Space Colonization (think tank)

I can't see any inherent argument for settling on Ganymede or Titan that offsets the orders of magnitude greater difficulty of accomplishing it versus the Moon or Mars, other than For Science!. Besides, even if you do set that as your ultimate goal, you have to learn to crawl before you learn to walk, and it's far easier to resolve problems when you're a few light seconds away rather than light-hours.

Defense? From whom? Are terrorists going to send up homemade one-way rockets filled with suicide bombers?

edited 27th Jan '12 9:41:38 AM by Fighteer

Other Nations?

Yes invading the Moon is absurd but imagine the morale boost for capturing it.

Edit: There might be other colonies on the Moon as well.

edited 27th Jan '12 9:43:51 AM by whaleofyournightmare

"...This is why it needs to be a government effort, because what corporation is going to invest in a Mars base (other than those actively involved in making it happen, but the money still has to come from somewhere)?"

Why would a government do it? Even though governments dont operate according to a profit motive, they still need some sort of return on the tax dollar, or there wont be any political support.

(ninjaed because I didn't see the page break)

And I still don't see what exactly the purpose of "off-planet" settlements would be, either. There is no industrial branch which would really profit from zero g. As has been posted here, gravity (at least gravity of Earth's level, something like the centre of Jupiter is something else...) is basically irrelevant for the material sciences or what not.

It's good and well to proclaim a post-nationalist ideology for space, but this does not actually replace the economic necessities and facts on the ground. As I see it, we will expand our space presence - orbital solar collectors, asteroid mining, etc. But this all will be automatic or with rotating crews, a la offshore drilling. In fact, speaking of that, settling the sea would make much more sense than settlements on either other planets or the orbit.

It will not be romanticist or idealist settlers in space. It will basically be megacorporations doing it for profit.

edited 27th Jan '12 9:45:59 AM by Octo

Or not. NASA can justify it's budget based almost entirely on the technical spin-offs, and the benefit to society from basic exploration. But you dont need humans in space for that.

Humans in space adds that sexy, dangerous touch that appeals to the public. Whether it is itself a political body or not, NASA must realize that its survival ultimately depends on public support.

edited 27th Jan '12 11:09:01 AM by Fighteer

Well I'm only thinking of problems in terms of technical capabilities and total pay-off for humanity rather than nationalist interests (or corporate interests).

So if we spend 200-300 years on Mars, make it liveable, make it self-sufficient, it's an undertaking that is pretty much like the Great Wall of China, where successive "Earth" governments have to continue the work of the previous institution. The general concept is to expand the living space of humans. I mean, think of this. China was able to remove an entire mountain back before Christ existed with nothing but manual labour. I should think that given our current level of technology, setting up a few automated processing stations on Mars is not even close to the same level of % of GDP expenditure.

You might not want to use the Great Wall as an example. That was an economic and political disaster, and the Chinese were embarrassed by it until Europeans visited a few hundred years later and thought it was cool.

It's also not a good example because the up-front costs of beginning to build a wall are minimal. Bake a few bricks and you can get started. And even a little wall is useful. So it pays for itself as you go along. Not so manned colonies in space. This is, quite literally, the most cost-intensive endeavor ever imagined.

I'm not familiar with the Chinese embarassment over the wall you're talking about.

Yeah, but none of us, and certainly I did not, state that you start with off-world self-sufficient colonies. I'd rather not repeat my plans over and over again.

I'm not asking you to. Mandemo, for better or for worse, argued me into accepting a human presence in space- a small number of technical support specialists to provide maintenance and guidance for the robots and drones I still claim are all you need to reap whatever there is to gain from space. I'm waiting for someone to get me to the next step. What motivates anyone, private or government, to go beyond the small crew needed to keep the robots going?

Ah screw it. It's obvious that the public doesn't seem too interested in space colonization, and I've decided that suits me just fine. Richard Branson and I can divide up the rest of the solar system amongst ourselves. Now to go and make a few billion dollars that I can throw into my own private space colony...

But seriously, do we REALLY want to leave space colonization in the hands of private enterprise? This is one of the arguments I make against the international treaties that ban any one nation from claiming land on another planet. Basically, there's a loophole, a rather big one, in which a private organization is still allowed to stake a claim. So ultimately, the United Nations has made it possible for guys like Richard Branson to realistically make themselves Emperor of the Moon, and there's nothing in international treaty that says otherwise. I'd much rather see the land given to whichever countries are willing to develop it, just because I'd rather have the government (and thus, the people) running things out there instead of a bunch of billionaires.

Besides, the UN is dead. No one obeys edicts that go against their nation's personal interests, it has no power of enforcement of its treaties, and for god's sakes France has a permanent seat but not India. Times have changed, history does not stand still, yadda yadda yadda. The last thing I want is for the nations that cannot hope to claim a foothold on outer space holding back the nations that could by waving around some silly piece of paper. The international space treaty made sense in the context of the cold war, but now it is holding our entire species back from entering the final frontier, which I believe goes against the very spirit of the treaty in the first place. If its goal is to guarantee that space remains part of "the common heritage of mankind", then it has failed in that goal by removing any incentive to move beyond low-Earth orbit. Do you really think countries like the USA would be so blaisse about space colonization if they could actually make a claim on the land? Land is power, power is opportunity, and the moment that all that free land was suddenly available you'd have colonies on the Moon and Mars before the decade was out.

So fudge the UN and its space treaty, I want to live in the Cowboy Bebop universe!

That just sounds selfish.

It's also wrong. The US, and everyone else, is being held back by the costs involved, not international treaties. Claiming land doesn't do you any good if it costs too much to exploit the resource.

