Which is more viable for space colonization? (poll)

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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

I do think that best short term way to create a stable population off earth would be some form of large scale orbital colony or space station like in The Hundred or a smaller scale version of the one in Elysium, with localized food production along with a space tethers would make a good starting point for excursions to the moon and Mars. Once those have been accomplished, they can be converted to orbital docks and shipyards, assuming we can create large scale space ships.

 

[[serious]]

I do think that best short term way to create a stable population off earth would be some form of large scale orbital colony or space station like in The Hundred or a smaller scale version of the one in Elysium, with localized food production along with a space tethers would make a good starting point for excursions to the moon and Mars. Once those have been accomplished, they can be converted to orbital docks and shipyards, assuming we can create large scale space ships.

The advantage of orbital is that it's the easiest to resupply. The down sides though are as follows:
Since no raw materials can be collected on site, EVERYTHING must be launched at significant expense. Every drop of water, breath of air, scrap or space, etc must be shipped up. Reproducing there doesn't really help either since any raw material from which a person can grow must have been launched up at some point. Thus might become easier after we can effectively mine asteriods, but getting out to the asteriods belt and back would require a lot of energy as well.

That's why I like planet based better. There are at least some things you can create on site.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The advantage of orbital is that it's the easiest to resupply. The down sides though are as follows:
Since no raw materials can be collected on site, EVERYTHING must be launched at significant expense. Every drop of water, breath of air, scrap or space, etc must be shipped up. Reproducing there doesn't really help either since any raw material from which a person can grow must have been launched up at some point. Thus might become easier after we can effectively mine asteriods, but getting out to the asteriods belt and back would require a lot of energy as well.

That's why I like planet based better. There are at least some things you can create on site.

Well as I said, we can use the orbital stations as a launching point for lunar or Martian excursions. You don't build a ship before you build a dock.

 

[[serious]]

Well as I said, we can use the orbital stations as a launching point for lunar or Martian excursions. You don't build a ship before you build a dock.

Ok, I see what you are saying, but I wouldn't really call it colonization. There's no self sufficiency there.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ok, I see what you are saying, but I wouldn't really call it colonization. There's no self sufficiency there.

Unless you make it large enough to hold some farms/greenhouses. But then that does bring up the fact of it requiring more materials to build it. Unless you go for synthetic food.

 

[[serious]]

Unless you make it large enough to hold some farms/greenhouses. But then that does bring up the fact of it requiring more materials to build it. Unless you go for synthetic food.

Reclamation can help, but getting to the point it's largely self sustaining (it can't be fully self sustaining as there will be losses somewhere) would require a HUGE amount of mass put in orbit at very high cost. Far better, in my opinion, putting a much smaller mass on Mars or even the moon. The moon could at least provide structural components. Mars could provide structural components, carbon, and water

 

[durangodawood]

Do whatever Matt Damon did in the Martian.

Do everything you can to get the hell back the earth?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Do everything you can to get the hell back the earth?

No silly I mean growing dem crops.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Do everything you can to get the hell back the earth?

Correct.

 

[freezerman2000]

The advantage of orbital is that it's the easiest to resupply. The down sides though are as follows:
Since no raw materials can be collected on site, EVERYTHING must be launched at significant expense. Every drop of water, breath of air, scrap or space, etc must be shipped up. Reproducing there doesn't really help either since any raw material from which a person can grow must have been launched up at some point. Thus might become easier after we can effectively mine asteriods, but getting out to the asteriods belt and back would require a lot of energy as well.

That's why I like planet based better. There are at least some things you can create on site.

Food and oxygen can be created through hydroponics...water can be recycled and purified.

 

[[serious]]

Food and oxygen can be created through hydroponics...water can be recycled and purified.

Food and oxygen can be RECYCLED through hydroponics. Every atom of oxygen must be initially shipped up from earth.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Food and oxygen can be RECYCLED through hydroponics. Every atom of oxygen must be initially shipped up from earth.

Ok, but how big must the hydroponics system be to keep the air clean for centuries while we travel to other stars? If you get in a space ship with 10 other people and fire it off toward another star on a trip that may take centuries, then will you be sure this will still be working when your space ship arrives? That is a huge challenge. Things rust. Computers fail. Sensors get old. And if you are between stars and your carbon dioxide sensor fails, or the water pump stops, how will you ever keep the air breathable? You won't find a service station, and there is no way you will turn the ship around and go back where you came. I'm not saying it is impossible, but it is a huge challenge.

I would think it would be far more likely that there will be peace and sustainability on earth, than that I and my descendents would make it to another star. So I plan to stay here.

 

[Gene2memE]

Algae is better than hydroponics - more efficient, more robust and easier to balance the ecosystem.


Just a general comment - gravity is a harsh mistress.

If we do want to slip the bond of earth and play in the rest of the solar system, its not going to be cheap or easy. What is encouraging though is the order of magnitude fall in the cost of getting a kg of stuff into orbit in the past 25 years.

In 1990, it cost the about $25,000 per kg (in 2015 dollars) to put a commercial satellite into space. In 2015, it cost about $2,200-2,400 per kg for Falcon 9 to put a satellite into orbit. The projection for Falcon Heavy, which is expected to make its first launch in the next six months, is about $1,100 to $1,300 per kg

Arianespace is talking about halving this over the next 6 to 10 years, down to somewhere around $500 to $600 per kg for some of the larger, higher payload versions of Ariane 6.

