Alternate history - what if humanity lived in the kerbal solar system?

[chaos_forge]

Ignoring how such a solar system was formed, assume everything else in physics was the same (maybe it's in a universe with a different gravitational constant). Anyways, the forum post about Duna being survivable with only an O2 mask got me to thinking: what if humans lived in the kerbal solar system? How many planets would we have colonized? Duna with its 0.2atm atmospheric pressure, and Eve with its 5atm are both much more survivable than Mars and Venus, with .006atm and 92atm respectively. Not to mention Laythe, which is positively Earthlike. And to top it all off, delta-v costs are much lower than on Earth. However, to offset this, Kerbin has a much smaller surface area, which probably means a much smaller population and industrial base. Would that be enough to keep humans as grounded as they have been on Earth? Feel free to make up stories, theories, what have you.

[WestAir]

We wouldn't have colonized any. Kerbin is like the size of Madagascar, or the Horn of Africa. It's smaller than Saudi Arabia.

Between the 1940's and the 80's we detonated well over 1,500 atomic and thermonuclear bombs before we realized how bad of an idea it was to do so. Repeat that on a planet the size of Saudi Arabia and you might find an abandoned planet by 2014.

I know this is a thought experiment, and it should ignore the points I brought up, but you have to admit: Shoving 7 billion humans onto a planet that small probably won't end well.

[NASAFanboy]

We wouldn't have colonized any. Kerbin is like the size of Madagascar, or the Horn of Africa. It's smaller than Saudi Arabia.

Between the 1940's and the 80's we detonated well over 1,500 atomic and thermonuclear bombs before we realized how bad of an idea it was to do so. Repeat that on a planet the size of Saudi Arabia and you might find an abandoned planet by 2014.

I know this is a thought experiment, and it should ignore the points I brought up, but you have to admit: Shoving 7 billion humans onto a planet that small probably won't end well.

It depends on how you see it.

Being on such a small planet, we probably never would've evolved to have a population of seven billion and likely would've quit testing nuclear weapons much earlier after the effects began to become very nasty.

[Whirligig Girl]

How about we assume 6.4:1 scale Kerbin universe. not small size, but still not as big as Earth.

[chaos_forge]

We wouldn't have colonized any. Kerbin is like the size of Madagascar, or the Horn of Africa. It's smaller than Saudi Arabia.

according to the wiki, kerbin's surface area is about 4 million km^2, and Saudi Arabia is only 2 million km^2. But still, same order of magnitude. I was however considering that the population would have stabilized at some (lower than 7 billion) number. Still, with such a radically smaller planet, wouldn't lebensraum be a much more pressing reason to colonize other planets than it is on Earth?

Also, with such a small surface area to govern, Kerbin would probably be governed by a world government. Not sure how that would change things . . .

Edited August 26, 2014 by chaos_forge

[WestAir]

according to the wiki, kerbin's surface area is about 4 million km^2, and Saudi Arabia is only 2 million km^2. But still, same order of magnitude. I was however considering that the population would have stabilized at some (lower than 7 billion) number. Still, with such a radically smaller planet, wouldn't lebensraum be a much more pressing reason to colonize other planets than it is on Earth?

Also, with such a small surface area to govern, Kerbin would probably be governed by a world government. Not sure how that would change things . . .

Are you including Kerbins water with the surface area? We can't settle on water.

[Stargate525]

We can't settle on water.

Sure we can. We just haven't had a pressing need to.

[WestAir]

Sure we can. We just haven't had a pressing need to.

That is awesome. I stand corrected.

[autumnalequinox]

my mind has been going here like CRAZY lately.

Do we humans get to be our regular size in this alt universe? If we were simply down-scaled like the Kerbals, only with our own psychological and biological features intact (smarter by a fraction, hehe)? If we were simply hobbits, then maybe there would be space for us to build a history and cultural similar to today, as everything, from resources to space, would be equivalent.

But I want to go to the heart of this thread.. that of having a vastly more habitable solar system available to us. Assuming similar history and development, I think everything would be pretty similar right up until the age of rocketry. Once we started peering at these worlds.. seeing oceans through the clouds on Eve, spectroscope signatures of H2O and O2 on Laythe, the glint of oceans.. Duna's thickish atmosphere and huge ice caps.

