Colonizing other planets

[fredinno]

4 hours ago, tater said:

Why would people go? Name something, anything, that requires humans on Mercury. If you can't, name something you think humans can do better. If you can manage the second one, then assume the same amount of money and mass to the surface and back was spent on robots. Humans still better? The answer is certainly "no." Humans going to space is very cool. I love it. I don't pretend it's for science, and science gained is gravy (and should be expected given the vastly higher cost/mass of any manned endeavor).

That's a common theme for all manned flight, to be entirely honest.

[peadar1987]

Humans, or to a lesser extent, humans teleoperating robots without latency, are more adaptable, and can do science faster. That's pretty much the only advantage in terms of research, and Mercury isn't exactly going anywhere, so speed is not of the essence!

[Gibranrl]

Europa, cuz its got lot of water in it and water has Oxygen and Hydrogen which is a rocket fuel and fuel cells and life support needs water and plants need it. Just need to get enough people there so the poop will be sufficient for fertilizers or a synthetic fertilizer facility, just need to go to find the resources for synthetic fertilizer or import poop from another place in the Sol.

[peadar1987]

1 minute ago, Gibranrl said:

Europa, cuz its got lot of water in it and water has Oxygen and Hydrogen which is a rocket fuel and fuel cells and life support needs water and plants need it. Just need to get enough people there so the poop will be sufficient for fertilizers or a synthetic fertilizer facility, just need to go to find the resources for synthetic fertilizer or import poop from another place in the Sol.

It also has extremely high levels of radiation though. Humans wouldn't really be able to do anything, and spacecraft would have to be very heavily shielded just to make it to the surface without receiving a lethal dose

[Gibranrl]

6 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:

It also has extremely high levels of radiation though.

In the future we may have RadAway or some Rad-X to keep us from the radiations of space travel.

[Spaceception]

2 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:

It also has extremely high levels of radiation though. Humans wouldn't really be able to do anything, and spacecraft would have to be very heavily shielded just to make it to the surface without receiving a lethal dose

Go to Callisto instead  and if not, the ice on Europa can make for great radiation shielding.

[Gibranrl]

Or moar radiation shield.

[peadar1987]

6 minutes ago, Gibranrl said:

Or moar radiation shield.

Which means more mass, complicating the mission. It's not impossible, but as Spaceception says, Callisto is easier.

[Gibranrl]

5 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:

Which means more mass, complicating the mission. It's not impossible, but as Spaceception says, Callisto is easier.

Moar boosters and reactors.

[Spaceception]

@Gibranrl This is real=life stuff, not KSP, if you don't want to worry about radiation, go to Callisto, it gets very little radiation (And still has water), but if you want to risk it, use European ice to protect you from the radiation, you only need 3-5 meters of the stuff.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Spaceception

[Gibranrl]

7 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

@Gibranrl This is real=life stuff, not KSP, if you don't want to worry about radiation, go to Callisto, it gets very little radiation (And still has water), but if you want to risk it, use European ice to protect you from the radiation, you only need 3-5 meters of the stuff.

But it works 

[Spaceception]

Just now, Gibranrl said:

But it works 

Yeah.

[peadar1987]

13 minutes ago, Gibranrl said:

Moar boosters and reactors.

Which costs moar money. And you still won't be able to spend any useful time doing EVA on the surface

[AngelLestat]

3 hours ago, WestAir said:

Wouldn't large, modular space stations be far more cost effective then a colony on land? Easier to get stuff around too because you're already in orbit. Something breaks? You're modular - replace it. You can even keep adding segments to accommodate the size of your population.

2 hours ago, Creature said:

Can I vote for a colony on Earth orbit? There's a huge amount of science to be done, it's pretty safe and easy to evacuate, easy to get to and pretty much anything we want to do in space can be done in orbit or Moon surface. There's some entertainment value and possible soonish even real tourism value that would drive technological development forward.

It's also nice because we have no idea how to build self-sustaining colonies, how to construct or mine anything in space, how to lift ultra heavy payloads at a reasonable cost to space or how to even survive in space for extended periods of time without some major clinical concerns. I'd like to see all of this stuff figured out within the next 50 years.

We have the ISS, that is your space module colony right there.  But it does not have more sense than that..
We are talking of something that can serve as a second home with its own resources and economy.
Anything you do in orbit can be teleoperated with no latency from earth surface without no much need to be right there.
In space you need to deal with vacuum, radiation and you need to provide gravity.  All those have solution but it just increase cost.
Low earth orbit and geo are also full of debris, which increase the risk.

1 hour ago, Gibranrl said:

Europa, cuz its got lot of water in it and water has Oxygen and Hydrogen which is a rocket fuel and fuel cells and life support needs water and plants need it. Just need to get enough people there so the poop will be sufficient for fertilizers or a synthetic fertilizer facility, just need to go to find the resources for synthetic fertilizer or import poop from another place in the Sol.

Living under the ice seems the best solution for many places on the solar system..  Mars.. Europa, Enceladus. The cold problem can be handled covering the ice walls with thick thermal insulation panels.
The power of choice should be nuclear (or future fusion if we achieve it in the future and has economic sense), but in those places (mostly in mars), we really need to be care about nuclear accidents, the pollution can be several times more problematic than on earth.
About resources I am not sure yet, I need to do some research to see the potential of each place.

-------------------------------------------------------------

A place where the cold is really a problem is on Titan where temperatures are -180c and its 1.5 bar of pressure does no help in thermal insulation.
You can manage to insulate habitats, but you can not benefit of a walk on the 1.5 bar atmosphere with pure nitrogen, because a simple breath of air will freeze your lungs eyes and face.
You should go out with so many coats that you will look like a ball.
But well, this place requires more study on its advantages, it seems that it is the paradise of light resources as water, nitrogen, methane, ammonia, etc.

