Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Colonization of the solar system

Page 9 of 13 [ 205 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 Nov 2010, 10:12 am

ruveyn wrote:
DeaconBlues wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Forget birth defects. Being in zero g too long will cause human bone to crumble into a chalk like powder. The Russian cosmonaut that spent two years in space came back home with the skeleton of an 80 year old man with osteoporosis.

ruveyn

Correction - being in microgravity too long, then abruptly returning to a 1-g field, can cause human bone to crumble. The bones are just fine in space - the body starts leaching them of calcium because the structural strength is unnecessary in a microgravity environment. This can be offset by regular, intensive exercise, which simulates the effects of a body fighting gravity and reduces symptoms of long-term low-g exposure. If you're colonizing Mars or Luna, though, the exercise can be cut back; the skeleton and musculature of a normal 1-g human just gets in the way under 1/3 or 1/6 g.



One energetic push too many and old "weak bones" crashes into the side of his space vessel and fractures some ribs. There is plenty wrong with having weak bones even in micro gravity.

ruveyn


Yes, however the centrifugal replacement for gravity need not be fully 9.83 meters per second squared in order to provide constant work for the muscular and skeletal systems of a human body. The lower the centrifugal force required to provide such necessary strain for the human body, the less rate of spin or the smaller the craft necessary for long-term spaceflight. What is the minimum amount of gravity required for the human body?



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Nov 2010, 10:50 am

The centrifugal artificial gravity concept has been known for many years. I remember an article in the old Saturday Evening Post magazine in the late 1940's showing a spinning habitat such as was depicted in "2001". Why do you think nobody ever did it in the half century of space flight?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 Nov 2010, 11:10 am

Sand wrote:
The centrifugal artificial gravity concept has been known for many years. I remember an article in the old Saturday Evening Post magazine in the late 1940's showing a spinning habitat such as was depicted in "2001". Why do you think nobody ever did it in the half century of space flight?


Wars and costs. There was a plan to use the fuel tanks of the space shuttles to build habitats with though, but it was never realized. At least if this is any bit true that is:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYIo-0qo9FA[/youtube]



Kilroy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,549
Location: Beyond the Void

18 Nov 2010, 11:12 am

I'd love to live and die on another planet



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Nov 2010, 11:46 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
The centrifugal artificial gravity concept has been known for many years. I remember an article in the old Saturday Evening Post magazine in the late 1940's showing a spinning habitat such as was depicted in "2001". Why do you think nobody ever did it in the half century of space flight?


Wars and costs. There was a plan to use the fuel tanks of the space shuttles to build habitats with though, but it was never realized. At least if this is any bit true that is:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYIo-0qo9FA[/youtube]


There'll always be wars and costs. NASA is now in the process of dumping human space flight into private industry but nobody has figured a way to make it profitable. It has very little chance of happening.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Nov 2010, 11:48 am

Kilroy wrote:
I'd love to live and die on another planet


It's cheaper and quicker and probably less painful to use a pistol to your head.



waltur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 924
Location: california

18 Nov 2010, 12:04 pm

Sand wrote:
Kilroy wrote:
I'd love to live and die on another planet


It's cheaper and quicker and probably less painful to use a pistol to your head.


i think you missed the important part of that statement, sand.

there'll be plenty of dying readily available for those willing when we finally start getting away from this rock.


_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 Nov 2010, 4:15 pm

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
The centrifugal artificial gravity concept has been known for many years. I remember an article in the old Saturday Evening Post magazine in the late 1940's showing a spinning habitat such as was depicted in "2001". Why do you think nobody ever did it in the half century of space flight?


Wars and costs. There was a plan to use the fuel tanks of the space shuttles to build habitats with though, but it was never realized. At least if this is any bit true that is:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYIo-0qo9FA[/youtube]


There'll always be wars and costs. NASA is now in the process of dumping human space flight into private industry but nobody has figured a way to make it profitable. It has very little chance of happening.


How about interplanetary cruises for the super-wealthy? Prior to this, building of spacecraft large enough would need to be done and the raw materials could be derived, at first, from the moon since it is close and has a much lower escape velocity than the Earth. Later on, the asteroids and Mars can be mined. Manufacturing of spacecraft on the moon or in orbit would be ideal for making massive spacecraft capable of much longer voyages than those capable of being launched all at once from the surface of the Earth.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Nov 2010, 6:31 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
The centrifugal artificial gravity concept has been known for many years. I remember an article in the old Saturday Evening Post magazine in the late 1940's showing a spinning habitat such as was depicted in "2001". Why do you think nobody ever did it in the half century of space flight?


Wars and costs. There was a plan to use the fuel tanks of the space shuttles to build habitats with though, but it was never realized. At least if this is any bit true that is:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYIo-0qo9FA[/youtube]


There'll always be wars and costs. NASA is now in the process of dumping human space flight into private industry but nobody has figured a way to make it profitable. It has very little chance of happening.


How about interplanetary cruises for the super-wealthy? Prior to this, building of spacecraft large enough would need to be done and the raw materials could be derived, at first, from the moon since it is close and has a much lower escape velocity than the Earth. Later on, the asteroids and Mars can be mined. Manufacturing of spacecraft on the moon or in orbit would be ideal for making massive spacecraft capable of much longer voyages than those capable of being launched all at once from the surface of the Earth.


