When do you think Humans will start colonizing other planets?

[binTravkin]

Also, the sort of nanotech applications being discussed here strike me as impractical or just plain impossible.

Get updated with science then.

You must have a different concept of 'precondition'. It's just a counter to those who long for overpopulation, environmental collapse and war in order to 'encourage' space exploration.

No, he is right, there's no need for large, nor efficent economy, there must be some capital, yes, the economy must be growing and searching for ways to expand, by all means, but that doesn't imply the utopian precondition you postulate.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by binTravkin

Get updated with science then.

Nanotechnology (of the implausible sort typically discussed in these threads) is more of a religion than a science. How are the nanorobots supplied with energy? Krebs cycle?

No, he is right, there's no need for large, nor efficent economy, there must be some capital, yes, the economy must be growing and searching for ways to expand, by all means, but that doesn't imply the utopian precondition you postulate.

Ah, well, I don't consider space exploration to be a way for an economy to expand, since the chances of returns are minimal.

[binTravkin]

Ah, well, I don't consider space exploration to be a way for an economy to expand, since the chances of returns are minimal.

People who didn't believe in future of satellites said the same some decades ago.

Nanotechnology (of the implausible sort typically discussed in these threads) is more of a religion than a science. How are the nanorobots supplied with energy? Krebs cycle?

Sun?

[Sandman]

Sun?

So they won't work in the dark, then?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Sandman


So they won't work in the dark, then?

They're scared of the dark.

[binTravkin]

So they won't work in the dark, then?

Is it a big deal?

You don't work in the dark either, has the Earth stopped turning because of it?

[Seeker]

"the pysichs of any potential warp drive would be only debatable after the discovery of the unifed field theory"

I'm not sure but you may be referring to some kind of working theory of 'electrogravitics'...which according to those who have thought on such matters still requires 'unobtanium' to work.

Remember, Alcubierre and his critics work deals with whether FLT is possible AT ALL, even in principle, and many of the physicists who got back to him believe he is wrong and FLT would be impossible even with unobtanium.

I can see from some responses here that some people have a very limited conception of why societies at various levels of development might colonize....and remember a colony can be as few as a hundred people.

Firstly, the population thing is a non-sequitor. WTF would an even slightly advanced space faring civ have a 'population problem'? Birth control technology is 20th century and wealthy technologically advanced societies all have declining birth rates because they are able to have smaller families. It's nonsensical to bring up population in relation to space colonization.

Secondly, who would go? The answer is simple: those who really want to, who are willing to leave everything behind, who want to find a virgin frontier away from our oppressive, meddling, decadent societies, people like me and the other member of the Mars Society for example (www.marssociety.org). There will never be any problem in any age finding those people who want to strike out and make their own worlds.

Thirdly, who would pay for it? This is why in my opinion a prosperous world government is a precondtion. Private companies are not going to colonize a distant planet. Possibly mars could be done on the basis of million or multi-million dollar 'tickets' but no colonization effort requiring the expenditure of a significant fraction of our civilizations total work output is going to be provided on a for profit basis. As has been said before, there is never going to be a time when it is cost effective to manufacture, mine, or extract something in another gravity well and ship it back to earth. With certain extremely limited exceptions, for example lunar deuterium, which are in cosmic 'spitting distance'.

Only a world government which has gone through the traumatic process of redistributing wealth and power on the planet on a more roughly equal basis (through market mechanisms OF COURSE all you dumb socialists out there), which has global mininum wages, taxes, labour and environmental laws, unionization regs, infrastructure, education and health care etc etc can have true free trade (all labour, goods, and services), which would allow the Keynesian system to actually work with out all the stupid external artifical intrusions created by soveriegn nations and borders, can plan and allocate resources for long-term megaprojects of benefit to all humanity. They would not be weighed down by pathetic notions of international competion, 'defence' spending, all the incredibly wasteful duplication created by propping up those sad reminders of old tyrannies, the nation-states. I don't know why you consider this 'post-capitalist', this is just liberalism without the nation-state. And colonization of space would be one such megaproject this newly freed Leviathan would consider. Not at the top of list, certainly, but ON the list, because of the long-term benefits of another sanctuary for the human race, for science research, to, frankly, get rid of undesirables, etc.

From an even longer term prospective, truly advanced civilizations would need significant presences on the other planets in their own solar system to faciliate their own enourmously advanced megaprojects, like harnesses the solar output energy, building dyson rings or sphers, constructing giant radio and telescopic arrays, etc. For a truly advanced civilization, a place of refuge around another distant star would also be necessary in case of solar system wide disasters so I'd say they'd need at least one interstellar colony.

[binTravkin]

Thirdly, who would pay for it? This is why in my opinion a prosperous world government is a precondtion. Private companies are not going to colonize a distant planet. Possibly mars could be done on the basis of million or multi-million dollar 'tickets' but no colonization effort requiring the expenditure of a significant fraction of our civilizations total work output is going to be provided on a for profit basis. As has been said before, there is never going to be a time when it is cost effective to manufacture, mine, or extract something in another gravity well and ship it back to earth. With certain extremely limited exceptions, for example lunar deuterium, which are in cosmic 'spitting distance'.

Why you think something should be shipped back?
Where do you have that idea from?

[Seeker]

Sorry my perspective is coming from thousands of these type of threads on space.com, marssociety.org, the project orion site, etc
where most people are familiar with Buzz Aldrin's 'Cycler' concept or Zubrin's idea of a three cornered triangle trade based on deuterium and rocket fuel, earth-moon-mars, and are basing colonization on the idea of large consortiums bringing back valuable items as an incentive and reason to build a colony, which I don't agree with.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by binTravkin

Is it a big deal?

You don't work in the dark either, has the Earth stopped turning because of it?

Fair enough. I'm sure your glorified algae will build some great buildings.

[binTravkin]

So, why do you write about it at all, if you don't agree yourself?

It's pretty logical that most colonies should be becoming as self sufficent as they can ASAP.
That also implies that once properly settled, the population will be mostly going on themselves only importing things they really need and can't produce locally from Earth.
Bringing something back to Earth will be an obsolete concept once factories will be built in space, evenmoreso in zero gravity environment.
The same old asteroid mining - if you manage to find one, you can use it for your spaceship and convert the asteroid itself to shipyard during the course of construction.

[binTravkin]

Fair enough. I'm sure your glorified algae will build some great buildings.

Besides, it was only one example energy source I named.
If you wrap your mind around the concept, you should be able to think of more.

You yourself consist of kind of nanodevices, the ones nature made before us..

[Sandman]

Originally posted by binTravkin

Besides, it was only one example energy source I named.
If you wrap your mind around the concept, you should be able to think of more.

You yourself consist of kind of nanodevices, the ones nature made before us..

What other energy sources are there? I doubt Martian soil has much in the way of chemical energy.

As for Nature's nanodevices, they require liquid water.

[binTravkin]

What other energy sources are there? I doubt Martian soil has much in the way of chemical energy.

Are you really so short-sighted?
Artifical energy sources.

As for Nature's nanodevices, they require liquid water.

What's the problem with water?
Isn't there any water on Mars?
Aren't there another ways to sustain nanodevices than water.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by binTravkin

Are you really so short-sighted?
Artifical energy sources.

Like. What.

What's the problem with water?
Isn't there any water on Mars?
Aren't there another ways to sustain nanodevices than water.

Liquid water is vanishingly rare on Mars.