97 réponses à ce sujet

[Ecael]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

That would be committing a human attrocity and we wouldn't REALLY be able to "simply do that".  Also let's assume this is decades upon decades upon centuries later when mars has actually been settled comfortably enough to be self-sustaining (also we won't really know what resources mars may or may not have until we mine the planet.  For all we know we might find something better than Uranium and Thorium under the surface that could solve our free energy woes.) 

Obviously a Colony won't rebel if they aren't capable of sustaining themselves, also they'd need a fairly large population for something like this to become an innevitable problem.  A few thousand people can't rebel against a nation but millions of generation-born Marsians (I don't think Martian is the proper term to use here...) would probably feel detached from Earth, which through generations could manifest into a total dissinterest and such.  The biggest problem the american colonies had in relation with europe wasn't exactly the over taxation, but the fact that it took about 8 months for word to travel and anything to be DONE about the situation.  By the time the king responded america had already worked past said problem and was onto something else that this new solution totally spit in the face of.  Slow communication is the surest way to rebellion the larger a colony gets.

I really think disconnect between worlds is one of the biggest problems colonization can face.  Mass Effect dodges this pretty well like most scifi do by just giving ships the ability to move SUPER FAST through space (galaxy to galaxy in a matter of days) and have INSTANT TRANSMISSION from ANYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE which unfortunately can't work out like that in real colonization

It's true that a colony of millions separated a massive distance from Earth has the ability to rebel, but it's not in their best interest. They won't receive help from anyone else after the disconnect, unlike in the American Revolution.

Hardly anyone's brought up terraforming the Sahara Desert (which is already under our atmosphere) because it would take an unimaginable amount of resources to do so. The introduction of a planet's amount of buffer gas to something as large as Mars just to provide a habitable atmosphere would be even more difficult.

If humans really want to survive outside Earth, then we would need to develop a method of space travel that allows us to explore outside our barren solar system - without getting killed by radiation or space debris, of course. Traveling to the Moon or Mars for the sake of colonization is like traveling to the bottom of the ocean to find a place to live. It's a giant waste of time and resources with the limited technology we have now (and will likely have in the near future).

Unless, of course, there happened to be the remains of an ancient spacefaring civilization on Mars that allowed us to travel through space even faster.

We would call it the greatest discovery in human history.

The civilizations of the galaxy call it...

[PARAGON87]

Terraforming the Sahara desert is near impossible. Deserts occur naturally at that latitude, and it is enhanced by the location of the Atlas mountains, which literally squeeze out all the moisture of storms coming off of the Atlantic, hence why Northeastern Morocco and Northwestern Algeria has a temperate Mediterranean climate, while if you go 100 miles south you're in the heart of the Sahara.

Once in awhile you will get a powerful cyclonic system that will bypass the Atlas and dump copious amount of moisture on the Sahara, but that is 1 to 2 times a year at most. So if you want to totally destroy the Atlas mountains, you can bring moisture to the Sahara, but you will ruin the Mediterranean climate of those areas in Morocco and Algeria, as well as distrupt the weather patterns of the rest of the globe, as if you enhance the climate in one area, you can seriously damage it in another.  Look up the Soviet destruction of the Aral sea if you have a chance, and you'll know what I'm talking about.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

Modifié par PARAGON87, 29 mars 2010 - 02:21 .

[Sigma Tauri]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...
snip

lol. If an extraterrestrial colony rebels, that's good. It means (they think) they're self-sufficient. We want self-sufficient thriving and prosperous colonies.

The possibility of colonial rebellion is far below the priority list, when problems like in logistics and engineering are solved. In other words, we'll worry about colonial politics once we actually realize a colonial settlement.

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

If you think about the way the cold war turned up is really just because of a fear of an equal power that we don't in some way "control". An out of control human planet with no real interest in our wellbeing could lead to war at some point in the future. I mean, if we were freaked out over the threat of a country that could get more powerful than us, doesn't it stand to reason that history would eventually repeat itself with a planet? A few centuries later a colony can become a series of nations. Guys like Udina are what would hold interplanetary colonies together. That's why I promoted him to counciler. :E

[Sigma Tauri]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

If you think about the way the cold war turned up is really just because of a fear of an equal power that we don't in some way "control". An out of control human planet with no real interest in our wellbeing could lead to war at some point in the future. I mean, if we were freaked out over the threat of a country that could get more powerful than us, doesn't it stand to reason that history would eventually repeat itself with a planet? A few centuries later a colony can become a series of nations. Guys like Udina are what would hold interplanetary colonies together. That's why I promoted him to counciler. :E

That's a future we're willing to risk just to get off that rock. Just because history might repeat that doesn't mean we should prevent ourselves from colonizing another world until we cull our own aggressions. That's an unrealistic scenario (and frankly an uncomfortably authoritarian one), and well below the priority list because our continued survival depends on us leaving this rock. So, between two scenarios where independent nations are fighting for the last vital resources on Earth or independent home colonies fighting for abundant territory and resources, it's no brainer which one is a less desirable outcome.

