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.

Hey, if you think it's possible, I say good luck to you, keep reaching for the stars.

they wont work for free, they woerk without profit/pay, there is a big difference.

You need the best people, best materials, best production facilities possible to have a prayer of this working. The best people rarely strive for sufficiency.

I just think until things get really sporty down here on earth it is going to be hard to find people with the drive/desperation that is needed to attain this project. Just getting your hands on the required materials much less the state of the art production facilities, without having to pay the kings ransom that they would expect in return is a pretty loft goal.

I suppose anything is possible, and I'd like to believe that humanity could unite in such a way, history however is against you.

Andrew1975 wrote:Hey, if you think it's possible, I say good luck to you, keep reaching for the stars.

they wont work for free, they woerk without profit/pay, there is a big difference.

You need the best people, best materials, best production facilities possible to have a prayer of this working. The best people rarely strive for sufficiency.

I just think until things get really sporty down here on earth it is going to be hard to find people with the drive/desperation that is needed to attain this project. Just getting your hands on the required materials much less the state of the art production facilities, without having to pay the kings ransom that they would expect in return is a pretty loft goal.

I suppose anything is possible, and I'd like to believe that humanity could unite in such a way, history however is against you.

History is in fact with me. Human large scale politics its what is against me. A communal scientific brotherhood is a concept which has not even been explored but successfully engaged, best example being the Pythagorean Brotherhood. You do not need many people to share the vision, given good charismatic leadership it could well work. Some are already thinking on broadly similar lines, this thought is not unique to me, though I worked out my version myself before I found others I am not alone now, so why should the charismatic who proports this be alone later.
I never made it out to be easy by the way, I would sign up. It takes less commitment than being a monk, and some people still become monks.

True, but this endeavor would be larger than anything attempted before. You are talking mass scale! You can get a small group of individuals relatively easy, well compared to the actual hard part. If you really think you can keep costs down through volunteer or sustenance labor, getting all the grunts together that you are gonna need for material acquisition, production and support would be much much harder.

You are basically gonna need to create NASA, but without the cost. Again, I wish you luck.

Look at how hard Richard Branson has to work just to break orbit, and he's got truckloads full of money and spends it freely. You are basically going to have to have cult followers, and those aren't always the best out of the box thinkers, not to mention the issues that those type of people tend to attract.

Granted, no good project was ever easy. So this being a project on a human planetary scale, expect planetary scale problems.

Problem: in the past, colonists are usually those with little/nothing to lose, so they'll gladly take the government's offer of a new home and some free assistance. In today's society, those with little to lose are generally educated to, say, a high school level (or an english major in college ). Do we want to send these people out in rockets?

or an english major in college

Hey that hurts?

Andrew1975 wrote:

or an english major in college

Hey that hurts?

Aw, just joking buddy. Those who know the themes and works of Dickens are just as important as teachers and engineers.

Orlanth wrote: A communal scientific brotherhood is a concept which has not even been explored but successfully engaged, best example being the Pythagorean Brotherhood.

I think most people would call the Pythagorean Brotherhood a religious cult, not a scientific brotherhood.

Andrew1975 wrote:True, but this endeavor would be larger than anything attempted before. You are talking mass scale! You can get a small group of individuals relatively easy, well compared to the actual hard part. If you really think you can keep costs down through volunteer or sustenance labor, getting all the grunts together that you are gonna need for material acquisition, production and support would be much much harder.

You are basically gonna need to create NASA, but without the cost. Again, I wish you luck.

Look at how hard Richard Branson has to work just to break orbit, and he's got truckloads full of money and spends it freely. You are basically going to have to have cult followers, and those aren't always the best out of the box thinkers, not to mention the issues that those type of people tend to attract.

Granted, no good project was ever easy. So this being a project on a human planetary scale, expect planetary scale problems.

That is no more than I would expect of a thinking man.

