Space Colonies - a fantasy
- Hog Rider
- Posts: 1049
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 6:33 pm
Space Colonies - a fantasy
Space is hostile to all Known life. It's not just the lack of oxygen, but the cosmic rays that any traveller to Mars with maximal protection would have to accept a 30% elevated risk of cancer per trip, which wold take a minimal two years, after which his body would have suffered from gravity sickness, psychological trauma. And the faster you go, the more fuel you need to slow down, and the more fuel you have to take.
On Mars there is only 400mph storms of freezing, dry CO2, and rust. Had those resources been spent on world poverty how different would the world be now. But the insanity goes on with China , despite its own poverty is planning a Mars Lander and India is also engaged in ridiculous prestige projects.
Everything a human needs is right here where we evolved to cope an exploit it. The will never be a colony in any planet in the Solar system, for the same reason there is not a school on Antarctica.
- Philosophy Explorer
- Posts: 2116
- Joined: May 25th, 2013, 8:41 pm
Re: Space Colonies - a fantasy
- Theophane
- Posts: 2349
- Joined: May 25th, 2013, 9:03 am
- Favorite Philosopher: C.S. Lewis
- Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Space Colonies - a fantasy
It must have seemed equally impossible to put men on the Moon before it actually happened.
Before the Wright Brothers built and flew their first prototype, human flight was just that-- a fantasy.
- Hog Rider
- Posts: 1049
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 6:33 pm
Re: Space Colonies - a fantasy
Let's try to stay inside the orbit of Mars first, but you are right - anything beyond Mars would be very difficult.Philosophy Explorer wrote:You forgot about all the asteroid and rock obstacles of space a rocket ship would have to go through.
But even at the relatively small speeds needed to get anywhere of value; these would be so fast that a small speck of matter could seriously damage a Space craft.
-- Updated February 22nd, 2014, 10:44 am to add the following --
No I think not. Space travel has been imaged since ancient times. Just because some lack the imagination, does not mean that what is impossible is any more possible.Theophane wrote:@Hog Rider
It must have seemed equally impossible to put men on the Moon before it actually happened.
Before the Wright Brothers built and flew their first prototype, human flight was just that-- a fantasy.
Why are there no Moon Bases as promised in 1970, now?
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Re: Space Colonies - a fantasy
What about when we have space elevators? What about spaceships powered by radiation from tiny blackholes? What about solar sails? What about terraforming Mars? What about genetically modified humans perhaps genetically modified to be more suited to spaceship living or Mars living? What about autonomous lightweight robots with extremely sophisticated AI perhaps exceeding the intelligence of humans? What about humans being born in tubes (not through ordinary impregnation of a woman and birth through c-section or her virgin)? 3-D printers already exist, what about in a couple centuries when they have advanced at least as much as telecommunication or photography has advanced in the last few centuries?
It's one thing to say something like it doesn't make sense for China to go to Mars now. But to say it would never be worth it for us to ever colonize Mars or mine it for resources? Never? I don't think that is so unarguable.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Space Colonies - a fantasy
You seem to me to be talking about two separate issues: the technical feasibility of colonizing other planets and the ethical/sociological desirability, or otherwise, of doing so.
On the technical side:
I don't think the vast expense of bringing valuable minerals back to Earth is relevant at all. And it would be even more expensive to expect to transport large quantities of raw material from Earth to another planet, like Mars.
In setting up a colony on, for example, Mars, the most important export would be the one that weighs the least: knowledge. Information. The ability to use the raw materials that are already there. One of the most important stores of knowledge we might take would be plant seeds. These are perhaps the best exemplars of how a vanishingly small physical package can contain the knowledge, or information, required to entirely reshape the raw materials that surround it into something wholly different. They are the natural embodiment of the importance of information, and the way that it controls brute force and mindless raw material.
It never ceases to amaze me, whenever I plant a seed and watch it grow, how, for example, the seeds I planted in the pots on my windowsill a few months ago managed to turn air, water and sunlight (mostly) into tomatoes. (Even in 51 degrees latitude winter.)
