Do you think any aliens exist in the universe?

[pood]

You obviously either didn't read or didn't understand my post. Living in a tube and surviving on supplies provided from Earth is not an independent colony. A colony producing everything they need is a self sufficient colony.

What if a million people were living on Mars? What if they could produce/access all of the oxygen, water and food they needed? What if they had enough to survive on their own for centuries?

What if pigs had wings? What if wishes were horses?

 

[excreationist]

You obviously either didn't read or didn't understand my post. Living in a tube and surviving on supplies provided from Earth is not an independent colony. A colony producing everything they need is a self sufficient colony.

What if a million people were living on Mars? What if they could produce/access all of the oxygen, water and food they needed? What if they had enough to survive on their own for centuries?

What if pigs had wings? What if wishes were horses?

What I'm saying is partly based on what the richest man on the world is saying who runs related companies (SpaceX, the Boring Company, etc) - though I think it is a bad idea and they should just go to the moon instead....

 

[ramoss]

Yes, aliens exist. Quite a number moved up to the u.s. from Mexico. Most even are legal.

 

[pood]

You obviously either didn't read or didn't understand my post. Living in a tube and surviving on supplies provided from Earth is not an independent colony. A colony producing everything they need is a self sufficient colony.

What if a million people were living on Mars? What if they could produce/access all of the oxygen, water and food they needed? What if they had enough to survive on their own for centuries?

What if pigs had wings? What if wishes were horses?

What I'm saying is partly based on what the richest man on the world is saying who runs related companies (SpaceX, the boring company, etc) - though I think it is a bad idea and they should just go to the moon instead....

Why do you think the fact that he’s the richest man in the world counts for anything?

 

[excreationist]

What I'm saying is partly based on what the richest man on the world is saying who runs related companies (SpaceX, the boring company, etc) - though I think it is a bad idea and they should just go to the moon instead....

Why do you think the fact that he’s the richest man in the world counts for anything?

He is good at large scale practical organisation. It seems in the near future he will be building the rockets that can hold 1000 passengers to go to Mars. I think that adds more weight to his views than if he was a futurist that was financially struggling. Also he could use a lot of his own money to help make this happen.

 

[pood]

What I'm saying is partly based on what the richest man on the world is saying who runs related companies (SpaceX, the boring company, etc) - though I think it is a bad idea and they should just go to the moon instead....

Why do you think the fact that he’s the richest man in the world counts for anything?

He is good at large scale practical organisation. It seems in the near future he will be building the rockets that can hold 1000 passengers to go to Mars. I think that adds more weight to his views than if he was a futurist that was financially struggling. Also he could use a lot of his own money to help make this happen.

One thousand passengers to go to Mars to do what? Die there?

His money adds no weight to his views. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I expect, like Donald Trump, he just bilks rubes for money.

To locate a thousand people on Mars — much more so a million! — would require a vast, nay astronomical expenditure of funds to set up an infrastructure to support these people, a project of many generations if it is feasible at all. No one is going to pay for this bullshit. We don’t even have a moon base, and the last time humans walked on the moon was half a century ago! What we are going to be doing in the next century is not moving to Mars. It’s going to be striving desperately to save ourselves from the devastating impact of accelerating climate change.

 

[lpetrich]

Why live on a planet? Why not a free-flying space colony? The colony builders won't have any nearby material to mine for raw materials, but the colony will be *much* easier to access. It will be like present-day spacecraft docking operations.

In the 1970's, Gerard K. O'Neill proposed some very big space colonies, and he and Isaac Asimov developed a theory as to why space colonies have not often been proposed. "Planetary chauvinism." The presumption that we must live on planets or planetlike bodies.

 

[bilby]

Why live on a planet? Why not a free-flying space colony? The colony builders won't have any nearby material to mine for raw materials, but the colony will be *much* easier to access. It will be like present-day spacecraft docking operations.

In the 1970's, Gerard K. O'Neill proposed some very big space colonies, and he and Isaac Asimov developed a theory as to why space colonies have not often been proposed. "Planetary chauvinism." The presumption that we must live on planets or planetlike bodies.

Living at the bottom of a gravity well really does suck.

Rotational acceleration to mimic gravity seems like a much better option, as it provides easy access to free-fall conditions and deep space at the axis of rotation.

There’s plenty of raw materials already available in space in small enough chunks that their gravity is negligible.

