Colonization of the solar system

Post Reply New Topic

After economic problems are out of the way, which I do not want this thread to be about and nor do I want it to be about "the human race needs to evolve into Vulcans before doing anything cool", what would be the best way to colonize the solar system?

Currently things are being set up for NASA just to issue guidelines and set milestones to achieve rather than controlling the space industry, here in America at least, and the ESA is doing psychological tests on a hypothetical trip to Mars, and JAXA is now testing the principle of the solar sail, so at least a few things are still going on which may help in the future. But once things are in order, what would be the best way to colonize the solar system? Should it be mainly by private corporations, by government agencies?

Should the moon be colonized first since it is closet and has minimal gravity, or should Mars be since its day is only 40 minutes longer than an Earth-day and its gravity is only half that of the Earth's moon and it's still close enough to the sun for photoelectric cells to function?

Should their be mining of the asteroid belt set up first or mining of the moon?

Should we continue to just build small ships on Earth to be shipped up as a whole, or should ships be assembled in orbit but having the parts brought up in multiple trips so as to allow heavier ships with larger cargo capacity and much larger fuel capacity?

Should interplanetary stations be built as halfway points between Earth and Mars so that transport vessels need not contain as much fuel?

Should space be allowed to be militarized in the event of curmudgeons in space?

We need a "space elevator" built of carbon nanotubes so we can send things to space cheaply. That way we could build ships in space instead of on Earth. When we colonize the solar system we will become a type 2 civilization. But according to Michio Kaku we are not yet a type 1 civilization, or a civilization that has gained control over all avaliable power sources from its planet.

Colonization should mostly be private. The reason being that unless there is a scientific reason, there is little reason to create a government colony. If there is a good economic reason to colonize an area, then a private entity could likely get around to it.

As for the moon vs Mars, it really depends on the reasoning. The moon would likely be first just to create a test colony, to promote scientific research, and probably as a necessity if we are talking about mining the moon.

As for mining the asteroid belt vs the moon, that's really more of a question of resources. I think the moon is likely better if we are talking about resources not found on the earth(I think some helium is on the moon). There is no reason to mine unless there is demand, and there will only be two reasons to demand this:
1) We have become an interstellar species capable of shipping material at great speed for little cost.(the unforeseeable future)
2) There are resources not to be found on Earth that we need for scientific reasons.

There is no reason at this point to create large ships. The enterprise of doing so would require larger interplanetary shipping than is foreseeable in the near future.

No, interplanetary stations would require fuel if they are used to reduce the fuel requirements. Creating them as way stations to save fuel would be self-defeating. Even further they would be expensive. Finally, the Earth year and the Martian year vary, so there is a good chance that the way stations will get out of sync rather quickly and do no good.

There is no reason to militarize space at this point, or even the foreseeable future. If there are aliens that travel between solar-systems, then we are screwed, and there will not be enough of economic value easily accessed for any form of pirates to emerge in the near future.

Gaining control over all available power sources is not necessarily a prerequisite for becoming a spacefaring civilization though, or do you think that it is? I think that the more new things that are done the more interest in space will be promoted. Politicians are only interested in their own popularity, and as such they will only get around to doing anything if it is to their benefit to be reelected. The difficulty is really promoting interest in space again. When there is a general interest in space again, politicians will allow the funneling of financial resources into better space exploration and also such general interest means more demand for privatized space flight. Once the space industry is profitable on a consumer basis, then other things, such as mining, may occur also since mining rights on the moon and on asteroids have not been claim AFAIK and such encourages further growth of the space industry since there would be less argument over claims of property. I think that we don't need to gain control of all available power sources so much as we need to actually get the ball rolling rather than continue to complain about life on Earth. As for the Star Ladder, that will be pretty cool once it is built, but I think there should be at least two of them and they should be along the equator.

The place to colonize first is the moon.

1. It is close enough to support from the ground.
2. It is an ideal place to build large space craft since it has a shallow gravity well.
3. The darkside is the obvious place to build all sorts of observatories. Dark sky is guaranteed half the month and low gravity makes construction of large dishes and mirrors practical.
4. The Moon may have valuable resources which will pay the way for further space travel development.
5. The Moon will be in ideal place for humans to learn to live off Earth for long periods of time.

Going for Mars is not wise as a first step. It is too far, and colonization will be extremely expensive.

ruveyn

Also, lack of an atmosphere allows for much clearer images. Imagine what the Palomar could see if it were built on the moon.

Do you think that using the moon as a construction base and logistics node would allow for better likelihood of the success of a colony on Mars?

