169 réponses à ce sujet

[The Devlish Redhead]

Well our population keeps rising. Eventually we will have to consider the option of people living off world or we will have run out of space to live. We could colonize the oceans but as yet no one has made a success out of that..... I'd love to see floating cities and stuff. I wish we could have that but I'd also like to see a human presence on another world.

 

For starters the Moon. That should be our first port of call.

 

After all the human virus has to spread somewhere.........The Moon is a perfect place to sow the seeds of the human virus spreading into space. Ooh did I say virus? Yes I did. The Matrix was educational

 

On a serious note we do have to start somewhere and I really do think it should be the Moon and not Mars..

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Scenario 1:

Population of the first colony on moon: 1000

 

Casualties of the first colony on moon: 999

 

Scenario 2:

 

Population of the first colony on moon: 1000

 

Casualties of the first colony on moon: 1000

[FraQ]

We could colonize the oceans but as yet no one has made a success out of that.....

 

*starts thinking about Waterworld*

 

I could give it a go, if I got the Mariner's boat. That thing was bad ass!

 

I'm the one person on the planet who likes that movie btw...

[Fast Jimmy]

Scenario 1:
Population of the first colony on moon: 1000

Casualties of the first colony on moon: 999

Scenario 2:

Population of the first colony on moon: 1000

Casualties of the first colony on moon: 1000

Yeah, the moon has zero benefits. Low gravity, no water, zero viable resources... humans would waste away and die there very easily.

Mars is better. It has comparable gravity, sources of water, the (theoretical) ability to sustain life, even the (long term) potential to support an atmosphere.

The moon is closer, but proximity is not the problem. Once you pay the high cost of leaving the atmosphere, the amount of distance you are traveling is really not that big of a deal. A few months instead of a few weeks - that's easy piecey in terms of food and life support.

[SwobyJ]

Yeah, the moon has zero benefits. Low gravity, no water, zero viable resources... humans would waste away and die there very easily.

Mars is better. It has comparable gravity, sources of water, the (theoretical) ability to sustain life, even the (long term) potential to support an atmosphere.

The moon is closer, but proximity is not the problem. Once you pay the high cost of leaving the atmosphere, the amount of distance you are traveling is really not that big of a deal. A few months instead of a few weeks - that's easy piecey in terms of food and life support.

 

That's what interests me.

 

Should the priority be the Moon (I do like the idea of calling it Luna and call our planet Terra at some point), where it is easier to send things (we could even do it now imo, if trillions $ was tossed at it), communicate, but is basically a drain on resources?

 

Or should the priority be Mars, which is a much higher cost, and we don't have the technology to really deal with yet, but it may have much greater returns in time. With the right technology and resources, it really might be possible to live good enough lives there.

 

Ideally we'd have both, but we're not in a place to make a smart decision yet. Maybe a few decades from now.

 

I guess that in a way we will have both. An incremental presence on the Moon that may play a part (even if small) in an eventual, true (not scam), Mars colonization. Mars is the goal. We can do things with Mars. The Moon may benefit and even have a substantial population at some point, but we've seen nothing so far that says "Yeah! The Moon is totally useful for us! We can totally advance as a human race with it!"

[Eternal Phoenix]

The Moon may benefit and even have a substantial population at some point, but we've seen nothing so far that says "Yeah! The Moon is totally useful for us! We can totally advance as a human race with it!"

 
Bases established on the moon would provide us with greater reach when launching probes or rockets into space without as many resources that are needed by doing it from Earth. Stations on the moon are viable and possible. Stations on Mars in the next decade? Good luck with that.
 
Current colonization of the moon however would be for scientific pursuit with a team of scientists and researchers living up there just like you have with the International Space Station. The colonization would be better aimed towards establishing a base on there with the intention to help scientific pursuit in terms of launching probes/rockets and even a observatory. Also, future missions to Mars would be easier launched from the Moon so it'll help with that.

