Why Colonize Space?

In article , writes:
In sci.physics Michael Stemper wrote:
In article , (William December Starr) writes:
In article , "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe said:

What possible reason is there to expect that a long-term colony on
Mars would stimulate the search for faster-than-light communication
any better than would a long-term colony at CalTech or Oxford or
MIT?

Historical analogy. Look at how the long-term colonies in the New World
stimulated the search for faster-than-sailing-ship communication.

Yeah, like what?

It certainly wasn't either the steamboat or the telegraph.

First they had to develop the sarcasm detector.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include Standard_Disclaimer
If this is our corporate opinion, you will be billed for it.

Immortalista schreef:
Today I was reading some opinions of people who believe that there is
no reason for humans to leave earth. Are all arguments for moving into
space and onto other bodies in space really that weak and irrelevant?

In order to survive space we need to genetically and technically alter
human beings into something else. Better let the robots do space. It is
possible to send genetic material with technical equipment into space,
with the instructions to create life elsewhere when possible. If this
genetic material needs alteration because of the different
circumstances, or when this lifeform grows up differently because of the
environment, life has colonized space, but not the humans.

But the trouble would be in vain, because probably on suited planets
life would already exist, although maybe not in recognisable form or
stage of development as we know here.

I would not be too sure that the development here is really so
fantastic. I doubt it.

Wayne Throop wrote:
: 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?


The terror of "compressibility" at "The Sound Barrier".
Although it was obvious that it was possible for things to go
supersonic... everything from bullets to bullwhips to V-2 rockets had
gone supersonic, trying to keep control of an aircraft in supersonic
flight was a pretty iffy proposition, with predictions ranging from it
going completly out of control to it being physically shaken to pieces.
This played a part in the British decision not to build the Miles M.52
as it was thought to be too dangerous to try to go supersonic to risk a
pilot's life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_M.52, and it's
replacement with a subscale rocket-powered unmanned version of the design.
On July 18, 1946, Sir Ben Lockspeiser, Director General of Scientific
Research MAP, stated "Flying at speeds greater than sound introduces new
problems. We do not yet know how serous they are. The impression the
supersonic aircraft are just around the corner is quite erroneous, but
the difficulties will be tackled by the use of rocket driven models. We
do not have the heart to ask pilots to fly the high speed models, so we
shall make them radio controlled." and canceled the M.52.
F.G. Miles later recounted the Lockspeiser thought that developing
supersonic aircraft would take many years and might be outright
impossible to accomplish.

Pat

In sci.physics Michael Stemper wrote:
In article , writes:
In sci.physics Michael Stemper wrote:
In article , (William December Starr) writes:
In article , "Giga" "Giga" just(removetheseandaddmatthe said:

What possible reason is there to expect that a long-term colony on
Mars would stimulate the search for faster-than-light communication
any better than would a long-term colony at CalTech or Oxford or
MIT?

Historical analogy. Look at how the long-term colonies in the New World
stimulated the search for faster-than-sailing-ship communication.

Yeah, like what?

It certainly wasn't either the steamboat or the telegraph.

First they had to develop the sarcasm detector.

What with all the raving by the wild eyed true believers it is difficult
to tell the sarcasm from yet another sincere pile of sci-fi nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In sci.physics darwinist wrote:
On Jul 28, 9:05Â*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.

****. Â*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. Â*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.

Include the stove and everything else involved then find spare parts
for everything.

And that is based on the premise that you will never need more copies
of any item, just maintenance.

A frying pan could last 100 years, electronics and moving parts won't.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article ,
David Johnston wrote:

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?

Tachyons are more believable. All we need is a simple coordinate
transformation.

John Stafford wrote:

John, but aren't the uncharged particles harmless to us? I'm probably
confused regarding ionized and not.

Gamma and neutrons are both pretty harmful.

OP: How about surrounding the craft with water tanks (of ice). Water will be
necessary anyway.

This is a common story concept. Sometimes both. Ice on the outside,
and a "storm cellar" in the water tank near the middle.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27

"G. L. Bradford" writes:

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).

So ... space colonies make sense because once you make one it's
easy because you're making billions of them?

``And how come Frito-Lay can make a potato chip in seconds but
it takes us months to write software?''

--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article , writes:
In sci.physics Michael Stemper wrote:
In article , writes:
In sci.physics Michael Stemper wrote:

Historical analogy. Look at how the long-term colonies in the New World
stimulated the search for faster-than-sailing-ship communication.

Yeah, like what?

It certainly wasn't either the steamboat or the telegraph.

First they had to develop the sarcasm detector.

What with all the raving by the wild eyed true believers it is difficult
to tell the sarcasm from yet another sincere pile of sci-fi nonsense.

Sorry, I forgot that this was being cross-posted. BTW, the "true believers"
aren't, in general, regular residents of the SF group. We're scoffers.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include Standard_Disclaimer
2 + 2 = 5, for sufficiently large values of 2

Greg Goss wrote:
OP: How about surrounding the craft with water tanks (of ice). Water will be
necessary anyway.


This is a common story concept. Sometimes both. Ice on the outside,
and a "storm cellar" in the water tank near the middle.

Two problems:
1.) Water or ice are heavy.
2.) As you use the water, you are losing your radiation shielding. So on
something like a one-way trip to Mars this works, but if you intend to
return to Earth you have to keep the water-based shielding unused, or at
least replenish it before leaving Mars.

Pat