While visionaries might say, this can be done, not everyone need be visionary. A project like this will need more level thought and other thought besides, some people have vision, others organisation skills, others practical horse sense, three different ways of thinking complementary not contradictory.
All I would expect is wellwishing and the thought: 'it ought to be done, so how?', not the thought: 'it can be done, so do'. The former sees the need and the pitfalls looks to ways to fulfill the mission, the latter is a sheep who unthinkingly agrees with the cause and in effect can provide little beyond crude labour.
Someone who likes the idea but is sceptical may through good science be a great asset in this sort of undertaking, such people may make up the bulk of the scientific ventures, and when free thinking men look for ways oftimes they find solutions.

That is no more than I would expect of a thinking man.

Someone who likes the idea but is sceptical may through good science be a great asset in this sort of undertaking, such people may make up the bulk of the scientific ventures, and when free thinking men look for ways oftimes they find solutions.

Did we stop sending bombers just because some blew up when Germans shot at them? No, because the cause was considered worthwhile. A national space program might not be able to afford these forms of human economics, but a society dedicated to space exploration can. The astronauts in the project would have to sign up like bomber crews or not go at all, I still do not think there would be any shortage of quality volunteers. This is a cause worth risking your life for.

Yeah, see now I just feel you are setting me up to be one of those test monkeys that get shot into space. I wish you luck, but I'm not anybodies guinea pig.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it took us what, 75-125 years after the discovery of Flight to launch something into space, yes?

Still probably have 50 some years before a Space Colonization happens, being 100% optomistic.

Slarg232 wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but it took us what, 75-125 years after the discovery of Flight to launch something into space, yes?

Still probably have 50 some years before a Space Colonization happens, being 100% optomistic.

Well with the speed of progress the space programs have been going that is very optimistic. The space shuttle was first launched over 30 years ago. We haven't made any great leaps since then. Well not manned anyway.

Maybe we have a lab on the moon if 50 years, but that will just be the first step in a very long and expensive R&D project. When you think of all the hurdles we need to pass to get to a self sustainable space colony, well, we are very very far away.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but it took us what, 75-125 years after the discovery of Flight to launch something into space, yes?

Still probably have 50 some years before a Space Colonization happens, being 100% optimistic.

Well with the speed of progress the space programs have been going that is very optimistic. The space shuttle was first launched over 30 years ago. We haven't made any great leaps since then. Well not manned anyway.

Maybe we have a lab on the moon if 50 years, but that will just be the first step in a very long and expensive R&D project. When you think of all the hurdles we need to pass to get to a self sustainable space colony, well, we are very very far away.

Actually its not optimistic enough, sometimes crises cause growth to spurt, otherwise great projects that capture thre imagination.
Proof of each:
In 1903 the Wright Brothers flew at kitty Hawk, in 1915 just twelve years later there were dogfights over the Somme involving fairly large numbers of aircraft.

In 1961 Kennedy launched an appeal to go to the moon, in 1969 the goal was achieved and repeated as Saturn v vehicles remained until 1972.

We have not progressed since because there was either no crisis nor any notable vision. Space shuttle had vision but politicans like the odd bit of show but then move on because the public has moved on, only scientists or businessmen have any eye for consistency. So we are back to either private venture or a scientific commune. Motivate a core of people with the vision to try again and human flight will take yet another leap forward, in all likelihood quicker than expected. Somebelive that the Apollo program was a piece of the mid twenty-first century in the mid twentieth. I can believe that, and I can even believe that mid twenty-first century may be too optimistic. Obama has just effectively shut down NASA, his focus is elsewhere, Russia is too poor to continue etc. The only good news is the Russian/EU deal to build and launch Soyuz in French Guiana. An equatorial launch site will help Soyuz considerably and the richer EU will benefit from the tied and tested technologies birthed in the Soviet Union.

Orlanth wrote:Yes very 'vulnerable' which is why to train the anti-asteroid defences to pay particular attention to nuke shaped asteroids, boarding parties dodgy shuttles etc.

The hilarious part is where you assume that your ponderous spinning space station, which you've quite clearly stated would have no need of resupply from Earth, would have the fuel to dodge even unguided relativistic projectiles, let alone a missile moving in excess of Mach 10, that's probably hit you before you've even noticed that it's heading towards you.

