Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 KingCracker wrote:
I think 3D printers is really the way to go. We can print anything from plastics to metals already, and even organic things as well. Send up enough supplies and mini printing robots to get things going and then the materials for them to print up printers and bam, you're on your way

Von Neumann machines are the ultimate expression of this. An initial data hub with a small manufacturing, mining/harvesting and processing capacity is sent somewhere, it then gathers and refines its own raw materials and builds components to further increase its capacity. Once capacity is established, it then concentrates on performing the work it was programmed to do; build living spaces, life support machinery, etc.

Exactly that. And it won't cost as much as one space elevator NOR the materials to build one. Maybe later if the machines had enough surplus materials they could build an elevator but I still think just producing on site is more efficient

I don't know, short of finding Prothean ruins on Mars I'd say that humanity's ambition for an interstellar Empire is a pipe dream at best. If we did colonize other planets the distances involved would be so great that we couldn't meaningfully benefit from them. They may as well not exist.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I don't know, short of finding Prothean ruins on Mars I'd say that humanity's ambition for an interstellar Empire is a pipe dream at best. If we did colonize other planets the distances involved would be so great that we couldn't meaningfully benefit from them. They may as well not exist.

I don't think we'd be establishing colonies for the same reasons, or in the same manner as the Vikings did with Iceland. As such, I think that any future colonizing effort would have to be made to be fully self sufficient, and kind of viewed as a "fresh start" or... "a new planet to feth up!!!"

Or a back up Earth for when this one explodes/becomes irradiated/becomes polluted/invaded/eaten/zombified/glassed/infected/burns/enveloped by the sun.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I don't know, short of finding Prothean ruins on Mars I'd say that humanity's ambition for an interstellar Empire is a pipe dream at best. If we did colonize other planets the distances involved would be so great that we couldn't meaningfully benefit from them. They may as well not exist.

I guess this depends on how much value you see in the existence of the human race. If some other disaster doesn't wipe out earth, at minimum the sun has a finite window in which it can support life here.

In theory developing a way to colonize extends the maximum length of our genetic and cultural lineages. The individuals that put the process into motion will obviously never see any direct benefit, obviously however that's different than "They may as well not exist".

I'm still extremely pessimistic about the viability of any such process, but it would have value. As it extends "our" lifespan closer to that of our galaxy.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
Would Terraforming Mars be more likely than us being able to create / manage Wormholes?

Both of those options are well beyond and foreseeable technology and are both unlikely to ever happen.

Not at all.

Terraforming Mars is definitely in the foreseeable future. There is enough CO2 frozen at the poles to bring the temperature up to a viable level. There is also enough water to support minimal plant life(and the possibility of more below the surface)

We could also bring in frozen water from the rings of Jupiter and Saturn.

It would certainly take a long time to accomplish. Certainly we'd have self-sufficient colonies on Mars before it happened, but as a long term plan its certainly possible.

Wormhole technology is certainly a pipe dream at this point. But there are other alternatives which are showing promise.

LOL
Good book trilogy
The Paratwa

 Chongara wrote:
Given the distances involved, the scope of the operation, the precision required, and the limitations on the information we can gather I'd say praying for a magic space leprechaun to come down and whisk us away in his flying pot-o-gold is about as effective as any other.

Short of a discovery that re-writes our understanding of physics entirely, humans are stuck on earth and only earth forever. We will never leave our solar system at all and we will not leave our home planet in any meaningful capacity.

Not if we can Terraform mars.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Not at all.

Terraforming Mars is definitely in the foreseeable future. There is enough CO2 frozen at the poles to bring the temperature up to a viable level. There is also enough water to support minimal plant life(and the possibility of more below the surface)

We could also bring in frozen water from the rings of Jupiter and Saturn.

It would certainly take a long time to accomplish. Certainly we'd have self-sufficient colonies on Mars before it happened, but as a long term plan its certainly possible.

Wormhole technology is certainly a pipe dream at this point. But there are other alternatives which are showing promise.

The nature of Mars offers serious complications in terraforming; most specifically because Mars lacks a magnetosphere due to the lack of an internal dynamo like present on Earth. Mars also has substantially less gravity than Earth which makes it harder for the planet to hold a dense atmosphere (on the top the effects of an undiminished solar wind).

