A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why Colonize Space?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #511  
Old July 28th 09, 05:38 AM posted to alt.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.space.history,sci.physics,sci.econ
Rod Speed
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default Why Colonize Space?

darwinist wrote:
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.


Wrong, its the reason 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?


Because too many people would be required to be genetically viable.

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?


Because too many people would be required to be genetically viable.

You keep saying it would be too much (in different ways), but haven't said why.


You're lying now. IT WOULD NEED TO HAVE TOO MANY PEOPLE TO
BE GENETICALLY VIABLE AND SO WOULD BE TOO BIG TO MOVE.

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.


No it does not.

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.


You'd still need too many people to be genetically viable.

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.


Yes, you are lying about what I have said.

A lot of your answers are simply that the costs will never be low enough


Corse they wont.

or the space-ship could never be big enough,
etc, with no accompanying reasons given.


You're lying again on that last.

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're lying, again. I KEEP TELLING YOU THAT IT WOULD BE
TOO BIG TO BE MOVABLE BECAUSE IT WOULD REQUIRE
TOO MANY PEOPLE TO BE GENETICALLY VIABLE.

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


You're lying, again.

IT WOULD REQUIRE TOO MANY PEOPLE TO BE GENETICALLY
VIABLE TO EVER BE AFFORDABLE BY INDIVIDUALS OR EVEN
GROUPS OF LIKE MINDED INDIVIDUALS.

or when you think this would cease.


Never ever said a word about anything ceasing.

A lot of "somewhat" over time adds up.


Like hell it does.

I asked who can say how far this will go, and
you said you can, and do. So how far can it go?


NEVER FAR ENOUGH TO EVER BE AFFORDABLE 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.


For that to be true they would need to either stop falling, or slow
down so much as to be almost indistinguishable from stopping.


Wrong, as always.

So why would this happen before we reached commercial viability?


Because it will never be commercially viable.

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.



  #512  
Old July 28th 09, 06:06 AM posted to alt.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.space.history,sci.physics
Alan Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Why Colonize Space?

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

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.

And it would have to have enough genetic diversity of all the other animals
too.

Completely impossible to make that moveable.


Wow.

You sound just like those who said it was impossible to go faster than
the speed of sound...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg
  #513  
Old July 28th 09, 06:10 AM posted to alt.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.space.history,sci.physics
Alan Baker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Why Colonize Space?

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

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.


You should learn to use the language more carefully...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg
  #514  
Old July 28th 09, 06:49 AM posted to alt.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.space.history,sci.physics,sci.econ
darwinist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 28
Default Why Colonize Space?

On Jul 28, 2:38*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
darwinist wrote:

[...]
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.


Yes, you are lying about what I have said.

A lot of your answers are simply that the costs will never be low enough


Corse they wont.

or the space-ship could never be big enough,
etc, with no accompanying reasons given.


You're lying again on that last.

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're lying, again. I KEEP TELLING YOU THAT IT WOULD BE
TOO BIG TO BE MOVABLE BECAUSE IT WOULD REQUIRE
TOO MANY PEOPLE TO BE GENETICALLY VIABLE.


This explains why it would have to be at least a certain size (call it
size [X]), but it doesn't explain why something of (or above) size [X]
wouldn't be movable. Why would prevent someone from building rockets
that could move something of size [X]? You give no indication of how
big (in actual size or weight) is too big, or how big (in size or
weight) you think [X] would even be.

Saying it would require too many people is the same as saying it would
require too much size to accommodate those people, but none of this
explains why that amount of size ([X]) is too big to move.

It would be like arguing about whether a truck could ever carry enough
food to feed town [y] for a week, but never saying what the capacity
of the truck was, or even how much food is required. If someone asked
why couldn't it carry enough food, you could say "because that truck
can only can 3 tonne of food and town [y] would need at least 6 tonne
for a week", and that would be an explanation which you could examine
for accuracy.

If instead you just said "because it would require too much food for
the truck to carry", then that's not explaining anything, it's just
repeating the assertion in a different way.

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


You're lying, again.

