Which is more viable for space colonization? (poll)

[doubtingmerle]

The US government was projected to spend 598.5 billion dollars in 2015 on it's military budget. That's 54% of the US government's annual budget. It's science budget was 29.7 billion, 3%, of it's annual budget.
Guess what the US government could do to cover that cost.

Plus, you're also discounting the fact that other countries would get in on this too. It would not just be a single national endeavour, like the Space Race was.

Ah, massive cuts in military spending so we can send a mission to Mars. Good luck convincing conservatives of that plan.

My $500 billion figure may be high. I'm seeing estimates from $30 billion to $1 trillion for a single mission to Mars. Still that's a lot of money for one mission.

But if the plan is to send enough of people into space to significant reduce the population drain on the earth, oh dear, that is a lot of money. $100 billion here, $100 billion there, pretty soon you are talking real money!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ah, massive cuts in military spending so we can send a mission to Mars. Good luck convincing conservatives of that plan.

My $500 billion figure may be high. I'm seeing estimates from $30 billion to $1 trillion for a single mission to Mars. Still that's a lot of money for one mission.

But if the plan is to send enough of people into space to significant reduce the population drain on the earth, oh dear, that is a lot of money. $100 billion here, $100 billion there, pretty soon you are talking real money!

And again, you are simply viewing this as being a solely American endeavour. How many other countries do you think would be willing to get in on this? To set up a colony on Mars?

 

[doubtingmerle]

And again, you are simply viewing this as being a solely American endeavour. How many other countries do you think would be willing to get in on this? To set up a colony on Mars?

I don't know. Ten?

Let's say it costs $100 billion to go to Mars on a one way trip, and countries with a total population of 5 billion (out of 7 billion on the planet) support the plan. That's $80 per family of four. That's not impossible, and I would even be willing to pay that share to get a small crew to Mars. But I suspect it would cost a lot more. And I cannot imagine we could get that many people to support it.

It would probably be a one way trip. Launching a rocket from Mars to come home is almost as massive an effort as launching a rocket from earth to go to Mars. Flying all that equipment and fuel to Mars and assembling it for the ride home is astronomical in cost. However sending up supply modules beforehand, and then sending people to live off the air, power, and water supplied by those modules for the rest of their life on Mars has some feasibility. Surviving like this for years without steady resupply ships is very difficult, but it could be possible.

That is one trip to Mars of several people for life. That will do nothing to reduce the population of the earth, as some have suggested here.

If they reproduce in Mars, they might actually carry on for several generations, but probably they would require annual resupply. But what are the odds that the people on Mars would survive and the earth would be destroyed by some unsuspected disaster? That is the scenario some have suggested here, that we send multiple colonies out various places in case life on earth is destroyed. One or more colonies could then continue our legacy. The odds that a single colony on Mars will survive longer than human life on earth have to be billions to 1 against it. That is the problem I have with what some are suggesting here. These colonies on other planets are extremely unlikely to survive us.

Suppose humans are wiped off of earth by say, a nuclear war. I suppose the last person to die on earth might take some comfort in knowing that at least there are still some humans alive on another planet. But at what cost? And what are the odds this would ever happen?

 

[Michael]

Suppose humans are wiped off of earth by say, a nuclear war. I suppose the last person to die on earth might take some comfort in knowing that at least there are still some humans alive on another planet. But at what cost? And what are the odds this would ever happen?

I think the other question you might ask yourself is what the term 'be fruitful and multiply' might mean in galaxy that we can "grow into" over time. A few thousand years from now we may have the technology to travel between stars, and to colonize various worlds and moons. Lots of things could wipe out life on Earth, but if humanity explores the stars, even the destruction of the Earth might not wipe out all humans.

I suspect that mining and manufacturing (3D printing) will become one of the first things that every colony starts to engage in once they learn how to acquire water and grow food locally.

I think one of the most promising developments in my lifetime is the growth of private space enterprise. I'm sure that will inevitably lead to increased competition and much more rapid development of technologies that will make it much easier to travel between planets and to travel in space in general.

 

[Michael]

And again, you are simply viewing this as being a solely American endeavour. How many other countries do you think would be willing to get in on this? To set up a colony on Mars?

If private enterprise gets involved, it may not require any individual countries to get involved. Think of it more in terms of a "crowd funded" endeavor.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't know. Ten?

Let's say it costs $100 billion to go to Mars on a one way trip, and countries with a total population of 5 billion (out of 7 billion on the planet) support the plan. That's $80 per family of four. That's not impossible, and I would even be willing to pay that share to get a small crew to Mars. But I suspect it would cost a lot more. And I cannot imagine we could get that many people to support it.