Mars certainly has plenty of the most important raw materials, like water, CO2 and sunlight. Of course, we would take some "start-up" materials with us to boot-up, as it were. But, using presently available technology, I don't think it's particularly difficult to see how a self-sustaining colony could be started.
On the ethical side:
I see your point, and it's a commonly stated one. But a commonly stated answer is to point out that it's not a zero-sum game. Stopping expenditure on, say, space exploration would not cause the relatively tiny amounts of money that are spent on that to be spent on feeding the world's hungry.
I know that such projects as the Apollo moon landings are/were driven largely by geo-politics and nationalistic pride and prestige. But I'm crazily idealistic enough to genuinely believe that there is also a very large element of pure exploration and discovery. Doing that thing which makes us uniquely human: finding out what's possible purely for the fun and interest of it.
Even though we haven't been back there much lately, I still think it was worthwhile for a large proportion of the world's population to see two men jumping around and saying "look! I'm on the Moon!!!! How cool is that?!?" I think that was a moment of pure "play". The human race momentarily becoming one huge child again. And yes, of course, cold-war rivalry and all the boring grown-up stuff too.
If we suddenly decided to ban all exploration and adventure unless it could be proven to be of immediate material benefit to the poor of the world, I'm absolutely convinced that this would not benefit the poor of the world.
- Hog Rider
- Posts: 1049
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 6:33 pm
Re: Space Colonies - a fantasy
So what? I'm puzzled to think what good a colony in earth's orbit would be as there is no resources there.Scott wrote:Never?
What about when we have space elevators?
Oh yes a novel enough way to commit suicide. But even at neat light speeds I'm not sure what you think you would achieve. Even it you could find a planet that was not completely antithetical to human life, what good would it do being 100s of years of travel away?Scott wrote: What about spaceships powered by radiation from tiny blackholes?
Mars is just too damn cold, and if you were to reduce the Co2 to breathable levels any oxygen you would introduce would freeze. You can't "terra-form" what is too near or too far from the sun. Solar Sails so what?scott wrote: What about solar sails? What about terraforming Mars?
Well I think you are making my point for me.... fantasy.... fantasy... fantasy.scott wrote: What about genetically modified humans perhaps genetically modified to be more suited to spaceship living or Mars living? What about autonomous lightweight robots with extremely sophisticated AI perhaps exceeding the intelligence of humans? What about humans being born in tubes (not through ordinary impregnation of a woman and birth through c-section or her virgin)? 3-D printers already exist, what about in a couple centuries when they have advanced at least as much as telecommunication or photography has advanced in the last few centuries?
It will never make sense having a full blow sustainable community on Antarctica, 100 years after reaching the pole, no one has tried. Why - because it is stupid. But Antarctica is a paradise compared to ANYwhere in the universe.scott wrote: It's one thing to say something like it doesn't make sense for China to go to Mars now. But to say it would never be worth it for us to ever colonize Mars or mine it for resources? Never? I don't think that is so unarguable.
-- Updated February 26th, 2014, 8:21 pm to add the following --
On the technical side. Just spend a few moments to look at Earth's most comfortable neighbour.Steve3007 wrote:Hi Hog Rider:
You seem to me to be talking about two separate issues: the technical feasibility of colonizing other planets and the ethical/sociological desirability, or otherwise, of doing so.
On the technical side:
I don't think the vast expense of bringing valuable minerals back to Earth is relevant at all. And it would be even more expensive to expect to transport large quantities of raw material from Earth to another planet, like Mars.
In setting up a colony on, for example, Mars, the most important export would be the one that weighs the least: knowledge. Information. The ability to use the raw materials that are already there. One of the most important stores of knowledge we might take would be plant seeds. These are perhaps the best exemplars of how a vanishingly small physical package can contain the knowledge, or information, required to entirely reshape the raw materials that surround it into something wholly different. They are the natural embodiment of the importance of information, and the way that it controls brute force and mindless raw material.
