Goal: Colonization of space. Which field of science...

Post Reply New Topic

Given the goal of colonizing other planets, whether Mars or outside this solar system, which general field of science will be most directly useful? Which areas of science are most necessary for the development of spacecraft? In the poll, I will list the three general areas of science, biology, chemistry, and physics. Please select the one you think would be most relevant in meeting this goal.

All of them =.= Biology for living there, chemistry for knowing elements and molecules we'll have to deal with in foreign worlds, and maybe new atomic elements =/ And physics will help us GET there. ^.- Just as we can spend our current lives with a bit of everything.

I'll have to agree with you. When it comes to something as scientifically major as colonizing our first foreign planet (Earth doesn't count since we evolved here), even in the general categories described in the poll, I don't believe there is any one science that is more important than the other. Each one of them is going to be equally important, and scientists in all three domains will have to work together to make it happen.

If I had to pick one, though, I would pick Physics, because logically you can't have the other two without it. If you break down Biology to the atomic level, it becomes chemistry. And if you think of chemistry on the sub-atomic level, you're essentially dealing with quantum physics. It's really a hiearchy of science. Physics is the foundation of chemistry, which in turn is the foundation of biology, and everything else branches off of one of these three.

Quite correct.

Depends whether you mean "which would need most development to make colonisation feasible" or "which would be most directly useful including present knowledge." If the former, then biology and chemistry win easily; if the latter then a mix. We don't need any new physics to get to Mars.

Chemistry, biology and anything else are cases of physics, but the laws of interactions they use are proper to themselves. Saying that they're really just physics is attractive (to a physicist) but only correct in a trivial sense.

Actually Ambi, to make colonization feasible, we'd probably need something more than just a few standard shuttles. We would need to get there faster than we currently can, else there would be too much time spent getting there.

And hum, as you also said, i doubt you could explain something like homeostasis or some other complex biological mechanisms solely using physics (not saying it can't be done, but i wouldn't relish it).

There is a great deal of danger from radiation outside the Earth's protective atmospheric and magnetic shells. They are, perhaps, manageable but it is a close thing. See http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/m ... 40120.html

We still don't need any new physics to colonize Mars, or anywhere else in the Solar system, Phil. Trip time to anywhere in the system can be drastically reduced using constant-boost ships, that accelerate toward the destination for the first half of the trip, then flip over and decelerate for the second half. The most promising technology for this would be an ion propulsion system, as most dramatically demonstrated on the Deep Space One probe, which used such a drive in its rendezvous with a comet.

Current ion drives could boost as high as .01 gravities of acceleration, which doesn't sound like much - until you do the math and realize that this places the orbit of Mars some seven weeks away, as opposed to the classic Hohmann transfer (all the boost at the beginning and end, with a long coasting in the middle, just like the Apollo missions), which can take several months.

Find a way to increase the efficiency of the thrust, bring it up to 1 full gravity, and you have a very comfortable trip of one week.

Heck, if you wanted to go visit Pluto, as long as it's on this side of the Sun, .01g constant boost will get you there in just under 15 weeks - still a long trip, but doable, for whatever dubious benefit might be found there...

Now, to colonize exoplanets, we'll need either some exceptional engineering to build slower-than-light ships that can carry that many passengers and that much cargo for so very many years without breaking down, or some new physics that permits some way around the lightspeed limit...

It may require powered magnetic shields, which would initially cost less than sending a spacecraft with lead in the hull though it uses electricity which would cost in the long run. Anyhow,

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXEC-v5lQ64[/youtube]

I put down physics. Why? Well, no distinction was drawn between discoveries and current knowledge. In terms of current knowledge, the most conceivable way I can see to colonize a world is to create structures that can survive in that landscape and keep people in them, regardless of the biology or the chemistry. It is also true that physics is required for us to get there. I mean, even for growing crops, in this early environment, physics is more necessary for developing mechanisms for raising crops.

The only way I can see biology as more important is if we developed a great skill at genetic engineering. If we had that, then maybe we could use genetically engineered plants to change atmospheric conditions cheaply and without putting a single person in this region, perhaps even to create fuels to be used locally(fossil fuels are carbon-based and certain plants currently create diesel), perhaps even to create crops that can grow in the area to produce useful material(food?, maybe even building material) with minimal resources expended.

I am not likely to put chemistry as more important than biology or physics though. The only chemical advancement I could see would be nanotechnology.

Biology is a branch of chemistry and molecular physics. Living things are big ugly bags of mostly water plus some other chemicals.

ruveyn

Physics is a matter of getting there, perhaps coming back, and communicating. There will no doubt be engineering problems (physics) in setting up a colony, discovering, refining and forming local materials for construction and providing a livable habitation. Chemistry will be involved in producing safe water and food supplies and biology will be involved in that also. Psychology will be involved in maintaining a social setup far from Earth that is stable and permits the colonists to live in equable arrangements.
Which leg of a three legged stool is the most important?

Umm.... ok? The notion that there are different fields of study with a hard line between what constitutes one and what constitutes other is absurd. That doesn't mean I cannot meaningfully talk about the field of biology. I mean, to say that "there is no hard division" kind of misses the question and some elements of the point of that question.

I think this is a little bit of a silly question so I am going to answer
it with a relevant (but unfunny) joke and then parody the thread.

Joke:
How many scientists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Answer:
None. they just talk about it until and engineer comes and does
it for them. Then they declare it a victory for science.

Parody:


iamnotaparakeet
What do you need most to make a cup of tea; water, milk or tea leaves?

phil777:
All of them. You cant make tea with out all of them.

Roxas_XIII:
All of them, but milk and tea leaves both contain lots of
water, so water is the most important because it's the
foundation of the others.

Ambivalence:
Depends whether you mean "what do we need" or "what
do we need to get". If the latter, than milk and tea leaves
are most important because we already have water from
the tap, but we need to go shopping for tea leaves and milk.

Sand:
There is a great deal of danger from hot tea. We should use thick gloves.

phil777:
Anyway, it's gonna take ages to boil the water.

DeaconBlues:
No it's not phil777; we have a really powerful kettle.

One of the problems with creating electromagnetic fields is that they accelerate oppositely charged particles in opposite directions. So while, for example, negatively charged ions are deflected, it may dump the positively charged one in one area of the the spaceship, filling it with radiation. This may provide some protection against the solar wind but cosmic rays consist of both positively and negatively charged ions. On earth, we are also protected by the atmosphere. On the other hand, looking at the Apollo astronauts and what they were exposed to, radiation from cosmic rays turn out to be not as dangerous as was once thought. The most dangerous cosmic rays are the ones that are slow moving because those ions have more of an opportunity to interact with body tissue and interfere with DNA replication to cause cancer. Researcher at NASA are still assessing the possible increase in cancer due the exposure to cosmic rays. Another possible solution is that certain kinds of plastics could provide adequate radiation shielding against the slow moving cosmic rays because the presence of hydrogen in certain polymers can break up the heavy slow moving ions when they collide with the material. Decreasing the danger. Perhaps a combination of that as electromagnetic shielding will do?

The sites I have looked at indicate that hydrogen is a good shield so a long time space mission may travel within a shell containing water which is necessary for life maintenance anyway.