Colonising the solar system?
Paul Saunders
times, life support etc. assuming it were possible to establish colonies
anywhere within the solar system, which locations would be the best candidates
for colonies and why?
Obviously our own moon would be the logical starting point, if for no other
reason than "because it's there". It would be a good testing ground and might
well prove to be a convenient jumping off point for deeper exploration of the
solar system due to it's lower gravity. There are also tourism considerations.
Mars would be the next logical step because of it's relatively short distance
and relatively pleasant climate.
But what about the rest? Ganymede? Callisto? Would it be practical to
establish a base on Europa given current theories about the place? Titan seems
a little hostile given what is currently known about it.
How practical/desirable would it be to establish colonies on the smaller moons?
What about the limited benefits of the sun's light and warmth at great
distances, how would this affect life support? How many people would actually
WANT to live in any of these places? I imagine that living on one of Saturn's
inner moons would initially seem quite appealing, but the practicalities of life
there might soon outweigh aesthetic considerations.
I'm guessing that mining operations would probably be a motivating factor,
although it's likely to be a long time before such would become profitable.
Could scientific research alone be sufficient to persuade goverments to part
with the necessary cash to make this a reality? Or might military
considerations rear their ugly head once more as nations rush to grab the best
strategic locations?
I realise this is an extremely open question with endless possibilites, but I'd
be interested to hear any thoughts anyone has regarding this subject.
Paul
--
Wilderness Wales
http://website.lineone.net/~wilderness
Magnus Itland
>Leaving aside the practical considerations of spaceship technology, journey
>times, life support etc. assuming it were possible to establish colonies
>anywhere within the solar system, which locations would be the best candidates
>for colonies and why?
This is already assuming pretty much - the distances are literally
astronomical. Even with limitless, cheap energy the travel times
would be extreme unless we also suppose teleportation (which is
probably well within the realm of magi for all eternity).
Anyhow ...
Given limitless, cheap energy, the Moon and Mars and Venus would be
within reasonable traveling distance. The Moon and Mars would be
great for tourism, Venus would be horrible. It is almost literally
Hell: Dark, hot as melted lead, raining acid. Nobody would want to
go there even in a space suit. Scratch Venus.
On the dark side of Mercury would be a nice enough place to mine for
ores. The innermost planet is very heavy for its size, indicating
that it may abound in metal ore.
Mars is also conveniently close to the Asteroid belt, rich in valuable
ore. We may also establish small mining cities on the largest
asteroids themselves.
Even with teleportation, the inner moons of Jupiter would be taboo.
The radiation belt of Jupiter extends to several of the moons, and it
is intense enough to kill humans in minutes and black out all
semiconductor equipment unless meticulously shielded. The outer moons
are small and we don't know anything they can supply that our own moon
can't do better.
Given teleportation, Saturn's moons would certainly attract
honeymooners and such. Apart from that, only life scientists digging
in the methane slush of Titan looking for alternative life forms.
Pluto would be a great place to set up a really big telescope to look
outward from the solar system, to discern planets around other stars.
Or perhaps we would put it in its own planetary orbit even farther
out.
--
itl...@online.no The one and only Magnus Itland.
http://home.sol.no/~itlandm/
The Chaos Node: Diary of a sentient humanoid.
David S. Poepoe
Paul Saunders wrote in message <37ec...@news1.vip.uk.com>...
>Leaving aside the practical considerations of spaceship technology, journey
>times, life support etc. assuming it were possible to establish colonies
>anywhere within the solar system, which locations would be the best
candidates
>for colonies and why?
>
Quite literally it would be "the skies the limits". Any place that can be
colonized will be, and if it immediately can't it will become colonizable.
The Moon and the LaGrange (L-5) Points probably first. Mars and Venus, or
at least Venus orbit second. Why Venus? Raw materials/chemicals from its
clouds can be directly skimmed off for use either as propulsion fuel or
shipment to other colonies to help build them - hey its free.
Mercury, and alot of the asteroid belt, will be colonized strictly for
mining purposes. Though in the asteroid belt one would have the material on
hand to build small worlds - large space colonies - that can be used to grow
the food that would be necessary to support the settlements out there. The
space colonies would provide the "safety valve" the Wild West provided to
the U.S. in that certain groups - hopefully those that really don't get
along with the rest of us - will move out there to make life here more
enjoyable.
>But what about the rest? Ganymede? Callisto? Would it be practical to
>establish a base on Europa given current theories about the place? Titan
seems
>a little hostile given what is currently known about it.
>
If not on a planet/moon than in orbit around it, except perhaps Io,
exploiting the various gravity fields of various places will probably net us
different types of alloys, etc.
>How practical/desirable would it be to establish colonies on the smaller
moons?
>What about the limited benefits of the sun's light and warmth at great
>distances, how would this affect life support? How many people would
actually
>WANT to live in any of these places?
There will always be people that will want to move into space, and there is
(in a regretable way to say it) a surplus population that can be paid to
move out there. I have long considered that if paid and trained well the
slums of various third world countries and India could be drained of their
young adults living in poverty by promising them excellent wages and
benefits for five service in the asteroid belt or some inducement to move to
newly established colonies.