 

[excreationist]

Rotational acceleration to mimic gravity seems like a much better option, as it provides easy access to free-fall conditions and deep space at the axis of rotation.

100% of Earth's gravity on a rotating space station is a lot better than Mars which is 38% which apparently can cause significant health problems....

 

[skepticalbip]

Why live on a planet? Why not a free-flying space colony? The colony builders won't have any nearby material to mine for raw materials, but the colony will be *much* easier to access. It will be like present-day spacecraft docking operations.

In the 1970's, Gerard K. O'Neill proposed some very big space colonies, and he and Isaac Asimov developed a theory as to why space colonies have not often been proposed. "Planetary chauvinism." The presumption that we must live on planets or planetlike bodies.

Living at the bottom of a gravity well really does suck.

Rotational acceleration to mimic gravity seems like a much better option, as it provides easy access to free-fall conditions and deep space at the axis of rotation.

There’s plenty of raw materials already available in space in small enough chunks that their gravity is negligible.

Rotational acceleration to replace gravity does seem like a great idea (sci-fi stories like it) but I would like to see it actually tested before committing. It would create several non-intuitional situations such as if tossing something to someone else the path it takes will be quite different than would be expected for those growing up in a gravity well. Climbing a ladder or sliding down a pole would also be a really unique experience. However, I think the physical adaption question would be more of a mystery. Our inner ear that controls balance and sense of orientation was not evolved for that environment as anyone who has rode a tilt-a-whirl at a fair or just rapidly spun for a short time should be aware. The greater diameter of the spinning habitat would certainly decrease the differences and possible problems adapting but by how much is unknown, at least by me.

 

[bilby]

Why live on a planet? Why not a free-flying space colony? The colony builders won't have any nearby material to mine for raw materials, but the colony will be *much* easier to access. It will be like present-day spacecraft docking operations.

In the 1970's, Gerard K. O'Neill proposed some very big space colonies, and he and Isaac Asimov developed a theory as to why space colonies have not often been proposed. "Planetary chauvinism." The presumption that we must live on planets or planetlike bodies.

Living at the bottom of a gravity well really does suck.

Rotational acceleration to mimic gravity seems like a much better option, as it provides easy access to free-fall conditions and deep space at the axis of rotation.

There’s plenty of raw materials already available in space in small enough chunks that their gravity is negligible.

Rotational acceleration to replace gravity does seem like a great idea (sci-fi stories like it) but I would like to see it actually tested before committing. It would create several non-intuitional situations such as if tossing something to someone else the path it takes will be quite different than would be expected for those growing up in a gravity well. However, I think the physical adaption question would be more of a mystery. Our inner ear that controls balance and sense of orientation was not evolved for that environment as anyone who has rode a tilt-a-whirl at a fair or just rapidly spun for a short time should be aware. The greater diameter of the spinning habitat would certainly decrease the differences and possible problems adapting but by how much is unknown, at least by me.

Sure, there are short term issues; But brains are plastic, and will compensate for a long-term condition.

It’s the exact same process that gives landlubbers the inability to walk on a pitching deck, while seafarers struggle to get their ‘land legs’ for a while after disembarking from a long voyage.

The brain rebels against unexpected and unusual motion, not against any particular kind of motion. Once it’s become ‘usual’, the same discomfort and disorientation occurs when it stops as was experienced when it started.

 

[SIB]

Rotational acceleration to mimic gravity seems like a much better option, as it provides easy access to free-fall conditions and deep space at the axis of rotation.

100% of Earth's gravity on a rotating space station is a lot better than Mars which is 38% which apparently can cause significant health problems....

Why live on a planet? Why not a free-flying space colony? The colony builders won't have any nearby material to mine for raw materials, but the colony will be *much* easier to access. It will be like present-day spacecraft docking operations.

In the 1970's, Gerard K. O'Neill proposed some very big space colonies, and he and Isaac Asimov developed a theory as to why space colonies have not often been proposed. "Planetary chauvinism." The presumption that we must live on planets or planetlike bodies.

Living at the bottom of a gravity well really does suck.

Rotational acceleration to mimic gravity seems like a much better option, as it provides easy access to free-fall conditions and deep space at the axis of rotation.

There’s plenty of raw materials already available in space in small enough chunks that their gravity is negligible.

Rotational acceleration to replace gravity does seem like a great idea (sci-fi stories like it) but I would like to see it actually tested before committing. It would create several non-intuitional situations such as if tossing something to someone else the path it takes will be quite different than would be expected for those growing up in a gravity well. However, I think the physical adaption question would be more of a mystery. Our inner ear that controls balance and sense of orientation was not evolved for that environment as anyone who has rode a tilt-a-whirl at a fair or just rapidly spun for a short time should be aware. The greater diameter of the spinning habitat would certainly decrease the differences and possible problems adapting but by how much is unknown, at least by me.

Sure, there are short term issues; But brains are plastic, and will compensate for a long-term condition.

It’s the exact same process that gives landlubbers the inability to walk on a pitching deck, while seafarers struggle to get their ‘land legs’ for a while after disembarking from a long voyage.

The brain rebels against unexpected and unusual motion, not against any particular kind of motion. Once it’s become ‘usual’, the same discomfort and disorientation occurs when it stops as was experienced when it started.

While we are in sci-fi mode. Maybe we evolve or genetically design a body structure to match living in space. Can we design a body structure using iron and an external magnetic field to set orientation. Think of an octopus body structure. Or things like does the whole brain even have to be in one location? Maybe shrink the individual and have more of them ... aka: ants: A brain (colony) without a (large human) body.

 

[Jarhyn]

Rotational acceleration to mimic gravity seems like a much better option, as it provides easy access to free-fall conditions and deep space at the axis of rotation.

100% of Earth's gravity on a rotating space station is a lot better than Mars which is 38% which apparently can cause significant health problems....

Why live on a planet? Why not a free-flying space colony? The colony builders won't have any nearby material to mine for raw materials, but the colony will be *much* easier to access. It will be like present-day spacecraft docking operations.

In the 1970's, Gerard K. O'Neill proposed some very big space colonies, and he and Isaac Asimov developed a theory as to why space colonies have not often been proposed. "Planetary chauvinism." The presumption that we must live on planets or planetlike bodies.

Living at the bottom of a gravity well really does suck.

Rotational acceleration to mimic gravity seems like a much better option, as it provides easy access to free-fall conditions and deep space at the axis of rotation.

There’s plenty of raw materials already available in space in small enough chunks that their gravity is negligible.

Rotational acceleration to replace gravity does seem like a great idea (sci-fi stories like it) but I would like to see it actually tested before committing. It would create several non-intuitional situations such as if tossing something to someone else the path it takes will be quite different than would be expected for those growing up in a gravity well. However, I think the physical adaption question would be more of a mystery. Our inner ear that controls balance and sense of orientation was not evolved for that environment as anyone who has rode a tilt-a-whirl at a fair or just rapidly spun for a short time should be aware. The greater diameter of the spinning habitat would certainly decrease the differences and possible problems adapting but by how much is unknown, at least by me.

Sure, there are short term issues; But brains are plastic, and will compensate for a long-term condition.

It’s the exact same process that gives landlubbers the inability to walk on a pitching deck, while seafarers struggle to get their ‘land legs’ for a while after disembarking from a long voyage.

The brain rebels against unexpected and unusual motion, not against any particular kind of motion. Once it’s become ‘usual’, the same discomfort and disorientation occurs when it stops as was experienced when it started.

While we are in sci-fi mode. Maybe we evolve or genetically design a body structure to match living in space. Can we design a body structure using iron and an external magnetic field to set orientation. Think of an octopus body structure. Or things like does the whole brain even have to be in one location? Maybe shrink the individual and have more of them ... aka: ants: A brain (colony) without a (large human) body.

The issue is getting that much nodular cross-talk going, and the problem of massively interconnected node groups.

Essentially, there's just no way to wirelessly transmit that much information simultaneously without saturating all the available radio channels and interfering with the next individual.

It might work with only two or three endpoints on the network but when you get into the order of even tens of devices on a network it gets really hard to keep that signal from overlapping and becoming noise.

It's bad enough having three computers on the same wifi network in the same room.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why live on a planet? Why not a free-flying space colony? The colony builders won't have any nearby material to mine for raw materials, but the colony will be *much* easier to access. It will be like present-day spacecraft docking operations.

