NASA Announcement/Discovery

[Siro]

Honestly I think all of it is in our future. Colonies on planets, space stations, asteroid mining, military outpost, research stations.

We are arguing what we want first but it will all happen eventually.

Sure. I'm only talking about what we should be focusing on now. A project that would benefit the species more than anything in its history, or a practically useless symbolic one?

 

[Gameface]

We can barely get things into space is the problem. If we had a way to construct things IN SPACE, then building spinning space stations would be a fairly easy matter. That would eliminate the problems with gravity deprivation.

I'm getting a chuckle out of how big an issue you think low gravity is compared to mining asteroids and building human colonies on artificial structures. So do we send embryos up to populate these massive structures or do we still have to transport a bunch of people to live on them?

 

[Siro]

I'm getting a chuckle out of how big an issue you think low gravity is compared to mining asteroids and building human colonies on artificial structures. So do we send embryos up to populate these massive structures or do we still have to transport a bunch of people to live on them?

Mining asteroids and constructing orbitals is done by robots. I don't see the issue. Humans are the ones who have to live in low gravity on Mars. Once the structures are built, any human could inhabit them without the need for adaptation. And they are, initially, in Earth orbit. Given that space mining would give us infinite amount of fuel, getting people back and forth from the habitat is trivial.

 

[Stoked]

Sure. I'm only talking about what we should be focusing on now. A project that would benefit the species more than anything in its history, or a practically useless symbolic one?

This is where I disagree with you. A Mars colony would be far from useless. The could mine, do research on a huge array of topics. I actually think that a Mars colony has a wider set of benefits.

Asteroid mining gets us materials and the tech to do so. A colony opens research possibilities.

Either way I wouldn't mind which comes first. I just think that NASA is clearly making Mars a priority over asteroids.

 

[Siro]

This is where I disagree with you. A Mars colony would be far from useless. The could mine, do research on a huge array of topics. I actually think that a Mars colony has a wider set of benefits.

Asteroid mining gets us materials and the tech to do so. A colony opens research possibilities.

Either way I wouldn't mind which comes first. I just think that NASA is clearly making Mars a priority over asteroids.

But they mine in order to expand the useless colony.
And they research in order to find out what it takes to live on the colony.

These are not transferable benefits. And all practical research can be done with robots.

And I don't think NASA is focusing on Mars. It is a populist issue that gets them more attention, but the hope is sending a manned mission by mid-century. Not exactly the same as establishing a colony. We'll have a space mining industry by then. I am not worried about people making stupid decisions.

 

[Siro]

It is really hilarious that I'm getting heated over a planetary colonization vs. space habitats debate. I'm such a nerd.

 

[♪alt13]

The ONLY advantage of a space station is proximity to Earth? No. The advantage is unlimited potential to house as many people in as many ways as we want for the entire history of the universe. It is a little more than "proximity to Earth".

Human re-engineering is a good thing if it empowers us, not if it makes us less adapted to the environment where most humans live, and have evolved to live. And I don't think re-engineering people back and forth is a simple, or straight forward matter, if it's even possible to that extent at all. And for what? For nothing!

Much else of what you said is wrong. A space colony has infinite potential. We can even convert Mars to useful materials if we wished. And then use it to construct the environment we want. We already know that low gravity is terrible for you, so I'm not going to bother with that point. I am not interested in a plan where humans can't go back and forth because of difficulties in travel/adaptation since that is working to limit the species. Building in space is much easier than building on a planet that requires converting. Just like how building on a vacant lot is a lot easier than demolishing a skyscraper before you can build a house. In addition, the space infrastructure would enable humans to do a lot more, and expand a lot further, than an irrelevant Martian infrastructure. And I'm not going to address every point, because I already did in one way or another earlier.

And I am not offended. I have come to count on hearing your disagreements every time I make a post.

