Topic: Colonising Planets - page 4. (Read 3795 times)
Yes. That day will come if maybe all of the resources in our planet earth comes to a complete depletion, or maybe if our population hits to a certain point that some people needs to live on different planets.
At the state of our earth right now where we're at the verge of completely losing our resources, I think we really do need new residence. I think scientists were right all along. We need to design a better world through technology. VR, perhaps?
Mathematical nonsense. 
There are hundreds of billions of stars in this galaxy alone, with hundreds of billions of galaxies.
Each star has multiple planets.
Eventually, we will find some that support our life.
Chemical nonsense. There are hundreds of billions of stars in this galaxy alone, with hundreds of billions of galaxies.
Each star has multiple planets.
Eventually, we will find some that support our life.
You won't find an oxygen atmosphere on a planet by chance; oxygen is far too reactive to exist naturally in a free state. You know why water's the most common compound in the universe? Because hydrogen is the most common element, so whenever there's oxygen around - BOOM! Oxygen also reacts with carbon to form carbon oxides, silicon to form rock, and metals to form rust: all of which can be found in varying levels of abundance on other planets, but no free oxygen.
The only reason Earth has oxygen in its atmosphere is because algae and plants are constantly producing it as a waste product, and the only way another planet can have oxygen is if it already has life like ours, which may be inconvenient for colonists.
Good point. But the real issue is that at the moment there is not even the slightest scientific clue that a long distant space travel may ever be possible. Sleeping during long trips is just a science fiction trick, no concrete reason it will ever be possible. At the moment we can't even be sure to be able to ship human safely beyond the Van Allen belts, BTW.
Curently we don't even know if for ''Real'' we have reached the moon , i know all the documentaries and the stories, all the space equipment seen on tv , but how much is true from all of this !!?
Yes, we know for real that we reached the moon. Anyone can fire a laser at a mirror left behind and get a signal back.
I agree that we went to the moon, but...
Just go up there and find out if that is a mirror. It could be a piece of natural, shiny, silica rock that somebody accidentally found while shining a laser around, and then made some claims about. You don't know it is a mirror.
The mirror narrative has never convinced me in the slightest, since the light needs 1.3 seconds to travel from the earth to the moon, which makes it quite difficult to target the mirror (you have to shoot where the mirror will be in 1.3 seconds), but it makes it completely impossible to receive the laser ray when it comes back from the moon, since in 1.3 seconds the observatory would move tens of Km away from where the ray would return to.
Here there's a discussion on the theme:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4971.0
Curently we don't even know if for ''Real'' we have reached the moon , i know all the documentaries and the stories, all the space equipment seen on tv , but how much is true from all of this !!?
Yes, we know for real that we reached the moon. Anyone can fire a laser at a mirror left behind and get a signal back.
I agree that we went to the moon, but...
Just go up there and find out if that is a mirror. It could be a piece of natural, shiny, silica rock that somebody accidentally found while shining a laser around, and then made some claims about. You don't know it is a mirror.
I dont think people will be ready to accept such a massive project so easily
Yes, we know for real that we reached the moon. Anyone can fire a laser at a mirror left behind and get a signal back.
What if that mirror was left behind earlier by some unmanned space mission? I am not saying that the moon landing was faked... But all I am saying is that the NASA hasn't been able to prove with 100% certainty that humans landed in moon. And yes... 99.99% is still not good enough.
Colonizing planets is stupid. It isn't even in the same class as Columbus looking for the West Indies with 3 stupid little ships. It isn't even in the same class as the Mayflower coming to America for religious freedom.
We don't have the technology to take people even to Mars, yet, safely. We have only vaguest ideas of how to terraform. Bitcoin and wars will break fiat long before the technology can get there.
"Starlight, star bright, I wish I may, I wish I might..."
That's all the closer we are to the reality of colonizing planets. Dream, dream, dream. It's all a bunch of dreams... all except for the part where the wealthy are playing on your dreams to suck some donation money out of you for ridiculous, space projects.
We don't have the technology to take people even to Mars, yet, safely. We have only vaguest ideas of how to terraform. Bitcoin and wars will break fiat long before the technology can get there.
"Starlight, star bright, I wish I may, I wish I might..."
That's all the closer we are to the reality of colonizing planets. Dream, dream, dream. It's all a bunch of dreams... all except for the part where the wealthy are playing on your dreams to suck some donation money out of you for ridiculous, space projects.
yes why not? Looking at the pace of growing scientific techs, it can be said so that the day is not far away
People should focus on reducing population and wasting less resources, not increasing it and sending them to other planets.
Curently we don't even know if for ''Real'' we have reached the moon , i know all the documentaries and the stories, all the space equipment seen on tv , but how much is true from all of this !!?
Yes, we know for real that we reached the moon. Anyone can fire a laser at a mirror left behind and get a signal back.
It would be possible but it would take decades for such a thought to become possible
Curently we don't even know if for ''Real'' we have reached the moon , i know all the documentaries and the stories, all the space equipment seen on tv , but how much is true from all of this !!?
