#21
|
|||
|
|||
Earth evacuation
Alex Terrell wrote:
[snip] **I guess a negative reaction would be a quick nuclear war to grab the required resources, that could mean less than 6 billion seats needed. Unfortunately, some of the targets could be the most important places. (launch sites, cities containing development and construction facilites, etc.) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Earth evacuation
Christopher wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:44:23 +0000 (UTC), Sander Vesik wrote: David Findlay wrote: Let's say suddenly Earth isn't going to be inhabitable for much longer, maybe 4 or 5 years, and then it's no good. Could we evacuate Earth's population to space, given that amount of warning? This scenario is based upon something really bad happening that is definately going to happen(not a maybe something will hit us). Assuming for instance that we are now in the dark caused by a massive meteorite impact. Could we survive long enough to get the technology together to get off the planet? Thanks, No. Even if it was to happen in 40-50 years, as things stand, we would stand no chance. If we had 40 years, the US could at best come up with a orbital refuge for the president (remember it would be a military project then). Why should America's president be offered the chance to survive in the 'orbital refuge' what about Britains Prime Minister or head of State the Queen, or Russia's President, or China's, or France's, or the Head of the European Commision... or are you hoping that they will all get killed, and America's President would become President of the World when he/she comes back down to Earth after all the dust has settled? I'm not against heads of state surviving. I'm against *little more* than heads of state surviving. And when the dust clears, just what would they be President/Prime Minister/Premiere/King, etc. *of?* |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Earth evacuation
Name a 1,000 year old technology that is still in use. Airplanes can
transport 6 billion people and they have. The best way to deal with an impending asteroid collision is to gather the worlds food supply together and build a giant bunker underground for 100 million. Trying to establish a space colony in 4 years is a waste of resources. What is required is organization, not getting off the planet. For a 100 million people, we can provide a food supply for 60 years, this would be the amount of 1 years world harvest. So for the next 4 years 1/4 of each harvest would go to stockpile the shelter for the selected 100 million people, that is the best and most efficient way to save the human race. Just make sure the shelter is not going to be in the impact area! The shelter may have to filter the air and insulate from outside temperatures. In 60 years the dust suspended in the stratosphere should rain out. Well my scenario was more along the lines of earth never being reinhabitable again. But yes that's probably the best solution we could hope for. David -- Engineers aren't boring people, we just get excited about boring things. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Earth evacuation
Sander Vesik wrote:
umm... i don't think an asteroid could do that you'd probably need a rougue planet not smaller than Mars to do that. In which case, how do you know any place the humans inside the Solar System won't be hit by debris? Serious ecological disaster which would have immediate effects for more than several decades is not easy to do. In particular, serious disaster that would leave the earth less habitable than space. A dinosaur-killing asteroid certainly wouldn't qualify. Paul |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Earth evacuation
"David Findlay" wrote in message
. au... Let's say suddenly Earth isn't going to be inhabitable for much longer, maybe 4 or 5 years, and then it's no good. Could we evacuate Earth's population to space, given that amount of warning? This scenario is based upon something really bad happening that is definately going to happen(not a maybe something will hit us). Assuming for instance that we are now in the dark caused by a massive meteorite impact. Could we survive long enough to get the technology together to get off the planet? Thanks, David -- Engineers aren't boring people, we just get excited about boring things. The short answer is no. Going into mass production before testing your ship would be a bit odd. Let's say you spent 5 years resurrecting Apollo and then went into mass production with the first ships rolling off the assembly line 3 years later. Apollo cost $50 billion to send 12 astronauts to the moon. Part of that money was spent on Mercury and Gemini, so let's say $25 billion to launch 12 people. Mass production might reduce that cost by a factor of 100. If the US spent $1 trillion, Europe spent $1 trillion, and Asia spent $1 trillion a year, That would give you a total budget 120 times greater. One way missions are cheaper than round trip missions, so you would probably get another factor of 10 improvement. This would allow you to send 100 x 120 x 10 x 12 = 1440000 people a year to the moon (1.44 million). On the down side, you would have to send tons of supplies and these might not be one way missions. Would the Earth become inhabitable 2 years later? In that case, you could send a 2 years supply of food and they would return when it ran out. We have no experience with keeping people alive in space without resupply missions from Earth. If they couldn't return, that would be a serious problem. The government could save money by cutting out Social Security and Medicare and killing off old people who couldn't survive without those programs. There would be rioting in the streets, but old people cause less damage during riots than young people. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Earth evacuation