> I imagine that living on one of Saturn's inner moons would initially seem
quite appealing, but the practicalities of life
>there might soon outweigh aesthetic considerations.
>
Hey, people can go and spend hours in the Mall of America wouldn't life in
space be just like that, though hopefully without the muzak?
David Poepoe
Republik
news:37ec...@news1.vip.uk.com...
> Leaving aside the practical considerations of spaceship technology,
journey
> times, life support etc. assuming it were possible to establish colonies
> anywhere within the solar system, which locations would be the best
candidates
> for colonies and why?
We are humans, we can do any thing given enough time to think about and
execute it. I say any where some one thinks they can make a buck.
>
> Obviously our own moon would be the logical starting point, if for no
other
> reason than "because it's there". It would be a good testing ground and
might
> well prove to be a convenient jumping off point for deeper exploration of
the
> solar system due to it's lower gravity. There are also tourism
considerations.
> Mars would be the next logical step because of it's relatively short
distance
> and relatively pleasant climate.
>
> But what about the rest? Ganymede? Callisto? Would it be practical to
> establish a base on Europa given current theories about the place? Titan
seems
> a little hostile given what is currently known about it.
>
> How practical/desirable would it be to establish colonies on the smaller
moons?
> What about the limited benefits of the sun's light and warmth at great
> distances, how would this affect life support? How many people would
actually
> WANT to live in any of these places? I imagine that living on one of
Saturn's
> inner moons would initially seem quite appealing, but the practicalities
of life
> there might soon outweigh aesthetic considerations.
>
John Rosini
systems??? It;s all nothing. HOw about the stuff between Galaxys?? Is it the
same?
John Rosini
MCZAND
>systems??? It;s all nothing. HOw about the stuff between Galaxys?? Is it the
>same?
The best answer is that they arent totally sure. If memory serves, they expect
a rather uniform distribution of hydrogen and possibly dark matter. However,
noone knows what dark matter is or where to find it.
Replace comspec.org with .com from the address to contact me
Republik
news:37ECE18D...@mnsi.net...
> I was just curious. Do scientists know what the stuff is between Solar
> systems??? It;s all nothing. HOw about the stuff between Galaxys?? Is it
the
> same?
>
The voyager probes are currently travenling the voids and I guess nasa is
still reciving infromation from them.
Jeremy DuCharme
>
> "Paul Saunders" <p...@breathemail.net> wrote:
>
> >Leaving aside the practical considerations of spaceship technology, journey
> >times, life support etc. assuming it were possible to establish colonies
> >anywhere within the solar system, which locations would be the best candidates
> >for colonies and why?
>
> astronomical. Even with limitless, cheap energy the travel times
> would be extreme unless we also suppose teleportation (which is
> probably well within the realm of magi for all eternity).
>
> Anyhow ...
> Given limitless, cheap energy, the Moon and Mars and Venus would be
> within reasonable traveling distance. The Moon and Mars would be
> great for tourism, Venus would be horrible. It is almost literally
> Hell: Dark, hot as melted lead, raining acid. Nobody would want to
> go there even in a space suit. Scratch Venus.
>
> On the dark side of Mercury would be a nice enough place to mine for
> ores. The innermost planet is very heavy for its size, indicating
> that it may abound in metal ore.
Better dig deep, Mercury is not tidal locked, so it's slow rotation
will eventually bake anything on the surface.
> Mars is also conveniently close to the Asteroid belt, rich in valuable
> ore. We may also establish small mining cities on the largest
> asteroids themselves.
>
> Even with teleportation, the inner moons of Jupiter would be taboo.
> The radiation belt of Jupiter extends to several of the moons, and it
> is intense enough to kill humans in minutes and black out all
> semiconductor equipment unless meticulously shielded. The outer moons
> are small and we don't know anything they can supply that our own moon
> can't do better.
The Voyager probes whipped through there just fine, as long you stay
outside of the orbit of Io things should be managable, bases on
Ganymead's farside (which is tide locked to Jupiter) or Callisto
(which is further out) are good spots, the outer three Galliean
moons have water in the crust, power could be drawn by dangling
a wire between Io and Jupiter, and if you have a nuclear style
drive you can skim Jupiter itself for reaction mass. Ironically
enough going out past the asteroid belt could be the best place
for a main supply base for asteroid mining.
> Given teleportation, Saturn's moons would certainly attract
> honeymooners and such. Apart from that, only life scientists digging
> in the methane slush of Titan looking for alternative life forms.
>
> Pluto would be a great place to set up a really big telescope to look
> outward from the solar system, to discern planets around other stars.
> Or perhaps we would put it in its own planetary orbit even farther
> out.
> --
> itl...@online.no The one and only Magnus Itland.
> http://home.sol.no/~itlandm/
> The Chaos Node: Diary of a sentient humanoid.
--
"You've made a fine mess Captain Sheridan. Half the generals in Earth
Force want to kiss you on the cheek and give you the Medal of Honor.
The other half want to have you taken out and shot. As a politician
you learn to compromise so, I should give you the Medal of Honor, then
have you shot."
Babylon 5 "Rising Star"
===========================================================================
B-5 is alive on TNT!!!! E-mail to: jeremyd...@sprintmail.com
Paul Saunders
> Paul Saunders said;
> >I imagine travelling to the outer planets
> > would be quite feasible sometime within the next few hundred years.