It would probably be a one way trip. Launching a rocket from Mars to come home is almost as massive an effort as launching a rocket from earth to go to Mars. Flying all that equipment and fuel to Mars and assembling it for the ride home is astronomical in cost. However sending up supply modules beforehand, and then sending people to live off the air, power, and water supplied by those modules for the rest of their life on Mars has some feasibility. Surviving like this for years without steady resupply ships is very difficult, but it could be possible.

That is one trip to Mars of several people for life. That will do nothing to reduce the population of the earth, as some have suggested here.

If they reproduce in Mars, they might actually carry on for several generations, but probably they would require annual resupply. But what are the odds that the people on Mars would survive and the earth would be destroyed by some unsuspected disaster? That is the scenario some have suggested here, that we send multiple colonies out various places in case life on earth is destroyed. One or more colonies could then continue our legacy. The odds that a single colony on Mars will survive longer than human life on earth have to be billions to 1 against it. That is the problem I have with what some are suggesting here. These colonies on other planets are extremely unlikely to survive us.

Suppose humans are wiped off of earth by say, a nuclear war. I suppose the last person to die on earth might take some comfort in knowing that at least there are still some humans alive on another planet. But at what cost? And what are the odds this would ever happen?

It's going to be more than ten. We're talking about going to Mars. Practically every single country with a good science program will want in on this.

You answered your own question about supplying them for the start: sent the supplies up before hand. And you also wouldn't need manned rockets to resupply them. Unmanned rockets would do the job fine.

And, as Michael pointed out, humans do a little something called breeding (although your scenario is a heck of a bit more unlikley than mine to happen). Plus, with the advent of 3D technology and the fact that humans have historically shown to be capable of creating incredibly longlasting stuff, I don't find it ridiculous to think that a colony on Mars would survive humans.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Wow, I am amazed at the blind enthusiasm for space travel here. Would somebody put some numbers on this, please?
1. How many people would you like to send to other planets in the next 15 years?
2. What do you think it will cost per traveler to send them there?
3. What is the estimated value of this in terms of dollars to humans who remain on earth?
4. Who (in the heck) is going to pay for it?

I think the other question you might ask yourself is what the term 'be fruitful and multiply' might mean in galaxy that we can "grow into" over time.

Didn't we already multiply and replenish the earth? Now you want to replenish the galaxy? Is that what this is all about--you have an ancient command to multiply, so dang it, let's multiply?

What's in it for me? What do I gain by sending 1000 travelers and supplies to another planet?

A few thousand years from now we may have the technology to travel between stars, and to colonize various worlds and moons.

50 years from now we will have very little fossil fuels left. It is unlikely we will have space travel or even airplane travel without fossil fuels. That is what we should be thinking about. How are our grandchildren going to make it without fossil fuels? I think flying to Mars will be the least of their concerns.

Where are you going to get fuel for your rockets when the petroleum is gone?

Lots of things could wipe out life on Earth, but if humanity explores the stars, even the destruction of the Earth might not wipe out all humans.

OK, so if all humanity gets wiped off this earth, and I am the last person alive, I could take comfort in my last moments in knowing that somewhere out there other humans exist?

Okay. Sure.

But I would take more comfort in knowing that we spent all that money to do what we can to assure the long term sustainability of life on earth.

I think one of the most promising developments in my lifetime is the growth of private space enterprise. I'm sure that will inevitably lead to increased competition and much more rapid development of technologies that will make it much easier to travel between planets and to travel in space in general.

NASA has been using private contractors for years. Now they even contract out entire flights. It is still quite expensive.

What do you think it will cost to send a crew of four to Mars? Would they be able to come back? If so, include that cost in your estimate.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It's going to be more than ten. We're talking about going to Mars. Practically every single country with a good science program will want in on this.

OK, so we are going to finance this by a massive taxation program, with many countries taxing their people to pay for it? Even if we get 50% of the worlds population to participate, it will be enormously expensive.

If we are going to establish multi-national entity that can pull taxes from billions of people to do a common engineering project, could they use some of that money to fight global warming, prepare alternate energy systems for the future, restore rain forests, stop habitat loss, and restore fish populations?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

OK, so we are going to finance this by a massive taxation program, with many countries taxing their people to pay for it? Even if we get 50% of the worlds population to participate, it will be enormously expensive.

If we are going to establish multi-national entity that can pull taxes from billions of people to do a common engineering project, could they use some of that money to fight global warming, prepare alternate energy systems for the future, restore rain forests, stop habitat loss, and restore fish populations?

You do know that many countries are funding those sorts of things anyway?

