The Case For Space Colonization

[untermensche]

If humans are totally dependent on human technology for survival then they likely will not survive long.

The reason humans survive now is because they are not totally dependent on human technology for that survival. In this situation even faulty technology that breaks down all the time can be very beneficial.

For all practical purposes we are totally dependent on human technology even now. No technology, I would still have air. That's it.

We have a dependence but it is far from a total dependence.

Our technology can and does break down all the time. Every system we build eventually breaks down at some point.

But because we are not totally dependent on that technology we can survive while it is being fixed.

 

[Wiploc]

''Never again enough people'' suggests no restriction or limit to the expansion of human populations?

Call it hyperbole. It took us a long time to fill up the earth. It would take a much longer time to fill up a ringworld or a Dyson sphere.

This, however, if it means what I think it does, demonstrates mathematical illiteracy, sorry to be so blunt.

No amount of spreading out, at any feasible or non-feasible speed, will change the fact that, at a constant non-zero growth rate, we'll come to the point where we hit carrying capacity on all worlds that can be reached by then. For example, with a growth rate of 1% pa (slightly below the current population growth rate of 1.1%), we'll have to accommodateone earth's worth population per star system within ~1860 light years in about 1860 years. It gets much worse at more realistic speeds (at anything much under 0.1c, we'd have to get rid of more people than we can we can put there by the time we reach our closest neighbours), and superluminous speeds wouldn't really help either, just delay that point.

I suppose we could change the book title to something like, Never Again Enough People Unless We Never Get Any Smarter.

ETA: The stellar density in our corner of the galaxy is 0.004 stars per cubic light year. The volume of the area that can be reached in a given time is 4/3 * pi * velocity * time. The number of stars within that volume is that figure * stellar density, so that's cubic growth. The expected population over time, however grows exponentially at <growth rate>^time (say 1.01^1000 for the population in 1000 years at 1% growth).

Back when China had only one billion people, there was this meme: If the line of Chinese jogged into the ocean eight abreast, even that wouldn't reduce their population.

I can't picture getting people off the planet at that rate. So I don't see emigration as a way of reducing the earth's population. In the long run, the ex-earth population would have to grow mostly by reproduction.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are also fewer things actively trying to kill you on Mars! I'm sold.

Exactly. While the off-Earth environments are deadly most of the threats are basically passive. Earth has wind events that routinely kill people. Sometimes thousands of people. No other easy colonization target has dangerous wind. Earth has quakes that kill, sometimes tens of thousands of people. No other easy colonization target has meaningful quakes.

The only active threat in most of space is flying bits.

Mars has no winds???

Mars does not have dangerous wind. Transport a F5 tornado to Mars and stand in the middle of it--it wouldn't be an issue. Surface level pressure is .6% of Earth's, that means the pressure from the wind is likewise .6% of what you would experience on Earth from a given wind velocity.

Martian weather is only of concern in terms of dust blocking visibility and solar power.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Terraforming is almost certainly a prerequisite for a Mars colony. But that's OK, we can do that. We don't even need to commit genocide to do so, which makes a refreshing change.

I disagree--terraforming Mars would require a major space presence--plenty of people living off-Earth. The colonies come first.

Why? Most of the work needs no human intervention on-site. What good are humans when terraforming? What can they do to advance the goal that can't be done by ROVs or robots?

If you want adequate atmospheric pressure on Mars you're going to have to drop comets. To do that you're going to have to go get them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We have a dependence but it is far from a total dependence.

Our technology can and does break down all the time. Every system we build eventually breaks down at some point.

But because we are not totally dependent on that technology we can survive while it is being fixed.

I have flown across oceans many times. The airplane fails out there, you're at best adrift at sea, most likely you're dead. It was called the Miracle on the Hudson because of how gently he managed to put it down. The more likely result:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE2Yn0cipTY

The pilots had a long time to prepare, this wasn't a case of not planning. (Bozos hijacked the plane to Australia. The pilots knew they didn't have anything like the fuel needed but the hijackers wouldn't listen. Rather than really head for Australia they fooled him and stayed near land so when the engines quit there was at least hope of rescue. 2/3 died in that crash.)

What you do is build systems with failure in mind--build it with backups so when the critical system quits you have other options.

 

[4321lynx]

There are no reasons why low gravity or radiation have to be health problem. We can create drugs which counter these effects.
Problem is that unless Mars is terraformed into something interesting people would not like living there.

......or getting pregnant, delivering, (and you need baby formulas and food and diapers) and raising children there.

You can have "maternity leave" from the moon but not from Mars. What are the effects of low gravity on mammalian pregnancy, human pregnancy, child growth ? Ants, flies, cockroaches in experiments are insufficient evidence, and that goes for rabbits and mice. What experiments can you carry out? Presumably reproduction, fertilisation and pregnancy and whole childhood development to 18-20 years old on the moon would be a fair trial. Then education.... What drugs are you suggesting? Pot and cocaine/fentanyl to keep people happy?????? Prayer???

 

[Jokodo]

Call it hyperbole. It took us a long time to fill up the earth. It would take a much longer time to fill up a ringworld or a Dyson sphere.

Not really, no - not with anything near current population growth rate. Assume that the the maximum carrying capacity of a Dyson sphere around the sun is 1,000,000 times the carrying capacity of the earth. At a growth rate of 1.1% annually, it would mean that after filling up the earth (whenever you believe that point is reached), it would only take log(1000000) / log(1.011) years to fill up the sphere.

That's less than the time passed since Charlemagne. And another 1860 years after that, we'd run out of space even with one Dyson sphere per star within 1860 years, as per my last post.

I suppose we could change the book title to something like, Never Again Enough People Unless We Never Get Any Smarter.

That could be the title of any book though - if we "get smarter" by reducing the growth rate to 0.0, that situation can hold right here on earth, as bilby pointed out. The point is this: if avoiding overpopulation is not something can be achieved through space colonisation alone if the growth rate remains constantly positive at whatever rate (a logical consequence of the properties of exponential growth), and if reducing the growth rate to zero is not something that requires space colonisation (and I have yet to see a reason why it should), than space colonisation for the purpose of easing population pressure is either not a cure at all, or a cure for a non-existent disease. Snake oil in either case.

ETA: The stellar density in our corner of the galaxy is 0.004 stars per cubic light year. The volume of the area that can be reached in a given time is 4/3 * pi * velocity * time. The number of stars within that volume is that figure * stellar density, so that's cubic growth. The expected population over time, however grows exponentially at <growth rate>^time (say 1.01^1000 for the population in 1000 years at 1% growth).

Back when China had only one billion people, there was this meme: If the line of Chinese jogged into the ocean eight abreast, even that wouldn't reduce their population.

It was never true though. If we interpret this as upping the death rate by 8/second while keeping the birth rate constant, it'd mean that China was adding 8 * 60 * 60 * 24 * 365 people per year to its population. That figure comes out as over 250 million, or a growth rate of 25% with a one billion population!

 

[untermensche]

We have a dependence but it is far from a total dependence.

Our technology can and does break down all the time. Every system we build eventually breaks down at some point.

But because we are not totally dependent on that technology we can survive while it is being fixed.

I have flown across oceans many times. The airplane fails out there, you're at best adrift at sea, most likely you're dead. It was called the Miracle on the Hudson because of how gently he managed to put it down. The more likely result:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE2Yn0cipTY

The pilots had a long time to prepare, this wasn't a case of not planning. (Bozos hijacked the plane to Australia. The pilots knew they didn't have anything like the fuel needed but the hijackers wouldn't listen. Rather than really head for Australia they fooled him and stayed near land so when the engines quit there was at least hope of rescue. 2/3 died in that crash.)

What you do is build systems with failure in mind--build it with backups so when the critical system quits you have other options.

You have no idea what my point was. This is totally non-responsive.

I am comparing two situations.

A space ship where survival is totally dependent on human technology and the planet Earth where humans can survive without any human technology.

In the former situation humans will not last long.

In the latter they can last a lot longer. And even with extremely faulty technology can survive a lot better.

You cannot survive faulty technology if your survival is entirely dependent on it.

A plane can land and be looked at and be repaired.

A spaceship cannot land anywhere to be repaired. The life support systems can never go down.

 

[Wiploc]

Not really, no - not with anything near current population growth rate. Assume that the the maximum carrying capacity of a Dyson sphere around the sun is 1,000,000 times the carrying capacity of the earth. At a growth rate of 1.1% annually, it would mean that after filling up the earth (whenever you believe that point is reached), it would only take log(1000000) / log(1.011) years to fill up the sphere.

That's less than the time passed since Charlemagne. And another 1860 years after that, we'd run out of space even with one Dyson sphere per star within 1860 years, as per my last post.

I don't know what to tell you. I guess Horace Greeley was an idiot. Malthus should have beaten him about the head and shoulders with a haddock.

That could be the title of any book though - if we "get smarter" by reducing the growth rate to 0.0, that situation can hold right here on earth, as bilby pointed out. The point is this: if avoiding overpopulation is not something can be achieved through space colonisation alone if the growth rate remains constantly positive at whatever rate (a logical consequence of the properties of exponential growth), and if reducing the growth rate to zero is not something that requires space colonisation (and I have yet to see a reason why it should), than space colonisation for the purpose of easing population pressure is either not a cure at all, or a cure for a non-existent disease. Snake oil in either case.

It's a book title. I've never seen the book. I cannot defend it. I don't know whether it's idiotic.

As I've said, I assume it is hyperbole, overstatement for rhetorical effect. Rather like early pioneers referring to North American forests as inexhaustible. If you take that literally, it's nonsense. If you accept it as figurative, then it's moving, inspirational.

I don't know why I'm getting pushback for naming a book title. Try telling people who want to colonize Mars that there's no point because it will just fill up in a few years.

ETA: The stellar density in our corner of the galaxy is 0.004 stars per cubic light year. The volume of the area that can be reached in a given time is 4/3 * pi * velocity * time. The number of stars within that volume is that figure * stellar density, so that's cubic growth. The expected population over time, however grows exponentially at <growth rate>^time (say 1.01^1000 for the population in 1000 years at 1% growth).

Again, outside of space operas, I don't think interstellar growth is a thing.

Back when China had only one billion people, there was this meme: If the line of Chinese jogged into the ocean eight abreast, even that wouldn't reduce their population.

It was never true though. If we interpret this as upping the death rate by 8/second while keeping the birth rate constant, it'd mean that China was adding 8 * 60 * 60 * 24 * 365 people per year to its population. That figure comes out as over 250 million, or a growth rate of 25% with a one billion population!

You're right. We'd have to have ten seconds between the ranks of eight. It would probably take that to push out thru the surf anyway. That's more like walking than jogging.

If we tried to run them into the ocean just one second apart, somebody would doubtless stumble, messing up hundreds of thousands of people behind him. You are absolutely right to criticize whoever made up the one-second-apart thing.

 

[bilby]

Why? Most of the work needs no human intervention on-site. What good are humans when terraforming? What can they do to advance the goal that can't be done by ROVs or robots?

If you want adequate atmospheric pressure on Mars you're going to have to drop comets. To do that you're going to have to go get them.

Sure.

Why would people be needed on site for this?

If you are going to drop comets on a planet, it's best for all concerned if the planet is uninhabited.

Getting to a comet and landing on it so you can steer it is doable by unmanned vehicles. Human crews would just add enormously to the costs, for a trivial improvement in reliability and flexibility.

Back in the 1950s and 60s, sci-fi writers envisaged geostationary to satellites with a crew of humans. But in reality, those crews are a needless and expensive idea. It's easier and cheaper to use uncrewed satellites, and replace the whole shebang if it malfunctions or is superseded by new technology.

 

[steve_bank]

Would any of you want to leave Earth for Mars or a Babylon 5 kind of colony? Once you are there you can't just hop on a spceship to leave.
The Hubble repairs were pretty simple, but were a very difficult task in zero g. Expand that to a large complex structure in space.

For Earthbound benchmarks, how long does it take to design, build, and fully debug an aircraft carrier or nuclear sub? I just don't see how a Babylon 5 habitat could be built.

If you are not happy with life on Earth, why would you be happy on Mars or the moon?

The only reason to leave LEO is asteroid interception. We know it is when not if.

 

[bilby]

Would any of you want to leave Earth for Mars or a Babylon 5 kind of colony? Once you are there you can't just hop on a spceship to leave.
The Hubble repairs were pretty simple, but were a very difficult task in zero g. Expand that to a large complex structure in space.

For Earthbound benchmarks, how long does it take to design, build, and fully debug an aircraft carrier or nuclear sub? I just don't see how a Babylon 5 habitat could be built.

If you are not happy with life on Earth, why would you be happy on Mars or the moon?

The only reason to leave LEO is asteroid interception. We know it is when not if.

Same reason why people want to climb Everest, or go to Antarctica.

I would do it in a heartbeat, just for the experience of the thing.

You appear to have less than the average level of curiosity; That's not a bad thing at all, but most people are more curious than you, which is why we are not still sitting around in Olduvai Gorge staring at rocks but not bothering to bang them together.

 

[James Brown]

"The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space--each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision."

Source.

 

[Jokodo]

Try telling people who want to colonize Mars that there's no point because it will just fill up in a few years.

Oh, I'm all for colonising Mars (assuming we can confirm that it doesn't still harbour native life forms we'd be inadvertently extinguishing).

Let's just not do it for the wrong reasons!

 

[4321lynx]

Would any of you want to leave Earth for Mars or a Babylon 5 kind of colony? Once you are there you can't just hop on a spceship to leave.
The Hubble repairs were pretty simple, but were a very difficult task in zero g. Expand that to a large complex structure in space.