>
> In a few hundred years??!!!!???
>
> I should hope not. They are within reach right now if we had the
> political will to go there.
The outer planets? I was specifically referring to Uranus, Neptune and Pluto.
For the foreseeable future it would take an impractically long time for a single
round trip to one of those places. I think considerable advances in spaceship
technology, propulsion systems etc. would have to take place before visiting
Neptune for the weekend becomes a reality. I have little doubt that they will
one day, but not just yet.
> The plan for a journey to Mars have been along for several decades now.
Yes, now there's really no excuse for not doing that, and where's our moonbase?
> Anyway, I
> certainly hope to see human settlement outside earth within my lifetime. If
> we fail to do this, it will be because we have fallen back to barbarism, one
> way or another.
So do I, but maybe falling back to barbarism, in the form of another Cold War
perhaps, might provide a bit of motivation. Nothing like a bit of macho
one-up-manship to get technology moving. Any offers? Are you up for it China?
> BTW, are you aware that there is the same problem in earth
> orbit, with all the orbiting debris. Not do many satellites have been lost
> that way, have they?
No, but the way things are going, launching into space is going to become a case
of "running the gauntlet", a bit like bombers having to fly through flak to
deliver their package to the target. Perhaps a fighter escort will be necessary
for future launches, to blast a path through the debris for the rockets to get
out safely. ;-)
> In conclusion, I think and I hope, that we will colonise the solar system in
> the next century. I'm also very disapointed in the way we're doing it and in
> the time we have lost
I agree, I think we should be able to get as far as Jupiter's moons in that
timescale.
HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
Richard Mallender <RichardM...@brightonseaside.freeserve.co.uk> a écrit
dans le message : 7sm73j$tl5$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa wrote in message
> <7sm0l7$2b3$1...@news0.skynet.be>...
> >> Given current technology yes, however unlike interstellar travel, I
don't
> >feel
> >> these are insurmountable problems. I imagine travelling to the outer
> >planets
> >> would be quite feasible sometime within the next few hundred years.
> >
> >In a few hundred years??!!!!???
> >
> > I should hope not. They are within reach right now if we had the
> >political will to go there.
>
> Don't hold your breath - at least not for politicians to do anything about
> it.
>
> The best bet is for private companies to start using space; for factories,
> tourism, etc. - basically anything that requires people out there. If
> governments are going to get involved, it should either be in start-up
> funding or cutting edge stuff where companies can't (or won't) go.
> Or better still, they should stay out & just deal with the 'health &
safety'
> aspects, like slapping down idiotic ideas for huge constellations of
> telecoms satellites which will ultimately turn LEO into a junkyard too
> hazardous for manned spaceflight.
>
> Richard.
> .
>
I'm not sure I quite agree with you. Sure Gouvernement Space is pretty
bad, but BIG Business Space - the only kind possible right now - would be
MUCH worse. Let's face it. Companies, especially big companies are not
interested in any other aspect than the bottom line. As a rule, they won't
look into science, they won't finance research that hasn't a proven and
immediate return on investment and certainly won't support anything that
might change the statu-quo and threaten the investments already made on
proven technologies. That has been the case for a long time and isn't likely
to change anytime soon. For examples, in the space sector, look at the space
launcher companies, the technology we're using comes straight from the
sixties is the best case, and the basi technologies from the 30's. I could
go on and on, about United Space Aliance, Arianespace or the satellite
industry, but I think I made my point.
To my mind, what we need, is REALLY cheap access to space, with anyone
dedicated enough - and moderately rich - able to construct a working
prototype, the way planes progressed in the first decade of this century. It
is private initiative and SMALL business that will open our way to space.
However, the time for that isn't yet. In the meantime, I think Agencies,
which is not exactly the same as gouvernement, are the best way to go on, in
space science, in technology advance and demonstration, and in making sure
that the big companies don't strangle the whole thing and abide by
regulations, even in space. Not that agencies make such a good show of it,
but, like democracy, they are the worse of the possible systems - only all
the other alternative are worse -.
On the other hand, I don't think this discussion has it's place in this
newsgroup. If you want to continue it, we could do so in private, or in any
of the sci.space..... groups. Let me then propose a POD based on this:
The year is 1976, after 4 years of toiling on his own, John Althen, a former
NASA engineer fired in 1972 when they dismantled NASA after Apollo, has
managed to devellop a cheap way to go to Earth orbit, and even lunar orbit,
for about the price of a small private plane. After 9 month of proposing his
ideas first to the US government - all branches of service included - and
big business - and getting laughed at, he gets pissed off. He send his plans
to all major scientific journals, and anouce his plan to circle the earth
and land on the moon. Nobody takes him seriously, but some people look, just
in case.
John manages to pull it off, and The News leaks to the public - it is
too widespread to contain -. The plans are published world wide and space is
no longer a governement monopoly. Anyone can access it, or nearly.
What happens next?
I know that it isn't technologically plausible, but that's not the
point. Let's just see the consequences on
- Outer Space and related treaty : I think nodoby will care about that
- Gouvernements reaction : Except trying John as a traitor for revealing
what they refused to listen to, there isn't a lot of things the US
gouvernement can do. The cat is out of the bag. And what about other
gouvernements, in Europe - which is working on Ariane program -, and in the
rest of the world? What about totalitarian gouvernement, soviet, China?