It never ceases to amaze me, whenever I plant a seed and watch it grow, how, for example, the seeds I planted in the pots on my windowsill a few months ago managed to turn air, water and sunlight (mostly) into tomatoes. (Even in 51 degrees latitude winter.)
Mars certainly has plenty of the most important raw materials, like water, CO2 and sunlight. Of course, we would take some "start-up" materials with us to boot-up, as it were. But, using presently available technology, I don't think it's particularly difficult to see how a self-sustaining colony could be started.
On the ethical side:
I see your point, and it's a commonly stated one. But a commonly stated answer is to point out that it's not a zero-sum game. Stopping expenditure on, say, space exploration would not cause the relatively tiny amounts of money that are spent on that to be spent on feeding the world's hungry.
I know that such projects as the Apollo moon landings are/were driven largely by geo-politics and nationalistic pride and prestige. But I'm crazily idealistic enough to genuinely believe that there is also a very large element of pure exploration and discovery. Doing that thing which makes us uniquely human: finding out what's possible purely for the fun and interest of it.
Even though we haven't been back there much lately, I still think it was worthwhile for a large proportion of the world's population to see two men jumping around and saying "look! I'm on the Moon!!!! How cool is that?!?" I think that was a moment of pure "play". The human race momentarily becoming one huge child again. And yes, of course, cold-war rivalry and all the boring grown-up stuff too.
If we suddenly decided to ban all exploration and adventure unless it could be proven to be of immediate material benefit to the poor of the world, I'm absolutely convinced that this would not benefit the poor of the world.
[...]
Maybe some plants might grow in the equator as long as you could stop them being crushed from the frost at night - with nuclear generators. But to sustain a human colony?
Going to the Moon, I thought, was cool. But I was eight years old, and thought that by the time I was 30 I would be able to get on a spaceship and visit one of the many Moon based that everyone promised would have been built there. There is a very good reason that the US stopped this folly after 4 (or 5) missions. There is nothing of value there; it is cheaper to go unmanned; they got the prestige of beating Russia, and they were smart enough not to bother; there was more money and some practical use in satellite and orbiter technology.
I think the ethical side will be overcome by the money.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Space Colonies - a fantasy
Actually, I agree that with the increasing capabilities and autonomy of un-manned probes, it makes more and more sense to send un-manned missions and less and less sense to send humans. It's much easier to design robots to be suited to the environment of somewhere like Mars than it would be to re-design humans! We still tend to hold on to the idea that, at some point, a human being has to physically set foot on another planet in order for it to be truly explored. But I think as robot explorers get more sophisticated and it becomes possible to interact with them in ways that are more and more like the ways we interact with other people, this will perhaps diminish. Unless I have some burning desire to visit Mars personally (which I don't!) then I don't see a huge difference between experiencing it indirectly via another human and via a piece of sophisticated technology.
Having said that...
...I realize Mars isn't suited to hosting unprotected Earth life. But doesn't the usual scenario involve things like pressurized bio-domes?On the technical side. Just spend a few moments to look at Earth's most comfortable neighbour.
An interesting point about our other close neighbour: Venus. On the face if it, she seems even less hospitable than Mars. But, I've read, the fact that the atmosphere is so dense and composed mostly of carbon-dioxide (a dense gas) means that it would be possible to have habitats with solid walls floating in the upper atmosphere. They'd be at an altitude where the outer pressure is one Earth atmosphere and equals the pressure inside but where the CO2 outside would be denser than the nitrogen/oxygen inside so the habitat would float without having to be pressurized.
The only trouble would be the concentrated sulfuric acid in the atmosphere. So the walls would have to be something like ceramic, to avoid corrosion. So, essentially, we're talking about a great big toilet cubicle floating in the upper atmosphere of Venus. That's got to be more worthwhile than feeding the poor, surely?
