Moontanman

It's so frustrating to post something you are intensely interested in and have either no replies or no serious replies. Seriously guys what gives?

Private industry is putting a huge amount of money into space exploration already. There is indeed a point before which space travel is very expensive but there is also a point where it becomes very profitable and cheap. Elon Musk sees the benefits and doing something about it. No, space colony would by definition have to be self sufficient, A base or outpost would not. Radiation is easily shielded against by the outer skin being used as water tanks, relatively thin tanks of water protect us from radiation and have to double capacity of storing fuel. Objects big enough to be dangerous can be vaporised by lasers before the hit, the colony can move out of the way of really large objects. All essential equipment would be built on site or by nearby colonies specializing in such things. A torus colony 100 miles in it's major diameter and 20 miles in it's minor diameter, build like a continuous suspension bridge, lighted on the inside, of by fusion if we manage to develop controlled fusion, could house thousands of people and grow their own food. I see colonies specializing in food stuffs or mechanical parts, or even water extraction. If we manage to control fusion the entire galaxy is our oyster, deep gravity wells of stars and planets will be useless and ignored. Other than fusion we already have the technology to do this, the trojan asteroids of Jupiter seem like the best, easily exploited place to find those resources. BYW we know the composition of asteroids. colonies would not be required to be self sufficient. Volatiles, if need be, could be obtained by simply visiting a small ice body. New colonies could be made by visiting kuiper belt objects or oort cloud objects. In fact if the population got too large stopping at a small ice body to build a new colony might be a social event participated in by everyone.

I am not pushing the idea of a lifeboat, that is in fact just one of the benefits. Space ie the small objects in our inner solar system, contain fabulous riches and possibilities. If all the hardware had to be lifted from the Earth I would be agreeing with you, but the idea is to use the resources already in space. Beside a treasure trove of precious metals, one medium sized iron/nickel body would contain many times the platinum and gold currently held on earth and open these substances up for industrial use. All the materials needed to construct bases, habitats, and ships exist in huge quantities in space, Just waiting to be exploited. Carbon, water, ammonia, sulfur, to just name a few. Metals such as iron, nickel, titanium, aluminum, and any others we need are abundant. We are rapidly approaching the era of Von Newman type machines which could pave the way for us cheaply. To make money, money has to be spent, risks must be taken, if this was just about colonization then antarctica would be a better move... Can you show evidence this would be true? If rotating colonies were spread all over the solar system what calamity could cause them to return to earth for protection?

Thanks, ask and ye shall receive

Oh yeah, is the blog gone?

Is there some reason why when I click on unread content it doesn't take me to the last post in that thread?

I think it's important to note that an optimistic attitude is important, the moon landing was preceded by much speculation and science fiction. Many people questioned not only the why but the expense. If spending on space related activities was really exorbitant then a point would be conceded by me but as it stands now only a tiny percentage of what we spend on ways to end our civilization is spent on space travel. Literally more is spent in a year on the military than has been spent on NASA in 50 years... http://www.upworthy.com/defense-budget-1t-50-years-of-nasa-budgets-800b-chart-of-this-ridiculous-dispari

See below

From what I have read and listened to, the 100 miles X 20 miles is quite reasonable. Of course if you are going to be living there all the time you could go with less gravity and higher pressure. Lots more options than a torus and ways to surround a star. BTW a Dyson sphere as usually asserted by pop culture is, as far as we know, impossible but a Dyson swarm is completely supported by current technological advances. I've been following some futurists and have been blown away by what is possible within current limits..

So far I am getting lots of claims but no math, the biggest "claim" I find so far is a "Bishop Ring" Made from woven carbon fibers or nanotubes. This is the claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Ring_(habitat) Not exactly a peer reviewed paper: http://www.iase.cc/openair.htm So far it is just a claim, I will look into it, but such a large mega structure is not necessary to provide millions of Earths surface area in orbit around the sun. Quite small habitats either in a swarm or connected like a chain could be used to enclose the sun in a loose swarm of objects to absorb the sun's energy. If we ever manage to control fusion on a reasonably small scale the entire universe is open to us via rotating habitats. My own thought on this are quite a bit more modest than most of these huge megastructures but the idea of even interstellar space containing a reasonable amount of material allows the entire galaxy to be colonised without ever entering the deeper parts of the gravity wells of stars. Here is a paper with math: http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/nano4/mckendreePaper.html My own thoughts on this are more modest: A torus built of carbon fibers, major diameter of 100 miles, minor diameter of 20 miles. The ratio is more important than the size within limits of material strength. It would resemble a circular suspension bridge, the inside gravity, atmosphere, and day night cycles would be controlled by the people living in it. Fusion power is necessary for these habitats to slowly occupy places like the kuiper belt, oort cloud, and interstellar space. I suggest the day night cycle could be maximized by 24 hours of light and 12 hours of darkness due to plants growth cycles being based on the length of darkness not daylight. This video by Isaac Arthur details some of this. I'll contact him and ask for the math, he is pretty good about providing it.