I have repped or liked way more of your posts than I have disagreed with. pfft

 

[Gameface]

Mining asteroids and constructing orbitals is done by robots. I don't see the issue. Humans are the ones who have to live in low gravity on Mars. Once the structures are built, any human could inhabit them without the need for adaptation. And they are, initially, in Earth orbit. Given that space mining would give us infinite amount of fuel, getting people back and forth from the habitat is trivial.

You're talking about technology that doesn't exist as though it's stupid easy. Are you aware of a design for a self replicating robot that works in space and can build a structure that can support a human colony?

You're also using our experiences with zero gravity as if it is exactly the same as 0.38 gravity, and that it would matter to someone who intended to spend the rest of their life at that gravity. Unless I'm unaware of low gravity studies, which is possible.

 

[Stoked]

But they mine in order to expand the useless colony.
And they research in order to find out what it takes to live on the colony.

These are not transferable benefits. And all practical research can be done with robots.

And I don't think NASA is focusing on Mars. It is a populist issue that gets them more attention, but the hope is sending a manned mission by mid-century. Not exactly the same as establishing a colony. We'll have a space mining industry by then. I am not worried about people making stupid decisions.

The materials harvested are transferable. So is the tech, it won't just be colony tech...

At this point a planetary colony and asteroid mining are both in the realm of achievable fantasy. We can get there but are not there.

As for NASA seeing Mars as a populist issue that gets them attention. Of course it is. It makes them relevant in the eyes of the public and brings in money and tech. That still makes Mars a focus.

A manned mission is not planned mid century. It is planed in the 2030s.

Is there even a time frame for asteroid mining? I did not see one after a brief google search.

 

[Siro]

You're talking about technology that doesn't exist as though it's stupid easy. Are you aware of a design for a self replicating robot that works in space and can build a structure that can support a human colony?

You're also using our experiences with zero gravity as if it is exactly the same as 0.38 gravity, and that it would matter to someone who intended to spend the rest of their life at that gravity. Unless I'm unaware of low gravity studies, which is possible.

Neither technology exists. Both are perfectly possible within foreseeable future. Robots already build other robots. We're just talking about expanding the automation. I'm not talking about microscopic Von Neumann replicators (Although that's also possible down the line).

Low gravity should have similar effects to zero gravity through the same mechanisms. Why wouldn't it? Your muscles atrophy in normal gravity if your level of activity drops by even a little bit. So your body wasting at half the rate is still not a desirable outcome. And like I've said several times, I consider the idea of colonists never being able to return to Earth to be a negative, given that far superior alternatives exist.

But hey, we're kind of getting somewhere. Your disagreement now seems to be with the existence of technology. That's easy to remedy. That's where the research should go, because if one thing is for sure, it is that current technologies can get better. And none of what I mentioned requires vast leaps in technical ability. Keep in mind that this is a gradual process. First you build simple mining robots to get material into orbit (already being worked on). Then you use the material to build orbital factories. Then you use the factories to build more robots. Then you build small habitats that can support a few dozen people. And so on. It is a clearer path to expansion than a dead-end Mars colony, and there is no requirement of self-replication any time soon.

 

[Stoked]

Honestly I see no reason why both cannot happen at relatively the same time. Much of the tech is transferable between the two.

Go Mars to get the population into space exploration and use asteroid mining to get corporations into space exploration.

But your terms "useless", "dead end"... about a Mars colony seem extremely short sighted and surprise me to be honest.

 

[b_line]

To me, asteroid mining is the most interesting new thing I have been introduced to in quite some time. I have had a complete paradigm shift in the last 12 hours after reading the website about Low earth orbit habitats that Siro posted.

Seriously, if you can not imagine that the space colonies are better than Mars colonies, you are not grasping the entire concept. It's a pretty fantastical idea, sure, but it is far more accessible than terraforming a planet that is inhospitable, and will take thousands of years to inhabit.

The idea of space colonies is pretty much infinite. They could potentially house trillions of people. That is just insane. Whereas a colony on Mars could potentially support maybe 1 billion people, we could have space colonies all throughout the solar system and house an infinite human race.