And I also saw that you are being incredibly selfish with your whole line of thinking. "Oh. This gets me nothing in return. Let's not do it." Space colonization isn't about you. It's about everyone who's coming after you. It's about future generations.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You don't have to terraform a planet to engage in colonization.

I would think that balloons high up in the atmosphere of Venus could be a platform for human beings living there.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You don't have to terraform a planet to engage in colonization.

I would think that balloons high up in the atmosphere of Venus could be a platform for human beings living there.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I keep forgetting that was/is an idea.

 

[Shemjaza]

You don't have to terraform a planet to engage in colonization.

I would think that balloons high up in the atmosphere of Venus could be a platform for human beings living there.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I don't know if I'd ever sleep soundly knowing that some tethers on a large balloon were the only things stopping me from hurtling into a planet sized, burning, sulphuric acid soup.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You don't have to terraform a planet to engage in colonization.

I would think that balloons high up in the atmosphere of Venus could be a platform for human beings living there.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I tell you what. If it comes down to living in balloons high above a planet, I'll park my balloon high above Earth. Others may prefer Venus.

If my balloon gets a hole, I'll have a parachute as my backup plan. What will the folks do on Venus if their balloon gets a hole?

 

[doubtingmerle]

You do know that many countries are funding those sorts of things anyway?

Manned voyages to other planets? I think the number of countries financing that is zero.

There is the space station, yes, but that is certainly not a permanent home for people. Without steady resupply, they are doomed.

And I also saw that you are being incredibly selfish with your whole line of thinking. "Oh. This gets me nothing in return. Let's not do it." Space colonization isn't about you. It's about everyone who's coming after you. It's about future generations.

But once again, how is putting colonies in other planets a benefit to humans?

How is it a benefit to the people living there in the future? OK, there is a remote possibility that their civilization could outlast ours without resupply from earth, but I put the odds of that at over 1 billion to 1. If we are far safer here, why would one want to live there?

And how does it benefit people on earth in the future? We might get some scientific data back from them, but there is little other benefit that we can reap from it.

People seem to be saying that, if the Earth is somehow destroyed, on our deathbed we would have the pleasure of knowing other people in space survived. OK, but that is small consolation. How much are you willing to pay for that? As far as I can tell, this is the only benefit that you can seem to come up with. How many trillion should we spend to get that benefit?

So how does it benefit the people of the future? Be specific. Before we invest $500 billion for each of 20 excursions to different planets, I would want to know what the benefits are for the people of the future. If that is being selfish, so be it, but I cannot see investing hundreds of trillions of dollars without a clear benefit to the people of the future.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Is anyone else's text editor not the normal one? Ah well.

Manned voyages to other planets? I think the number of countries financing that is zero.

I should have been clearer. I meant that other countries are funding science programs to help the planet. My bad on not being more specific on that bit.

There is the space station, yes, but that is certainly not a permanent home for people. Without steady resupply, they are doomed.

But the ISS was never intended to be a permanent human habitation.

But once again, how is putting colonies in other planets a benefit to humans?

How is it a benefit to the people living there in the future? OK, there is a remote possibility that their civilization could outlast ours without resupply from earth, but I put the odds of that at over 1 billion to 1. If we are far safer here, why would one want to live there?

And how does it benefit people on earth in the future? We might get some scientific data back from them, but there is little other benefit that we can reap from it.

People seem to be saying that, if the Earth is somehow destroyed, on our deathbed we would have the pleasure of knowing other people in space survived. OK, but that is small consolation. How much are you willing to pay for that? As far as I can tell, this is the only benefit that you can seem to come up with. How many trillion should we spend to get that benefit?

So how does it benefit the people of the future? Be specific. Before we invest $500 billion for each of 20 excursions to different planets, I would want to know what the benefits are for the people of the future. If that is being selfish, so be it, but I cannot see investing hundreds of trillions of dollars without a clear benefit to the people of the future.

What benefits are there? Well:

• If the current trend in human population growth continues and we don't have whatever programs people imagine could be used to slow the growth or a non-apocalyptic global catastrophe or WW3, then more space for human population to live in. That one works for either idea of colonization.
• Mining for super heavy and other elements that aren't plentiful on Earth or are running out, either via other planets or asteroids, which the current theories are, there could up to $20 trillion dollars worth of materials in the asteroid 3554 Amun.
• A much easier access to solar energy instead of having to rely on fossil fuels, plus the ability to work on perfecting nuclear energy without the risk of screwing up the environment. This, and the gains from mining elements on asteroids, would be a ready source of income.
• Space tourism. That's... that's self-explanatory.
• Much less risk of screwing up the collective atmosphere. If we follow the dome colony idea, then if one colony screws their atmosphere, then it's only that single colony that will suffer instead of the whole planet.
• Early warning systems against asteroids/meteors/comets on a collision course with Earth, plus a better chance at making sure they don't hit Earth.
• The chance to properly tailor the environment to the colonizers needs.

