When do you think Humans will start colonizing other planets?

[binTravkin]

A large, efficient economy generating vast surpluses.
is not a precondition ( if you havent noticed there are wast surpluses in our econmy today, why do you think we need farm subsidies to employ farmers and produce way more food than we need while preventing agrarian based third world countries from developing ). Look at Sadams Iraq before it's invasion of Kuwait, it spen all it's oil money on weapons and got quite a formidable force (5th or 6th in world ranking I can't remember; sadly Saddam had no idea how to wage war and he eliminated anyone more competent tha him ) but the people lived in crappy conditions.If that isn't frivolis I don't know what is.
Today's economy is large enough we have sufficently advanced technology ( 6 months to Mars isn't that long, a Russian spent 2,5 years in orbit a few years ago- with the help of vodka ) we could colonise Mars with a few tousand people by 2020, the moon could house hundred's of permanent inhabitants not to mention turists. The stuff's there but most people consider the long term survival of the species a waste of money ( indirectly subsidising large SUV's that's the way to save the enviroment, that's the Americain way!).

I agree on vast economy not needed.
Once there's at least some return, the capital will start flowing that way.
Until that, there must be some targeted interest put by governments, NASA fits this role is now.

I dont think a space elevator is fesable.

NASA does. They're not fools.

I'd say fusion powerd planes will predate this ( 2080 or something ) wich will dramaticaly reduce orbital transport costs.

By 2080 we'll be lifting off in hundreds of space elevators and there will be no need for fusion powered planes, if any of the mostly competent NASA and other scientist predictions are true.
Besides, how do you imagine fusion planes will work in our atmosphere?
Even if they do not set the air aflame by initiating more and more termonuclear reactions, their impact on environment would still be huge, not to mention their size and costs.

Not to mention nanotech, just imagine ,dump a canister on Mars let the littel pests multiply for a decade or two then order them to build mines ( easy mineral and water acces- on the poles ), habitates, fuel production facilites and a few hydroponic farms and automated biolabs ( send an automated genteic bank to Mars and let the biolab synthisize tousands of geneticaly engenired seeds or microbes-food wats anyone ).

My thoughts on colonisation start/terraforming too.

Or an extremly advanced civ sending thousands of sublight ships to distant corners of the galaxy cariying advanced AI, nano and macro robots, genetic databanks of themselves and other life-forms ( the advanced AI would raise the children born on the planet or a tousand or so people suspended in hybernation ) The planet's a rock? No problem let the AI and the bots work a few tousand years while you sleep, using fussion to replicate any materials not native to the system or turning the entire planet into a space station if needed or just to get the fuel needed to go somwhere else.

It sounds very nice, but there's a paradox invented by some sci-fi guys, you know, if you travel to some place for 100 years, chances are that in the meantime they on Earth discover a much faster way to travel and meet you on the other end saying like, 'Ah you already there? we've been expecting you, we'll put you in the local Museum of Makind'..

[_BuRjaCi_]

I think you're missing the point. No one is gonna invest tremendous money, resources, and energy to colonize another planet just cause its cool and they've seen too many Star Trek episodes.

Well ozzy and what is mercendising may I ask ( must get McCoylimited edition NRFB 1980 action figure )?
Those colections are valued in the thousands if you're a sterotipical trekkie you would think it coll to pay 50000$ just to be flung into orbit frotzen and transported slowly for a decade or so with an ion drive ( ion drive use very little fuel and since the aired on Star Trek TOS the trekkies would go mad with envy!).

But seriously there are ten's of thousands of people out there wilingy to do ANYTHING, for some to go into space or to Mars is a lifle long desire, to spend your retierment there would be amazing.

[_BuRjaCi_]

Yes but most people think FLT is impossible ( before you spam this thread with angry protests, the pysichs of any potential warp drive would be only debatable after the discovery of the unifed field theory ) I'm imagining this for their benefit of people who chose to belive this, just as I subjectivley belive that it MAY be possible.

[binTravkin]

I think you're missing the point. No one is gonna invest tremendous money, resources, and energy to colonize another planet just cause its cool and they've seen too many Star Trek episodes.