 

[tater]

ISS is not a colony.

There are various plain english definitions of colony, but they are not really what we mean when we say "space colony." Generally speaking I think we can all agree that a space colony (orbital, or planetary) would require a permanent settlement that is largely self-sufficient, or at least not entirely dependent on earth. If people are not born and raised there... not a colony. If it doesn't produce some reasonable % of its own food... not a colony. We can niggle over the specifics, but I think that's what the bulk of us mean when we say "colony."

Orbital colonies (O'Neil colonies) very possibly make the most sense as any of the planetary (or lunar) ideas still require 100% constructed environments that have to be delivered to the location in question from Earth. New manufacturing capabilities can certainly alter this to an extent (3d printing), but so far I have generally seen it for radiation shielding, not fundamental structures.

[WestAir]

6 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

(...) Anything you do in orbit can be teleoperated with no latency from earth surface without no much need to be right there.
In space you need to deal with vacuum, radiation and you need to provide gravity.  All those have solution but it just increase cost.
(...)

I'm going to have to stop you right there. A lunar colony also deals with a vacuum and radiation. Mars doesn't have air or adequate air pressure, so again your colony needs to be air tight. The difference between these and a massive modular space station is that the later requires less Dv to build, and because soil and terrain are not an issue, there are fewer engineering concerns. Its easier to build a colony in orbit than it is on a foreign moon or planet. Period. It's not as enticing or romantic to the human psyche, but it's a lot easier to do.

Also, to compare a "large modular space colony" with the ISS is like comparing the Apollo Lunar Module with a Lunar colony. Totally not the same, and you know it.

Edited February 21, 2016 by WestAir
Spelling errors. Ugh.

[AngelLestat]

6 hours ago, tater said:

ISS is not a colony.

Ok you are right, I did not wanted to suggest that,  but I am pleased that you have detailed the differences.

 

55 minutes ago, WestAir said:

I'm going to have to stop you right there. A lunar colony also deals with a vacuum and radiation. Mars doesn't have air or adequate air pressure, so again your colony needs to be air tight. The difference between these and a massive modular space station is that the later requires less Dv to build, and because soil and terrain are not an issue, there are fewer engineering concerns. Its easier to build a colony in orbit than it is on a foreign moon or planet. Period. It's not as enticing or romantic to the human psyche, but it's a lot easier to do.

Also, to compare a "large modular space colony" with the ISS is like comparing the Apollo Lunar Module with a Lunar colony. Totally not the same, and you know it.

And a lunar colony has low latency too, so yeah, I don't like it as a possible colony.
About the other vacuum places as Mars, europa, enceladus..   the main difference is that you are seated over resources.
You can go under the ice and build your habitats with no need of many extra resources from earth, and you solve the radiation issue.
Make a hole in ice with heat does not takes much and then cover the walls with thermal insulation panels neither (all thermal insulation materials are light by definition or physics) 
You just need to add some hatch to the surface.

 

[tater]

I'm not saying my definition is definitive in any way, but people certainly need to agree on some rough definition of what they mean by "colony" first, otherwise there could be confusion.

[Gibranrl]

21 hours ago, peadar1987 said:

Which costs moar money.

Aggressive Negotiations.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Gibranrl
*adds dramatic effects*

[peadar1987]

2 minutes ago, Gibranrl said:

Aggressive Negotiations.

But the same aggressive negotiations could also be used to bring down the price of a Callisto mission, which is already cheaper because you don't need so much shielding. And Callisto is further out of Jupiter's gravity well, which makes it more useful as a staging post for exploring the outer solar system.

[Gibranrl]

8 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:

But the same aggressive negotiations could also be used to bring down the price of a Callisto mission, which is already cheaper because you don't need so much shielding. And Callisto is further out of Jupiter's gravity well, which makes it more useful as a staging post for exploring the outer solar system.

*builds lazors on europa then shot it at callisto*

lol, ok you win

[peadar1987]

4 minutes ago, Gibranrl said:

*builds lazors on europa then shot it at callisto*

lol, ok you win

Hey man, you didn't tell me you had lasers. Let's not be hasty here...

*backs away slowly and puts on mirrored sunglasses*

[Gibranrl]

 

13 minutes ago, peadar1987 said:

Hey man, you didn't tell me you had lasers. Let's not be hasty here...

*backs away slowly and puts on mirrored sunglasses*

Oh noo! They got mirrors! Bring up the Hyperdrive Propelled Railgun!

Edited February 22, 2016 by Gibranrl

[Spaceception]

Alright guys, get back on topic

[Buster Charlie]

Someone asked why would people go?

 

Why do people go to Alaska? 

 

Not to stereotype  but beyond the adventitious free spirit pioneer types, you seem to have a lot of people skipping on child support, warrants for their arrest,  and lots of drugs and alcoholism. Oh yeah government subsidies. 

 

So the down side is our mercury colony is not really affordable for fugitives from justice types.

This is why we need to make space colonies follow the same human incentives as all colonies,  if we can't get rich off of exploring gold, then we need to either make it subsidised government pork project, a place to send prisoners  (g'day), or make life on earth so politically oppressive that people would rather live on mercury.

We just need to make space a giant government funded money no object version of Australia, Alaska, or make earth a giant version of [deleted to avoid political topics ] so people have no choice. 

 

With any luck, by the end of this century everyone on space colonies will be like Kurt Russell in the thing, a bearded alcoholic McCready with a flamethrower and a stick of dynamite ready to throw his whiskey into the late 70s era chess playing computer of life.

Also consider this, another reason to send humans instead of probes is that humans are much better at customer service.