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Re: Space Colonies - a fantasy
Mars isn't too far to have Earth-like temperatures. Climate and surface temperature is determined by far more than simply distance from the Sun--hence why Earth seasons and climate changes don't match up to varying distance from the Sun and why evidence of liquid water has been found on Mars.Hog Rider wrote:You can't "terra-form" what is too near or too far from the sun.
That is an extremely poor argument, if it can even be called such. Repeating the word fantasy after a set of possibilities does not make them less plausible or support the ridiculous assertion that it would never be practical to colonize other planets or moons. Clearly my original points to which this terrible, unconvincing pseudo-rebuttal was directed still stands.Hog Rider wrote:Well I think you are making my point for me.... fantasy.... fantasy... fantasy.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
- Hog Rider
- Posts: 1049
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 6:33 pm
Re: Space Colonies - a fantasy
You are right that Mars' temperature is determined more by than it's proximity to the sun. As it is very high in CO2 it is in fact much hotter than it would be otherwise. Any attempt to replace the atmosphere with an earth-like one, would make it far colder indeed. Which kind of crushes your "terra-forming" idea, somewhat.Scott wrote:Mars isn't too far to have Earth-like temperatures. Climate and surface temperature is determined by far more than simply distance from the Sun--hence why Earth seasons and climate changes don't match up to varying distance from the Sun and why evidence of liquid water has been found on Mars.Hog Rider wrote:You can't "terra-form" what is too near or too far from the sun.
That is an extremely poor argument, if it can even be called such. Repeating the word fantasy after a set of possibilities does not make them less plausible or support the ridiculous assertion that it would never be practical to colonize other planets or moons. Clearly my original points to which this terrible, unconvincing pseudo-rebuttal was directed still stands.Hog Rider wrote:Well I think you are making my point for me.... fantasy.... fantasy... fantasy.
As for "fantasy". You have offered a list of fantastic suggestions. You need look no further for a "poor argument" than your own post. So, no it never did 'stand' , nor does it still 'stand'.
-- Updated March 2nd, 2014, 6:22 am to add the following --
I'm sure pressurised bio-domes, with nuclear heat generators would be a possibility. But I can't see how you would ever get to a situation where such a colony was ever self-sustaining, let alone get to a point where it was economically useful and had something to offer earth economically, or ever pay for itself; add that to the problem of getting people to live their for extended periods, let alone spend a lifetime there and have children there. (Which is what the thread suggests!!)Steve3007 wrote:Hi Hog Rider,
Actually, I agree that with the increasing capabilities and autonomy of un-manned probes, it makes more and more sense to send un-manned missions and less and less sense to send humans. It's much easier to design robots to be suited to the environment of somewhere like Mars than it would be to re-design humans! We still tend to hold on to the idea that, at some point, a human being has to physically set foot on another planet in order for it to be truly explored. But I think as robot explorers get more sophisticated and it becomes possible to interact with them in ways that are more and more like the ways we interact with other people, this will perhaps diminish. Unless I have some burning desire to visit Mars personally (which I don't!) then I don't see a huge difference between experiencing it indirectly via another human and via a piece of sophisticated technology.
Having said that...
...I realize Mars isn't suited to hosting unprotected Earth life. But doesn't the usual scenario involve things like pressurized bio-domes?On the technical side. Just spend a few moments to look at Earth's most comfortable neighbour.
An interesting point about our other close neighbour: Venus. On the face if it, she seems even less hospitable than Mars. But, I've read, the fact that the atmosphere is so dense and composed mostly of carbon-dioxide (a dense gas) means that it would be possible to have habitats with solid walls floating in the upper atmosphere. They'd be at an altitude where the outer pressure is one Earth atmosphere and equals the pressure inside but where the CO2 outside would be denser than the nitrogen/oxygen inside so the habitat would float without having to be pressurized.
The only trouble would be the concentrated sulfuric acid in the atmosphere. So the walls would have to be something like ceramic, to avoid corrosion. So, essentially, we're talking about a great big toilet cubicle floating in the upper atmosphere of Venus. That's got to be more worthwhile than feeding the poor, surely?