 

So yes, in terms of scientific pursuit, the moon does have benefits both to help with astronomical observations and for launching probes and rockets. Indeed, astronomers have long talk about the benefits of a observatory on the Moon:

 

http://edition.cnn.c...ar.observatory/

http://adsabs.harvar...ASPL....5..154R

 

Further more, scientists can return from the moon if any mission proved too draining. Returning from Mars isn't currently possible.

[Barry-Allen]

I'd do it for the three boobed women, the mutants, Arnold, and the Martian Manhunter.

[Fast Jimmy]

That's what interests me.

Should the priority be the Moon (I do like the idea of calling it Luna and call our planet Terra at some point), where it is easier to send things (we could even do it now imo, if trillions $ was tossed at it), communicate, but is basically a drain on resources?

Or should the priority be Mars, which is a much higher cost, and we don't have the technology to really deal with yet, but it may have much greater returns in time. With the right technology and resources, it really might be possible to live good enough lives there.

Ideally we'd have both, but we're not in a place to make a smart decision yet. Maybe a few decades from now.

I guess that in a way we will have both. An incremental presence on the Moon that may play a part (even if small) in an eventual, true (not scam), Mars colonization. Mars is the goal. We can do things with Mars. The Moon may benefit and even have a substantial population at some point, but we've seen nothing so far that says "Yeah! The Moon is totally useful for us! We can totally advance as a human race with it!"

But the moon is harder than Mars. The moon can never be sustainable. And it doesn't help us - it's not easier because it is closer. It provides no benefit as a waypoint - leaving the gravity well of planets and moons is the hard part about space travel within our solar system, not the distance travelled. If a craft were to travel to Mars (or much, much further beyond), going to the moon first to... I don't know, stop and get a Slurpie I guess... would require the craft storing enough fuel and engines for thrust as to make its payload SIGNIFICANTLY less, reducing the number of people, supplies and equipment it could bring to its final destination.

The only real benefit would be a large, vast space dock outside of any planet - that would be twenty times more effective than the moon. However, it would never be self-sustaining, which is our biggest problem with space. Best to try and lay down some roots on a planet that has even the most remote ability to keep humans alive should outside contact be forced to shut down rather than the moon or a space port, which would both be guaranteed death sentences.

Mars is a good idea. It will be a high casualty, very morbid affair, but so was colonizing the Americas. Discovery and new territory is very deadly, but it is also the most necessary function of humanity.

[The Devlish Redhead]

*starts thinking about Waterworld*

 

I could give it a go, if I got the Mariner's boat. That thing was bad ass!

 

I'm the one person on the planet who likes that movie btw...

 

No you are not. I love that movie too

[SwobyJ]

 
Bases established on the moon would provide us with greater reach when launching probes or rockets into space without as many resources that are needed by doing it from Earth. Stations on the moon are viable and possible. Stations on Mars in the next decade? Good luck with that.
 
Current colonization of the moon however would be for scientific pursuit with a team of scientists and researchers living up there just like you have with the International Space Station. The colonization would be better aimed towards establishing a base on there with the intention to help scientific pursuit in terms of launching probes/rockets and even a observatory. Also, future missions to Mars would be easier launched from the Moon so it'll help with that.

 

So yes, in terms of scientific pursuit, the moon does have benefits both to help with astronomical observations and for launching probes and rockets. Indeed, astronomers have long talk about the benefits of a observatory on the Moon:

 

http://edition.cnn.c...ar.observatory/

http://adsabs.harvar...ASPL....5..154R

 

Further more, scientists can return from the moon if any mission proved too draining. Returning from Mars isn't currently possible.

 

To be clear, I completely agree with all of this. I was just speaking more in terms of focusing on colonizing. The Moon is useless for the direct act of expanding our reach in physical presence - its just a giant cost for no gain. Mars is the goal for that. And Moon can help us there, as you explained very well. Basically, I'm not expecting a huge lineup to use the Moon for things until we actually have the tech and economy to make it easy and fill enough important people with passion to go for it, since its just going to be a big cost before anything can come back to more clearly benefit humanity.