Good, someone else saw the error.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:
Actually its not optimistic enough, sometimes crises cause growth to spurt, otherwise great projects that capture thre imagination.
Proof of each:
In 1903 the Wright Brothers flew at kitty Hawk, in 1915 just twelve years later there were dogfights over the Somme involving fairly large numbers of aircraft.

In 1961 Kennedy launched an appeal to go to the moon, in 1969 the goal was achieved and repeated as Saturn v vehicles remained until 1972.

You realize that in both cases the driving force behind growth was public capital, yes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote: Somebelive that the Apollo program was a piece of the mid twenty-first century in the mid twentieth.

No, it was a piece of the twentieth century, because that's when it happened. You're speaking like a bad 50's serial.

The romance of the space age is dead. We went out there and didn't really find a good reason to keep going. It just costs too much. There are really only a few motivating factors that spur technology.

In no particular order.

1 Resources. There aren't any, well none that would pay off to spend a but load to get yet.

2 War. We have basically declared space a weapons free zone.

3 Porn. We have that in abundance here. So until the fabled 6 breasted women of Dengar 8 show up, I don't see this being an issue.

Because it is there is great for climbing a mountain, but not for spending the GDP of most countries to get there.

I think one day we will figure out how to do it cost effectively, until then I think we better figure out a way to be better custodians of this rock.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Yes very 'vulnerable' which is why to train the anti-asteroid defences to pay particular attention to nuke shaped asteroids, boarding parties dodgy shuttles etc.

The hilarious part is where you assume that your ponderous spinning space station, which you've quite clearly stated would have no need of resupply from Earth, would have the fuel to dodge even unguided relativistic projectiles, let alone a missile moving in excess of Mach 10, that's probably hit you before you've even noticed that it's heading towards you.

Hilarious? You any idea how easy it is to spot a launch, and radar works in space you know, and is very hard to stealth up. You cannot stealth nukes anyway, too many dense materials at the core.
Laugh away though, the world would be a boring place if everyone had vision.

As for dodging, this was worked out. Either you shoot down incoming projectiles or if unguided you move the colony up to half its own smallest facing dimension in the time between minimum detection range and estimated impact. Projectiles dont travel at relativistic speeds outside of soft SF, you may as well 'fail' the project as it has no shielding against phasers and photon torpedoes, it makes as much real life sense. Asteroids have an appreciable travel time and can be detected some way off. Missiles are more of a problem, but you would'nt dodge missiles, even if they appear unguided they may simply switch off attitude thrust until terminal guidance to conserve fuel. Assume all incoming missiles will have sufficient delta-v to place it in impact trajectory and destroy it.

dogma wrote:Good, someone else saw the error.

Which error dogma, or are you back to your old tricks of rejection without critique.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Actually its not optimistic enough, sometimes crises cause growth to spurt, otherwise great projects that capture the imagination.
In 1903 the Wright Brothers flew at kitty Hawk, in 1915 just twelve years later there were dogfights over the Somme involving fairly large numbers of aircraft.
In 1961 Kennedy launched an appeal to go to the moon, in 1969 the goal was achieved and repeated as Saturn V vehicles remained until 1972.

You realize that in both cases the driving force behind growth was public capital, yes?

How did you come to that conclusion?

Actually early airforces were underfunded until 1916 at least aircraft manufacture was a cottage industry and largely laughed at by the general of the time as a waste. Apollo however was not underfunded, but obviosuly dosesnt correlate wirth early WW1 aircraft production.
The consistent point was not public money but political will. The will was there to take to the air and fight. Look what happened to Apollo once the political will ebbed away, it got cancelled, with three rockets Apollo 18-20 already built and paid for. Admittedly one saturn V rocket got turned into Skylab, but two others didn't fly and became multi billion dollar paperweights. Why cancel when two more trips could be made for a relatively small sum compared to existing investment in the two Saturn rockets, it makes little fiscal sense to waste them, but politcally it made sense as the public was no longer enthralled and much of the work was already done. Also by then the US was in a growing malaise over Vietnam and Apollo felt like whistling while drowning to a disgruntled population.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote: Some believe that the Apollo program was a piece of the mid twenty-first century in the mid twentieth.