Sure, it's fun to think about and hypothetically possible, but it is highly unlikely that it will ever happen.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
The nature of Mars offers serious complications in terraforming; most specifically because Mars lacks a magnetosphere due to the lack of an internal dynamo like present on Earth. Mars also has substantially less gravity than Earth which makes it harder for the planet to hold a dense atmosphere (on the top the effects of an undiminished solar wind).

Moreover, it seems the only real benefit to terraforming Mars is replicating life on Earth, which has historically been a wrongheaded approach to colonization even on this planet.

 dogma wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
The nature of Mars offers serious complications in terraforming; most specifically because Mars lacks a magnetosphere due to the lack of an internal dynamo like present on Earth. Mars also has substantially less gravity than Earth which makes it harder for the planet to hold a dense atmosphere (on the top the effects of an undiminished solar wind).

Moreover, it seems the only real benefit to terraforming Mars is replicating life on Earth, which has historically been a wrongheaded approach to colonization even on this planet.

Agreed.

I think the ethical component of the terraforming of Mars is often overlooked in favor of a fantastical vision of human technological achievement.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

I think the ethical component of the terraforming of Mars is often overlooked in favor of a fantastical vision of human technological achievement.

I mean, after all, why wouldn't all those people who have lived in closed colonies all their lives like to look at a totally unfamiliar sky/ceiling?

Two words about space: Death.Star.

 Da krimson barun wrote:
Two words about space: Death.Star.

Hal being the computer eh

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
The nature of Mars offers serious complications in terraforming; most specifically because Mars lacks a magnetosphere due to the lack of an internal dynamo like present on Earth. Mars also has substantially less gravity than Earth which makes it harder for the planet to hold a dense atmosphere (on the top the effects of an undiminished solar wind).

Moreover, it seems the only real benefit to terraforming Mars is replicating life on Earth, which has historically been a wrongheaded approach to colonization even on this planet.

Agreed.

I think the ethical component of the terraforming of Mars is often overlooked in favor of a fantastical vision of human technological achievement.

i think these ecological ethics do require a second look.

For example some zoologists complain that human intervention manes that purebred lions are becoming rarer as zoos and private owners breed their lions with lions from other origins, and even other species.
While ligers are admittedly a dead end and the product of bad cat owenership, the fact remains rthat zoos and large cat owners breeding lions from different parts of the world strenghens the lion genepool and ocverall increases the number of lions helping the species survive.

We have probl;ems from migratory species this is true, but migration of species also helps. 'Invasive' plant species that can grow in places of poor soil or climate strengthen the local ecosystems. There were moves to import hardy grass and tree species to the Falkland isles blocked on the grounds that it would disrupt the local environment, where infact the local environment is a wasteland

The question, what can grow here should trump the question what used to grow here. And the question how to we protect endangered species entirely should trump how to we preserve subspecies of endangered animals.

Ultimately as humans have an inevitable impact on the natural order then selective intererence is better than attempts at non interference. The bottom line is humans interfere and less and less speace is devoted to 'pristine' natural encironments as human needs grow and human economics prevails.

When you export these attitudes into space, where we will have to create entirely artificial biomes anyway I see no reason not to terraform Mars if such a task falls into our grasp.
Point here is that we have been 'terraforming' earth via our pollution for decades/centuries with only maerginal effect, and those effects are the byprioduct of human need industry and profit.
I am highly sceptical that a deliberate econlogically based project to terraform Mars would have any more effect, especially as it will not involve the actions of billions of people, and likely wont be profitable.


I do beleive, strongly, n space coklonisation. Building viable biomes beyond planet earth will be a good idea, for everyone. It would be good to get examples of as many species as possible elsewhere. If nothing else its an insurance policy in event of catastrophic war or other events; but I aslo beleive that man should strive to escape the cradle; and when we go we should bring along examples of deserts, tundra, green fields, forests, pocket oceans and lakes - all filled with life. It would be pointless living in space without, we would no longer be human animals, but bio-components in an in organic space machine.

well we would be starting smaller than Mars. first would be the moon, its alot closer and ideal starting base. if we can assemble ships in orbit the whole issue of getting them off earth is mitigated and the whole gravity problem.

Orbital docks drawing resources from both earth and asteroid mining as well as lunar bases could build ships far bigger and suited than the earth ;launched designed ever could be.

Coughcoughcough

Looks like Mars is back on the menu for NASA