Those are just the one's off the top of my head.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ok, let's play a little Shark tank.

Space lovers: Invest in this program to send people into space.
Shark: How many people do you want to send?
Space lovers: [silence]
Shark: OK, how much money do you need for this program?
Space lovers: [silence]
Shark: Uh, OK, it looks to me like a lot of money. I don't see that it will benefit us much.
Space lovers: That's selfish. We need to send people to space.
Shark: What benefits are there?

Space lovers:

What benefits are there? Well:​

• If the current trend in human population growth continues and we don't have whatever programs people imagine could be used to slow the growth or a non-apocalyptic global catastrophe or WW3, then more space for human population to live in. That one works for either idea of colonization.

Shark: Ok, but global population is growing at about 80 million people per year. A program to send 80,000 a year won't even begin to make a dent on the population problem. Why fly 80,000 to space every year if it is insignificant in solving the problem?

Space lover:

• Mining for super heavy and other elements that aren't plentiful on Earth or are running out, either via other planets or asteroids, which the current theories are, there could up to $20 trillion dollars worth of materials in the asteroid 3554 Amun.

Shark: Per the analysis I linked to, there is no way this is cost effective.

Space lover:

• A much easier access to solar energy instead of having to rely on fossil fuels, plus the ability to work on perfecting nuclear energy without the risk of screwing up the environment. This, and the gains from mining elements on asteroids, would be a ready source of income.

Shark:Ah, nuclear reactors and solar reactors in space. How are you getting that energy back to earth? If you got the technology to do this efficiently, I might buy into it. I would need to see the numbers.

Space lover:

• Space tourism. That's... that's self-explanatory.

Shark: That's already happening. There is not a long line of people waiting to go. If more people are looking for a ride, sure, I might invest in some rockets.

Space lover:

• Much less risk of screwing up the collective atmosphere. If we follow the dome colony idea, then if one colony screws their atmosphere, then it's only that single colony that will suffer instead of the whole planet.

Shark: Couldn't we just build domes all over earth? If the Chinese pollute their atmosphere, ha ha, we live in our own dome! But sorry, I don't want to invest in domes to keep the Chinese from polluting my air.

Space lover:

• Early warning systems against asteroids/meteors/comets on a collision course with Earth, plus a better chance at making sure they don't hit Earth.

Shark: Good idea. Can't we do this with electronic satellites? Why have people standing on the satellites looking for meteors?

Space lover:

• The chance to properly tailor the environment to the colonizers needs.

Shark: Ah, we start with a brand new planet so we can make that planet have the environment we want? Sorry, I'm not buying it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ok, let's play a little Shark tank.

Actually, let's not. I answered the questions I answered because those are the questions I could answer. Okay? Those first set of questions are questions I can't answer.

And secondly, we should just stop this, because this is getting us nowhere. I honestly just wanted to start this thread for fun, and you have honestly just sapped the fun from it. You don't think humans should and will go in to space, and I accept that. That's your prerogative. I think humans should and will go in to space. That's my prerogative. Let's just leave it at that, okay? It's incredibly doubtful that we'll change the other person's mind.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I honestly just wanted to start this thread for fun, and you have honestly just sapped the fun from it.

Sorry, didn't mean to sap the fun out of the thread.

I was just trying to understand if a case can be made that any of this is practical, if it is something we should even consider doing. As far as I can tell, nobody here has really considered the cost. The costs are so high, we should not even consider it unless the benefits are huge. At best, the benefits presented here are vague.

But if this is just a thread to ask what if we went to space, without thinking about ever doing it, then by all means, have fun thinking about it.

 

[[serious]]

Domed, or primarily underground structures seem to be most feasible to me. Changing an entire atmosphere deliberately is hard and takes a long time. Changing an enclosed space is easier. It's basically similar to each of the others with less nagatives and more positives.

 

[[serious]]

Actually, let's not. I answered the questions I answered because those are the questions I could answer. Okay? Those first set of questions are questions I can't answer.

And secondly, we should just stop this, because this is getting us nowhere. I honestly just wanted to start this thread for fun, and you have honestly just sapped the fun from it. You don't think humans should and will go in to space, and I accept that. That's your prerogative. I think humans should and will go in to space. That's my prerogative. Let's just leave it at that, okay? It's incredibly doubtful that we'll change the other person's mind.

Looking at the recent posts, I agree. Let's just talk about the relative benefits of different methods of creating stable populations off earth