Why Colonize Space?

In sci.physics 23vl wrote:
On Aug 12, 6:21Â*am, David Johnston wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:16:37 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde

wrote:
exactly. we can't exploit the ocean bottoms, the polar regions, lots
of places on earth. mars can't possibly be more economically feasible

There are many rocks up there made of 'exotic' materials.

We have no real reason to think that is true. Â*The table of elements
is the same no matter where you go. Â*

Yeah,but the quantities are different,and once we have some
infrastructure up there mining asteroids becomes a hell of a lot
easier and faster than operating a regular mine.
There is also space manufacturing.

What makes you think the quantities are different?

How is it easier and faster to drive a space ship millions of miles in
and out of a gravity well than it is to drive a diesel truck a few miles
on a dirt road?

We don't mine the ocean floor because it it too expensive and we won't
mine space for the same reason.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In sci.physics 23vl wrote:
On Aug 12, 4:36Â*am, z wrote:
On Jul 23, 3:11Â*pm, ericthetolle wrote:



On Jul 23, 6:20 am, "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)

wrote:
"William December Starr" wrote in ...

In article ,
"Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe said:

That to me would just the adequate life. Space could potentially
give us the resources for everyone to have their own planet!

I'm not sure that I have ever in my life seen more of a load placed
on a single word than what you just hung on that "potentially."

-- wds

: ) (true) but that is what its all about for me. Its all there just waiting
for us, shame to just settle for just one planet.

You haven't even bothered to colonize all of this one planet!

COME! Â*COLONIZE THE ANTARCTIC OCEAN! Â*COLONIZE THE OCEAN BOTTOM! Â*THE
RICHES OF THE ATLANTIC TRENCH ARE WAITING FOR YOU! Â*POTENTIALLY WE CAN
MAKE EVERY COLONIST RICH ENOUGH TO HAVE HIS OWN ISLAND!

Show me you have enough gumption to do THAT, and then I'll believe
your babble about being a big, daring colonist with foresight. Â*But if
you aren't even willing to colonize a floating platform south of the
Cape of Good Hope, then all your rhetoric is just so much bull****.

Eric Tolle- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

exactly. we can't exploit the ocean bottoms, the polar regions, lots
of places on earth. mars can't possibly be more economically feasible

As Heinlein said-it is not a good idea to keep all our eggs in one
basket.
There is also the fact that the Earth can't sustain human growth
indefinitely,and we can find more resources and room for growth in
space,and the possibilities for scientific exploration.

Heinlein was make believe and population growth has been slowing for
years.

No one is going to ever be planting wheat on Mars.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Aug 12, 4:17*pm, Ilya2 wrote:
On Aug 12, 9:05*am, Ilya2 wrote:

I might add that expanding into new areas is exactly what causes
species to be replaced -- by their own descendants which evolve into
something new.

Yeah-something better than them,and a certain ecological niche will
sooner or later be destroyed.

On Aug 12, 4:56*pm, David Johnston wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:36:15 +1000, "Rod Speed"



wrote:
23vl wrote:
On Aug 12, 12:09 pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
23vl wrote:
On Aug 12, 4:36 am, z wrote:
On Jul 23, 3:11 pm, ericthetolle wrote:

On Jul 23, 6:20 am, "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe
end)

wrote:
"William December Starr" wrote in
...

In article ,
"Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe
said:

That to me would just the adequate life. Space could
potentially give us the resources for everyone to have their
own planet!

I'm not sure that I have ever in my life seen more of a load
placed
on a single word than what you just hung on that "potentially."

-- wds

) (true) but that is what its all about for me. Its all there
just waiting
for us, shame to just settle for just one planet.

You haven't even bothered to colonize all of this one planet!

COME! COLONIZE THE ANTARCTIC OCEAN! COLONIZE THE OCEAN BOTTOM! THE
RICHES OF THE ATLANTIC TRENCH ARE WAITING FOR YOU! POTENTIALLY WE
CAN MAKE EVERY COLONIST RICH ENOUGH TO HAVE HIS OWN ISLAND!