In the 1970's, Gerard K. O'Neill proposed some very big space colonies, and he and Isaac Asimov developed a theory as to why space colonies have not often been proposed. "Planetary chauvinism." The presumption that we must live on planets or planetlike bodies.

Living at the bottom of a gravity well really does suck.

Rotational acceleration to mimic gravity seems like a much better option, as it provides easy access to free-fall conditions and deep space at the axis of rotation.

There’s plenty of raw materials already available in space in small enough chunks that their gravity is negligible.

Rotational acceleration to replace gravity does seem like a great idea (sci-fi stories like it) but I would like to see it actually tested before committing. It would create several non-intuitional situations such as if tossing something to someone else the path it takes will be quite different than would be expected for those growing up in a gravity well. Climbing a ladder or sliding down a pole would also be a really unique experience. However, I think the physical adaption question would be more of a mystery. Our inner ear that controls balance and sense of orientation was not evolved for that environment as anyone who has rode a tilt-a-whirl at a fair or just rapidly spun for a short time should be aware. The greater diameter of the spinning habitat would certainly decrease the differences and possible problems adapting but by how much is unknown, at least by me.

At the scale of an O'Neill cylinder most things will work as expected. Sports like baseball and golf will be very different, though--you will have to take the rotation into consideration. However, I question whether you could have enough open space for either sport--I have found conflicting opinions on how much sheer there will be in the air, the higher estimates would cause big problems.

 

[Jarhyn]

Why live on a planet? Why not a free-flying space colony? The colony builders won't have any nearby material to mine for raw materials, but the colony will be *much* easier to access. It will be like present-day spacecraft docking operations.

In the 1970's, Gerard K. O'Neill proposed some very big space colonies, and he and Isaac Asimov developed a theory as to why space colonies have not often been proposed. "Planetary chauvinism." The presumption that we must live on planets or planetlike bodies.

Living at the bottom of a gravity well really does suck.

Rotational acceleration to mimic gravity seems like a much better option, as it provides easy access to free-fall conditions and deep space at the axis of rotation.

There’s plenty of raw materials already available in space in small enough chunks that their gravity is negligible.

Rotational acceleration to replace gravity does seem like a great idea (sci-fi stories like it) but I would like to see it actually tested before committing. It would create several non-intuitional situations such as if tossing something to someone else the path it takes will be quite different than would be expected for those growing up in a gravity well. Climbing a ladder or sliding down a pole would also be a really unique experience. However, I think the physical adaption question would be more of a mystery. Our inner ear that controls balance and sense of orientation was not evolved for that environment as anyone who has rode a tilt-a-whirl at a fair or just rapidly spun for a short time should be aware. The greater diameter of the spinning habitat would certainly decrease the differences and possible problems adapting but by how much is unknown, at least by me.

At the scale of an O'Neill cylinder most things will work as expected. Sports like baseball and golf will be very different, though--you will have to take the rotation into consideration. However, I question whether you could have enough open space for either sport--I have found conflicting opinions on how much sheer there will be in the air, the higher estimates would cause big problems.

Or the sports end up being played in virtuality or augmented reality?

Or just inventing different, better games for space. Zero-G has a lot of potential.

 

[lpetrich]

One can calculate the rotation rate necessary to make some centrifugal acceleration for some distance from the spin axis:
\( a = r \omega^2 \)
where a is the acceleration, r is that distance, and ω is the angular frequency, related to the plain frequency f and the period P by
\( \omega = 2\pi f = 2 \pi / P \)

For r = 100 meters and a = 9.81 m/s² (1 g), the period is 20 seconds.

 

[skepticalbip]

...

Why live on a planet? Why not a free-flying space colony? The colony builders won't have any nearby material to mine for raw materials, but the colony will be *much* easier to access. It will be like present-day spacecraft docking operations.

In the 1970's, Gerard K. O'Neill proposed some very big space colonies, and he and Isaac Asimov developed a theory as to why space colonies have not often been proposed. "Planetary chauvinism." The presumption that we must live on planets or planetlike bodies.

Living at the bottom of a gravity well really does suck.

Rotational acceleration to mimic gravity seems like a much better option, as it provides easy access to free-fall conditions and deep space at the axis of rotation.

There’s plenty of raw materials already available in space in small enough chunks that their gravity is negligible.