For Earthbound benchmarks, how long does it take to design, build, and fully debug an aircraft carrier or nuclear sub? I just don't see how a Babylon 5 habitat could be built.

If you are not happy with life on Earth, why would you be happy on Mars or the moon?

The only reason to leave LEO is asteroid interception. We know it is when not if.

Same reason why people want to climb Everest, or go to Antarctica.

I would do it in a heartbeat, just for the experience of the thing.

You appear to have less than the average level of curiosity; That's not a bad thing at all, but most people are more curious than you, which is why we are not still sitting around in Olduvai Gorge staring at rocks but not bothering to bang them together.

Seems a bit too much cost andtrouble to face for one space tourist tired of Australia Who will pay ? The aussie taxpayer? They'll tell you to go climb Mt Ksciuszko or Mt Everest if you prefer.

https://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/venus/q2811.html

We can accomplish more with Robots at less cost, less risk, and more gain.; put down those Olduvai rocks in your head. Space tourism is the last thing we need.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We have a dependence but it is far from a total dependence.

Our technology can and does break down all the time. Every system we build eventually breaks down at some point.

But because we are not totally dependent on that technology we can survive while it is being fixed.

I have flown across oceans many times. The airplane fails out there, you're at best adrift at sea, most likely you're dead. It was called the Miracle on the Hudson because of how gently he managed to put it down. The more likely result:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE2Yn0cipTY

The pilots had a long time to prepare, this wasn't a case of not planning. (Bozos hijacked the plane to Australia. The pilots knew they didn't have anything like the fuel needed but the hijackers wouldn't listen. Rather than really head for Australia they fooled him and stayed near land so when the engines quit there was at least hope of rescue. 2/3 died in that crash.)

What you do is build systems with failure in mind--build it with backups so when the critical system quits you have other options.

You have no idea what my point was. This is totally non-responsive.

I am comparing two situations.

A space ship where survival is totally dependent on human technology and the planet Earth where humans can survive without any human technology.

In the former situation humans will not last long.

In the latter they can last a lot longer. And even with extremely faulty technology can survive a lot better.

You cannot survive faulty technology if your survival is entirely dependent on it.

A plane can land and be looked at and be repaired.

A spaceship cannot land anywhere to be repaired. The life support systems can never go down.

The plane can't land on the ocean. When you're flying across the water if the plane breaks the video I linked shows the probable result. Furthermore, you're in an environment where you can't even breathe. Your survival is totally dependent on the plane. We don't consider that a problem for crossing an ocean, why is it somehow magically a showstopper in space?

It just means you have backups. In many cases you have backup on the backups.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why? Most of the work needs no human intervention on-site. What good are humans when terraforming? What can they do to advance the goal that can't be done by ROVs or robots?

If you want adequate atmospheric pressure on Mars you're going to have to drop comets. To do that you're going to have to go get them.

Sure.

Why would people be needed on site for this?

If you are going to drop comets on a planet, it's best for all concerned if the planet is uninhabited.

Getting to a comet and landing on it so you can steer it is doable by unmanned vehicles. Human crews would just add enormously to the costs, for a trivial improvement in reliability and flexibility.

Back in the 1950s and 60s, sci-fi writers envisaged geostationary to satellites with a crew of humans. But in reality, those crews are a needless and expensive idea. It's easier and cheaper to use uncrewed satellites, and replace the whole shebang if it malfunctions or is superseded by new technology.

I meant humans in space, not humans on Mars. As you say, having the planet uninhabited during the bombardment would be a good thing.

Unmanned vehicles are far superior to humans to do one space mission. This isn't one mission, though. Humans have one great advantage over unmanned vehicles--flexibility. When things don't go as expected the mission is far more likely to succeed if it's manned.

 

[bilby]

Sure.

Why would people be needed on site for this?

If you are going to drop comets on a planet, it's best for all concerned if the planet is uninhabited.

Getting to a comet and landing on it so you can steer it is doable by unmanned vehicles. Human crews would just add enormously to the costs, for a trivial improvement in reliability and flexibility.

Back in the 1950s and 60s, sci-fi writers envisaged geostationary to satellites with a crew of humans. But in reality, those crews are a needless and expensive idea. It's easier and cheaper to use uncrewed satellites, and replace the whole shebang if it malfunctions or is superseded by new technology.

I meant humans in space, not humans on Mars. As you say, having the planet uninhabited during the bombardment would be a good thing.

Unmanned vehicles are far superior to humans to do one space mission. This isn't one mission, though. Humans have one great advantage over unmanned vehicles--flexibility. When things don't go as expected the mission is far more likely to succeed if it's manned.