What is most important right now is an affordable way to get into LEO and back. The shuttle and the rockets used today do not qualify. If we want mass transit we need something better.

Next on the list are large permanently manned space stations. We need those to figure out if astronauts are ready for long periods in space. Ideally some form or rotation generated artificial gravity could be experimented with.

The moon will be a way station, although I doubt it will ever be a major human colony, There is very little in the way of support available there and even if its smaller there still is a significant gravity well.

Lets not forget the Lagrange points either. They could be good location for large space stations.

Pioneering missions to Mars will have been launched in the mean time and by now the technology may have evolved to build that space elevator. That will really launch humanity into space in a major way.

Future space exploration could be made much more efficient by using nanotechnology and nano assemblers. Its easy to see a future where not only the planets but also all the asteroids, Kuiper belt objects and Oort belt objects will be colonised or exploited in some way.

Positively. Many of the problems which will be faced on Mars can be solved more easily on the Moon at less expense. Moon first. Mars later.

Doing heroic bravura stunts in space for the sake of doing stunts is not a wise policy and we really cannot afford it. Taking the long view toward making use of the resources of the the solar system is the way to go. Think of it as the thousand year journey. Our first logical station is the Moon.

ruveyn

ruveyn

I have yet to see a mass eagerness to live in Antarctica or the Sahara Desert where there is an abundance of air and water is far more available than on either Mars or the Moon and the travel expenses are relatively negligible. Aside from research groups it seems unlikely any sensible person would migrate off Earth.

We have to be careful on the concept of mining the moon though.
Remember the movie "The Time Machine"?

Neither the Moon nor Antarctica are for the masses. There are thriving scientific settlements in Antarctica and comfortable housing exists for those who have a good scientific reason for being there. It may get kind of dull in the Antarctic winter, but one can hunker down and be comfortable. Likewise, decent housing eventually can be built on the Moon. For those who have an occupational reason for being there or can afford the housing, living in a gravitational field one sixth as strong as Earth could be a very enjoyable and relaxing way to live.

ruven

Theres no point colonising a planet or moon without a molten metal outer core. Unless humans can think up some other way to get around being pummelled with radiation, that isn't too expensive to support entire populations... I'll stick to earth.

Well, hale, for the Moon I'd recommend taking a page from Heinlein, and carving out the habitats under the lunar surface - that way, you can combine mining and colonization, and the colonies are protected from solar radiation by several meters of regolith. It'd make a wonderful vacation destination or retirement home, once launching can be done cheaply enough (no more broken hips, when you fall out of bed in one-sixth gee!); of course, as in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, it also provides the possibility of completely escape-proof prisons.

Mining Luna would also be a necessary first step to mining the asteroids. You wouldn't want to have to haul all the raw materials for the asteroid miners all the way out of Earth's gravity well, would you? Instead, you build ships and refineries from Lunar steel, which has a much shallower well to climb out of.

Mars actually doesn't seem like that great a place to colonize, except to say you did it - it has all the drawbacks of colonies in Luna or in asteroids, plus a one-third-gee gravity well and the possibility of erosion from dust storms. Now, maybe if you could drop a few megatons of water ice, say from Saturn's rings or carved off of Europa, you could raise the Martian water levels to the point where dust storms are less of a hazard; then your next challenge would be to figure out a way to thicken the atmosphere (does Mars still possess a molten core? If so, perhaps a few volcanoes could be restarted to provide gases...).

Sadly, Venus is completely useless to us - even if you could overcome the atmospheric problems in less than geological time, you'd still be left with a world that rotates backwards and very slowly, such that a local day is actually longer than a local year. And if you like the sun that much, you could always try setting up a habitat on Mercury, without those pesky sulfur-dioxide clouds.

Lunar farside would make a good first outpost for an observatory - but eventually you'd want to upgrade to NASA's proposal a few years back to build an array of scopes out around the orbit of Jupiter or so. That way, observations can be made with less distortions from the Sun's gravity, making it possible to resolve objects smaller than Earth orbiting distant stars. You'd want to explore the more Earthlike systems first, after all, if only so that you have more than one data point when trying to figure out what's going on in this system...

Quoting in agreement.

And I'd gladly go to live on the Moon...though I think I might miss the rain if I did.

You might try living for a few months at the bottom of a deep shaft of a coal mine to discover ow much fun it would be living in a subterranean habitat. With time and tons of money you might make it more cheerful but I doubt that kind of investment would be around for a while.

But I really think that the human race should evolve into Vulcans before doing anything cool.