Of course they aren't invest the money in nothing.

Now stop thinking of a planet, say Mars as of a barren rock floating in eternal void.


Start thinking of it as a strategical object and a future base for building new, better community (read - brainwashed ppl), a base for doing experiments you can't do on Earth, a base for further Universe exploration (due to less gravity).


To name one reason:
Mars could be practically nuke immune in a few decades.
Once could place anti-nuke missile system on it and live happily as any nuke coming his way would come SOO slow, he could miss it hundred times and still not be doomed if there are more defense missiles.

[binTravkin]

Yes but most people think FLT is impossible ( before you spam this thread with angry protests, the pysichs of any potential warp drive would be only debatable after the discovery of the unifed field theory ) I'm imagining this for their benefit of people who chose to belive this, just as I subjectivley belive that it MAY be possible.

Please quote on what you are replying.
To what you're referring as FLT?

[_BuRjaCi_]

Sory forgot to post the quote that goes with my previous post.

Originally posted by binTravkin

It sounds very nice, but there's a paradox invented by some sci-fi guys, you know, if you travel to some place for 100 years, chances are that in the meantime they on Earth discover a much faster way to travel and meet you on the other end saying like, 'Ah you already there? we've been expecting you, we'll put you in the local Museum of Makind'..

[binTravkin]

I am not referring to any particular type of propulsion/other movement device.
Logically thinking I have no right to do so as I cannot predict what device they would be using to fly from place to A to B in 100 years, so I cannot possibly tell what device the other guys would be using to do the same in say 20 years.

And referring to all the sci-fi drives and stuff does not help - since the boom of sci-fi (in 60's - 80's) there have been so much discoveries, that the current view of what is the next step in space travel is pretty much different.
Expect even more difference in say 50 years.
And what would happen if there was a sudden discovery of type, which would revolutionarize the whole subject?

[_BuRjaCi_]

Faster than light travel or FLT and that section you quoted is from ozzy it seems my quoting embarasment dosen't semm to end today

Originally posted by binTravkin

By 2080 we'll be lifting off in hundreds of space elevators and there will be no need for fusion powered planes, if any of the mostly competent NASA and other scientist predictions are true.
Besides, how do you imagine fusion planes will work in our atmosphere?
Even if they do not set the air aflame by initiating more and more termonuclear reactions, their impact on environment would still be huge, not to mention their size and costs.

Ehhemm... Im not talking about a thermonuclear drive

Fusion drive, I should have been more clear on that though. Nuclear fusion is infact very clean energy if you don't need a fission nuke to start it; there are two way's of doing it :

1.) compress and heat a tiny ball on deuterium with lasers- this has obvius military potential ( the US military has been reasherching this for quite some time)
2.)European and a few other countries ( like Canada and Japan ), have decided to build the ITER
( international thermonuclear experimental reactor ) in France by 2020 on a different concept; magnetic fields to contain superheated "burnig" ( fusion reaction not fire ) plasma wich is super-heated by particle accelerators.

[_BuRjaCi_]

oh ... and on the matter of the guys home inventing a faster engine, while you're traveling to another star system I must agree with you on that.
But you have to admit that in a few years time (in 2070 or so,the time to reach the planets in our solar system ) no such revolution will happen. And even if it did it would probably be a few years doen the road from practiacal application or a functioning spaceship.

And anything slower than FLT will only get there a few years earlier if the star system in question is less than a few duzen light years away.

And I wasn't refering to you posting angry replies, I was refering to those people who belive we've prettey much figured outh how the universe works and will probably never find a way to "bend" that natural law as we have so many others.

[binTravkin]

Fusion drive, I should have been more clear on that though. Nuclear fusion is infact very clean energy if you don't need a fission nuke to start it; there are two way's of doing it :

1.) compress and a tiny ball on deuterium with lasers- this has military potential ( the US military has been reasherching this for quite some time)
2.)European and a few other countries ( like Canada and Japan ), have decided to build the ITER
( international thermonuclear experimental reactor ) in France by 2020 on a different concept; magnetic fields to contain superheated "burnig" ( fusion reaction not fire ) plasma wich is super-heated by particle accelerators.