Even I have doubts regarding this. The Americans and the Russians were spending billions of USD in this space race, and the Americans were quite desperate for a win. Some people think that the Americans faked a moon landing, in order to demoralize the Russians.
Think and plan a lot bigger in space as the SpaceX BFR will give 1000 times old...
Read more and watch the video at https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/02/think-and-plan-a-lot-bigger-in-space-as-the-spacex-bfr-will-give-1000-times-old-space-capabilities.html.
SpaceX is rapidly changing what is possible in space. Instead of taking 40 launches over a decade to build the 400-ton space station, we could have 1000 launches in a year from ten fully reusable SpaceX BFRs that would place 150,000 tons into space. The 1000 SpaceX BFR launches would cost $10 billion versus $40 billion for the space shuttle launches of the International space station.
We will be getting 1000 times the capability in space.
The most technically challenging aspect of designing a growth-capable space habitat is growing the pressure hull. One method of growing a torus-shaped pressure hull is illustrated in the animation shown here. In this method a new folded pressure hull is constructed inside the existing pressure hull. When the new hull has been pressure tested, the existing hull is removed and the material recycled. The new pressure hull is then expanded by a controlled release of the restraining cables. The animation shows one way of folding the new pressure hull to enable proportional growth where every facet of the torus grows by the same proportion, resulting in a uniformly scaled expansion.
We will be getting 1000 times the capability in space.
The most technically challenging aspect of designing a growth-capable space habitat is growing the pressure hull. One method of growing a torus-shaped pressure hull is illustrated in the animation shown here. In this method a new folded pressure hull is constructed inside the existing pressure hull. When the new hull has been pressure tested, the existing hull is removed and the material recycled. The new pressure hull is then expanded by a controlled release of the restraining cables. The animation shows one way of folding the new pressure hull to enable proportional growth where every facet of the torus grows by the same proportion, resulting in a uniformly scaled expansion.
Read more and watch the video at https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/02/think-and-plan-a-lot-bigger-in-space-as-the-spacex-bfr-will-give-1000-times-old-space-capabilities.html.
Colonizing planets is possible. As of now scientist are still continuing their studies on how interstellar travel would be possible. Of course we do still need a lot of homework to do before really being able to live in other planets especially exo's. Maybe if we can recreate the sun within spaceships and then cultivate plants, maybe then we can travel far and wide in deep space.
I think it is highly likely that humans will eventually colonise other planets, possibly starting with Mars. The colonization of Mars will probably begin around 2050 as we begin to establish a permanent presence on the planet, continuing into the 2100s as an off-world relay system is implemented. Beyond our solar system, I doubt we will establish colonies on exoplanets until well after 2100, as the distance is simply to vast for us to overcome with current technology. We would need to develop better propulsion technology, shielding, 3D printing, AI and recycling technologies before it is feasible.
If the planet needs to be terraformed, that will take hundreds to thousands of years to complete, so this is certainly a long way off.
If the planet needs to be terraformed, that will take hundreds to thousands of years to complete, so this is certainly a long way off.
Curently we don't even know if for ''Real'' we have reached the moon , i know all the documentaries and the stories, all the space equipment seen on tv , but how much is true from all of this !!?
Other planets are not going to have the same atmosphere as ours. Chances are we're not going to be able to breath on these planets.
Mathematical nonsense.
There are hundreds of billions of stars in this galaxy alone, with hundreds of billions of galaxies.
Each star has multiple planets.
Eventually, we will find some that support our life.
OK.. I agree with you. But if that planet is 10,000 light years away, could you please enlighten me on how to travel to these planets? If you use a normal mode of transport, then it may take trillions of years.
Yes I do believe we will colonize another planet. Right now it looks like Mars is the most likely option and many people are working on doing that right now. I do think it is beneficial to mankind that we explore other planets. Who knows what will happen to out planet Earth.
Just because Mars is the closest planet, that doesn't mean that it is the most habitable one. There are quite a lot of issues in colonizing that planet, including lack of oxygen and water, danger from solar radiation, low gravity, and extreme variation in the temperature. So ideally, we should be looking at other options. But the issue with other habitable exoplanets is that they are located too far away.
From Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God at http://ericmetaxas.com/media/articles/science-increasingly-makes-case-god/:
The point is twofold:
1. There isn't any life out there, anywhere;
2. It will take way more capability than we will have for hundreds of years, to even be able to think about Terra-forming some likely candidate planet into a habitable planet like earth.
Let's start thinking about this when we should... some hundreds of years down the road. Right now we need to focus on how to keep our governments from nuking us off the earth, and destroying the limited knowledge that we already have.
...
Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.
...
Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkelwrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”
As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.
Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.
Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?
...
Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.
...
Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkelwrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”
As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.
Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.
Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?
...
The point is twofold:
1. There isn't any life out there, anywhere;
2. It will take way more capability than we will have for hundreds of years, to even be able to think about Terra-forming some likely candidate planet into a habitable planet like earth.
Let's start thinking about this when we should... some hundreds of years down the road. Right now we need to focus on how to keep our governments from nuking us off the earth, and destroying the limited knowledge that we already have.
Jump to: