Thread: When will humanity expand into space?

Your predictions? By "expanding" into space I mean the establishment of permanent -preferably but not necessarily self-sufficient- colonies either in space stations or on celestial bodies such as the Moon, Mars, Venus, Ganymede, Europa, Ceres, the Asteroid Belt, etc. Justifications for your thoughts would be appreciated.

(posted this on physicsforums and they locked it, bastards.)

It would be a little expensive atm. It's certainly possible though. Currently they're trying to set up a reality tv show on mars, hoping the network will fund the expedition.

Technology is hauling ass. We have sent robots to Mars and have an international space station. We are very close to the space age. I think a lot of people who are alive right now will be staying at space resorts in the future, and some will be living in residential areas of space stations and possibly the moon and Mars.

A lot of science fiction of the 20th century predicted that the space age would be in full swing around the turn of the century. When I was a kid, there was a popular show called Space 1999. There is also of course the book/movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. I think the writers were only off by just a few decades.

Hmm. Thing is, you have to create so much novel technology, and it's so much money and so much human effort, for something of rather dubious financial gain. What do you think a lunar colony would do... mine moon diamonds? There would be scientific value in going to Mars or Europa to search for life... that's the only compelling reason I can think of, really. Plus, one area I think we can expect to see rapid progress in is AI and robotics, which would be a much cheaper and safer solution for scientific exploration of those places.

So, give or take the establishment of a small colony to search for life, and failing another Cold War, I guess I'd have to peg this at quite a few decades away, if and when we become so technologically advanced that we can do this relatively easily, for tourism.

Originally Posted by Xei

Hmm. Thing is, you have to create so much novel technology, and it's so much money and so much human effort, for something of rather dubious financial gain. What do you think a lunar colony would do... mine moon diamonds? There would be scientific value in going to Mars or Europa to search for life... that's the only compelling reason I can think of, really. Plus, one area I think we can expect to see rapid progress in is AI and robotics, which would be a much cheaper and safer solution for scientific exploration of those places.

So, give or take the establishment of a small colony to search for life, and failing another Cold War, I guess I'd have to peg this at quite a few decades away, if and when we become so technologically advanced that we can do this relatively easily, for tourism.

Buzz has been thoroughly killed.

Originally Posted by Xei

Hmm. Thing is, you have to create so much novel technology, and it's so much money and so much human effort, for something of rather dubious financial gain. What do you think a lunar colony would do... mine moon diamonds? There would be scientific value in going to Mars or Europa to search for life... that's the only compelling reason I can think of, really. Plus, one area I think we can expect to see rapid progress in is AI and robotics, which would be a much cheaper and safer solution for scientific exploration of those places.

So, give or take the establishment of a small colony to search for life, and failing another Cold War, I guess I'd have to peg this at quite a few decades away, if and when we become so technologically advanced that we can do this relatively easily, for tourism.

The space colonies can have bars, restaurants, movie theaters, schools, Wal-Mart, and the other stuff that generates money on Earth. Eventually, Earth will be uninhabitable, and humanity will only be able to survive in space. If the world doesn't get destroyed by nuts who use nukes in attempts to bang virgins, I am pretty sure the space age is coming.

Originally Posted by Xei

What do you think a lunar colony would do... mine moon diamonds?

It could serve as a base for expanded operations in space. I imagine asteroid mining (which is something we'll be able to take more seriously in the coming years) would have a use for a lunar colony.

Yeah, I'm betting that post alone has delayed the lunar base by at least 15 years.

We need to settle conflicts on our planet, before we can really focus on space. The fact that a large portion of the population still lives in a dirt huts suggests to me, that it'll be a little while still. Hopefully within my life time, but it's hard to say.

Originally Posted by Marvo

We need to settle conflicts on our planet, before we can really focus on space.

Why?

The only time humanity will be done with conflict is when it's extinct. To believe otherwise is ridiculous - how and why should we become totally different from any other animal species on the planet?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Why?

The only time humanity will be done with conflict is when it's extinct. To believe otherwise is ridiculous - how and why should we become totally different from any other animal species on the planet?

We already are totally different from any other animal species on the planet... and many animals do not have much conflict with each other. When the do they sort it out with a show of strength and nobody needs to be hurt. Even out and out killers like big cats tend to avoid conflict with each other.

Where on earth do your ideas come from?

We absolutely have the ability and potential for anything we want and it would make absolute sense to start living in a sustainable way and a more peaceful way without these ridiculous pathological conflicts fought by brainwashed kids and funded by petrified citizens.

If people can't start to live in a more sustainable less pathological way then i'd rather the race died out than started to infect the rest of the Universe.

But the best option is that we start to take responsibility for the cultures which we design and stop brainwashing people into thinking we have to behave like much lower and less intelligent animals.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

The only time humanity will be done with conflict is when it's extinct. To believe otherwise is ridiculous - how and why should we become totally different from any other animal species on the planet?

I think it's somewhat more ridiculous to say that you can't see any differences between humans and other species. Civilisation, culture, language, the ability to reflect on oneself - these are just some of the more relevant differences.

Contrary to conventional wisdom of being cynical about all things human, the general picture is actually pretty bright. Countries all across the world have been democratising, and populations are becoming better educated, more socially liberal, and more tolerant, and warfare has become much less common, especially between developed countries. There's no compelling reason to think that this trend has to reverse. As globalisation continues, and as technology further shrinks the distance between populations, I find it quite possible that warfare could become an anachronism within a century or two.

There's even the possibility of humans mastering psychology and genetics and eliminating the irrational elements in us which cause war.

Originally Posted by Xei

There's even the possibility of humans mastering psychology and genetics and eliminating the irrational elements in us which cause war.

Like Judaism.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Like Judaism.

Not sure how to take that... It almost sounds like you believe it.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

So long as one of the qualities we consider irrational is judaism, I'm on board with eugenics.

Oh, that answers my previous question!

I think it will be far more difficult than sci-fi and nasa lead people to believe... I bet it turns out we're far more intricately related to our environment than we realise and living anywhere else would require the re-creation of a habitate very similar to earth in all ways which would be ridiculously impractical.


There just aint no place like home, that's my guess...

Originally Posted by Xei

There's even the possibility of humans mastering psychology and genetics and eliminating the irrational elements in us which cause war.

Would that not arguably remove some of the very things that make us human? Emotions are irrational and nothing more than a shortcut to motivate us towards action for example, which obviously have downsides when they backfire. Seems rather unlikely that it would be possible to eliminate the problems inherent with them and have perfectly rational emotions.

But who knows.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

So long as one of the qualities we consider irrational is judaism, I'm on board with eugenics.

Yeah good point man, when I suggested we could adjust the biological basis of territorial, intolerant, aggressive behaviours, what I actually meant was that we should exterminate the Jews. 10/10 post, would read again, potential Pulitzer candidate.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Would that not arguably remove some of the very things that make us human? Emotions are irrational and nothing more than a shortcut to motivate us towards action for example, which obviously have downsides when they backfire. Seems rather unlikely that it would be possible to eliminate the problems inherent with them and have perfectly rational emotions.

But who knows.

Quite possible, but the irrational cognitive processes which lead to aggressive discrimination are of course biological in nature, so my point was just a general one that we may be able to reliably understand and then target their basis in future.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The space colonies can have bars, restaurants, movie theaters, schools, Wal-Mart, and the other stuff that generates money on Earth. Eventually, Earth will be uninhabitable, and humanity will only be able to survive in space. If the world doesn't get destroyed by nuts who use nukes in attempts to bang virgins, I am pretty sure the space age is coming.

Probably, but I don't really see any argument here that there will be any compelling, financially viable reasons in the near future; there's no reason we'd currently want to build a school on Mars. The Earth will be far more habitable than any other planet for many millennia to come.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Why?

The only time humanity will be done with conflict is when it's extinct. To believe otherwise is ridiculous - how and why should we become totally different from any other animal species on the planet?

Because conflicts siphon tons of money out of our space programs.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Every species on earth, all the way from the beginning, has been involved in the endless conflict - eat or be eaten - kill or be killed. And always will be. Having far more complex psychology than any other species and far more complex societies we've been able to carry that conflict to insane lengths unseen until our arrival. Other species routinely engage in devouring their own young and driving outcasts into the wilderness to die alone etc, but it takes a human level of psychology to develop religious genocides and serial killings.

And of course I totally agree - we should attempt to solve our issues as well as we can. But there's a vast difference between saying 'we should do as much as we can to improve' and saying 'humans are naughty and shall not be allowed to go into space until they've become perfect'.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Every species on earth, all the way from the beginning, has been involved in the endless conflict - eat or be eaten - kill or be killed. And always will be. Having far more complex psychology than any other species and far more complex societies we've been able to carry that conflict to insane lengths unseen until our arrival. Other species routinely engage in devouring their own young and driving outcasts into the wilderness to die alone etc, but it takes a human level of psychology to develop religious genocides and serial killings.

And of course I totally agree - we should attempt to solve our issues as well as we can. But there's a vast difference between saying 'we should do as much as we can to improve' and saying 'humans are naughty and shall not be allowed to go into space until they've become perfect'.

Human beings engage in conflict in order to conquer each other. This is definitely a different type of conflict than the rest of life on earth, or than other humans that do not practice totalitarian agriculture.

We could at least move beyond nation states, whether we do through being conquered by the empire of wealth that controls the IMF and the world bank or by toppling them and uniting in a new way, which is also possible. Species naturally evolve toward greater organization. Conflict would still exist. Just like cancers and parasites can exist within the body, turmoil can still exist within a system even if it has organized on a global level.

Marvo is incorrect to assume that simply because there are still poor people we won't go to space though. Because there are poor people, we are more likely to go into space. Because few live off the work of the many, very few have been elevated to extreme levels of wealth. So long as they can find something lucrative about space exploration, they could make it happen tomorrow. Granted they'd probably leave the rest of us behind, or at best ship us off to work in sweatshops on the moon.

I'm not going to predict any time frames, but the major barrier at the moment is the cost of launching into space, which companies like SpaceX are starting to tackle. If a space elevator could ever reach the point of practical possibility that would also help to significantly reduce costs, though it would require a lot of advances in materials science.

The other problem with space is the scales involved, most obviously with distance, and that requires advances in transportation. Whether such barriers can be overcome to make this all practical remains to be seen, even if something like Alcubierre drive currently brings things down from "impossible" to "very likely impossible".

If humanity is still around by then, and we haven't genocided ourselves, been wiped out by a natural disaster, uploaded ourselves into a computer or so on, then it's going to be something that is needed long term. Terraforming other planets such as Mars, or even the idea of constructing an artificial habitat like the Halo rings or a Dyson sphere is going to be essential.

So long as one of the qualities we consider irrational is judaism, I'm on board with eugenics.

I only meant that we're no different from all the other species in this one regard - we're still subject to nature, which is red in tooth and claw. To explain what I mean a little more clearly - evolution cannot discard systems, it can only build onto them - this is why at the center of the human brain is the lizard brain - still active, surrounded by the mammal brain, also fully active, and around that is the neocortex housing the newer apparatus responsible for the differences between our pre-human ancestors and us. So unless we find some way to alter our own genetic material, I believe we're doomed to remain as screwed up as we've always been. Historically attempts to create utopian societies have been colossal failures due to this inner nature. It seems only small self-selecting societies like monasteries can hope to remain peaceful - and that's only because people of a peaceful nature join and they isolate themselves from human society in general. And even these small societies aren't immune to violence.

We evolved form a pseudo-predatory species of primates, not herbivorous prey animals or apex predators but somewhere in the middle of the food chain. So we do have a sort of mid-level aggression impulse genetically that gives us the killer instinct, but not to an extreme degree. To illustrate, imagine if a species like rabbits or sheep had evolved to human-level intelligence and tool-using capabilities. Herbivores with no killing instinct who live by fleeing and seeking safety. Now imagine if a species like tigers or crocodiles had instead evolved to a human level of intelligence and tool making capabilities. That species would make humans look like creampuffs by comparison, while the rabbit-people would make us look like warlike asshats.

I believe both big governments and big corporations have reached a point where they're rotten to the core with corruption that can't be cured - if legislation is passed to try to fix it or whatever it'll just mutate into a new more hidden form.


I'm not trying to justify human violence - only to explain it and the fact that I believe it goes all the way to the core. I'm also not being fatalistic and saying I don't think we should try to do all we can to overcome it - I absolutely believe we should. But I also believe that only small local victories are possible - the massively complex systems like corporations and huge governments are beyond the point where they can be fixed or even held responsible for their crimes.

They want to get Helium 3 from the moon, and several asteroids are known to have rare earth metals, in some cases to a level greater than found on earth. There is a lot of real world practical uses for mining everything out in space. We need those resources and it is a given that we will be mining them in the future. Right now it costs a lot of money to get stuff into space and that is the only reason we are not already doing it. Looking for life is a side project to the mining of valuable resources though, don't underestimate the value of that is floating around in space.

I said in a life time because I think we will be in space within my life time. I think in the next 20 years we will have some form permanent base in space, and I am extremely confident that we will within 50 years. Then again, we might not actually need humans to do this stuff. Robots might be able to do all the work for us in space. So we might have a robot base in space without people living there. I think people will want to go there though.