[ModerateOsprey]

I have to say this thread has taken a very interesting twist. Enjoyable stuff

[Ecael]

ModerateOsprey wrote...

I have to say this thread has taken a very interesting twist. Enjoyable stuff

Well, it's remaining quite civil, actually.

[finnen2]

just remeber the russians sent unmaned ships to the surface of the moon first they got there first so i guess they have the right to own it XD and wouldent it be better to just re terraform the earth then to go to another planet and terraform it

[Solomen]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCB63zlkZJY  

Modifié par Solomen, 29 mars 2010 - 10:35 .

[Mallissin]

PARAGON87 wrote...

Terraforming the Sahara desert is near impossible. Deserts occur naturally at that latitude, and it is enhanced by the location of the Atlas mountains, which literally squeeze out all the moisture of storms coming off of the Atlantic, hence why Northeastern Morocco and Northwestern Algeria has a temperate Mediterranean climate, while if you go 100 miles south you're in the heart of the Sahara.

Or it's a product of thousands of years of overpopulation and/or deforrestation. Since the majority of the deserts seem to be in areas once heavily populated or traversed by humans, perhaps they were created unintentionally and are not natural.

Humans have been building wooden structures like ships, wagons or buildings for a lot longer than most people realize. They could have chopped down most of the trees in the Middle east or North Africa to build boats for commerce.

Deforrestation has been proven to cause reduced rainfall. Trees grow by temperature differential between the ground and air (hence why most trees stop or slow growth during winter seasons). The temperature removed from the air at lower altitudes causes condensation that draws moisture down from above. Millions of trees acting together can pull down quite a lot of water.

Once all the trees are removed, no moisture arrives and a dustbowl effect happens. It compounds the problem until entire stretches are made arid.

[sorrowandsadness]

gmartin40 wrote...

The biggest problem is terraforming a planet is getting the resources to the planet. And who is going to be in charge of the people on the planet.

That's not a problem. The problem is the fact that fundings for space programs are going down.

NASA will crash ISS into Pacific Ocean in 2016, because of "no long-term funding for ISS beyond 2015".


We can't afford one space station on the orbit but we're going to land on Mars... yeah sure.

[ModerateOsprey]

sorrowandsadness wrote...

gmartin40 wrote...

The biggest problem is terraforming a planet is getting the resources to the planet. And who is going to be in charge of the people on the planet.

That's not a problem. The problem is the fact that fundings for space programs are going down.

NASA will crash ISS into Pacific Ocean in 2016, because of "no long-term funding for ISS beyond 2015".


We can't afford one space station on the orbit but we're going to land on Mars... yeah sure.

Might not necessarily be NASA that eventually does it. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the Chinese might just pick the ISS out of the bargain bucket in 2016.

[PARAGON87]

Mallissin wrote...

Or it's a product of thousands of years of overpopulation and/or deforrestation. Since the majority of the deserts seem to be in areas once heavily populated or traversed by humans, perhaps they were created unintentionally and are not natural.

Humans have been building wooden structures like ships, wagons or buildings for a lot longer than most people realize. They could have chopped down most of the trees in the Middle east or North Africa to build boats for commerce.

Deforrestation has been proven to cause reduced rainfall. Trees grow by temperature differential between the ground and air (hence why most trees stop or slow growth during winter seasons). The temperature removed from the air at lower altitudes causes condensation that draws moisture down from above. Millions of trees acting together can pull down quite a lot of water.

Once all the trees are removed, no moisture arrives and a dustbowl effect happens. It compounds the problem until entire stretches are made arid.

Not entirely, deserts are formed in areas without water or sustained rainfall.  Areas within the midlatitudes are a perfect setting for this as it is an area of increased substinence in the atmosphere.  The Mojave, Sahara, Namibian & Chilean deserts are prime examples.  While it is true that the absence of sustained evapotransporation can cause increased weathering of the soil and can dry the entire area, but it is only about 20% of the entire amount of evaporation of the atmosphere of which the ocean consists of most of the remaining 80%.  Water is a huge component of this, and you can cut all the trees down as you like, but life and treegrowth can still happen in areas you get plentiful rainfall. 

An example is Southern Italy and the United Kingdom.  The Romans cut down most trees in the area to build their fleets, and although this area is slightly more arid than the rest of Italy, it is no where near a desert.  Almost the same with England with the construction of the Royal Navy (the foundation of their empire), just it isn't arid at all, it receives a huge amount of rainfall per year.

Although you can say that the Great Dustbowl of 1936 is a prime example of this, remember that this area did not receive plentiful rainfall regularly, the U.S. Founding Fathers called this area "The Great American Desert" and was a byproduct of overfarming and subsequent weathering of the soil of an area that didn't receive much rainfall in itself.

Modifié par PARAGON87, 29 mars 2010 - 11:33 .

[sorrowandsadness]

ModerateOsprey wrote...
Might not necessarily be NASA that eventually does it. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the Chinese might just pick the ISS out of the bargain bucket in 2016.

Maybe. In 2007 they had 1/10 of NASA's budget but I'm not sure how they're doing now in 2010. They have lunar lander scheduled for 2013. It's amazing how China is putting more and more money into scientific research.

[ModerateOsprey]

sorrowandsadness wrote...

ModerateOsprey wrote...
Might not necessarily be NASA that eventually does it. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the Chinese might just pick the ISS out of the bargain bucket in 2016.

Maybe. In 2007 they had 1/10 of NASA's budget but I'm not sure how they're doing now in 2010. They have lunar lander scheduled for 2013. It's amazing how China is putting more and more money into scientific research.

Yes. India has a growing space program as well.

[ModerateOsprey]

It is also interesting that visiting space is now seen as being feasible to the private sector and for tourism too. Always struck me that once tourists start arriving in an area, then the taming as begun.

[Evil Space Leprechaun]

ModerateOsprey wrote...

It is also interesting that visiting space is now seen as being feasible to the private sector and for tourism too. Always struck me that once tourists start arriving in an area, then the taming as begun.

This is why I like the detailed backstory of Mass Effect. I have a feeling a lot of future space exploration will be corporate-run. Whether you think that's a good or bad thing is a matter of opinion. Either way, corporations tend to make things happen faster than anything government run.

[ImperialOperative]

gmartin40 wrote...

We can still dream....

Don't worry, private sector is picking up on space-faring tech.  You'll see private industries starting to expand into space in the relatively near future.

Modifié par ImperialOperative, 30 mars 2010 - 05:36 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Mallissin wrote...

Or it's a product of thousands of years of overpopulation and/or deforrestation. Since the majority of the deserts seem to be in areas once heavily populated or traversed by humans, perhaps they were created unintentionally and are not natural.

Humans have been building wooden structures like ships, wagons or buildings for a lot longer than most people realize. They could have chopped down most of the trees in the Middle east or North Africa to build boats for commerce.

Deforrestation has been proven to cause reduced rainfall. Trees grow by temperature differential between the ground and air (hence why most trees stop or slow growth during winter seasons). The temperature removed from the air at lower altitudes causes condensation that draws moisture down from above. Millions of trees acting together can pull down quite a lot of water.

Once all the trees are removed, no moisture arrives and a dustbowl effect happens. It compounds the problem until entire stretches are made arid.

Chopping down trees in the middle east a thousand years ago isn't going to cause Mexico to become a similar desert region along the same general equatorial line arround the earth!  Snappy snaps!

And yeah unfortunately it just....there's not really any real REASON to HAVING an international space station.  It's just a money sink since you have to keep maintaining it and making sure the people on board have enough food and water to not die horribly...I mean space exploration is such a massive chore that I don't think humanity will actually be able to solve it unless some massive advancement in human longevity occurs.

Modifié par Doctor_Jackstraw, 30 mars 2010 - 03:32 .

[UHitMeInTheEar]

Can we teraform Canda first? it's such a waste land.

[Dreadz666]

sorrowandsadness wrote...

gmartin40 wrote...

The biggest problem is terraforming a planet is getting the resources to the planet. And who is going to be in charge of the people on the planet.

That's not a problem. The problem is the fact that fundings for space programs are going down.

NASA will crash ISS into Pacific Ocean in 2016, because of "no long-term funding for ISS beyond 2015".


We can't afford one space station on the orbit but we're going to land on Mars... yeah sure.

NASA does not own the ISS. It's called the International Space Station for a damned good reason.