Space colonization essay !

Hello there,

I'm a student and I'm in my final year and I wish to do my essay about space colonization.
My first topic is about the planets or planetary bodies that are not suitable for this purpose. Such as planets or planetary bodies outside of our solar system. As I understand it it is simply to far to get within a lifetime, so that sugests we would have to have babies in order to do that. But due to cosmic radiation, this presents a large amount of difficulties. Sperm decrease, damage to egg cells etc.
Even though there are ways to protect ourselves from this radiation, it is not enaugh to allow us to have babies in space. Even if a baby could make it out of the womb we would still have problems protecting it from this cosmic radiation. This and the lack of gravity make it impossible to do so in space. But imagine, if we were able to create an atmosphere on Mars or on any other planet, would THAT allow us to have children? Since the atmosphere should filter a part of this radiation?

Greets!

On a sunny day (Tue, 1 Nov 2011 12:04:00 +0000) it happened TheBeerjunkie
wrote in
:


Hello there,

I'm a student and I'm in my final year and I wish to do my essay about
space colonization.
My first topic is about the planets or planetary bodies that are not
suitable for this purpose. Such as planets or planetary bodies outside
of our solar system. As I understand it it is simply to far to get
within a lifetime, so that sugests we would have to have babies in order
to do that. But due to cosmic radiation, this presents a large amount of
difficulties. Sperm decrease, damage to egg cells etc.
Even though there are ways to protect ourselves from this radiation, it
is not enaugh to allow us to have babies in space. Even if a baby could
make it out of the womb we would still have problems protecting it from
this cosmic radiation. This and the lack of gravity make it impossible
to do so in space. But imagine, if we were able to create an atmosphere
on Mars or on any other planet, would THAT allow us to have children?
Since the atmosphere should filter a part of this radiation?

Greets!

If you can accelerate at a constant 1G,
and halfway turn around and de-accelerate at 1 G,
then most of the problems you state are solved.
That creates artificial gravity, and brings the time it takes to the next star withing a lifetime/
So, focus should be on propulsion, likely nuclear, but with the current state humanity is in
(NASA had already plans for a nuclear engine many many many years ago,
but it was abandoned 'too dangerous', so when ToysRus bought NASA
there was no longer hope for a US colonisation of planets.
Add some stupid concepts about light speed, and here we are, and will possibly stay.
The Chinese just launched a spacecraft to rendezvous with their orbiting space lab.
If things go the way they do now, the the Chinese will be first at mars,
and then it will truly be the red planet.
Later US astronuts, who will likely smash down with airbags, will have to pay landing rights
and will find a choice of the finest Chinese restaurants waiting for them.
Expensive too.

On Nov 1, 8:38*am, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 1 Nov 2011 12:04:00 +0000) it happened TheBeerjunkie
wrote in
:











Hello there,

I'm a student and I'm in my final year and I wish to do my essay about
space colonization.
My first topic is about the planets or planetary bodies that are not
suitable for this purpose. Such as planets or planetary bodies outside
of our solar system. As I understand it it is simply to far to get
within a lifetime, so that sugests we would have to have babies in order
to do that. But due to cosmic radiation, this presents a large amount of
difficulties. Sperm decrease, damage to egg cells etc.
Even though there are ways to protect ourselves from this radiation, it
is not enaugh to allow us to have babies in space. Even if a baby could
make it out of the womb we would still have problems protecting it from
this cosmic radiation. This and the lack of gravity make it impossible
to do so in space. But imagine, if we were able to create an atmosphere
on Mars or on any other planet, would THAT allow us to have children?
Since the atmosphere should filter a part of this radiation?

Greets!

If you can accelerate at a constant 1G,
and halfway turn around and de-accelerate at 1 G,
then most of the problems you state are solved.
That creates artificial gravity, and brings the time it takes to the next star withing a lifetime/
So, focus should be on propulsion, likely nuclear, but with the current state humanity is in
(NASA had already plans for a nuclear engine many many many years ago,
but it was abandoned 'too dangerous', so when ToysRus bought NASA
there was no longer hope for a US colonisation of planets.
Add some stupid concepts about light speed, and here we are, and will possibly stay.
The Chinese just launched a spacecraft to rendezvous with their orbiting space lab.
If things go the way they do now, the the Chinese will be first at mars,
and then it will truly be the red planet.
Later US astronuts, who will likely smash down with airbags, will have to pay landing rights
and will find a choice of the finest Chinese restaurants waiting for them..
Expensive too.