Interesting, my sources say that even steel can be used to make a Oneil type cylinder miles across, let check and I'll get back to you!

Exactly what "remarkable technological advancements" are you talking about? We currently have the technology to do this, yes it needs some development but that development cannot come to fruition on the Earth. Just because you do not see a problem happening tomorrow doesn't mean they will not happen. don't put all your eggs in one basket is a very wise old saying. An asteroid could be colliding with the earth as we speak, or it might be a million years from now. The amount of money we put into space exploration is a drop in the bucket compared to what we spend on ways to kill us all. Self destruction is far more likely than some sort of saving the economy, creating a paradise on Earth, or simply solving most of our problems before we act in space..

I would have to say no, the atmosphere of Venus is far too thick to allow that to happen. In fact I have seen some writings by Astronomers that indicate this would be true even for planets with thinner atmospheres. If you are interested I'll see if I can get you a link. Sun shades in orbit would help as would a much shorter day. Technically, at least according to some authorities, Venus is in the habitable zone.. barely. The long day might have contributed to the runaway greenhouse effect. Shade it, speed up its rotation, add lots of water, a magnetic field, and maybe a largish moon and you would have something. Some sources seem to think that floating balloon cities would be better since an oxygen nitrogen mix is lifting gas on Venus... Isaac discusses this from around 25:25 in this video.

So you would rather choose extinction rather than trying to occupy space because it will be difficult and expensive? https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Benefits-Stemming-from-Space-Exploration-2013-TAGGED.pdf

aren't you a ray of sunshine..

What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

Again, at the time sailing ships were not cheap, but if you want to look at it that way then to be comparable you have to compare sailing ships to a floating log. The "non imaginary" technologies do need to mature but not developing them will mean they never will mature. Getting into space is expensive, once you are there you use materials in situ to build more ships and habitats. The economic benefits of the space program consist of technology developed to support space travel that is used to benefit modern life. As for the government funding space programs your are aware that our investment in space travel currently is pitifully small. The military spends more in a week than NASA gets in a year. A single small asteroid has a dollar value above the GNP of the planet just in precious metals. You are correct in this, but Earth resources are limited by the fact that to harvest them we have to destroy our planet. Once we establish a presence in space building habitats and space craft become much easier. Like I said a simple dyson swarm, without fusion power gives us more land than a million earths. I think that is worth reaching for... Given fusion power we can convert the solar system into the equivalent of billions of earths...

One of the real possibilities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Ring_(habitat) http://pin.it/owEy-0s

Not yet, not too long ago airplanes couldn't do that either...

I know it's not a direct comparison but think of the voyage of Columbus, the queen had to hock the crown jewels to finance his trip. Now we fly people across the atlantic by the millions every year. But more to the point, Mars and yes even the Moon are dead ends as far as colonization is concerned. I doubt that visiting them will be a popular past time. But asteroids will be used to build rotating habitats, carbon will be the construction material of the future and, IMHO, places like the trojan asteroids of Jupiter will be manufacturing sites and eventually small groups or even individuals will be able to have their own habitats. Think of how difficult and expensive it would have seemed 300 years ago for someone to own a 1500 square foot home. Back only the very wealthy could afford such a thing, it would have required a large number of people (usually slaves or serfs) to maintain and even then it couldn't be compared to what we commonly have today. Extrapolate this to 300 years into the future...

Colonization of space requires no magical technology, no imaginary tech, and the costs are relative. The economic benefits are quite obvious, your attitude is like saying exploring the new world can have no economic benefits. Nothing can provide unlimited security but not colonising space is one of two options, the other is extinction. No one has or is saying that space colonies will enjoy greater freedom but when the new world was stolen from the natives there was indeed a time of of such freedoms. The difference is that space does not have to be stolen and we will never be able to fill it up..

Wouldn't you have loved to be there!

My quote was a little unclear, what I should have said and what I meant to convey is that, if you bought a new boat every time you wanted to use one. But my point is that you use the materials in space to make your habitat. Something as well known as kevlar could be used to make gigantic habitats. Kevlar is a carbon compound, carbon is the third or fourth most common element in the universe and we know how to make it. Of course making it in zero G might be a challenge. Things like Carbon fibers could be used to make habitats on par with an continent in surface area. A dyson swarm of these objects could be millions of earths in usable surface area. Planets are not really practical, you are highly unlikely to find a planet close enough to earth in habitat to simply move there. Even tiny differences like the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere could make a planet uninhabitable even if it over flowed with life. While controlled fusion would make this easier a dyson swarm is a way to use the entire energy output of the sun. While the Moon will be no doubt a source of materials, the asteroids and small icy moons will be be needed to make really large habitats. These habitats could be moved relatively easy, if very slowly, and could use materials from the kuiper belt, oort cloud, or even rogue bodies in interstellar space. Given fusion not only would planets not be needed but even stars would be ignored in favor of the debris found around them and in the space between them..

Actually I've read that the low oxygen levels were the "cause" that dinosaurs evolved superior breathing/circulatory system. This allowed them to go one to dominate the world...