As I said, encouraging - but still difficult.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ok, but how big must the hydroponics system be to keep the air clean for centuries while we travel to other stars? If you get in a space ship with 10 other people and fire it off toward another star on a trip that may take centuries, then will you be sure this will still be working when your space ship arrives? That is a huge challenge. Things rust. Computers fail. Sensors get old. And if you are between stars and your carbon dioxide sensor fails, or the water pump stops, how will you ever keep the air breathable? You won't find a service station, and there is no way you will turn the ship around and go back where you came. I'm not saying it is impossible, but it is a huge challenge.

I would think it would be far more likely that there will be peace and sustainability on earth, than that I and my descendents would make it to another star. So I plan to stay here.

[Serious] wasn't talking about a spaceship though. He was talking about a space station. Big difference.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Algae is better than hydroponics - more efficient, more robust and easier to balance the ecosystem.


Just a general comment - gravity is a harsh mistress.

If we do want to slip the bond of earth and play in the rest of the solar system, its not going to be cheap or easy. What is encouraging though is the order of magnitude fall in the cost of getting a kg of stuff into orbit in the past 25 years.

In 1990, it cost the about $25,000 per kg (in 2015 dollars) to put a commercial satellite into space. In 2015, it cost about $2,200-2,400 per kg for Falcon 9 to put a satellite into orbit. The projection for Falcon Heavy, which is expected to make its first launch in the next six months, is about $1,100 to $1,300 per kg

Arianespace is talking about halving this over the next 6 to 10 years, down to somewhere around $500 to $600 per kg for some of the larger, higher payload versions of Ariane 6.

As I said, encouraging - but still difficult.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that space travel in our lifetime would become easy. It would become easier, but definitely not easy.
Although, of course, nothing worth doing is ever easy.

 

[mindlight]

What about capturing a near earth asteroid. This could be mined for all the metals and elements you need or extra asteroids with water ice etc could also be captured. You could then use large 3d printers to build an immense structure which you could then spin to duplicate earth gravity. Once the shell was in place. You could build a docking port one end and an engine the other. If the shell is thick enough it should protect from radiation. Then you need to fill it up with plants and people and water. Sheer size should allow for massive redundancy. You can cover the thing with solar panels or add nuclear or later fusion power plants and then you have a self contained habitat you can move or keep where it is. Add a few extra small ships docked at the habitat and you have the option to forage for stuff you grow short of. It should probably be policy to have a hundred years supply of anything and also an on board manufacturing ability for the stuff that breaks

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What about capturing a near earth asteroid. This could be mined for all the metals and elements you need or extra asteroids with water ice etc could also be captured. You could then use large 3d printers to build an immense structure which you could then spin to duplicate earth gravity. Once the shell was in place. You could build a docking port one end and an engine the other. If the shell is thick enough it should protect from radiation. Then you need to fill it up with plants and people and water. Sheer size should allow for massive redundancy. You can cover the thing with solar panels or add nuclear or later fusion power plants and then you have a self contained habitat you can move or keep where it is. Add a few extra small ships docked at the habitat and you have the option to forage for stuff you grow short of. It should probably be policy to have a hundred years supply of anything and also an on board manufacturing ability for the stuff that breaks

It's a cool idea, but I have a feeling that sort of thing would work better for a way station type deal than an actual extra-terrestrial habitation. Although I do guess that to have it operating you'd have to have people living there so it would class as a habitat.

 

[freezerman2000]

Food and oxygen can be RECYCLED through hydroponics. Every atom of oxygen must be initially shipped up from earth.

Well,you knew what I was talking about...

 

[[serious]]

What about capturing a near earth asteroid. This could be mined for all the metals and elements you need or extra asteroids with water ice etc could also be captured. You could then use large 3d printers to build an immense structure which you could then spin to duplicate earth gravity. Once the shell was in place. You could build a docking port one end and an engine the other. If the shell is thick enough it should protect from radiation. Then you need to fill it up with plants and people and water. Sheer size should allow for massive redundancy. You can cover the thing with solar panels or add nuclear or later fusion power plants and then you have a self contained habitat you can move or keep where it is. Add a few extra small ships docked at the habitat and you have the option to forage for stuff you grow short of. It should probably be policy to have a hundred years supply of anything and also an on board manufacturing ability for the stuff that breaks

As a space station, maybe, but you are talking about an engine so it sounds like you want a ship. High mass is very bad for ships as it increases the energy required to move them.

But if we are putting people on a body that is already in orbit, it seems like it would be more convenient to pick one that has a bit of gravity. Things being able to fall is pretty handy.

 

[mindlight]

As a space station, maybe, but you are talking about an engine so it sounds like you want a ship. High mass is very bad for ships as it increases the energy required to move them.

But if we are putting people on a body that is already in orbit, it seems like it would be more convenient to pick one that has a bit of gravity. Things being able to fall is pretty handy.

You could move such a habitat around the solar system but interstellar travel is out. But if you populate the shell on the inside and rotate to earth gravity it should theoretically be reasonably pleasant and definitely an ark which could protect men and animals from whatever storms are waged on earth. People have said a lot about the bad economics of space exploration. But in practice colonies were often built and survived despite the economics. For example in the case of political and religious refugees.