So I can imagine ridiculously expensive science missions for temporary periods. Maybe tourism for the 0.0001% of multi-billionaries. But for a fully functioning space colony with a kindergarden. I think not.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Space Colonies - a fantasy
The atmospheric pressure on Mars is about 1% of that on Earth, so although most of that atmosphere is CO2 it doesn't result in much greenhouse warming. (Unlike Venus which also has a largely CO2 atmosphere but 9000 times denser, resulting in a runaway lead-melting greenhouse effect.)As it is very high in CO2 it is in fact much hotter than it would be otherwise.
No need for nuclear heat generators. Solar power on Mars is more than enough.I'm sure pressurised bio-domes, with nuclear heat generators would be a possibility.
I would have thought that for a self-sustaining colony all you need, in principle, is a constant supply of energy and a fairly large, but finite, supply of raw materials (particularly water and CO2) to set up a small ecosystem. Plants using sunlight to turn CO2 into carbon and oxygen for people to eat and breath respectively. People [and other animals] turning it back into CO2 etc. Under the thin cloudless atmosphere of Mars where there's about half the sunlight per unit area compared to Earth, there's more than enough energy anywhere close to the equator. I live on Earth at about 51 degrees latitude. By my calculations, that means this bit of the world receives an average energy intensity from the sun of about 0.63 times that at the equator (cos(51)). So I guess it's comparable to what is received at the Martian equator, and there seems to be enough sunlight here for agriculture to work pretty well, even though it's cloudy most of the time.
I see no fundamental technical obstacles to setting up a colony on Mars that would be indefinitely self-sustaining and which could use the raw materials there to gradually expand. As I said, that's a completely different question to the question of whether we would want to do so.
I agree that there's no obvious immediate economic benefit to Earth. But I don't think everything should be done purely for immediate economic benefits. That doesn't mean I think we definitely should setup a self-sustaining colony on Mars. I just don't think we definitely shouldn't. And I think, if our technological civilization survives for long enough (a big question in itself) we inevitably will.
- Hog Rider
- Posts: 1049
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 6:33 pm
Re: Space Colonies - a fantasy
First on terraforming...Steve3007 wrote:The atmospheric pressure on Mars is about 1% of that on Earth, so although most of that atmosphere is CO2 it doesn't result in much greenhouse warming. (Unlike Venus which also has a largely CO2 atmosphere but 9000 times denser, resulting in a runaway lead-melting greenhouse effect.)As it is very high in CO2 it is in fact much hotter than it would be otherwise.
No need for nuclear heat generators. Solar power on Mars is more than enough.I'm sure pressurised bio-domes, with nuclear heat generators would be a possibility.
I would have thought that for a self-sustaining colony all you need, in principle, is a constant supply of energy and a fairly large, but finite, supply of raw materials (particularly water and CO2) to set up a small ecosystem. Plants using sunlight to turn CO2 into carbon and oxygen for people to eat and breath respectively. People [and other animals] turning it back into CO2 etc. Under the thin cloudless atmosphere of Mars where there's about half the sunlight per unit area compared to Earth, there's more than enough energy anywhere close to the equator. I live on Earth at about 51 degrees latitude. By my calculations, that means this bit of the world receives an average energy intensity from the sun of about 0.63 times that at the equator (cos(51)). So I guess it's comparable to what is received at the Martian equator, and there seems to be enough sunlight here for agriculture to work pretty well, even though it's cloudy most of the time.
I see no fundamental technical obstacles to setting up a colony on Mars that would be indefinitely self-sustaining and which could use the raw materials there to gradually expand. As I said, that's a completely different question to the question of whether we would want to do so.
I agree that there's no obvious immediate economic benefit to Earth. But I don't think everything should be done purely for immediate economic benefits. That doesn't mean I think we definitely should setup a self-sustaining colony on Mars. I just don't think we definitely shouldn't. And I think, if our technological civilization survives for long enough (a big question in itself) we inevitably will.
