NASA Announcement/Discovery

[Siro]

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.

Now you're being hard-headed for no reason. Materials harvested on Mars already exist in larger quantities much closer to Earth (hell, they exist in much larger quantities ON Earth). No new tech will come from a tiny *** colony on a different planet.

2030s is in the "mid-century" range, specially that delays are a guarantee in large scale space projects.

There is a time frame for asteroid mining. Currently, companies are deploying small orbital telescopes to map near earth asteroids and plan which ones would be easiest to mine first. The hope is that by mid-20s robots can be sent to mine them, and bring back the materials closer to Earth. The time-frame for establishing orbital mining stations is about the same as a manned mission to Mars, and a lot sooner than any prospects of trying to establish a Martian outpost. By the time the latter is feasible, we'll be able to construct sizable space habitats.

 

[fishonjazz]

Good, interesting conversation guys.
I have nothing to add.
Good read though

 

[Stoked]

Now you're being hard-headed for no reason. Materials harvested on Mars already exist in larger quantities much closer to Earth (hell, they exist in much larger quantities ON Earth). No new tech will come from a tiny *** colony on a different planet.

2030s is in the "mid-century" range, specially that delays are a guarantee in large scale space projects.

There is a time frame for asteroid mining. Currently, companies are deploying small orbital telescopes to map near earth asteroids and plan which ones would be easiest to mine first. The hope is that by mid-20s robots can be sent to mine them, and bring back the materials closer to Earth. The time-frame for establishing orbital mining stations is about the same as a manned mission to Mars, and a lot sooner than any prospects of trying to establish a Martian outpost. By the time the latter is feasible, we'll be able to construct sizable space habitats.

lol, I am the only one open to both. You have been the one railing against one option. So who is being hard headed? You have already admitted your emotional state in this thread.

Most of the tech for a "colony" already exists. The problem is getting there and the tech needed for that.

Either way we grow, learn and expand and I will be happy.

 

[Siro]

Okay, I really need to get back to work. It's been a fun discussion.

 

[Stoked]

Keep in mind I am not arguing against asteroid mining, I think it will be hugely beneficial.

I am arguing for a Mars colony as well.

 

[b_line]

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.

It's dead end in that it is basically colonizing a planet that has 1/5th or less the potential of earth to support life. Say we do eventually get a colony going on Mars, and it can support a few hundred million people. That is just a fraction of the solution. If life on earth keeps changing at the rate it has been, the mars colony is probably an inevitability, but the space colonies are quite possibly the one thing that will take humans to the next level evolution wise.

Imagine terraforming mars, and in 1000 years you finally get to live there without some special device to deliver enough oxygen, and you live there with probably max 1 billion other people who have to figure out a way around the problem of their bone mass disappearing. Now imagine living on that planet and looking up at a space colony orbiting mars that contains 10 billion people living an easy life.

 

[Stoked]

It's dead end in that it is basically colonizing a planet that has 1/5th or less the potential of earth to support life. Say we do eventually get a colony going on Mars, and it can support a few hundred million people. That is just a fraction of the solution. If life on earth keeps changing at the rate it has been, the mars colony is probably an inevitability, but the space colonies are quite possibly the one thing that will take humans to the next level evolution wise.

Imagine terraforming mars, and in 1000 years you finally get to live there without some special device to deliver enough oxygen, and you live there with probably max 1 billion other people who have to figure out a way around the problem of their bone mass disappearing. Now imagine living on that planet and looking up at a space colony orbiting mars that contains 10 billion people living an easy life.

It is not a dead end in the sense that we learn massive amounts from that colony that can be applied later to other planets, space flight, robotics, how differing levels of gravity affects humans... For that aspect Mars and the moon are the only viable options. I am not arguing against space stations, they will be fantastic. A massive amount of benefit comes from them. But so does a planetary colony.

Humanities future is not in only one or the other.

But one thing Mars has right now that other options do not is the ability to inspire humanity in general. Getting the American, and other nationalities, behind a renewed push into space is critical right now.