Show me you have enough gumption to do THAT, and then I'll believe
your babble about being a big, daring colonist with foresight. But
if you aren't even willing to colonize a floating platform south
of the Cape of Good Hope, then all your rhetoric is just so much
bull****.

Eric Tolle- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

exactly. we can't exploit the ocean bottoms, the polar regions,
lots of places on earth. mars can't possibly be more economically
feasible
As Heinlein said-it is not a good idea to keep all our eggs in one
basket.

Pity about the immense cost of anything else.

There is also the fact that the Earth can't sustain human growth
indefinitely,

Its obviously a hell of a lot cheaper to do something about that
growth than to colonise space.

and we can find more resources

We've got plenty of those here on earth, much more cheaply too.

and room for growth

We've got plenty of those here on earth, much more cheaply too.

in space,and the possibilities for scientific exploration.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to use robots to do that.

Sooner or later this planet will die-

So will mars etc.

Mars is already dead. *

Who cares about mars-in the end it is just another lame muddball and
its gravity isn't strong enough to sustain a thick atmosphere such as
Earth's.

Not really, we can *have 500 billion on this planet quite easily. But
logarithmic are something scary.

We go from 8 to 16 to 32 to 64 to 128 to 256 to 512 .... then to 1024
and 2048 will take just as long as from 8 to 16.

If we are lazy about space colonization we will need to create
accommodations for trillions.

skip

I do understand your ambition to build a sustainable world but this is
a skill humans do not understand. We are slow learners in that
chapter. What we do know is build build build, grow grow grow, expand,
steal, loot etc :-)

Sorry, but statistics do not bear you out. ALL industrial/information
technology societies have below-replacement birth rates -- regardless
of religion, I might add. Big problem in 100 years will be keeping
population from dwindling, not finding more room.

"Ilya2" wrote in message
...
Not really, we can have 500 billion on this planet quite easily. But
logarithmic are something scary.

We go from 8 to 16 to 32 to 64 to 128 to 256 to 512 .... then to 1024
and 2048 will take just as long as from 8 to 16.

If we are lazy about space colonization we will need to create
accommodations for trillions.

skip

I do understand your ambition to build a sustainable world but this is
a skill humans do not understand. We are slow learners in that
chapter. What we do know is build build build, grow grow grow, expand,
steal, loot etc :-)

Sorry, but statistics do not bear you out. ALL industrial/information
technology societies have below-replacement birth rates -- regardless
of religion, I might add. Big problem in 100 years will be keeping
population from dwindling, not finding more room.
===========================================
I'm glad you are sorry, you ****in' ignorant idiot.
*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.

In sci.physics 23vl wrote:
On Aug 12, 4:01Â*pm, Ilya2 wrote:
And how prey tell do you protect the earth from a solar
eruption,climate change,supervolcanos,gamma-ray bursts and so on.

Being on Mars (or anywhere in solar system) will not protect you from
solar eruptions or gamma-ray bursts, in fact you will be worse off
than on Earth, which at least has atmosphere and magnetic field.

Climate change should be addressed by weaning off fossil fuels. Which
may involve orbital solar power, but that does not require
colonization.

Asteroids and comets -- you need a space infrastructure to locate and
divert them, but again, this does not require colonization.

Supervolcanos -- if you have technology AND energy to terraform Mars
(or otherwise make it livable for millions of colonists), then you
have technology and energy to drill through Yellowstone shield and to
release pressure in controlled manner.

In general, the amount of effort required to build a self-sufficient
space colony ("self-sufficient" in the sense that it can survive
Earth's demise) is so staggering, that *if you can do it*, then just a
fraction of said effort can prevent pretty much anything bad that
could happen to Earth.

I noticed you included "climate change" into your list -- a
comparatively SMALL problem, since a) unlike colonizing Mars, we
already have ability to deal with it, and b) even if we do nothing at
all, climate change will not end human race. The fact that you did
include it suggests to me "Earth is doomed anyway, let's leave!"
mentality. You are not even TRYING to address Earth's problems (real
or imaginary), you just want your shiny space colonies.