- What about the business world?
- What about the public in general? Will there be an exodus of intrepid
souls looking to explore, to try for a new 'world', or ta make a fortune in
space? or will it be forgotten by the stay-at-Earth? Will humanity split
into two segment which will drift appart?
I look forward to discussing this.
--
Frederic HAESSIG
ISU MSS 95-96
Evrything is possible / Tout est possible
>
>
Magnus Itland
>37ee...@news1.vip.uk.com...
>> I imagine travelling to the outer planets
>> would be quite feasible sometime within the next few hundred years.
>
>In a few hundred years??!!!!???
>
> I should hope not. They are within reach right now if we had the
>political will to go there. The plan for a journey to Mars have been along
>for several decades now. While there are still some problems - the most
>critical one been a really CLLSS - sorry, Closed Loop Life Support System -,
>they could be beaten quickly if we put money in those area of research
>instead of burying it in the politically-induced space station. Anyway, I
>certainly hope to see human settlement outside earth within my lifetime. If
>we fail to do this, it will be because we have fallen back to barbarism, one
>way or another.
With current sources of energy, the trip to Mars takes quite a long
time. Even if we managed to keep people alive that time (and back,
preferably) there remains the question of how to keep them sane.
We are talking about people being practically locked up together in a
closet for many months, if not a year or two.
And Mars, while further out than Earth, is still not truly considered
an outer planet. To travel to the Jovian moons would take years of
confinement, which we frankly do not know if any human could stand.
With cheap fusion energy, of course, things change dramatically.
Laser beamers and sail-driven crafts that can accelerate continually
for a long time without having to bring a trillion dollar fuel tank
with them.
Anthony Buckland
> ...
> With current sources of energy, the trip to Mars takes quite a long
> time. Even if we managed to keep people alive that time (and back,
> preferably) there remains the question of how to keep them sane.
> We are talking about people being practically locked up together in a
> closet for many months, if not a year or two.
> With cheap fusion energy, of course, things change dramatically.
> Laser beamers and sail-driven crafts that can accelerate continually
> for a long time without having to bring a trillion dollar fuel tank
> with them.
Apply the fusion energy directly to an ordinary reaction
drive. You can maintain constant one-gravity acceleration,
avoid any medical complications of zero-g, and get to Mars
in less time than the Apollo craft took to get to the Moon.
There's a wiggly little maneuver you can do so you can
leave the drive on even during the flip from acceleration
to decellaration.
Republik
I will cut this down a bit.
> I'm not sure I quite agree with you. Sure Gouvernement Space is pretty
> bad, but BIG Business Space - the only kind possible right now - would be
> MUCH worse. Let's face it. Companies, especially big companies are not
> interested in any other aspect than the bottom line. As a rule, they won't
> look into science, they won't finance research that hasn't a proven and
> immediate return on investment and certainly won't support anything that
> might change the statu-quo and threaten the investments already made on
> proven technologies.
MICROSOFT, PLAY inc., APPLE, SUN, XEROX!!! if money is made in advancing any
one sane will do it because in the past, thoes who didn't were cut down a
bit.
That has been the case for a long time and isn't likely
> to change anytime soon. For examples, in the space sector, look at the
space
> launcher companies, the technology we're using comes straight from the
> sixties is the best case, and the basi technologies from the 30's. I could
> go on and on, about United Space Aliance, Arianespace or the satellite
> industry, but I think I made my point.
> To my mind, what we need, is REALLY cheap access to space, with anyone
> dedicated enough - and moderately rich - able to construct a working
> prototype, the way planes progressed in the first decade of this century.
It
> is private initiative and SMALL business that will open our way to space.
> However, the time for that isn't yet. In the meantime, I think Agencies,
> which is not exactly the same as gouvernement,
The same was fingers and toes are not that same as your body?
Republik
Anthony Buckland <buck...@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:37EFD4...@direct.ca...
better yet, use the engines we have now and build a ship in the shape of a
ring and spin it to make gravity. put a regular engine (which ever kind you
have) in the center. in the ring have farms in environmnt controlled rooms
for superior production. put about 30 to 50 people in it. Mechanics farmers
exogeologist, exobiologist..
John Freck
1) The life span will be over 200 years.
2) Fussion will work and will boost space crafts.
3) The home internet will run a 1,000,000,000 bits/second unlimited
time for a small flat fee.
4) HDTV will be the size of a wall and be more than 10 more dense that
your current monitor.
5) Robots will clean your tub, change your automobiles battery, mine, ?
6) Tiny cyberbots will assist in surgery.
Centi-milli- and maybe -micro Cyberbots look like robots but are
control though cybernetic enhancments. A brain surgen could have his
back to a patient while looking at super HDTVs that are linked to
sensors on the milliCyberbot. Hand controls and linked up cyberneticall
too to the cyberbot and surgen.
A centibot team of three might sit on platforms near a surgery pateints
eye. All three are connected to human surgeons in anouther room.