One thing we, the inventors, the dreamers, the people who know we need to make this move, must consider is that - with our current driving force in the world - that is money - this will never happen. We must become a world that doesn't need money, before we will be able to build the seady flow of supplies needed to support life on another terra. Think about it. Everytime we left behind the "world we called home" and set out to begin again, we did it with very little or NO supplies, and we built a new world with what was there. We did this because our "home world" was so diseased that we left willingly, out of the highest desperation, in order to survive and continue. Now, we no longer have THAT as a reason to leave our world, because humans are so many that survival of every culture is secure. And money is the driving force (available to most of us, but not all). We would have to let go of the desire for money, to brave enough to make that desperate leap to another world. As long as the world economy is money based, it will never allow a colony to be built somewhere else - unless it can send us money. That sucks.....

Well my humble view is that space will ultimately be a free enterprise driven venture. I actually detest the idea of "space tourism" for its own sake and the hotel/bar/etc scenes that were mentioned earlier. Most, if not all, of the precious metal deposits that have been mined on earth actually originated from asteroids which impacted the earth millenia ago. That said, there is an entire belt of asteroids surrounding encircling the inner planets, all of which could host valuable resources including but not limited to expensive precious metals. In addition, I believe that if humans are to expand and proliferate throughout our native solar system, we are going to have to develop more efficient spacecraft than the (in my opinion dreadful) chemical rockets which are used to propel spacecraft today. Sure, they are cheap, but I remember reading that Project Orion, a nuclear design from the 50s, was capable of reaching Mars in 3-4 weeks as opposed to the 6-7 months for a one-way trip on a chemically propelled craft. I think the advantages of nuclear propulsion and power generation are self evident, and if it weren't for the politicians we would already be using it.

There are plenty of terraforming schemes that have been thought of, but I'll try to summarize some of the more (to me) believable ones. For one, Venus is often overlooked as a perpetually inhospitable planet, but the fact that Venus' atmosphere is roughly 90 times more concentrated than the Earths could play a significant advantage in the terraforming of the planet. There is actually a zone in the high altitudes where the atmosphere is stable at about 1 bar and 50-60 degrees fahrenheit. A somewhat far-fetched, yet scientifically feasible proposal is to basically set up giant "blimp-cities" which use helium as a ballast against the much heavier atmosphere. Helium filled blimps would be able to support massive cities because of the diifference in weight of helium and the heavy carbon dioxide and sulphur atmosphere. I think these floating cities could house chemical processing plants that could over time reduce the sulfur content of Venus' atmosphere to a habitable level, while idealizing the mixture of gases to match that of earths. In fact, if a "dual-venture" were set up simultaneously on Venus and Mars, Venus' atmosphere could possibly be condensed and exported to Mars, which has practically no atmosphere as of now.

Mars is a good prospect for terraforming, but a significant problem is that it is geologically dead, and a civilization there would either require a HUGE internal artificial magnetic field generator within the planet, local magnetic field generators in the main populated areas, or a thousands of square kilometer radiation shield set up between Mars' sun-facing surface and the Sun in order to protect from solar wind radiation. Another problem is, once again, mars has a pure CO2 atmosphere, but it is tiny at about 1% of earth's atmospheric mass. So large amounts of nitrogen would have to be imported, but possibly oxygen could be released from the icy poles.

A comment on the "Mars One" project and the like: utterly useless. Both the "Mars One" and the other one (I forget the name) are embarrassing. It is the most preposterous thing, to think that the greatest engineering feat in the history of humanity is going to be done in the name of a reality TV show "Space Bachelorette 2025." I highly doubt this project will ever get off the ground (no pun intended), but even if it does, what happens when the ratings go down, the organization loses funding, the "astronauts" on mars stop receiving supplies, and they starve and die? What an engineering wonder. The other "mission" which sends a man and a woman to orbit Mars one time and then fly home without ever even landing is equally pointless.

My favorite and I think the most prospective place to find life elsewhere in our solar system is Europa. I recently read that they have proven that there exist magnesium sulfate and other salts which bubble up onto the surface of Europa periodically, which absolutely indicates the presence of liquid water somewhere beneath the crust. I can imagine a huge, planet wide ocean teeming with life (a guy can dream), but even small microbial samples would be enough to blow away all of our concepts of religion and our place in the universe. I think it should be the primary objective of every scientific space agency to send probes or to collaborate on sending a mission to Europa, a mission which would orbit, land, and drill or melt into the icy crust and, if liquid water is found, insert a submersible probe into the ocean to explore.