But reading/watching sci-fi is one thing. Believing we can actually make it to Type 1, well that is something else.
PeakOil is You
can we still reach for the stars?
Re: can we still reach for the stars?
by eric_b » Sat 26 Feb 2005, 02:20:26
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TrueKaiser', 'w')ell i am watching a show right now on the future of space travel and why we need to do it other then the 7 billion year deadline before the earth in engulfed by our sun when it changes into a red giant of course.
anyway it made me wonder, did we blow our specie's only chance to move off this planet? or could we still go up there at a later time?
anyway it made me wonder, did we blow our specie's only chance to move off this planet? or could we still go up there at a later time?
[Ug. I just posted the long post to another thread.... seems germaine
here too. This is for those idiots that think space colonization is going to
happen anytime soon]
I'm assuming we're talking about colonizing space. Now. With
our current technology. And I'm assuming whatever space
colony we establish will be self-sufficient. If it weren't,
what's the point? If things were to fall apart on Earth, the
colony would not survive either. Are we on the same page?
Good.
First, we have no idea how to go about creating an enclosed
environment which is sustainable. Remember Biosphere 2?
If not, check out this link:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/305/1
They attempted to design an enclosed environment with
plants, animals and people to see if it was possible. As
a precurser to space colonization. A small group of people locked
themselves into what was essentially a large sealed greenhouse.
The experiment was a complete failure. Read the above page.
We have no heavy lift capability (at least in the US). The Saturn
V rocket used for the Apollo space program was a marvel:
over 350 feet tall, it weighed well over 6 million pounds fully
fueled and could launch over a quarter million pounds into Earth
orbit. One man, Wernher von Braun, was the mad scientist (though
he was a genius) and glue behind the entire development of this
rocket. At this point the US couldn't build another rocket this
size if it wanted, at least not without starting the project from
scratch. Why? The original plans and blueprints for this extraordinarily
complex craft have been largely lost, as well as the engineering
expertise. In todays dollars it would cost several billion dollars
for each launch of a rocket this size, not including the payload.
Where do you think the money is going to come from? And how
many launches would be required to get the necessary material
into space to construct the first colony/space station?
What part of space are you going to colonize first? It would
probably have to be some sort of craft in Earth orbit. Outside
of the Earth's orbit and magnetosphere you need protection
from the suns particulate radiation -- solar flares (common) are lethal
without heavy shielding. This was a concern during some of the
Apollo missions, because while on the way to the Moon there was
a chance the crew could have been killed by such an event. The
only other option is the moon. Not too likely for a first colony step.
Also, you'd need some sort of artificial gravity. It's become clear
the human body does not hold up well without gravity. Some of
the early cosmonauts whom spent months to years in space
(mir?) had their bodies waste away, and could hardly stand on
returning to Earth. This despite excersising vigorously while
in space. They experienced psychological and nervous problems
too:
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/ ... space.html
So this means they would have to build a very large rotating
space station of some sort to create artificial gravity. Something
which, while possible in theory, has never been done before.
And how much do you think this would all cost? Hmm? With
an exploding population and declining resources on Earth
do you think this is going to happen anytime soon? Hell, there
have been increasing shortages of basic raw materials (cement,
steel) this last year, partially due to demand from China.
The Apollo space program took years of effort, enormous cost,
and the blessing of the entire US to succeed. It was deemed
necessary to win the space race against Russia. The country
was not as divided then. Everyone pulled very hard. And
for all that time and effort they managed to get a few people to
the moon, briefly. Imagine how much more difficult it would
be to establish any kind of permanent colony in space.
Is space colonization within the realm of possibility? Of course.
Is it likely to happen anytime soon? No way.
I was born in 1968. It was not long ago, but it was a different era.
Scientism was at its height. Scientists and engineers were held
in much higher regard than they are now. Right after WWII the US
was the undisputed king of the world. We'd developed atomic weapons,
split the atom. We created the first jet airplanes. We were sending
unmaned rockets into space. Computers and computer science were
just getting started. There seemed to be few horizons, few things
we couldn't do. People were talking about creating computers more
intelligent than people within a decade. Some people thought everyone
would be flying around jetson's style by the new millennia. There
were plans to create a colony on the moon. I grew up reading science
fiction and watching the original startrek. I lapped that stuff up.
But none of it came to pass. Most of those ideas remain the realm of
Science Fiction.
Oh yeah. I almost forgot. Assuming that somehow a space colony
were to be built, would you want to live the rest of your life in
a glorified tin-can? Never to feel the wind in your hair? Never to
smell another spring day again? Never to walk barefoot on the
beach again? Never to listen to thunder again? To damn any of your
possible descendants to life in such a sterile environment?
Think about the aesthetic costs.
Space colonization anytime soon? Get real.
-Eric B
-
eric_b - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: Fri 14 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: us
Re: can we still reach for the stars?
by TrueKaiser » Sat 26 Feb 2005, 03:40:33
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eric_b', ' ')posted quite a lot of valid points but left some stuff out.
you forgot the international space station. also as for the moon colony's you wouldn't need to lift that much from the earth up their, there are plans in the works to use the moon's own rock and dust as building material, wish i had a article to post about it but i saw it on the science channel. but for the health and self sustainability issues you are dead on. still though i am on the realistic side of this and realize the chances are not that good but they are not as bad as you claim them to be.
-
TrueKaiser - Tar Sands
- Posts: 503
- Joined: Thu 28 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
by tmazanec1 » Sat 26 Feb 2005, 12:02:52
Right now we should be focusing on unmanned projects. A generation from now we should either be focusing on developing the technology for real manned space exploration/exploitation, or focused on preserving what knowledge of astronomy we accumulated so far into and hopefully throughout the new permanent Dark Age.
- tmazanec1
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 506
- Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Re: can we still reach for the stars?
by eric_b » Sat 26 Feb 2005, 18:01:40
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TrueKaiser', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eric_b', ' ')posted quite a lot of valid points but left some stuff out.
you forgot the international space station. also as for the moon colony's you wouldn't need to lift that much from the earth up their, there are plans in the works to use the moon's own rock and dust as building material, wish i had a article to post about it but i saw it on the science channel. but for the health and self sustainability issues you are dead on. still though i am on the realistic side of this and realize the chances are not that good but they are not as bad as you claim them to be.
International space station? Gimme a break. I was talking about a more
permanent and self-sufficient colony in space. ISP is tiny and utterly
dependent on Earth to survive.
Chances are likely <i>worse</i> than I surmised. Just because something
is possible doesn't mean it will likely happen. The potential difference
between possible and probable can amount to infinity - 1.
Building any kind of colony on the moon (much less a self-sufficient one)
would be orders and orders of magnitude more complex and expensive
than simply sending a few people to the moon for day or two. It's not
like we're going to lob a couple thermonukes at the moon, blast out
a cavern, and then drop (1) ACME moonbase into place and setup
shop.
Any step towards a real space colony would be a gradual evolutionary
process. Early colonies would still be very dependent on mother
Earth to survive. Anyone who thinks that a space colony or a splinter
group of humanity in space is going to save the human species from
extinction in the case of a dying Earth or nuclear armageddon is
suffering from a severe case of rectal-cranial inversion
-Eric B
-
eric_b - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: Fri 14 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: us
![[smilie=bs.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/bs.gif "bs")
Talk about a serious case of Cranial Rectosis... 
