Russian roadmap to Solar System colonisation. Moon is the first step. - page 3.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1217

Quote from: dogechode on April 19, 2014, 09:32:50 AM

I don't buy that the population is going to start declining any time soon. Life expectancy keeps going up and the classes that have more children per family seem to be growing faster than the classes that have 0-2 children per family.

I disagree with this. The life expectancy in many of the European nations have reached a saturation point. It is no longer possible to raise it significantly. And the past decade had seen birth rates declining everywhere on earth, be it Africa, Asia, Europe or America. Almost all the continents (with the exception of Africa) has attained sub-replacement level fertility.

Balthazar

legendary

Activity: 3108

Merit: 1359

Quote from: bryant.coleman on April 18, 2014, 10:14:38 PM

Quote from: Kiki112 on April 18, 2014, 06:27:20 PM

but couldn't it pay itself out?

Even if they are mining the most expensive metal on earth, the trip would be uneconomical (it will cost around $100 billion, equivalent to some 5,000 tonnes of gold).

Uranium and thorium are pretty costly, so mining of these metals could be economical. But transportation of uranium and thorium will be costly too, due to high density... So it seems that gauss guns should be used as a part of transportation system. And of course, some work is required to lower the cost of transportation.

supernovax

full member

Activity: 140

Merit: 100

Quote from: bryant.coleman on April 18, 2014, 11:48:24 PM

Quote from: dogechode on April 18, 2014, 10:29:03 PM

We are going to run out of room on Earth sooner than later and the risk of an extinction level event (asteroid hit, nuclear war, virus, who knows??) means we really need to expand and not keep the entire race in one basket so to speak.

I don't think that there is an immediate threat to human existence. There are a large number of scarcely populated nations around the world, such as Russia and Brazil. Even China can sustain a lot more people than it is having right now. Also, the world population will stabilize sometime in 2050, and will start declining after that.

You don't know for sure. Like a super volcano eruption, nuclear war, based on scientist experiments a 100 nuclear explosions in one day can make enough dust to block the sun and cause nuclear winter for ten years, and the reflected light can destroy the ozone, imagine thousands of nuclear bombs it will kill us all. Don't forget asteroids and comets and many other calamities that make the humans instinct in an instant.

dogechode

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

Quote from: bryant.coleman on April 18, 2014, 11:48:24 PM

I don't think that there is an immediate threat to human existence. There are a large number of scarcely populated nations around the world, such as Russia and Brazil. Even China can sustain a lot more people than it is having right now. Also, the world population will stabilize sometime in 2050, and will start declining after that.

There are many scarcely populated ares in Russian and China where people don't want to live. Yes those countries are huge but much of their land is tundra, desert, etc and not desirable.

I don't buy that the population is going to start declining any time soon. Life expectancy keeps going up and the classes that have more children per family seem to be growing faster than the classes that have 0-2 children per family. Medicine is advancing at an alarming rate and we are already having problems paying for medical care because people just aren't dying like they used to.

Quote from: Spendulus on April 19, 2014, 12:10:27 AM

Creating a human presence off Earth does not necessarily mean and should not necessarily mean Mars, read up on O'Neil colonies.

Creating a human presence off Earth means having ... somewhere ... serious building capabilities, like the ability to build spaceships, motors and tanks.

That is a valid point though I am not sure if I have heard of O'Neil colonies. Can you post a link or two and/or a basic explanation of O'Neil colonies?

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: dogechode on April 18, 2014, 10:29:03 PM

Quote from: bryant.coleman on April 18, 2014, 10:14:38 PM

Quote from: Kiki112 on April 18, 2014, 06:27:20 PM

but couldn't it pay itself out?

Even if they are mining the most expensive metal on earth, the trip would be uneconomical (it will cost around $100 billion, equivalent to some 5,000 tonnes of gold).

Another point I haven't mentioned is that I don't view Mars colonization as only worthwhile if it produces a return in terms of financial gain. Frankly I think colonizing Mars is a necessary and urgent step for the human race. We are going to run out of room on Earth sooner than later and the risk of an extinction level event (asteroid hit, nuclear war, virus, who knows??) means we really need to expand and not keep the entire race in one basket so to speak.

Creating a human presence off Earth does not necessarily mean and should not necessarily mean Mars, read up on O'Neil colonies.

Creating a human presence off Earth means having ... somewhere ... serious building capabilities, like the ability to build spaceships, motors and tanks.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1217

Quote from: dogechode on April 18, 2014, 10:29:03 PM

We are going to run out of room on Earth sooner than later and the risk of an extinction level event (asteroid hit, nuclear war, virus, who knows??) means we really need to expand and not keep the entire race in one basket so to speak.

I don't think that there is an immediate threat to human existence. There are a large number of scarcely populated nations around the world, such as Russia and Brazil. Even China can sustain a lot more people than it is having right now. Also, the world population will stabilize sometime in 2050, and will start declining after that.

newbegin

newbie

Activity: 5

Merit: 0

Hm... I think a one way ticket to mars is possible right now. But I think mars is in worst condition than earth.

dogechode

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

Quote from: bryant.coleman on April 18, 2014, 10:14:38 PM

Quote from: Kiki112 on April 18, 2014, 06:27:20 PM

but couldn't it pay itself out?

Even if they are mining the most expensive metal on earth, the trip would be uneconomical (it will cost around $100 billion, equivalent to some 5,000 tonnes of gold).

Another point I haven't mentioned is that I don't view Mars colonization as only worthwhile if it produces a return in terms of financial gain. Frankly I think colonizing Mars is a necessary and urgent step for the human race. We are going to run out of room on Earth sooner than later and the risk of an extinction level event (asteroid hit, nuclear war, virus, who knows??) means we really need to expand and not keep the entire race in one basket so to speak.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1217

Quote from: Kiki112 on April 18, 2014, 06:27:20 PM

but couldn't it pay itself out?

Even if they are mining the most expensive metal on earth, the trip would be uneconomical (it will cost around $100 billion, equivalent to some 5,000 tonnes of gold).

dogechode

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

Quote from: supernovax on April 18, 2014, 01:10:05 PM

Manned mars mission or asteroid mining is very hard and very expensive without moon exploitation or space elevator.

I don't see how they're related. A few people keep trying to force the argument that like the moon is some necessary precursor to a mars mission. It isn't. Whatever it would cost to get some kind of moon base, whether manned or completely automatic (which I seriously doubt could be possible any time soon, it would break down all the time and need people to fix things) anyways whatever it would cost, it must be cheaper to just go straight to mars. I think given the right planning, they could build a lot of what they need on site. Sure we'd need to send some very complex things and starter supplies but I still see no reason why some moon base needs to come first.

Kiki112

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 101

Quote from: supernovax on April 18, 2014, 01:10:05 PM

Manned mars mission or asteroid mining is very hard and very expensive without moon exploitation or space elevator.

but couldn't it pay itself out?

supernovax

full member

Activity: 140

Merit: 100

Manned mars mission or asteroid mining is very hard and very expensive without moon exploitation or space elevator.

PhydeauxLeChien

newbie

Activity: 4

Merit: 100

Quote from: bryant.coleman on April 17, 2014, 10:42:52 AM

Artificial gravity is achieved through either using the centripetal force or the linear acceleration. Both have their own disadvantages and both can cause health issues in the long term.

Can you expand on the disadvantages? (apart from all the disadvantages associated with large mechanical systems)

And health problems? An accelerating reference frame is physically (not just biologically) indistinguishable from a gravitational field - spin at the right speed and your body would have no way of telling that it wasn't on Earth, so no long term health effects.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: dogechode on April 18, 2014, 08:53:24 AM

What's funny to me is all the moon nuts that keep trying to respond to every single idea by saying "See! that's why you need a moon base!" We wouldn't HAVE to use the moon to build things in space, you just want a damn excuse to build a colony up there. The problem is everyone there would go freaking nuts and want to go back to earth and that's going to be a problem after their bodies have atrophied and lost bone mass from being in extremely low gravity for months/years.

Actually, you missed my point. I've used the phrase "robotic moon exploitation" and see little use in a human presence on the moon.

dogechode

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

What's funny to me is all the moon nuts that keep trying to respond to every single idea by saying "See! that's why you need a moon base!" We wouldn't HAVE to use the moon to build things in space, you just want a damn excuse to build a colony up there. The problem is everyone there would go freaking nuts and want to go back to earth and that's going to be a problem after their bodies have atrophied and lost bone mass from being in extremely low gravity for months/years.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1217

Quote from: supernovax on April 18, 2014, 02:46:52 AM

You only need the rotate where the astronaut stays. And you don't need to create a 1km circumference structure, only part of it. The only important is its 1km from the center of rotation to the other end where the astronauts stays and have it attached to the main spacecraft and have it rotate. The main spacecraft will not rotate only the living module. With this design you can even make 10km from the center of rotation to the living module with way less material.

But still it will be a huge structure, unlike anything which has been built so far. And also, how to make it rotate? It will be a hell of a task to get this giant structure rotate at the right pace!

supernovax

full member

Activity: 140

Merit: 100

You only need the rotate where the astronaut stays. And you don't need to create a 1km circumference structure, only part of it. The only important is its 1km from the center of rotation to the other end where the astronauts stays and have it attached to the main spacecraft and have it rotate. The main spacecraft will not rotate only the living module. With this design you can even make 10km from the center of rotation to the living module with way less material.

PhydeauxLeChien

newbie

Activity: 4

Merit: 100

Quote from: bryant.coleman on April 17, 2014, 09:47:58 AM

Not only it will take months of time, but also it will take tens of thousands of workers as well. The cost of transporting 3 astronauts to Mars stands at $100 billion. Imagine the cost of transporting tens of thousands of them. Grin

Those first 3 better get fuckin'.

Balthazar

legendary

Activity: 3108

Merit: 1359

It's obvious that such structures should be built directly in the space... Using parts delivered from the earth.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 1217

Quote from: PhydeauxLeChien on April 17, 2014, 10:54:38 AM

Can you expand on the disadvantages? (apart from all the disadvantages associated with large mechanical systems)
And health problems? An accelerating reference frame is physically (not just biologically) indistinguishable from a gravitational field - spin at the right speed and your body would have no way of telling that it wasn't on Earth, so no long term health effects.

Here:

Quote from: Schleicher on April 17, 2014, 11:42:14 AM

Yeah, but that's only true for big structures, like 1km diameter.
Otherwise your head will feel a different gravity that your feet.

I don't think that a space shuttle with 1 km diameter can be ever constructed. Even if such as structure is some how constructed, it will be near impossible to take it to the Mars.

Topic: Russian roadmap to Solar System colonisation. Moon is the first step. - page 3. (Read 6233 times)