Here is where the divergence begins. This is where we enter a realm I love the ponder. Now a Space Race becomes a Space Marathon.. as there are simply less engineering challenges to exploring worlds with slightly friendlier environments. I imagine the prospect of colonization would be achievable very quickly, we may see something like a new Industrial Revolution and a massive resource grab.. space tech would just accelerate and accelerate.. all that stuff we dreamed of doing (and could do, given $) 50 years ago our Kerbal sized alternates may throw themselves into head long.

Regular-ass people could actually see themselves setting up a reasonable homestead on Duna, without having to terraform the whole freaking planet.

Or is this crazy and we humans just suck?

[chaos_forge]

I wonder which would be easier to terraform: Eve or Duna? For landing and lifting off again, Duna would certainly be of more interest to humans. But with 0.2 atm pressure and temperatrues ranging from -50 to -30°C, Duna at its lowest points would be about as harsh conditions as the summit of mount Everest. And at the top of its 8km high mountains, it would probably be unsurvivable.

Eve on the other hand gets even more sun than Kerbin, which would be good for plants and power generation, but at 5atm and 150°C, it seems more like a pressure cooker than a habitable place. The plateaus would be somewhat more livable; the pressure is "only" 2.5atm at 5km, and we know extremophiles that can live at those temperatures. Penal colony maybe?

[cantab]

I wonder if one fly in the ointment wouldn't be air travel. With drag being so high you'd need a lot more fuel to get anywhere. Stimy air travel and you stimy the development of spaceflight.

[Idobox]

It is easier to keep your habitat warm than it is to keep it cool. Duna would be much easier to colonize for that reason.

Kerbin being small is not such a big problem . The European Union is a little bit over 4.3 million km², and it could pretty much be self-sufficient (although tight on oil) and get people in space by itself with the right incentives.

The thing is, even in a Kerbal universe, we wouldn't send millions of people to colonize planets, like what happened with USA. With 6km/s to reach Duna, it would still cost more to send people there than it is to put people in orbit around Earth (we don't have to carry radiation protection and life support for 6 months). Permanent bases would be perfectly doable, and it would be possible to become self-sustaining with a cost on the same order of magnitude as ISS, but there would be little incentive to actually settle there.

It's the same thing with Antarctica or the Gobi desert: sure we can survive there, and it's worth sending some scientists, but nobody actually wants to settle there.

The only thing that could trigger a proper colonization would be if there was something very expensive that could be found/built only on Duna/Eve. Expensive enough for shipping costs in the 5 to 10 000$ a kg make economical sense. Some precious metals are expensive enough to make the existence of small mining communities plausible.

You could also find people who want to go for Duna for ideological reasons, but they would have to find hundreds of millions, maybe even billions of $ to fund even a small colony.

[chaos_forge]

Hmm, so Duna would most likely end up like Antarctica: a few small research bases, but not much more. The thin atmosphere would make for great telescopes though, and if it's geologically dead like Mars is, it would also be great for laser interferometer gravitational wave detectors . . .

What about Laythe, then? Assuming the biosphere has a chemistry compatible with our own, self sufficient bases would be MUCH easier to set up . . .

[SpaceXray]

We would've colonized Laythe by now. Seriously, who wouldn't be tempted to send people to Laythe by now?

[Voyager55]

Kerbin is roughly one tenth the size of earth so earths total surface area 510,000,000 Sq kilometers divided by ten you get 5,100,000 sq k. Twice the size of Saudi Arabia and nearly the size of the USA.

[chaos_forge]

Kerbin is roughly one tenth the size of earth so earths total surface area 510,000,000 Sq kilometers divided by ten you get 5,100,000 sq k. Twice the size of Saudi Arabia and nearly the size of the USA.

That's not quite how geometry works. "size" is an imprecise term. Kerbin is one-tenth the radius of Earth: Earth's radius is 6371km, while Kerbin's is an even 600km. However, surface area depends on radius squared, so Kerbin actually has roughly one hundredth the surface area of Earth. Similarly, volume depends on radius cubed, so depending on how you define size, Kerbin is one tenth, one hundredth, or one thousandth the size of Earth.