Larger dumbots are holding the platform and it can be moved. The
centibot send super HDTV images that can be visual light, infrared
light, ultraviolet light, sound based images, and magnetic images, or
pressure images, or chemical patterm images, and more and these can be
overlayed in real time. The hand units are pressure sensitive and
manipulate 1mm "hands", saws, clippers, or whatnot.
IN turn the centibot could be anouther dumbot being held by a larger
dumbot. The centibot can hold a millibot too. In 200 years microbots
will be common.
What is your predication?
John Freck
HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
Republik <binary.com> a écrit dans le message :
7somki$3e4$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> I will cut this down a bit.
>
> > I'm not sure I quite agree with you. Sure Gouvernement Space is
pretty
> > bad, but BIG Business Space - the only kind possible right now - would
be
> > MUCH worse. Let's face it. Companies, especially big companies are not
> > interested in any other aspect than the bottom line. As a rule, they
won't
> > look into science, they won't finance research that hasn't a proven and
> > immediate return on investment and certainly won't support anything that
> > might change the statu-quo and threaten the investments already made on
> > proven technologies.
>
> MICROSOFT, PLAY inc., APPLE, SUN, XEROX!!! if money is made in advancing
any
> one sane will do it because in the past, thoes who didn't were cut down a
> bit.
Microsoft and Apple - especially when the managers kicked the founders out -
certainly did NOT develop new technologies. Applied some existing ones, but
certainly not in innovative ways. I don't know Play Inc, and do not feel
qualified to comment on Sun and xerox. Could you explain in what way they
were cutting new ground in a scientific or technological way - please, do
not mention the copy machine or the computer, the main advances were not
made by those companies -.
>
> That has been the case for a long time and isn't likely
> > to change anytime soon. For examples, in the space sector, look at the
> space
> > launcher companies, the technology we're using comes straight from the
> > sixties is the best case, and the basi technologies from the 30's. I
could
> > go on and on, about United Space Aliance, Arianespace or the satellite
> > industry, but I think I made my point.
> > To my mind, what we need, is REALLY cheap access to space, with
anyone
> > dedicated enough - and moderately rich - able to construct a working
> > prototype, the way planes progressed in the first decade of this
century.
> It
> > is private initiative and SMALL business that will open our way to
space.
> > However, the time for that isn't yet. In the meantime, I think Agencies,
> > which is not exactly the same as gouvernement,
>
> The same was fingers and toes are not that same as your body?
You know, there are other space agencies than NASA, and not all are managed
in the same way. Some are more separate from politics than others - even if
politics (obviously ) still plays too much of a role in all of them -.
[cut]
John Rosini
I was thinking, instead of space why not the Oceans??? We more about than space than
we know about our own planet. Water is 2/3 of planets surface. Underwater colonys
should be very possible, even if space colonys are not.
John Rosini
John Freck
On December 3rd, 1993 an asteriod hits the Earth.
This asteriod creates a 100megaton blast in the South China Sea making a
tidal wave 100m at closest land fall. Over 20 million are killed.
This was of course a preventable natural disaster.
The world government step up the space programs by 1000% by 1999.
100 outer space telescopes around the solar system.
100 solar powered RADAR stations around the solar system.
Designs for fission aided propulsion are floated and pass for approval.
Asteriods and coments are visited.
A huge space station is built.
A lunar space statin is built.
A magnetic slinger is built on some mountain top to throw items like
water and air and food into low earth orbit.
John Freck
fulleraaron
>On December 3rd, 1993 an asteriod hits the Earth.
This sounds a bit like the scenario for 'Rendezvous with Rama' by Arthur C.
Clarke (although in the book, it was a future event, not a retrospective
POD). I haven't read the book - has anyone else know whether he deals with
the WI in any depth?
Aaron
Republik
but your right it will be the guys with too much time on their hands who
will figure out how to make space flight cheeper and safer.
I figure you adapt an air plane with rocket boosters.
Republik
will there be asamovs in these bots? thoes are primary rules in the AI code
basicly saying "I can't hurt a human or by lack of action allow a human be
hurt."
other wise you have the terminator saga.
Republik
They are some what isoated and require a structure to keep people alive.
John Freck
> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 10:54:58 -0700
> From: "Republik" <binary.com>
> Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
> Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if
> References:
No. It's Solar Affairs by John Freck cR 1999
Cyberbots are not robots but look like robot and in terms of mechanical
engineering are siblings. Cyberbots use human intelligence. The Cyber
bot relays human commands to the cyberbots knife, hands, arms, saws,
clips, and sensors.
Solar Affairs is my TV drama script I am tring to sell.
John Freck
Joerg Rhiemeier
>Leaving aside the practical considerations of spaceship technology, journey
>times, life support etc. assuming it were possible to establish colonies
>anywhere within the solar system, which locations would be the best candidates
>for colonies and why?
The first question is, "What are we going to do up there?"
Scientific exploration is one motivation to go somewhere, but this does
not require setting up substantial colonies. Unmanned probes do most
exploration jobs just fine, at the fraction of the cost.
During most of history, colonies were more often than not set up for
economic reasons: because something can be obtained there either at
costs so much lower than at home that it pays to go there and bring
it back home, or that is not available at home at all.