No, it was a piece of the twentieth century, because that's when it happened. You're speaking like a bad 50's serial.

Actually I am closely paraphrasing a quote from a NASA official from the Apollo program control room staff who gave interview in a documentary about the Apollo program. I found his words helpful, however perhaps dogma knows better than him, perhaps not.

It was out of synch with the 20th century because it did advanced stuff that wasn't done before or since. Other than Apollo you may consider the fact that no other manned lunar expeditions have been launched and none are currently planned beyond open concepts of 'might go by certain date'. No other manned exploration of apace ventured more than approx 300m miles altitude, Apollo was unique in many respects and noone has yet gone remotely as far since from 1972 to 2011 and counting. As none of the moon return dates hypothesises are in the first quarter of this century and may well be postponed further I think it fair comment.
However if dogma says it isnt and that Apollo was just another standard event in the 60's like everything fore and since then dogma can think that if he wishes.

Andrew1975 wrote:Hey, if you think it's possible, I say good luck to you, keep reaching for the stars.

they wont work for free, they woerk without profit/pay, there is a big difference.

You need the best people, best materials, best production facilities possible to have a prayer of this working. The best people rarely strive for sufficiency.

I just think until things get really sporty down here on earth it is going to be hard to find people with the drive/desperation that is needed to attain this project. Just getting your hands on the required materials much less the state of the art production facilities, without having to pay the kings ransom that they would expect in return is a pretty loft goal.

I suppose anything is possible, and I'd like to believe that humanity could unite in such a way, history however is against you.

Actually it means many many people have to slave so that a few can get ito space. Thats pretty much the opposite of Utopia.

I could think of no greater crime against another planet than to subject it to our presence.
How long after the "colonization" of Mars before the first Wal-Marts and McDonalds begin to speckle it's surface?

Orlanth wrote:
Which error dogma, or are you back to your old tricks of rejection without critique.

The logistical one regarding your rapture-esque rotational space habitat.

Orlanth wrote:
Actually early airforces were underfunded until 1916 at least aircraft manufacture was a cottage industry and largely laughed at by the general of the time as a waste.

If you're going to argue that aircraft progressed from experiment to wide use a rapid pace it is not a good idea to use an example which illustrates the role public capital played in realizing the event in question. Underfunded or not, the use of public funds is what made aircraft manufacture really take off, as the concept of private airlines didn't really take hold until after World War II, and it isn't like planes are an often sought consumer good.

Orlanth wrote:
The consistent point was not public money but political will.

No, that's incorrect. There was no significant political will to use aircraft in war, as you yourself have just said, however public funds were directed towards the purchase of aircraft anyway. This infusion of cash, while small compared to the overall military budget of the purchasing nations, still was a massive boon to aircraft manufacturers; who now found themselves with their first truly reliable clients. NASA, on the other hand, was the beneficiary of Kennedy's space race, and the overall competition with the Soviet Union. This made it possible for massive amounts of public capital to be poured into the Apollo program.

Truthfully, your examples don't have much of anything in common, and don't do much to illustrate your point.

Orlanth wrote:
Why cancel when two more trips could be made for a relatively small sum compared to existing investment in the two Saturn rockets, it makes little fiscal sense to waste them, but politcally it made sense as the public was no longer enthralled and much of the work was already done.

I don't see why that doesn't make fiscal sense. Not launching the rockets meant not spending more money, its that simple. Moreover, the majority of the 185 million 2005 USD per launch price tag was, if I recall correctly, tied up in fuel, not the rocket itself.

Orlanth wrote:
Actually I am closely paraphrasing a quote from a NASA official from the Apollo program control room staff who gave interview in a documentary about the Apollo program. I found his words helpful, however perhaps dogma knows better than him, perhaps not.

Then he was also speaking like a bad 50's serial. But hey, he wasn't paid to be articulate when it came to describing the nature of the program he was working on, so it isn't a huge issue.

Orlanth wrote:
It was out of synch with the 20th century because it did advanced stuff that wasn't done before or since.

How can something be "in sync" with a period of time? Either it happened during a given period of time, and therefore characterizes that period of time, or it didn't. Everything else is just an expression of awe that something could have happened in a particular period of time, and is therefore irrelevant.