Rotational acceleration to replace gravity does seem like a great idea (sci-fi stories like it) but I would like to see it actually tested before committing. It would create several non-intuitional situations such as if tossing something to someone else the path it takes will be quite different than would be expected for those growing up in a gravity well. Climbing a ladder or sliding down a pole would also be a really unique experience. However, I think the physical adaption question would be more of a mystery. Our inner ear that controls balance and sense of orientation was not evolved for that environment as anyone who has rode a tilt-a-whirl at a fair or just rapidly spun for a short time should be aware. The greater diameter of the spinning habitat would certainly decrease the differences and possible problems adapting but by how much is unknown, at least by me.

At the scale of an O'Neill cylinder most things will work as expected. Sports like baseball and golf will be very different, though--you will have to take the rotation into consideration. However, I question whether you could have enough open space for either sport--I have found conflicting opinions on how much sheer there will be in the air, the higher estimates would cause big problems.

The problem I see is that there are a lot of assumptions being made about living in such an environment, most based on assuming that it would be just like gravity. I haven't seen anyone addressing how the human body would react. Our sense of balance and orientation has evolved under the influence of gravity primarily by the inner ear sensing 'down'. In a gravity well, that is sensed by the location of the liquid in the inner ear reacting to the radial force of gravity. In a rotating habitat, there will also be a tangential 'force' on that liquid. While our sight would inform us that 'down' was along a radial line, our sense of balance would tell us 'down' would be dependent on which direction we face. The O'Neill cylinder would be a very different environment than humans evolved in. It is easy to assume how well humans could function there but we really can't know until after a lot of testing is done. As an example; we assumed what living in zero-g would be like but were surprised to find that it caused skeletal deterioration and other effects.

 

[AdamWho]

I am going to say something pedantic. The phrase "Aliens in the universe" doesn't make a lot of sense because any such beings wouldn't be alien to the universe.....

 

[Loren Pechtel]

...
The problem I see is that there are a lot of assumptions being made about living in such an environment, most based on assuming that it would be just like gravity. I haven't seen anyone addressing how the human body would react. Our sense of balance and orientation has evolved under the influence of gravity primarily by the inner ear sensing 'down'. In a gravity well, that is sensed by the location of the liquid in the inner ear reacting to the radial force of gravity. In a rotating habitat, there will also be a tangential 'force' on that liquid. While our sight would inform us that 'down' was along a radial line, our sense of balance would tell us 'down' would be dependent on which direction we face. The O'Neill cylinder would be a very different environment than humans evolved in. It is easy to assume how well humans could function there but we really can't know until after a lot of testing is done. As an example; we assumed what living in zero-g would be like but were surprised to find that it caused skeletal deterioration and other effects.

No. Both your vision and your ear will say gravity is towards your feet. The cylinder needs to be big enough that your whole body experiences pretty much the same "gravity" and spinning slow enough (which it inherently will be if big enough) that you don't get some nasty gyroscopic effects from turning your head. What direction you are facing will have no effect on the "gravity".

 

[skepticalbip]

...
The problem I see is that there are a lot of assumptions being made about living in such an environment, most based on assuming that it would be just like gravity. I haven't seen anyone addressing how the human body would react. Our sense of balance and orientation has evolved under the influence of gravity primarily by the inner ear sensing 'down'. In a gravity well, that is sensed by the location of the liquid in the inner ear reacting to the radial force of gravity. In a rotating habitat, there will also be a tangential 'force' on that liquid. While our sight would inform us that 'down' was along a radial line, our sense of balance would tell us 'down' would be dependent on which direction we face. The O'Neill cylinder would be a very different environment than humans evolved in. It is easy to assume how well humans could function there but we really can't know until after a lot of testing is done. As an example; we assumed what living in zero-g would be like but were surprised to find that it caused skeletal deterioration and other effects.

No. Both your vision and your ear will say gravity is towards your feet. The cylinder needs to be big enough that your whole body experiences pretty much the same "gravity" and spinning slow enough (which it inherently will be if big enough) that you don't get some nasty gyroscopic effects from turning your head. What direction you are facing will have no effect on the "gravity".

It is easy to assume things, quite another to test the assumptions. Trying to walk in a rotating reference frame will result in a 'force' perpendicular to the direction someone is trying to walk that would be the cross product of motion and the rotational velocity. The question is the magnitude and how much that would disorient someone trying to walk. Or how fast could they walk without their sense of balance screaming at them that they are falling over.