The two most common economic colonization scenarios are asteroid mining
and power collection. There are numerous proposals for setting up
large solar panels in orbit and beam the power down to Earth by laser,
microwave, or whatever. Probably the cheapest way to do this is to
simply set up a large heliostatic mirror in orbit which bundles
sunlight and reflects it down to a ground-based solar stove in a single
concentrated beam. All types of orbital power collectors, however,
must be carefully scrutinized for potential environmental side-effects
from interactions of the beam with the atmosphere.
Asteroid (or lunar, or whereever) mining won't become feasible unless
the transportation costs are outweighed by costs implied by mining on
Earth which can be avoided by mining in space instead. Off-Earth mining
is most plausible in a future where high environmental standards make
mining Earth for metals etc. impractical.
However, there is something which could draw a slash through such
off-Earth mining schemes: efficient recycling of material.
While off-Earth mining might be more cost-efficient than on-Earth
mining, recycling useful materials from waste might be the cheapest
solution overall. Scrap heaps contain much more useful metals than
the best ores found in nature. Recycling becomes especially cheap
when molecular nanotechnology becomes available. And this could happen
somewhere around 2030, i.e. possibly at a time where space mining is not
yet feasible. In a nanotech world, materials become extremely cheap,
and recycling becomes extremely efficient. But even then, materials
meant to be used in space (e.g. construction materials for habitats)
will be mined in space, in order to avoid hauling them up the Earth's
gravity well. Obviously, space settlers will recycle everything they
can anyway.
Another motivation for space travel is tourism, but this requires two
things: it must be affordable for not too few people, and riding a
spacecraft must be comfortable enough. A possible alternative to
actually riding a spacecraft could be telepresence: an unmanned spacecraft
transmits high-quality 3D TV footage to Earth, where it is fed into
a spacecraft simulator. In space, you cannot smell or touch anything
outside your ship anyway.
There is yet another reason why the solar system might be colonized
even if none of the reasons stated above give an incentive: some people
might just want to live elsewhere. Leaving Earth for good is already
a hot topic among transhumanists. In the future, religious cults
or poltical extremists might choose to move out in order to set up
their own version of a perfect society in the depth of space, where
no-one complains about it. I call this the "Schismatrix scenario",
after the Bruce Sterling novel where something like this has happened.
(In the novel, the solar system is colonized by rival transhumanist
sects, with an enormous diversity not only in technological approaches
towards improving the human condition, but also in society models.)
Most people, however, will prefer staying home on Earth.
So where will people go if they leave Earth? Well, almost anywhere.
One can expect quite a number of inhabited structures (and many, many
more uninhabited, automatic ones) in orbit around Earth, anything from
telecom transponder arrays and solar power collectors to O'Neill-type
habitats and spaceship yards. The Moon is an obvious candidate:
rich in mineral resources, and still quite close to Earth.
Mars is certainly also a popular selection. It is the most feasible
target for terraforming, which might be tackled by a large consortium.
But even without terraforming, Mars is the most attractive place to
live besides Earth, just by being the least hostile.
Venus is an ugly place, a classical inferno, probably of no use other
than for setting up a high-security prison. Unless someone finds a
way to terraform it, of course, in which case it becomes *very*
attractive.
Mercury is a high-iron planet to be considered for mining. However,
most off-Earth mining, once interplanetary distances can be traversed
at reasonable cost and time, will go to the asteroid belt.
The outer solar system holds ample amount to something very scarce in
the inner solar system off Earth: water. There is plenty of it,
frozen of course, on the big planets' moons, on Pluto, in the Kuiper
Belt. The big planets themselves offer hydrogen, and Jupiter's magnetic
fields are a good source of power. The drawback of the outer solar
system is the lack of accessible minerals, and the low density of
solar power.
It is very well conceivable that there will be colonies deciding not
to settle on any natural body of the solar system at all, but to live
in an artificial habitat (possibly a hollowed asteroid) moving around
the Sun on a eccentric orbit similar to that of comet Halley, moving
back and forth between the inner solar system and the Kuiper Belt at
a period of 100 years or so. I semi-jokingly call that "transhuman
transhumance" (though the inhabitants of such a colony need not really be
transhumanists - but transhumanists seem more likely to me to do this).
Such a colony could draw advantage of all shells of the solar system.
Plentiful energy in the inner system; cheap metals from the asteroid belt;
lots of ice from the Kuiper belt.
--
|~~o~~| Joerg Rhiemeier, Magus Creativus, Zelator of the C.I.V.Ae.R.C.
|~/V\~| First-generation Viridian, world wright, fully-clothed swimmer
|~~H~~| Home page (pro tempore): http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0009071/
|~/_\~| "A spirit with a vision is a dream with a vision." -- N. Peart
![Heidi Wessman Kneale [Auntie Dem]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjVu4ML4yPpkA3PHsKafg3z-5Ey6FjrehBWTfEjpegUFnc94FA=s40-c)
Heidi Wessman Kneale [Auntie Dem]
y000...@ws.rz.tu-bs.de (Joerg Rhiemeier) sayeth:
>Paul Saunders writes:
>
>>Leaving aside the practical considerations of spaceship technology, journey
>>times, life support etc. assuming it were possible to establish colonies
>>anywhere within the solar system, which locations would be the best candidates
>>for colonies and why?