Orlanth wrote:
However if dogma says it isnt and that Apollo was just another standard event in the 60's like everything fore and since then dogma can think that if he wishes.

Apollo is an event of note, obviously, but its still an event which took place in the 60's. Even if its a unique event, its still an event that happened in the 60's.

FITZZ wrote: I could think of no greater crime against another planet than to subject it to our presence.
How long after the "colonization" of Mars before the first Wal-Marts and McDonalds begin to speckle it's surface?

Probably right as soon as we get it to support life; those bastards want to be everywhere....

FITZZ wrote: I could think of no greater crime against another planet than to subject it to our presence.
How long after the "colonization" of Mars before the first Wal-Marts and McDonalds begin to speckle it's surface?

So I should buy the rights to Martians of Walmart then?

KingCracker wrote:

FITZZ wrote: I could think of no greater crime against another planet than to subject it to our presence.
How long after the "colonization" of Mars before the first Wal-Marts and McDonalds begin to speckle it's surface?

So I should buy the rights to Martians of Walmart then?

Oh most assuredly ...get in on the ground floor now.
With Wal-Marts propensity for sprouting up like boils on a Plague Marines ass, you (or your offspring) will have enough cash to keep you in Ray-guns and flying cars for ten lifetimes.

The one other thing that get me worried about space colonization is planet loyalty.

I agree that Mars, for example, would be loyal in the beginig ( after all the settlers came from Earth ). But what if mars became self-sufficient? Will it ask the Earth for independence? And what would be the outcome of that war be?

Brother Coa wrote:The one other thing that get me worried about space colonization is planet loyalty.

I agree that Mars, for example, owuld be loyal in the beginig ( after all the settlers came from Earth ). But what if mars became self-sufficient? Will it ask the Earth for independence? And what would be the outcome of that war be?

Looking back on History....that WILL happen. It seems to work out for the better most the time lately but uh....it hasnt always ended well

KingCracker wrote:Looking back on History....that WILL happen. It seems to work out for the better most the time lately but uh....it hasnt always ended well

We're going to blow up Mars again? Haven't they suffered enough?

Self-sufficiency on Mars will be interesting since it will basically depend on when the initial settlement of Mars occurs. If settlement is in the near future and intersteller mining and transport of material isn't economically feasable (i.e. Earth still has plenty of resources), then Mars' self-sufficiency will be a good thing since it will reduce the draw from Earth. At that point the Earthians probably wouldn't have a problem with Mars seceding.

But if Mars is settled in the far future as a mining colony, Earth would take great offense to a self-suffiency movement on Mars, especailly if Earth is dependent upon Martian shipments for basic resources.

Right, so they will get blowed up..... no if I were in charge Id poison them all, dont want to ruin those valuable resources now do we

KingCracker wrote:Right, so they will get blowed up..... no if I were in charge Id poison them all, dont want to ruin those valuable resources now do we

...And that's pretty much Earths colonization of any planet in a nutshell...how can we exploit what's there to benefit us.

EDIT: Seriously...any life on other worlds will rue the day the populace of Earth seeks to "branch out and expand".

FITZZ wrote:Seriously...any life on other worlds will rue the day the populace of Earth seeks to "branch out and expand".

Should that stop us from branching out and expanding? What deference do we owe to other species "right to exist"?

biccat wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Looking back on History....that WILL happen. It seems to work out for the better most the time lately but uh....it hasnt always ended well

We're going to blow up Mars again? Haven't they suffered enough?

Self-sufficiency on Mars will be interesting since it will basically depend on when the initial settlement of Mars occurs. If settlement is in the near future and intersteller mining and transport of material isn't economically feasable (i.e. Terra still has plenty of resources), then Mars' self-sufficiency will be a good thing since it will reduce the draw from Terra. At that point the Terrans probably wouldn't have a problem with Mars seceding.

But if Mars is settled in the far future as a mining colony, Terra would take great offense to a self-suffiency movement on Terra, especailly if Terra is dependent upon Martian shipments for basic resources.

Fixed