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?

Because its too many people for that.

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,

I did, repeatedly, too many people.

or even how big you think it can be.

Big enough for enough people to be genetically viable.

Even Tasmania with something like 35K people didnt turn out to be
anything like enough people to be genetically viable, they ended up
so pathetically inbred that they couldnt even manage to invent
something as basic as clothes and houses in what can be a very
inhospitable environment in winter.

Or boats either when they did get cut off by rising sea levels.

Easter Island ended up even more comprehensively ****ed because it didnt
have anything like enough people to even have enough of a clue to build
boats before they used up all the trees moving their stupid statues around.

The vikings left them for dead.

So did the polynesians.

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?

Not far enough to see colonisation of space with any prize winning invention, you watch.

So far you've made a lot of denials with no explanations.

You're lying now.

You acknowledge that the technology advances, but
don't say why or when you think it will cease doing so.

I never said it would cease to do so. I JUST said that it wont
be making colonising of space so cheap that it can be done
by individuals or even groups of like minded individuals.

You haven't denied that costs have or can decrease somewhat from new developments,

You need a hell of a lot more than somewhat to allow colonisation
of space by individuals or even groups of like minded individuals.

but insist that the cost will always be prohibitive,

Corse it will.

again without saying what would cause costs to stop falling.

I never said they would stop falling. I JUST said that they need
to fall SO FAR than no prize will be producing that, you watch.

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.

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

Umm, nope what?

Nope, no one is "actively working on it".

Reality factly contradicts your claim which is still quoted
above. No optical law prevents it.

Calculate the diameter telescope needed to resolve an Earth sized planet
100 to 150 light years away to the resolution we get with say Mars.

Did I really need to add the words "practical to build"?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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

Umm, nope what?

Nope, no one is "actively working on it".

Again, that doesn't change the optical laws.


Reality factly contradicts your claim which is still quoted
above. No optical law prevents it.

Calculate the diameter telescope needed to resolve an Earth sized planet
100 to 150 light years away to the resolution we get with say Mars.

Did I really need to add the words "practical to build"?

You tell me. You're the one that claimed that optical laws made it
impossible.

You can qualify your answer anyway you want, but the fact is you were wrong.
Admit it for once in your life. You might gain a little credibility.




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

Umm, nope what?

Nope, no one is "actively working on it".

Again, that doesn't change the optical laws.

Non sequitur.

You asked "Umm, nope what?" and I answered that question.

Reality factly contradicts your claim which is still quoted
above. No optical law prevents it.

Calculate the diameter telescope needed to resolve an Earth sized planet
100 to 150 light years away to the resolution we get with say Mars.

Did I really need to add the words "practical to build"?

You tell me. You're the one that claimed that optical laws made it
impossible.

No, I did not use the word "impossible"; read it again.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jul 28, 11:07*am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
darwinist wrote:
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?

Because its too many people for that.

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,

I did, repeatedly, too many people.

But that's no different to saying it would be too big. Clearly it
needs to be big enough to house enough people, so why can't it hold
enough people and still be movable? Or to put it another way, why
would the number of people, and the related size requirements, be too
much to allow it be movable? You keep saying it would be too much (in
different ways), but haven't said why.

or even how big you think it can be.

Big enough for enough people to be genetically viable.

Even Tasmania with something like 35K people didnt turn out to be
anything like enough people to be genetically viable, they ended up
so pathetically inbred that they couldnt even manage to invent
something as basic as clothes and houses in what can be a very
inhospitable environment in winter.

Or boats either when they did get cut off by rising sea levels.

This assumes the technological conditions are due exclusively or
mainly to inbreeding, without considering other factors. More
importantly to the topic at hand though, you don't need anywhere near
that number to avoid inbreeding, especially if people are aware of the
dangers, as would be the case on any such colony.

Easter Island ended up even more comprehensively ****ed because it didnt
have anything like enough people to even have enough of a clue to build
boats before they used up all the trees moving their stupid statues around.

The vikings left them for dead.

So did the polynesians.





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?

Not far enough to see colonisation of space with any prize winning invention, you watch.

So far you've made a lot of denials with no explanations.

You're lying now.

No, I'm not lying. A lot of your answers are simply that the costs
will never be low enough or the space-ship could never be big enough,
etc, with no accompanying reasons given. Clearly costs can never come
down to zero, and space ships can never be of infinite size, but
you've given no explanation as to where you think the real limits will
lie, or why.

You acknowledge that the technology advances, but
don't say why or when you think it will cease doing so.

I never said it would cease to do so. I JUST said that it wont
be making colonising of space so cheap that it can be done
by individuals or even groups of like minded individuals.

You haven't denied that costs have or can decrease somewhat from new developments,

You need a hell of a lot more than somewhat to allow colonisation
of space by individuals or even groups of like minded individuals.

Yet you give no explanation why or when you think this would cease. A
lot of "somewhat" over time adds up. I asked who can say how far this
will go, and you said you can, and do. So how far can it go?

but insist that the cost will always be prohibitive,

Corse it will.

again without saying what would cause costs to stop falling.

I never said they would stop falling. I JUST said that they need
to fall SO FAR than no prize will be producing that, you watch.


For that to be true they would need to either stop falling, or slow
down so much as to be almost indistinguishable from stopping. So why
would this happen before we reached commercial viability?

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.

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:34:56 -0400, Walter Bushell
wrote:

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?

Yeah. Can matter really exist with negative mass?