Sure; But it's a cost-benefit analysis. The success of every mission is not a prerequisite (unless the missions are crewed, in which case it suddenly is). If your crewed vessel with its life support and massive redundancies ONLY costs 100x the cost of a robot mission, then you can afford to lose 99% of your robots and simply do the mission over with a new one each time it fails, before it becomes cheaper to send humans in order to minimize fuckups. And a hundred fold cost increase for a crewed vessel seems likely to be a significant underestimate. Humans are heavy; they use heavy food, water and air (or need heavy recycling systems), and they need massive redundancy in all of those systems and more. If your robot loses propulsion and falls into the sun, that's too bad. But you can't take that attitude with crewed vessels, so you need redundant propulsion systems, and/or some kind of rescue ability, which surely isn't cheap.

Basically if crewed missions fail one time in a hundred, and robot missions fail every second or third attempt, it's STILL going to be FAR cheaper to do 200 robot missions with 100 failures than it is to do 100 crewed missions with a single failure. And in the former strategy, nobody dies.

 

[bilby]

Would any of you want to leave Earth for Mars or a Babylon 5 kind of colony? Once you are there you can't just hop on a spceship to leave.
The Hubble repairs were pretty simple, but were a very difficult task in zero g. Expand that to a large complex structure in space.

For Earthbound benchmarks, how long does it take to design, build, and fully debug an aircraft carrier or nuclear sub? I just don't see how a Babylon 5 habitat could be built.

If you are not happy with life on Earth, why would you be happy on Mars or the moon?

The only reason to leave LEO is asteroid interception. We know it is when not if.

Same reason why people want to climb Everest, or go to Antarctica.

I would do it in a heartbeat, just for the experience of the thing.

You appear to have less than the average level of curiosity; That's not a bad thing at all, but most people are more curious than you, which is why we are not still sitting around in Olduvai Gorge staring at rocks but not bothering to bang them together.

Seems a bit too much cost andtrouble to face for one space tourist tired of Australia Who will pay ? The aussie taxpayer? They'll tell you to go climb Mt Ksciuszko or Mt Everest if you prefer.

https://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/venus/q2811.html

We can accomplish more with Robots at less cost, less risk, and more gain.; put down those Olduvai rocks in your head. Space tourism is the last thing we need.

There are two different issues here. The question was 'Why would anyone want to go', and the answer is that people like exploring extreme environments, and there would be no shortage of volunteers (including me) for any planned mission of this type. Indeed, people have already signed up in droves for a proposed one-way mission to Mars.

The second question, who pays for it, is unrelated to the first; I would go in a heartbeat, but I haven't gone - because I can't afford it. But that's OK, because there are lots of ways stuff like this can be funded. Elon Musk or Richard Branson, or some consortium of similar wealthy people might simply decide to pay for the trip out of their own money. Or a mission might be crowdfunded using small sums donated by lots of people who are interested in the project. Or there might be commercial spin-offs that partly or wholly fund the venture - the ESA fund scientific research in part with money from selling satellite launches. Or the government could decide to pay to make the trip using taxpayer funds, as the US and Soviets did for their space programs - In the Cold War, it seemed to both governments to be a wise use of these funds (and NASA was never a huge fraction of the US budget - even at the height of the space race in 1966, it was only 4.41% of the total, and it has only reached as high as 1% of federal spending three times since 1974. It's currently less than 0.5%).

If government funding of spaceflight is a concern to you, then space tourism is EXACTLY what we need to replace the current model. If rich playboys are happy to fund the launches, then we can get the basic research done essentially free of charge to the taxpayer, and the whole business can not only pay for itself, but potentially could make a profit. You just need lots more rich people like Elon Musk, who want to go and can afford to.

 

[untermensche]

You have no idea what my point was. This is totally non-responsive.

I am comparing two situations.

A space ship where survival is totally dependent on human technology and the planet Earth where humans can survive without any human technology.

In the former situation humans will not last long.

In the latter they can last a lot longer. And even with extremely faulty technology can survive a lot better.

You cannot survive faulty technology if your survival is entirely dependent on it.

A plane can land and be looked at and be repaired.

A spaceship cannot land anywhere to be repaired. The life support systems can never go down.

The plane can't land on the ocean. When you're flying across the water if the plane breaks the video I linked shows the probable result. Furthermore, you're in an environment where you can't even breathe. Your survival is totally dependent on the plane. We don't consider that a problem for crossing an ocean, why is it somehow magically a showstopper in space?

It just means you have backups. In many cases you have backup on the backups.

Are you saying planes don't ever go down?

When the technology fails people die.

Just like being in space.