Here's the specific math:

Surface area = 4 * pi * radius^2

Earth radius = ~6000 km

Earth surface area = 4 * pi * 6000^2 = ~452,000,000 km^2

Kerbin radius = 600km

Kerbin Surface area = 4 * pi * 600^2 = ~4,520,000 km^2

Edited August 27, 2014 by chaos_forge

[RocketscientistV]

Well less Dv is required to get to orbit so SSTO's would be common place, Getting to orbit would be simple and the Saturn V would be Interplanetary.

[kStrout]

we would be mining minmus to make space colonies. (seriously, this notion that we need planets to live on, bah!)

[Camacha]

Are you including Kerbins water with the surface area? We can't settle on water.

Go tell the Dutch that Most of them live beneath sea level and a good portion on actual sea bed.

[autumnalequinox]

Laythe: Is the general consensus that Laythe is radiation soaked utterly? I imagine that, as large as it is, there is no way it doesn't have some sort of geomagnetic field, and then add the thick atmosphere to that, and I imagine life would be possible at least in the seas.

Because otherwise, it just seems like it would take some seeds and BOOM! you have a full biosphere, if not a marine one already.

[Idobox]

Hmm, so Duna would most likely end up like Antarctica: a few small research bases, but not much more. The thin atmosphere would make for great telescopes though, and if it's geologically dead like Mars is, it would also be great for laser interferometer gravitational wave detectors . . .

What about Laythe, then? Assuming the biosphere has a chemistry compatible with our own, self sufficient bases would be MUCH easier to set up . . .

Same issue. You might be able to breathe outside, but it's dim and cold all the time, nothing grows, and Amazon charges 4 million dollars to deliver a pack of gum.

If you want people to spend fortunes, travel for years in a tin can to live on a barren world, you need something of high value to be found there. If you're going to spend the equivalent of centuries of salary to send somebody somewhere, you need a very good reason to do so.

Science is one, bringing back something super expensive is another one. Having a magnificent view of Jool sure would be nice, but not worth it for most people.

[chaos_forge]

Same issue. You might be able to breathe outside, but it's dim and cold all the time, nothing grows, and Amazon charges 4 million dollars to deliver a pack of gum.

If you want people to spend fortunes, travel for years in a tin can to live on a barren world, you need something of high value to be found there. If you're going to spend the equivalent of centuries of salary to send somebody somewhere, you need a very good reason to do so.

Science is one, bringing back something super expensive is another one. Having a magnificent view of Jool sure would be nice, but not worth it for most people.

Would studying an entire extraterrestrial biosphere not be a pretty good reason?

Also, going to Jool in the Kerbal solar system is only 8km/s if you play with FAR, which means that basically, for the price of the ISS you could have a Laythe base. Not to mention that since getting to orbit would be so cheap, we would probably have a lot more space infrastucture, which means getting to space is even cheaper. SSTOs would also be much more viable. I mean, the Blackbird could get up to 980m/s (almost half of orbital velocity) on pure turbojet, no fancy RAM or SABRE technology or anthing. And considering the much lower reentry speeds, heating isn't nearly as much of an issue, which means a much cheaper space shuttle program.

Cost to orbit today is $10,000 per kg. Let's say in the Kerbal solar system it's 10x cheaper. Imagine what we could to if you could put a satellite in orbit for the price of buying a house!

Edited August 28, 2014 by chaos_forge

[Idobox]

Would studying an entire extraterrestrial biosphere not be a pretty good reason?

Also, going to Jool in the Kerbal solar system is only 8km/s if you play with FAR, which means that basically, for the price of the ISS you could have a Laythe base. Not to mention that since getting to orbit would be so cheap, we would probably have a lot more space infrastucture, which means getting to space is even cheaper. SSTOs would also be much more viable. I mean, the Blackbird could get up to 980m/s (almost half of orbital velocity) on pure turbojet, no fancy RAM or SABRE technology or anthing. And considering the much lower reentry speeds, heating isn't nearly as much of an issue, which means a much cheaper space shuttle program.

Cost to orbit today is $10,000 per kg. Let's say in the Kerbal solar system it's 10x cheaper. Imagine what we could to if you could put a satellite in orbit for the price of buying a house!

In my first post, I was saying that we would send scientists there, but not much more, like we do in Antarctica.

We can go there, we can survive there, there is interesting science to be done three, but nothing to exploit (by law, unlike the Arctic), so we send a few dozens scientists to semi-permanent bases.

If you want to see proper colonization, you need an economical incentive, and here the example would be mining towns in inhospitable places.