>
>The first question is, "What are we going to do up there?"
>
>Scientific exploration is one motivation to go somewhere, but this does
>not require setting up substantial colonies. Unmanned probes do most
>exploration jobs just fine, at the fraction of the cost.
I at least know several reasons for setting up a lunar base. It would
be easier to launch and run exploration. There's a ton of scientific
research that could happen there that couldn't happen on earth. It
would be easier to create unmanned probes, possibly even cheaper than
now. (Probes, while being cheaper than manned flights, are hardly
cheap.) I believe there may be some mining reasons. However, I
believe the moon isn't as rich in minerals as we would have liked.
As for setting colonies up elsewhere, they'd happen mostly for mining
reasons. Mars would be the most probable for a colony.
While the Jovian moons are rich in useful things, they're too far away
at present, and geologically rather unstable to warrant a colony.
Maybe a station, but not a colony.
Number one reason for colonising other worlds: Because We Can.
___________
Heidi
Heidi Wessman Kneale [Auntie Dem]
<aa...@gate.net> sayeth:
>Cyberbots are not robots but look like robot and in terms of mechanical
>engineering are siblings. Cyberbots use human intelligence. The Cyber
>bot relays human commands to the cyberbots knife, hands, arms, saws,
>clips, and sensors.
But do they follow the Asimov Rules of Robotics, regardless of whether
or not they're Robots. I assume they are AIs.
Good luck w/ your script. It's a tough world out there.
____________
Heidi
John Freck
>
> >Cyberbots are not robots but look like robot and in terms of mechanical
> >engineering are siblings. Cyberbots use human intelligence. The Cyber
> >bot relays human commands to the cyberbots knife, hands, arms, saws,
> >clips, and sensors.
>
> But do they follow the Asimov Rules of Robotics, regardless of whether
> or not they're Robots. I assume they are AIs.
>
> Good luck w/ your script. It's a tough world out there.
It is taking forever. In Hollywood in particular, I'm told.
No the cyberbots are not true robots at all. The 'bot' is from the fact
that in terms of mechanical and electrical engineering the cyberbot and
robots are the same. In terms of computer engineering and software the
robot has much more. The 'bot' has sensors that relay to visual
displaed information about the environmemnt to a human who manipulates
'puppet like' controls that are relayed to the cyberbot's hands. The
brain of the cyberbot is not like a robots brain. Its CPU and software
and not nearly as complex as a robots.
John Freck
>
> ____________
> Heidi
colinm...@my-deja.com
interesting. It's on the August show of Cosmic Visions.
If you'd like to see the show, click
http://www.pseudo.com/links/playclip.asp?id_arc=2078
BTW, you need RealPlayer to see our shows.
We hope you like it ... let us know: in...@spacwatch.com
And maybe we'll meet up on the moon sometime soon.
Thanks,
Your friends at SpaceWatch
Space Exploration on Internet TV
In article <eZ2H3.732$5k.2...@typhoon-la.pbi.net>,
"David S. Poepoe" <dspo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> Paul Saunders wrote in message <37ec...@news1.vip.uk.com>...
> >Leaving aside the practical considerations of spaceship technology,
journey
> >times, life support etc. assuming it were possible to establish
colonies
> >anywhere within the solar system, which locations would be the best
> candidates
> >for colonies and why?
> >
>
> Quite literally it would be "the skies the limits". Any place that
can be
> colonized will be, and if it immediately can't it will become
colonizable.
>
> The Moon and the LaGrange (L-5) Points probably first. Mars and
Venus, or
> at least Venus orbit second. Why Venus? Raw materials/chemicals
from its
> clouds can be directly skimmed off for use either as propulsion fuel
or
> shipment to other colonies to help build them - hey its free.
>
> Mercury, and alot of the asteroid belt, will be colonized strictly for
> mining purposes. Though in the asteroid belt one would have the
material on
> hand to build small worlds - large space colonies - that can be used
to grow
> the food that would be necessary to support the settlements out
there. The
> space colonies would provide the "safety valve" the Wild West
provided to
> the U.S. in that certain groups - hopefully those that really don't
get
> along with the rest of us - will move out there to make life here more
> enjoyable.
>
> >But what about the rest? Ganymede? Callisto? Would it be
practical to
> >establish a base on Europa given current theories about the place?
Titan
> seems
> >a little hostile given what is currently known about it.
> >
>
> If not on a planet/moon than in orbit around it, except perhaps Io,
> exploiting the various gravity fields of various places will probably
net us
> different types of alloys, etc.
>
> >How practical/desirable would it be to establish colonies on the
smaller
> moons?
> >What about the limited benefits of the sun's light and warmth at
great
> >distances, how would this affect life support? How many people would
> actually
> >WANT to live in any of these places?
>
> There will always be people that will want to move into space, and
there is
> (in a regretable way to say it) a surplus population that can be paid
to
> move out there. I have long considered that if paid and trained
well the
> slums of various third world countries and India could be drained of
their
> young adults living in poverty by promising them excellent wages and
> benefits for five service in the asteroid belt or some inducement to
move to
> newly established colonies.
>
> > I imagine that living on one of Saturn's inner moons would
initially seem
> quite appealing, but the practicalities of life
> >there might soon outweigh aesthetic considerations.