Who said anything about terraforming mars,I am talking about space
habitats.As for gamma rays and solar eruptions-i think that placing
the colony in geosynchronous orbit around a large body,so that it acts
as a shield between the colony and the source works even quite well.As
for orbital detection equipment and solar panels-those will have to be
placed in orbit-which is the most expensive part of the operation-I
think that creating a more or less self-sufficient colony that is
tasked with their manufacture and repair utilizing in situ resources
might be more economical in the long run as well as providing some
additional benefits like space mining and manufacturing as well as
space tourism later on.

The only way to have a self-sufficient colony some place other than
Earth is to duplicate all the "stuff" on Earth, such as by terraforming
the other place.

Alaska is thinking about dropping the expensive support for remote
settlements that are dependant on the outside world to survive, and
you think someone is going to pay many orders of magnitude more for
a settlement in space that is an even bigger money sink?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Usenet is like citizenship. You get what you pay for.

(Note to self): Kill file any post cross posted to 2 groups.

Dave

On Aug 11, 9:26*pm, Sean O'Hara wrote:
In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Rod Speed declared:

jmfbahciv wrote

The Dark Ages were dark because trade was constrained to local geographical areas.

No it wasnt. Most obviously with the crusades.

I was tempted to respond to Mr. Speed with an observation to the
effect that trade and war are not exactly synonymous, but then I found
this and decided it isn't worth the effort:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....dware.storage/
browse_thread/thread/c4ea774e304aef58/ad32331015efb66a

Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"Much of the same sort of talk can still be heard among the
orc-minded; dreary and repetitive with hatred and contempt, too long
removed from good to retain even verbal vigour, save in the ears of
those to whom only the squalid sounds strong."
-- JRR Tolkien, _The Return of the King_, Appendix F.

In article , gabydewilde writes:
On Aug 12, 12:36=A0pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:

We can expand fine here on earth and have been doing that for millennia now.

Not really, we can have 500 billion on this planet quite easily. But
logarithmic are something scary.

"Logarithmic are something scary"?

We go from 8 to 16 to 32 to 64 to 128 to 256 to 512 .... then to 1024
and 2048 will take just as long as from 8 to 16.

Here you're describing what's called "exponential growth". However, it's
an outcome of an assumption you made, which is constant doubling times.
If you are talking about human population, that's an invalid assumption.
As others have noted, the rate of population growth has been slowing down
for several decades. There are countries with *declining* populations.

If we are lazy about space colonization we will need to create
accommodations for trillions.

World population is expected to peak later this century.

This is why so much people starve today.

The major reason that people starve today is oppressive governments.
The world produces enough to feed everybody; it's just that distribution
is a bitch. It'd be even worse if we were to try to ship foodstuffs
for several hundred thousand people up to orbital habitats; forget
"billions" or "trillions".

This is why so much people starve today. The Chinese alone could over
populate the world in 3 or 4 generations years.

With one child per couple?

We should think like Ford about it. Everyone can own a space camper.

Because we're all billionaires.

You keep talking about cost but the value of the currency is in what
you can buy for it.

Most importantly, delta-v to get out the the gravity well, followed
by life-support.

If the economy slows down money stops buying things.

You have that backwards. If people stop buying things, the economy
slows dows.

It is just like we could have had all the energy we needed 50 years
ago.

We did have all of the energy that we needed fifty years ago.

It would have been so cheap to build in those days.

Build what? A nuclear reactor?

If we make the effort we can have all the resources we could ever want
a few years from now. Every area of expertise develops at speeds never
imagined.

By a pure wave of the hands.

I do understand your ambition to build a sustainable world but this is
a skill humans do not understand.

Then, we'll have a lot of trouble in space, where every bit of
air, and water, and feces, and urine will need to be recycled.

What we do know is build build build, grow grow grow, expand,
steal, loot etc :-)

Too bad there's nobody up there to steal from; the idea might be
a little more practical then. Not much, but a little.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include Standard_Disclaimer
Why doesn't anybody care about apathy?