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote: umm... i don't think an asteroid could do that you'd probably need a rougue planet not smaller than Mars to do that. In which case, how do you know any place the humans inside the Solar System won't be hit by debris? Serious ecological disaster which would have immediate effects for more than several decades is not easy to do. In particular, serious disaster that would leave the earth less habitable than space. A dinosaur-killing asteroid certainly wouldn't qualify. And some of the disasters would create serious problems for the moon. Once you get away from the earth-moon system, you can pretty much ignore what happens to earth, unless it's a very odd and unusual event (say a large antimatter asteroid blowing it all into little chunks at a bit under solar escape). Barring a complete resurfacing event on earth, it's probably a good place to stay. You've got lots of resources, you know where all the uranium/... is, practically any concievable event will still leave water, carbon and nitrogen in the atmosphere, at vastly greater levels than on mars, and it will be much cooler and less corrosive than venus. -- http://inquisitor.i.am/ | | Ian Stirling. ---------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------- "Looks like his brainwaves crash a little short of the beach..." - Duckman. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Earth evacuation
Alex Terrell wrote:
snip This also assumes a new generation of launch technology, and sufficient NEO mass nearby to construct the colonies. I think that a 'big push', for example using Orion to launch hundreds of millions of tons rapidly, would probably alone be a failure if you try to do it centrally planning everything. Due to simply lacking all of the other supporting technologies. Say you know now that earth is going to be utterly destroyed in 2008. Assuming that everyone pulls together, there is no conflict, ... (haha) The best bet would probably be to lift as much stuff as you could to the moon. Decent machine shops, simple basic life support and dehydrated food to last 30 years, and big stocks of everything from antimony to zirconium. You do the development and testing in situ. Things would be a lot easier if you have even a minimal level of space based hands-on experience. (ISS does not qualify) *fully sustainable = sustainable in the event of Earth becoming inaccessible. This would also require a certain minimum population for gene pool preservation. One woman, turkey baster, and a really big freezer answers the gene-pool aspects. -- http://inquisitor.i.am/ | | Ian Stirling. ---------------------------+-------------------------+-------------------------- Q: What do you call a train that doesn't stop at stations? A: Thomas the *******. -- Ben |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Earth evacuation
Assuming there was even a place to go. Just what do you mean by 'to
space?' Well initially to LEO, but given the fact that earth is uninhabitable I'd say they'd want to spread out further. You could probabibly save a genetically diverse number to come back and repopulate Earth (expect virtual to literal fighting over what groups it would be), but six billion? No way. (See Martin Cadin's novel 'Exit Earth' for a very similar scenario, not to mention Phillip Wylie's 'When Worlds Collide.') Cool, have to read those books. Thanks, David -- Engineers aren't boring people, we just get excited about boring things. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Earth evacuation
In particular, serious disaster that would leave the earth less habitable
than space. A dinosaur-killing asteroid certainly wouldn't qualify. Yep. I should have specified something like a resurficing of earth - turning it into a second Venus. David -- Engineers aren't boring people, we just get excited about boring things. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Earth evacuation
"stmx3" wrote in message ... David Findlay wrote: Let's say suddenly Earth isn't going to be inhabitable for much longer, maybe 4 or 5 years, and then it's no good. Could we evacuate Earth's population to space, given that amount of warning? This scenario is based upon something really bad happening that is definately going to happen(not a maybe something will hit us). Assuming for instance that we are now in the dark caused by a massive meteorite impact. Could we survive long enough to get the technology together to get off the planet? Thanks, David No. Not in your timeframe. 100 years? No. 1000 years? Maybe. To establish a self-sufficient colony on Mars or Titan would require building long lived nuclear reactors. This might require fusion. The nature of Martian or Titan ore deposits are somewhat unclear. Not much chance of oil or coal for plastics. Further, I'd suggest really rich ores would be rare or hard to access as compared to Earth. The colony would have to be large enough to make all equipment it requires and to expand. Mars would require the ability to produce full space suits. Titan would require somewhat lesser suits. Even with a 150 year deadline the genetic problem won't require the size of population some here have proposed. The idea is survival. Cycles of inbreeding and outbreeding could remove many the deleterious traits from a select group. Indeed, genetic screening might suffice. The Polynesian successful colonized the Pacific islands with much smaller starting genetic than some here think to be required. Also there the issue of what plants and animals to take and these would have genetic pool issues also. What I am suggesting is that the requirements for a successful self-sufficient colony is dictated by the needs of the technological minimum require to build machines, suits, to raise food, fiber, and plastic stocks needed to grow and expand the colony. This would require many workers. Could we even get to Titan? Would it be worth the trip? There would be the protection of the atmosphere from radiation and incoming meteors. Rambling.............William A. Noyes |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ICESat Captures Earth in Spectacular 3-D Images | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | December 9th 03 04:08 PM |
NASA's Earth Crew Explores Earth Science | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | November 26th 03 10:11 PM |
NASA Celebrates Educational Benefits of Earth Science Week | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | October 10th 03 04:14 PM |
Earth Has a New Look | Ron Baalke | Space Shuttle | 4 | August 24th 03 07:48 PM |
Space Engineering Helps Drill Better Holes In Planet Earth | Ron Baalke | Technology | 0 | July 18th 03 07:23 PM |