> >
> Hey, people can go and spend hours in the Mall of America wouldn't
life in
> space be just like that, though hopefully without the muzak?
>
> David Poepoe
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
D. A. Verdin
them around planets.
> > Mars is also conveniently close to the Asteroid belt, rich in valuable
> > ore. We may also establish small mining cities on the largest
> > asteroids themselves.
>
into one
> another from time to time?
Louis Epstein
: What will 2100 be like?
Is that really a question for alt.history.what-if?
: 1) The life span will be over 200 years.
For people born as of when?
The only people who can be 200 years old in 2100 are those born in 1900,
nearly all of whom are dead and the remainder of whom are generally quite
debilitated.Are you saying children born in 2100 will be able to expect
to see 2300,or are you saying the older generations will be able to expect
multicentury lifespans as well?
: 2) Fussion will work and will boost space crafts.
: 3) The home internet will run a 1,000,000,000 bits/second unlimited
: time for a small flat fee.
Gigabit ethernets will be available on the home scale before 2010.
If you're referring to the "to the curb" (not backbone,already
passing that speed in the big nets) wire access,we'll see whether
OC-12(622,000,000 bps) is deemed sufficient,or OC-48(four times that,
the current top backbone speed but a quarter the planned backbone speed)
is deemed sufficient.10-Gigabit ethernet(10,000,000,000 bits/second)
is presently experimental,but will be along before long.
In 1986,I laid out a set of conditions for what seemed to be the
parameters of the "advanced world" of science fiction,trying to
start discussion on CompuServe as to whether reaching them was possible.
In 1996,I had occasion to look at what I had written,and progress had
been slight except in computing,in which it had been overwhelming.
Moore's Law does have to stop sooner or later;they can't split
electrons in designing electrical circuits.Otherwise,150 years
would see computing power increase by a factor of the hundredth
power of two(a 30-digit number).
: 4) HDTV will be the size of a wall and be more than 10 more dense that
: your current monitor.
: 5) Robots will clean your tub, change your automobiles battery, mine, ?
: 6) Tiny cyberbots will assist in surgery.
:
: Centi-milli- and maybe -micro Cyberbots look like robots but are
: control though cybernetic enhancments. A brain surgen could have his
: back to a patient while looking at super HDTVs that are linked to
: sensors on the milliCyberbot. Hand controls and linked up cyberneticall
: too to the cyberbot and surgen.
:
: A centibot team of three might sit on platforms near a surgery pateints
: eye. All three are connected to human surgeons in anouther room.
: Larger dumbots are holding the platform and it can be moved. The
: centibot send super HDTV images that can be visual light, infrared
: light, ultraviolet light, sound based images, and magnetic images, or
: pressure images, or chemical patterm images, and more and these can be
: overlayed in real time. The hand units are pressure sensitive and
: manipulate 1mm "hands", saws, clippers, or whatnot.
:
: IN turn the centibot could be anouther dumbot being held by a larger
: dumbot. The centibot can hold a millibot too. In 200 years microbots
: will be common.
:
: What is your predication?
:
: John Freck
Anthony Buckland
> ...
> In 1986,I laid out a set of conditions for what seemed to be the
> parameters of the "advanced world" of science fiction,trying to
> start discussion on CompuServe as to whether reaching them was possible.
And what was your conclusion about the bandwidth that would be
necessary to provide the full virtual world of much fiction?
For a specific example, how much bandwidth is necessary to
duplicate the visual experience of rapidly turning one's head
in a crowd of moving people in a city? Not TV-quality; reality
quality, with every last visual-spectrum photon.
Louis Epstein
My 1986 guesses were way way way low(this was when I was getting onto
Compuserve at 300,then 1200,baud,and 9600 bps was their ultimate,which
cost something like $48/hour and required a handwired network connection
not available in most areas).The only thing that I postulated that hasn't
already happened or been planned,I think,is 16-terabyte floppy-disk
equivalents.
I have heard that a movie requires 1Gbps bandwidth.
If we take the quadruplings of high speed links out another step
past OC-192 to OC-768,which is certainly within the range already
pioneered in laboratories,we have something like 20Gbps...which is
probably getting into the range you suggest.
thelast...@gmail.com
> Leaving aside the practical considerations of spaceship technology, journey
> times, life support etc. assuming it were possible to establish colonies
> anywhere within the solar system, which locations would be the best candidates
> for colonies and why?
>
>
> and relatively pleasant climate.
>
> I realise this is an extremely open question with endless possibilites, but I'd
> be interested to hear any thoughts anyone has regarding this subject.
Given all the publicity of late concerning the human colonization of Mars, I’ve decided to put links to all of my Mars colonization Science Fiction stories in one blog article.
The stories are in sequence. The first story involves the establishment of a basecamp on Mars. The second story happens in the settlement that evolved from the basecamp. The third story occurs near a military base not far from the city that grew from the settlement.
The first two stories were published by “Bewildering Stories.”
The third story was published by “Aphelion Webzine,” is much longer and complex. This story also presents some outrageous historical theories.
All three stories have romantic subplots, though in the third story such is very minor.
If interested, please goto
http://www.kinzuakid.blogspot.com/2016/11/mars.html