We do seem to have a fly-by-rocket lander gap, including the one of
our Apollo era that doesn't seem to work as we've been told. No doubt
those Long March landers will come in real handy, and we can rent them
for a million dollars per hour or per kg of payload (plus the usual
tax, insurance and fuel).

Btw, even 0.1 G worth of constant acceleration/deceleration is going
to make at least those most nearby exoplanets doable. Fusion rockets
such as those offered by William Mook should more than do the trick.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On a sunny day (Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:58:54 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Brad Guth
wrote in
:

We do seem to have a fly-by-rocket lander gap, including the one of
our Apollo era that doesn't seem to work as we've been told. No doubt
those Long March landers will come in real handy, and we can rent them
for a million dollars per hour or per kg of payload (plus the usual
tax, insurance and fuel).

Btw, even 0.1 G worth of constant acceleration/deceleration is going
to make at least those most nearby exoplanets doable. Fusion rockets
such as those offered by William Mook should more than do the trick.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

I was thinking that if all those flights to the International Space Junk Station
had been used to build a huge nuclear powered interplanetary spacecraft....
then we would not have to burn it up in the atmosphere and endanger humanity
with the debris, but could fly to the planets with a travel time of only weeks.

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:58:54 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
Brad Guth wrote in
:

We do seem to have a fly-by-rocket lander gap, including the one of
our Apollo era that doesn't seem to work as we've been told. No
doubt those Long March landers will come in real handy, and we can
rent them for a million dollars per hour or per kg of payload (plus
the usual tax, insurance and fuel).

Btw, even 0.1 G worth of constant acceleration/deceleration is going
to make at least those most nearby exoplanets doable. Fusion rockets
such as those offered by William Mook should more than do the trick.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

I was thinking that if all those flights to the International Space
Junk Station had been used to build a huge nuclear powered
interplanetary spacecraft.... then we would not have to burn it up in
the atmosphere and endanger humanity with the debris, but could fly
to the planets with a travel time of only weeks.

An Orion type spacecraft (that uses exploding atomic bombs and a pusher
plate) is an idea that has been around for a long time and is technically
feasible, but would you want the treaty on the ban of nuclear devices in
outer space to be annulled?

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

On a sunny day (Wed, 2 Nov 2011 10:18:13 -0000) it happened "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote in
:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:58:54 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
Brad Guth wrote in
:

We do seem to have a fly-by-rocket lander gap, including the one of
our Apollo era that doesn't seem to work as we've been told. No
doubt those Long March landers will come in real handy, and we can
rent them for a million dollars per hour or per kg of payload (plus
the usual tax, insurance and fuel).

Btw, even 0.1 G worth of constant acceleration/deceleration is going
to make at least those most nearby exoplanets doable. Fusion rockets
such as those offered by William Mook should more than do the trick.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

I was thinking that if all those flights to the International Space
Junk Station had been used to build a huge nuclear powered
interplanetary spacecraft.... then we would not have to burn it up in
the atmosphere and endanger humanity with the debris, but could fly
to the planets with a travel time of only weeks.

An Orion type spacecraft (that uses exploding atomic bombs and a pusher
plate) is an idea that has been around for a long time and is technically
feasible, but would you want the treaty on the ban of nuclear devices in
outer space to be annulled?

You mean the sun is illegal?

On Nov 2, 2:18*am, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:58:54 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
Brad Guth wrote in
:

We do seem to have a fly-by-rocket lander gap, including the one of
our Apollo era that doesn't seem to work as we've been told. *No
doubt those Long March landers will come in real handy, and we can
rent them for a million dollars per hour or per kg of payload (plus
the usual tax, insurance and fuel).

Btw, even 0.1 G worth of constant acceleration/deceleration is going
to make at least those most nearby exoplanets doable. *Fusion rockets
such as those offered by William Mook should more than do the trick.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

I was thinking that if all those flights to the International Space
Junk Station had been used to build a huge nuclear powered
interplanetary spacecraft.... then we would not have to burn it up in
the atmosphere and endanger humanity with the debris, but could fly
to the planets with a travel time of only weeks.

An Orion type spacecraft (that uses exploding atomic bombs and a pusher
plate) is an idea that has been around for a long time and is technically
feasible, but would you want the treaty on the ban of nuclear devices in
outer space to be annulled?

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

Is that anything like the ban on bogus wars and false flag black ops?

On Nov 2, 3:06*am, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:58:54 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Brad Guth
wrote in
:

We do seem to have a fly-by-rocket lander gap, including the one of
our Apollo era that doesn't seem to work as we've been told. *No doubt
those Long March landers will come in real handy, and we can rent them
for a million dollars per hour or per kg of payload (plus the usual
tax, insurance and fuel).

Btw, even 0.1 G worth of constant acceleration/deceleration is going
to make at least those most nearby exoplanets doable. *Fusion rockets
such as those offered by William Mook should more than do the trick.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

I was thinking that if all those flights to the International Space Junk Station
had been used to build a huge nuclear powered interplanetary spacecraft.....
then we would not have to burn it up in the atmosphere and endanger humanity
with the debris, but could fly to the planets with a travel time of only weeks.

Actually, using lithium-6 and deuteride is even better, at least
according to William Mook.

In the meantime, having a Boeing OASIS at the Earth-moon L1 would have
helped as of decades ago, such as for it inventory of conventional LOx/
LH2 and always HTP plus a good hydrocarbon synfuel, would have at
least made our solar system and especially our moon and Venus
commercially and even privately accessible.

"Lithium-6 deuteride produces alpha particles moving at 33000 km/
sec" / William Mook

However, my Radon alpha Ion thruster with its potential of 150,000 km/
sec might be even better since the necessary Radium that's producing
Radon has such a long half life. There should be lots of Radium in
our moon and especially on Venus.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Dear TheBeerjunkie:

On Nov 1, 5:04*am, TheBeerjunkie TheBeerjunkie.
wrote:
Hello there,

I'm a student and I'm in my final year and I wish to do
my essay about space colonization.

My first topic is about the planets or planetary bodies
that are not suitable for this purpose. Such as planets
or planetary bodies outside of our solar system. As I
understand it it is simply to far to get within a lifetime,
so that sugests we would have to have babies in order
to do that. But due to cosmic radiation, this presents
a large amount of difficulties. Sperm decrease, damage
to egg cells etc. Even though there are ways to protect
ourselves from this radiation, it is not enaugh to allow us
to have babies in space. Even if a baby could make it
out of the womb we would still have problems protecting
it from this cosmic radiation.

If we are protected, then so are our babies and our gametes.

This and the lack of gravity make it impossible to do so
in space.

Accelerate an asteroid, and send it on its way towards a destination.
Place a rotating body in its "shadow", the rotation producing
"gravity". There is your protection.

Nature seems to have previously pureed organisms, and sent their DNA
to the stars...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

But imagine, if we were able to create an atmosphere
on Mars or on any other planet, would THAT allow us to
have children? Since the atmosphere should filter a part
of this radiation?

Just build underground, and under glass... on either Mars or the Moon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moo...Harsh_Mistress

Better still, wait until the race has matured, and does not feel
compelled to overbreed, transfer its various voluntary mental
illnesses to new populations, and maybe we will figure out FTL drive,
making such precautions unnecessary.

David A. Smith

On 01/11/2011 12:04, TheBeerjunkie wrote:
Hello there,

I'm a student and I'm in my final year and I wish to do my essay about
space colonization.
My first topic is about the planets or planetary bodies that are not
suitable for this purpose. Such as planets or planetary bodies outside
of our solar system. As I understand it it is simply to far to get
within a lifetime, so that sugests we would have to have babies in order
to do that. But due to cosmic radiation, this presents a large amount of
difficulties. Sperm decrease, damage to egg cells etc.
Even though there are ways to protect ourselves from this radiation, it
is not enaugh to allow us to have babies in space. Even if a baby could
make it out of the womb we would still have problems protecting it from
this cosmic radiation. This and the lack of gravity make it impossible

The trick for gravity was demonstrated in 2001 a space odyssey. The zone
you want to have effective gravity needs to be on the inner surface of a
rotating cylinder - with or without velcro shoes and flooring. It would
work but might take some getting used to.

to do so in space. But imagine, if we were able to create an atmosphere
on Mars or on any other planet, would THAT allow us to have children?
Since the atmosphere should filter a part of this radiation?

You should look up terraforming. Mars might benefit from the addition of
powerful greenhouse gasses like SF6, CF4 or C2F6 to its atmosphere. All
of these would be gasses for part of the time and stable and heavy
enough to find escaping from the planets weaker gravity difficult.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown