How Close Are We To Colonizing Space?

http://io9.com/5428896/how-close-are-we-to-colonizing-space

by icey • 17 years ago

23 36 17 years ago

stcredzero3• 17 years ago

We could've done it with 1970's technology. The primary hurdle is economic. (Fast Mars missions would've been feasible with Project Orion's nuclear propulsion. Background radiation would be a lot worse now, however.)

berntb7• 17 years ago

Since it seems we could have had viable colonies outside the atmosphere by now, this should have implications for Fermi's Paradox.

If Fermi's Paradox comes from a limiting factor "removing" civilizations (a physics experiment, etc), it should need to destroy a whole solar system and not only a planet. Otherwise it would only remove the fraction of civilizations that didn't develop an Orion before that experiment.

IIRC, NASA killed Orion politically? They might have exterminated humanity -- for job security...

tphyahoo• 17 years ago

wasn't it the 1963 nuclear test ban treaty? basicaly, after that, you could only detonate nukes during peacetime underground, right?

and orion would have been detonating them not-too-distant from earth when ramping up for interstellar voyages.

rbanffy3• 17 years ago

Actually, it's good they killed the Orion.

Can you imagine a streak of detonating nukes all the way to LEO?

hugh_4• 17 years ago

I'm guessing that civilizations on some other planets probably have a much easier time of colonizing space than we do. We have the misfortune of finding ourselves in the only vaguely-habitable rock in our own solar system, but some other systems must have multiple habitable planets, even multiple life-supporting ones.

Imagine if the moon had been several times bigger -- it would have an atmosphere, and thanks to panspermia might even have picked up enough life from Earth to give it a breathable atmosphere. The Apollo Project would have immediately been followed by a project to kill and eat the local wildlife to see what it tastes like. Or suppose we'd evolved on a moon of a Jupiter-like planet in the habitable zone -- there'd be a whole bunch of other equally habitable moons just a short flight away.

Instead we're stuck on a big rock, looking at a bunch of other rocks which are fairly useless to us. Sigh.

stcredzero3• 17 years ago

If Fermi's Paradox comes from a limiting factor "removing" civilizations (a physics experiment, etc), it should need to destroy a whole solar system and not only a planet.

Maybe the economic hurdles are the limiting factors? Economics seems to be closely related to game theory. I bet a lot of the principles apply to all civilizations.

btilly• 17 years ago

What was the estimate, an average of one person killed per launch because of the radioactive fallout?

Not near my planet, please.

selven• 17 years ago

Launching orion from the ground would be extremely unfeasible. The best space-colonizing strategies all involve setting up a base in Earth orbit, with some space elevators attached, and building ships for colonization from there. It has to be done this way because a Mars mission would spend only half of its fuel getting to Mars - the other half is spent getting out of the gravity well. If we could mine and build in space, we can skip that step (and safely detonate some nukes to launch our spaceships)

stcredzero3• 17 years ago

For purely physical reasons, the Project Orion study disagrees with you. According to their models, a robust surface to orbit launch schedule would result in a couple of extra deaths a year worldwide from cancer. Compared to the extra cancer deaths from burning coal, this is nothing! Compared to worldwide deaths from automobile traffic? Compared against the potential economic benefit?

Unfortunately, it would be politically infeasible.

joe_the_user4• 17 years ago

It might have been possible to send humans beings to Mars in the 1970's - if you weren't concerned whether they arrived alive at the end.

The problem is that wouldn't have proved the prowess of US or Soviet technology.

Icterus• 17 years ago

Not nearly as close as we are to colonizing the oceans: http://seasteading.org/

tyohn• 17 years ago

On the ocean? I was really hoping for under the ocean :(

Raphael• 17 years ago

There'll be no accusations, just friendly crustaceans under the sea.

joe_the_user4• 17 years ago

In other words,

We are way bleeping far away from colonizing space...

The problem that low gravity significantly accelerates aging isn't often mentioned but it serves as a pretty decisive hindrance.

I mean, even a permanent settlement is a long way from colonization. We have permanent bases on Antarctica. We aren't planning to colonize any time soon.

That part of the Jetsons will have to wait...

eru• 17 years ago

> The problem that low gravity significantly accelerates aging isn't often mentioned but it serves as a pretty decisive hindrance.

Interesting. Sources?

hugh_4• 17 years ago

The sea, Antarctica, the Moon -- all these places can technologically be colonized, but it won't happen until there's some compelling economic reason for it -- either an industry which can make money there (see colonization of South Africa, South America), or a bunch of colonists willing to pay their own way for long enough until the colony becomes self-sufficient (see colonization of North America).

Come to think of it, we already have colonies on the ocean floor, they're called oil rigs, and they're economically viable. I wouldn't want to live there, though.

elblanco• 17 years ago

20 years. We're always 20 years away.

dennisgorelik• 17 years ago

Could anybody explain to me why would we need to colonize Mars (or even Moon) if we still have virtually empty Antarctica and near-empty Siberia?

wooster2• 17 years ago

It reduces the risk of total species annihilation.

lliiffee• 17 years ago

I wonder how much it does. Seems to me the greatest risk is global thermonuclear war. If we are determined enough to nuke ourselves our of existence here, couldn't we pretty easily send a bunch of bombs mars' way, too?

How Close Are We To Colonizing Space?

Related Stories