 

There's the thinking in years (moon is possible but useless and difficult, mars is impossible), thinking in decades (moon is possible and useful but difficult, mars isn't possible), and thinking in centuries (moon is possible and useful and easy, mars is possible and hopefully useful and hopefully easy enough).

Speed or slow down this rough model depending on how fast and far you think we'll grow. (Some like to think we'll be on Mars by the end of this century, while others go as far as to think we may not even reach there, well, ever)

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

No you are not. I love that movie too

 

Kevin Costner is cool.

Kinda cold for some, but not me.

[Uccio]

20 years ago, yes. Now? Only if they could guarantee a certain level of comfort and safety. Not looking to die in the next 10 years.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

To be clear, I completely agree with all of this. I was just speaking more in terms of focusing on colonizing. The Moon is useless for the direct act of expanding our reach in physical presence - its just a giant cost for no gain.

 

Not entirely true.

 

We can mine useful stones in Moon and throw them into Earth by "trébuchets"!

[Fast Jimmy]

Not entirely true.

We can mine useful stones in Moon and throw them into Earth by "trébuchets"!

...that would mostly burn up in the atmosphere, not to mention be extremely dangerous to retrieve. Giant rocks falling from the sky, even if they hit the ocean, would be an insane endeavor, since the ability to shoot at even roughly the same area of the Earth would be spotty, at best.

If there was some type of rare, super useful mineral on the moon,this might be worth it. But for aluminum, silicon and a smattering of calcium oxide? That's not worth setting up lunar mining operations under any circumstances.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

^ My previous post was mostly a joke though.

[Fast Jimmy]

^ My previous post was mostly a joke though.

I had considered that possibility.

[Fast Jimmy]

The Moon actually contains Helium-3 a light, none radioactive isotope.

Helium is a low cost, low demand gas under the right circumstances. The ONLY reason it isn't mined more widespread is the Nazis.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

I'm kind of clueless, what do the Nazis have to do with it?

Gas the Jews perhaps!

[The Devlish Redhead]

I'm kind of clueless, what do the Nazis have to do with it?

They have a base on the Moon :/

 

It was in the documentary "iron sky"       lol

[Sifr]

*starts thinking about Waterworld*

 

I could give it a go, if I got the Mariner's boat. That thing was bad ass!

 

I'm the one person on the planet who likes that movie btw...

 

I like that movie as well...

 

Although it still always bugs me why on the atoll they initially wanted him to sleep with their daughter to add new blood into the gene pool, only to attempt to immediately murder him when they discovered he was a mutant? He's a human being who can outswim anything in the water and has the ability to breathe underwater on a planet entirely covered by water... why in the name of Saint Joe is that a bad thing? That makes him the most useful breeding stock on the entire planet?!

 

[Fast Jimmy]

I'm kind of clueless, what do the Nazis have to do with it?

During World War 1 and 2, Germany had a large aerial fleet of zeppelins which was a large part of their war effort for transportation, scouting and cargo. These ships ran on helium, which quickly drove up international demand.

In an attempt to cripple the German armada, the U.S. began purchasing in HUGE quantities all of the world's helium supply and hoarded it, accounting for a majority of the world's supply. Once the war was over, the government had crazy amounts of helium and nothing to do with it.

So they began selling it for dirt cheap. Since the applications of helium were rather limited, their supply still sits at 30% of the supply on the planet. Now, almost a century later, the government has decided to move out of the helium market. It has stores of it that will do absolutely nothing, but there is no market to mine any more helium, since the need to do so has been practically non-existent since the 40's.

So helium and helium-isotopes are experiencing a spike in demand, but it's only because the government isn't giving it away for practically free anymore. Because the Nazis.