 

[b_line]

Answer for both stoked and siro: colonize Venus. It has 91% earth gravity and is close enough to the earth to travel to. Just have to stop that pesky runaway greenhouse effect.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I've yet to run across a techy discussion where Siro doesn't impress me with his knowledge. I thought I was curious and full of sometimes useless knowledge, but he runs circles around me. Anyway, I really enjoyed reading the discussion and, like b-line, I'm now a believer that asteroid mining is the way to go. The reasons I don't think we should simultaneously go both directions as Stoked is suggesting is cost. Since we probably can't financially afford to do both at once (and even if we do it will slow don the progress of both of them), why not do the one that has the most real world application, solves overpopulation concerns, and virtually assures the survival of our species?

 

[Gameface]

I've yet to run across a techy discussion where Siro doesn't impress me with his knowledge. I thought I was curious and full of sometimes useless knowledge, but he runs circles around me. Anyway, I really enjoyed reading the discussion and, like b-line, I'm now a believer that asteroid mining is the way to go. The reasons I don't think we should simultaneously go both directions as Stoked is suggesting is cost. Since we probably can't financially afford to do both at once (and even if we do it will slow don the progress of both of them), why not do the one that has the most real world application, solves overpopulation concerns, and virtually assures the survival of our species?

I think it's possible is asteroid mining is as easy and as profitable as Siro is making it out to be that it will be something tackled by private enterprise, so it may not end up being a matter of divided focus and funding. It could still be possible for government run space agencies to send people to Mars.

Siro, would it change your mind if there was a better than not chance of finding evidence of life on Mars and human explorers greatly improved the chances of finding the best evidence? I think finding evidence of extraterrestrial life would be absolutely massive as far as getting the gears turning in the direction of space exploration in many forms.

 

[Siro]

I think it's possible is asteroid mining is as easy and as profitable as Siro is making it out to be that it will be something tackled by private enterprise, so it may not end up being a matter of divided focus and funding. It could still be possible for government run space agencies to send people to Mars.

Siro, would it change your mind if there was a better than not chance of finding evidence of life on Mars and human explorers greatly improved the chances of finding the best evidence? I think finding evidence of extraterrestrial life would be absolutely massive as far as getting the gears turning in the direction of space exploration in many forms.

I don't see why humans would be required to find evidence of life. All the instruments can be controlled remotely. However, in such a hypothetical scenario, a research outpost becomes a priority. But if life currently exists on Mars, then Terraforming gains a moral aspect, as such a process would destroy a unique branch of life. My preference would be enhancing the biosphere potential for that separate branch on Mars, while we continue building Earth analogues in space.

 

[Stoked]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...he-distance-record-for-quantum-teleportation/

https://www.npr.org/sections/alltec...rting-is-real-even-if-trekkie-transport-isn't

Teleportation. The development of this tech could be monumental in man's exploration of the galaxy.

Let us say that man creates a Mars colony/space station and we start teleporting people and materiels there. Speed of light correct?

Then from that point they leave to go to Jupiter's moons. Set up another space station/colony. Teleport there. Then Pluto...then outside our solar system.

What do you think of teleportation in this light Siro? Yes it is probably decades away if not longer but the development has started.

Edit: Even at the speed o flight it is not instantaneous over this vast distances. How would that affect a person's psychological state? Would they have to be sedated?

Reminds me of a short story I read about the future and teleportation. This society develops teleportation between planets but as it was developed they discovered that all life, even down to rats, birds...had to be sedated first or they went completely insane and dies shortly after arrival. So in this story there is mandatory, enforced sedation before teleportation.

Well this family is going on a vacation and getting teleported. The son (like 10 or so) has never been teleported and is scared. Well he doesn't want to be sedated so he fakes taking his meds and pretends to sleep. All his family goes thru and is woken up on arrival. Then his turn comes and when he arrives he is insane and dies after a minute or two. but as he is dying he keeps screaming about eternity. Apparently to the mind the teleportation is literally eternity. The brains feels as if it has had 0 stimulus for eons and then bam. It is all back and the brain basically crashes and the person dies. Family watches has their son dies in front of them and realizes he has experienced eons of isolation and the eventual torture of that.