IT WOULD REQUIRE TOO MANY PEOPLE TO BE GENETICALLY
VIABLE TO EVER BE AFFORDABLE BY INDIVIDUALS OR EVEN
GROUPS OF LIKE MINDED INDIVIDUALS.

or when you think this would cease.


Never ever said a word about anything ceasing.

A lot of "somewhat" over time adds up.


Like hell it does.

I asked who can say how far this will go, and
you said you can, and do. So how far can it go?


NEVER FAR ENOUGH TO EVER BE AFFORDABLE BY INDIVIDUALS
OR EVEN GROUPS OF LIKE MINDED INDIVIDUALS.


Yes you've said it won't go that far, but if prices can fall (even a
little bit) you have said what would stop them falling that far?
Presumably you would acknowledge that space travel might get (at least
a bit) cheaper and more technologically advanced than it is today. So
the question is what would stop it getting cheap and advanced enough
to make private colonisation affordable by (at least some) private
individuals or groups?

Saying it will never get far enough, or that it would require too many
people, is just repeating the assertion. If you don't know what would
stop costs from falling that far, then how can you know whether or not
they will fall that far?

A similar argument would be: If someone was walking west from sydney,
and we were arguing over whether they'd make it to the other side, it
wouldn't be enough for one of us to say "because it's too far". That's
just stating a conclusion, it doesn't provide any reason why that
distance is too far. You might say at average walking speed a person
of average life expectancy would die before covering that distance. Or
you could say that this particular person doesn't know how to find
food or water in the desert and has no one to teach them. But saying
"it would require too many steps to get to the other side", explains
nothing.

[...]

So why would this happen before we reached commercial viability?


Because it will never be commercially viable.


That's a good example of what I mean, you say it will never reach
commercial viability because it will never be commercially viable.
This is circular reasoning, not an explanation or an argument.

[...]
  #515  
Old July 28th 09, 07:20 AM posted to alt.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.space.history,sci.physics
Wayne Throop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,062
Default Why Colonize Space?

: Alan Baker
: You sound just like those who said it was impossible to go faster than
: the speed of sound...

Really? Who were they, then? Can you name any of them?


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
  #516  
Old July 28th 09, 10:04 AM posted to alt.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.space.history,sci.physics,sci.econ
G. L. Bradford
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 258
Default Why Colonize Space?

When it comes to manmade islands in space, eventually there would be
billions, and more, more than one. For one anology, Von Nuemann long ago
said future computers would so large and singular, city block size, that no
one would be able to afford one except the largest nations and corporations.

What actually happened? Micro-computers, individuality in flexible custom
modular system complexes, and local and wide area [networks] that make Von
Nuemann's vision of titannic city block size naked singularities look to be
so damn small and so damn tyrannically / anarchically centralized; too
closed systematic (to the entropic extreme of closed); and catastropically
expensive for the mass overhead to program population number, activity and
productivity ratio, by comparison.

It isn't the single manmade island (O'Neill colony ark or Stanford Torus,
other custom facility or ship) in space that will develop [take off]
viability. It will be the future ten, hundred, thousand, million, billion
and more; and the networking interactivity of them all (the LIFE of them
all).

GL

=================

  #517  
Old July 28th 09, 10:45 AM posted to alt.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.space.history,sci.physics,sci.econ
Rod Speed
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default Why Colonize Space?

G. L. Bradford wrote:
When it comes to manmade islands in space, eventually there would be
billions, and more, more than one. For one anology, Von Nuemann long
ago said future computers would so large and singular, city block
size, that no one would be able to afford one except the largest
nations and corporations.
What actually happened? Micro-computers, individuality in flexible
custom modular system complexes, and local and wide area [networks]
that make Von Nuemann's vision of titannic city block size naked
singularities look to be so damn small and so damn tyrannically /
anarchically centralized; too closed systematic (to the entropic
extreme of closed); and catastropically expensive for the mass
overhead to program population number, activity and productivity
ratio, by comparison.
It isn't the single manmade island (O'Neill colony ark or Stanford
Torus, other custom facility or ship) in space that will develop
[take off] viability. It will be the future ten, hundred, thousand,
million, billion and more; and the networking interactivity of them
all (the LIFE of them all).


Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

The reality is that sweet **** all will be stupid enough to bother with anything like that, so it wont happen.


  #518  
Old July 28th 09, 12:05 PM posted to alt.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.space.history,sci.physics,sci.econ
jmfbahciv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 302
Default Why Colonize Space?

Michael Stemper wrote:
In article , jmfbahciv jmfbahciv@aol writes:
wrote:
In sci.physics Walter Bushell wrote:


Yes, and the part that a lot of people who believe we can make anything we
want anywhere we want forget is that it takes a lot of specialized skills
to build most things and not just an autonomous machine.

An illuminating exercise is to take a simple thing, such as a hypodermic
needle and syringe, and starting with an energy source and dirt, list
all the processes, equipment, and people skills needed to produce it.

Then take all that equipment and repeat the process until every item
can be made starting with energy and dirt.

****. Just producing the energy source, on their own, is beyond these
peoples' ability.


I'm reminded of _Spacehounds of IPC_. When a couple is stranded on
Ganymede, they start by mining coal in order to make glass to blow
vacuum tubes in order to build a radio to send off an SOS. Oh, yeah,
and a hydro plant to power the radio.

Well, the guy does all of that. The woman's off hunting all day, brining
home the bacon while he keeps the home fires burning (or at least fueled).

A fun thing to think about is do a work traceback analysis of the fried
egg on your breakfast plate. Don't forget the work and materials of
the plate and the frying pan :-).

/BAH
  #519  
Old July 28th 09, 12:35 PM posted to alt.philosophy,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.space.history,sci.physics,sci.econ
darwinist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 28
Default Why Colonize Space?

On Jul 28, 9:05*pm, jmfbahciv jmfbahciv@aol wrote:
Michael Stemper wrote:
In article , jmfbahciv jmfbahciv@aol writes:
wrote:
In sci.physics Walter Bushell wrote:


Yes, and the part that a lot of people who believe we can make anything we
want anywhere we want forget is that it takes a lot of specialized skills
to build most things and not just an autonomous machine.


An illuminating exercise is to take a simple thing, such as a hypodermic
needle and syringe, and starting with an energy source and dirt, list
all the processes, equipment, and people skills needed to produce it.


Then take all that equipment and repeat the process until every item
can be made starting with energy and dirt.


****. *Just producing the energy source, on their own, is beyond these
peoples' ability.


I'm reminded of _Spacehounds of IPC_. When a couple is stranded on
Ganymede, they start by mining coal in order to make glass to blow
vacuum tubes in order to build a radio to send off an SOS. Oh, yeah,
and a hydro plant to power the radio.


Well, the guy does all of that. The woman's off hunting all day, brining
home the bacon while he keeps the home fires burning (or at least fueled).


A fun thing to think about is do a work traceback analysis of the fried
egg on your breakfast plate. *Don't forget the work and materials of
the plate and the frying pan :-).

/BAH


A few things to take into account: You don't need to take all the raw
materials and means of processing them, you could take a lot of
processed materials, and even some finished products. Your example of
the frying pan is a good one. The amount of land and machinery
required to make a frying pan from scratch can be enormous, but if you
pack a frying pan it takes up very little space. Some things will need
to be manufactured and grown as you go, but a lot can be brought with
you.

Another thing is that they don't have to be sustainable for tens of
thousands of years to be viable. Hundreds of years would be a good
start. This could be enough time to wait out a catastrophe on earth,
find some other sources of at least some minerals, or meet up with a
larger ship or colony of ships if such things were around in this
hypothetical world.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bill Stone is determined to colonize outer space [email protected][_1_] Policy 4 July 2nd 07 12:25 AM
Why Colonize Space? Because We Are Dealing In Absolutes G. L. Bradford Policy 33 April 1st 06 07:02 PM
Why Colonize Space? Because We Are Dealing In Absolutes G. L. Bradford Policy 3 March 31st 06 02:22 AM
Let's Colonize the Universe Rudolph_X Astronomy Misc 21 March 23rd 04 09:04 PM
Best asteroids to colonize? Hop David Technology 3 August 14th 03 07:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.