The concept of interplanetary mining is one of the more amusing jokes of science fiction where shipping anything from planet to planet makes the cargo worth more than if it was the most precious substance on Earth. I wonder how many stupid super wealthy will be willing to spend huge amounts for a super roller coaster ride. The novelty will be quick to wear off.



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

18 Nov 2010, 6:53 pm

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
The centrifugal artificial gravity concept has been known for many years. I remember an article in the old Saturday Evening Post magazine in the late 1940's showing a spinning habitat such as was depicted in "2001". Why do you think nobody ever did it in the half century of space flight?


Wars and costs. There was a plan to use the fuel tanks of the space shuttles to build habitats with though, but it was never realized. At least if this is any bit true that is:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYIo-0qo9FA[/youtube]


There'll always be wars and costs. NASA is now in the process of dumping human space flight into private industry but nobody has figured a way to make it profitable. It has very little chance of happening.


How about interplanetary cruises for the super-wealthy? Prior to this, building of spacecraft large enough would need to be done and the raw materials could be derived, at first, from the moon since it is close and has a much lower escape velocity than the Earth. Later on, the asteroids and Mars can be mined. Manufacturing of spacecraft on the moon or in orbit would be ideal for making massive spacecraft capable of much longer voyages than those capable of being launched all at once from the surface of the Earth.


The concept of interplanetary mining is one of the more amusing jokes of science fiction where shipping anything from planet to planet makes the cargo worth more than if it was the most precious substance on Earth. I wonder how many stupid super wealthy will be willing to spend huge amounts for a super roller coaster ride. The novelty will be quick to wear off.


Watch "Moon" with Sam Rockwell for a reasonable example of how mining the moon might work out technically.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 Nov 2010, 6:56 pm

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
The centrifugal artificial gravity concept has been known for many years. I remember an article in the old Saturday Evening Post magazine in the late 1940's showing a spinning habitat such as was depicted in "2001". Why do you think nobody ever did it in the half century of space flight?


Wars and costs. There was a plan to use the fuel tanks of the space shuttles to build habitats with though, but it was never realized. At least if this is any bit true that is:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYIo-0qo9FA[/youtube]


There'll always be wars and costs. NASA is now in the process of dumping human space flight into private industry but nobody has figured a way to make it profitable. It has very little chance of happening.


How about interplanetary cruises for the super-wealthy? Prior to this, building of spacecraft large enough would need to be done and the raw materials could be derived, at first, from the moon since it is close and has a much lower escape velocity than the Earth. Later on, the asteroids and Mars can be mined. Manufacturing of spacecraft on the moon or in orbit would be ideal for making massive spacecraft capable of much longer voyages than those capable of being launched all at once from the surface of the Earth.


The concept of interplanetary mining is one of the more amusing jokes of science fiction where shipping anything from planet to planet makes the cargo worth more than if it was the most precious substance on Earth. I wonder how many stupid super wealthy will be willing to spend huge amounts for a super roller coaster ride. The novelty will be quick to wear off.


The value in mining materials from low gravity celestial objects is that you don't need massive amounts of fuel to leave orbit. Earth is the largest of the heavy planets and has a higher escape velocity than the moon or AFAIK asteroids in general. Which one requires more fuel to leave orbit for the same amount of mass of ship and cargo, a planet with a high escape velocity required or a planet or planetoid with a lower escape velocity required? The materials from small planets and planetoids would not be for bringing back to Earth for sale here, but for usage in orbit for construction of space stations, cargo ships, civilian transports, mining ships, etc. It's more fuel effective to lift mass off from a low gravity planetoid than from a massive planet like Earth.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 Nov 2010, 6:57 pm

Macbeth wrote:
Watch "Moon" with Sam Rockwell for a reasonable example of how mining the moon might work out technically.


Minus the usage of "expendable" clones.



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

18 Nov 2010, 8:04 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Watch "Moon" with Sam Rockwell for a reasonable example of how mining the moon might work out technically.


Minus the usage of "expendable" clones.


Maybe even with them eventually. Either way it seemed like a pretty good way of mining.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 Nov 2010, 8:14 pm

Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Watch "Moon" with Sam Rockwell for a reasonable example of how mining the moon might work out technically.


Minus the usage of "expendable" clones.


Maybe even with them eventually. Either way it seemed like a pretty good way of mining.


What, having it primarily be robotic with an engineer available? That would be a good mining situation I suppose, although I'd want at least a medic there if not other people to talk to in person.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

18 Nov 2010, 8:48 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Watch "Moon" with Sam Rockwell for a reasonable example of how mining the moon might work out technically.


Minus the usage of "expendable" clones.


You have been watching too many movies.

We don't have human clones except identical fetuses (a natural thing). We have not got the foggiest notion how to clone humans and produce viable speciments.

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Nov 2010, 9:19 pm

Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Watch "Moon" with Sam Rockwell for a reasonable example of how mining the moon might work out technically.


Minus the usage of "expendable" clones.


Maybe even with them eventually. Either way it seemed like a pretty good way of mining.


Clones are people. People are not ethically expendable for mere commercial purposes. Robots and automatic factories are a better bet. Why send raw ore into orbit when automatic factories can be set up requiring no artificial ecology for the support of air breathing humans that require food supplies? Three D printing is beginning to get interesting as a universal manufacturing technology. An automatic processor in extra-terrestrial situations makes far more sense than mining.