Any attempt to "terraform" presumably means the instigation of an earth type atmosphere, yes or no? In what way could such a small planet sustain an atmospheric pressure akin to earth? And what would be the consequences for global warming?
On the idea of "heated" bio-domes. I refute the idea that Solar power would be enough. How would you store it for cold periods such night time and seasons. The axial tilt is 25% which leads to extreme seasonal variations.
Self sustaining. I really think its not a reasonable suggestion. You can't ignore the economic considerations. For visits, exploration, science, and so on nations are willing to spend, and with good reason, but the idea that people will stay for life is ridiculous.
As for living at 51 degrees latitude... Where? I also live at that latitude, and I have to say that I'm lucky that there is a massive body of water in sight. I might as likely live in Krakow, which is under heavy frost this time of year. The total annual RECORD max-min expected temperatures can range from -30c - +30c, degree Mars has no ocean to mitigate the massive differences in temperature, so the Martian temps far exceed this variation EVERY DAY!
The summer maximum at the equator is 20 at noon. This is normal room temperature. But the rest of the picture is downhill, and with a daily fluctuation of ground temperature of around 100-90 degrees C; I'm puzzled to think how you could not just freeze to death when during those long winter nights.
So where I live (Uk South) the max-min record differences historically from the coldest ever winter night to the hottest ever daytime (c. 50c) is half that which is recorded every day on the Gale Crater site on Mars.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Space Colonies - a fantasy
Heat in bio-domes: Length of day is about the same as Earth's. Solar heating of rocks - storage heating - would keep the temperature high enough. The temperature in a pressurized bio-dome would not drop any lower than it would during the night on Earth.
25 degree tilt is about the same as Earth. Not extreme. In the tropics (i.e. between +/-25 degrees) there would be no extremes of seasonal temperature, as on Earth.
- Hog Rider
- Posts: 1049
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 6:33 pm
Re: Space Colonies - a fantasy
Sorry but you have a whole energy hungry planet underneath your little dome which drops 100 degree c every night, so no. holding it back in the rocks won't do (unless the laws of physics have changed). I agree that the equator would mitigate the seasonal variations - locally - but it does lead to shocking weather on Mars.Steve3007 wrote:Terraforming: I wasn't talking about that.
Heat in bio-domes: Length of day is about the same as Earth's. Solar heating of rocks - storage heating - would keep the temperature high enough. The temperature in a pressurized bio-dome would not drop any lower than it would during the night on Earth.
25 degree tilt is about the same as Earth. Not extreme. In the tropics (i.e. between +/-25 degrees) there would be no extremes of seasonal temperature, as on Earth.
Have we talked about the wind speeds yet? The lack of basic resources such as water and fossil fuels for the manufacture of plastics? You can't take it all with you, nor expect regular deliveries from Amazon!
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Space Colonies - a fantasy
Anyway, OK. How about this: A layer of high specific-heat-capacity rock under the bio-dome to absorb solar energy during the day with a layer of insulating material installed underneath it.
Wind speeds: Yes, very fast but without much force because of the thinness of the atmosphere.
Water: Plenty of it. Curiosity Rover discovered loads in the rocks recently, didn't it?
Fossil fuels for plastics: Mmm. OK. Go easy on the plastics. Not sure how we'll repair the bio-dome when the puncture repair kits we've brought with us run out. I'll get back to you on that one.
---
Re Fossil fuels to make plastics: Got it! Bio-plastics made from the plants grown in the bio-domes.
About being at 51 degrees latitude: Yes, I live in the south of England too. My point there was about solar radiation flux density, not ambient temperature. I was just pointing out that the amount of sunlight is not, in itself, a problem.
As you've said, ambient temperature varies because of the ability, or otherwise, of things on the Earth's surface, like oceans land and atmosphere, to absorb and store solar energy, evening out temperature variations. Large temperature variations on Mars are due to the thin atmosphere. But a pressurized bio-dome with heat-storing insulated rock underneath it could mitigate that.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023