They've been experimenting with this for quite some time now with no or very little time.
As it stands, the reactor sometimes eats up to 5 times more than it outputs, so the future of this type of energy source seems pretty dim atm.

Also, consider, that a device that could be able to carry such a reactor would be pretty big in size, require quite a lot of maintenance and go down as soon as a smallest detail of it fails.
Even if they succeed in getting the power balance up so that it actually outputs energy, there will still be a lot of work to be done with the auxiliary devices of such mechanismus, before it becomes a feasible choice for aircraft.

Meanwhile Space Elevator is a rather simple principle from the technological viewpoint and the development into it is more seen as linear than an endless search and experimentation which currently happens in thermonuclear power field.
Reportedly more than a half of prerequisite technologies for elevator are already there, and the others are being researched upon and are not physics though nuts, but merely a research into application of knowledge.

[binTravkin]

oh ... and on the matter of the guys home inventing a faster engine, while you're traveling to another star system I must agree with you on that.
But you have to admit that in a few years time (in 2070 or so,the time to reach the planets in our solar system ) no such revolution will happen. And even if it did it would probably be a few years doen the road from practiacal application or a functioning spaceship.

And anything slower than FLT will only get there a few years earlier if the star system in question is less than a few duzen light years away.

And I wasn't refering to you posting angry replies, I was refering to those people who belive we've prettey much figured outh how the universe works and will probably never find a way to "bend" that natural law as we have so many others.

Well, we cannot expect any interstellar travel closer than 2060 I guess, and even then it would probably be some automatic device which would only report back the data by some very strong beam.

Im willing to believe NASA on their Elevator predictions only because they're pretty famous with saying far dates for things that seem closer.

[_BuRjaCi_]

Well the ITER reactor is predicted to produce ten times more energy than it consumes and the DEMO rector planed in te 2050's ( the first prototype of a comercial reactor ) should produce twenty times more. And the nanoptehnological revolution that will take place some time this century will result in drastic minituraization of all components. And if we are VERY optimistical we might have the unified field theory working by the begining of the 22'nd century- with a definite anwser to the question of wether anti-gravity is possible without cconsuming infinite energy. And once again I wasn't clear on what I meant with fusion powered. I could just be a fusion powered supercunducting rali launch system.
Tell me isn't it easier to build a 1 kilometer rail that blasts things into orbit than a tower going all the way to geosync. orbit.

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by binTravkin

Im willing to believe NASA on their Elevator predictions only because they're pretty famous with saying far dates for things that seem closer.

Well you're right on that one. But then's the matter of the anualy srinking budget of NASA, and the low support for the space program amongn the Americain people.

In your previous post you mention an extremly strong comunication beam- did I get that right ?
Could you elaborate on that? I mean interstelar comunication isn't that hard it just takes awhile, didn't the german olimpic game transmision in the 1930's leave our solar system. And the automated probe could have very advanced AI that would tell us and do almost anything short of a first contact situation.

[binTravkin]

Tell me isn't it easier to build a 1 kilometer rail that blasts things into orbit than a tower going all the way to geosync. orbit.

Have you read about Space Elevator?
It says nothing about a tower.
And it is also predicted to be that rail which will 'blast things into space'..

Well you're right on tha one. But then's the matter of the anualy srinking budget of NASA, and the low support for the space program amongn the Americain people.

The support grows among scientists, as they discover more things, there will be more an more private sector interest.
Space elevator is expected to drop liftoff costs 100fold (according to scientific calculation), therefore any corporation who gets the thing up is gonna blast through economical skies itself.

In your previous post you mention an extremly strong comunication beam- did I get that right ? Could you elaborate on that?

On Discovery Channel there's a project Alien Planet.
Go see it.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by _BuRjaCi_
A large, efficient economy generating vast surpluses.
is not a precondition.

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.

A spirit of adventure is already, here there are by some studies that say, a thousand people in the world would be wiling to pay a few mill for a week on the ISS imagine the price drop to just a few doutzen K

Since space colonisation is likely to require government expenditure, a general consensus is needed, not a handful of freaks and geeks.

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