Here's a study by MIT on the benefits of manned spaceflight. Here's the best they could come up with: "We defi ne primary objectives of human spaceflight as those that can only be accomplished through the physical presence of human beings, have benefi ts that exceed the opportunity costs, and are worthy of signifi cant risk to human life. These include exploration, national pride, and international prestige and leadership."

And that's just manned spaceflight, to say nothing of permanent outposts.

Here are a variety of opinions on the matter. Frankly, the two pro-manned spaceflight writers do no better.

OK- on the other hand, this article provides the best comparison of the two approaches I have found, and explains the one rationale for sending humans that might convince me- the search for life on Mars. While I find the arguments in the "Humans Only" column unconvincing, I might be argued into a "Mixed Mission"- in other words sending a couple of humans along with several dozen robots probes, leaving the humans in orbit while the probes search the surface (and subsurface). The reason I might be argued into this is because although finding life on Mars is probably a long-shot, if we did find it there, the implications of this back here on Earth would be incalculable. The science of biology would leap ahead by an entire paradigm.

Another set of articles comparing the advantages and disadvantages of manned space flight The Con Side, The Pro Side.

But even that argument only justifies manned missions, not permanent manned outposts, and doesn't explain how the outposts get to be colonies. I still await a convincing argument.

edited 27th Jan '12 6:53:40 PM by DeMarquis

Well I think a lot of previous people here argued about past exploration, all of which was state funded. So whatever side of the fence you are on, I think we all agree that it won't happen unless the state does it first and funds the first explorers. If after that we discover opportunities for which we can exploit, then private corporations will step into the mix but until then, they would never ever attempt to fill a market gap we don't know about.

And because we don't know about a market gap doesn't preclude its existence and what I would like to say is that, until we spend those tax dollars to go out there to discover space to explore the area and to realise the potential out beyond Earth, no private organisation will ever bother to do so. Expecting it to just happen is, as neil degrasse Tyson puts it, simply wrong.

Alright, here we go. Several things:

First is to provide luxury goods to technicians. If they have to spend any extra in space, it could prove to be a good source of revenue to build few luxuy shops or maybe small farms to provide fresh vegetables for crews, instead of prepackpaged stuff. Things can grow from there, depending on supply and demand.

Second is publicity. Now, if whoever spearheads the space economy plays his cards right, he can romantize whole thing. This, in turn, gives way for space tourism. We already have first starting companies, like Virgin Galatic. Now, if space mining is put in public view as something great and awesome etc. etc., someone might get a bright idea: Get tourist to visit the place. So they might, if they deem it possible, to build a hotel and set up few trips around. Now, from there, another guy might see "Hey, these guys get a lot of tourist, how can we get our share" and sets up something else, let's say, "Authentic Mars Food" stuff(okay, that one is pretty big stretch but it's for the sake of argument).

Now, hotels need to be staffed and have peopel working there. These people need some living space themselves. So another living facilty might be build on later date, which serves as a permament place. Depending on how numerous companies run, previously mentioned Mars Food might start selling to private citizens. Now, those hotel workers buy from MF and live on Mars (atleast untill they decide to return to Earth). Now, some enterpreuer might decide to set up a permament shop on Mars, to live and work there or in less drastic measure, someone might decide to move to Mars, making working easier.

This all depends on how space is sold to the public. If people lack in interest, whole second point is moot. First on the other hand, depends complety on whenever companies deem possible revenue larger than losses from creating on-site facilities. Which is a long term investment and requires patience.

Of course, these are hypothetical. It could as well as be that all my predictions are false. It's hard to predict future beyond few years, especialy when talking about matters that are not hot on the list today.

I wonder if people in this thread are stuck on the idea that a community in space has to look like one on Earth. I don't think it does, nor will it. It will be spread out, not clumped in one small place.

Let's say the 'outpost/drilling rig' model is working. That is, there are humans within reach of certain clumps of automation in space that may need human intervention to stay in repair. The distance from an outpost to the automation it is covering will govern the outpost's ability to respond in a timely way. The 'within reach' part of that means, most likely, lots of outposts.

Space, one notices, is danged big.

Outposts will be no larger than they have to be, of course, which means they will not produce goods for their own consumption which can be produced elsewhere leveraging economies of scale. This means there will be specialized outposts whose activities are focused on such things. Farming outposts, hospital outposts, automation production outposts, and so on.

There will also be 'outposts' that have the main function of moving things between the other outposts. Traders, freight haulers, etc.. They spend enough time in transit that it might makes sense for them to just call their transporter home. Raise kids there, have a little garden ... all that domestic stuff.

In this model, there might be a very long time before you can point at any one place in the sky and say "There's a space colony," but space would still be colonized.

edited 28th Jan '12 8:49:40 AM by FastEddie

@Mandemo: "First is to provide luxury goods to technicians."

I think were talking a couple of guys in any one place. Shipping luxury goods a couple of million miles (I'm assuming Mars) to them isn't going to make anyone any money.

If I were the techs, I would just take along a 3-D printer instead.

"...This, in turn, gives way for space tourism."

I can see the occasional billionaire. Large numbers of casual tourists I don't think.

@Fast Eddie: "It will be spread out, not clumped in one small place."

But also bear in mind, the more outposts you have, the more expensive it gets. One larger one, centrally located, will be cheaper to maintain than a lot of smaller ones.

However, as you may have noticed, I changed the model. I'm not betting on mining anymore, I think basic exploration is a better bet. Specifically the search for life. It's romantic enough to capture public support, complicated enough to require on-site human support, and covers enough area to require lots of automated probes. I could see this justifying sending, say, half a dozen humans to Mars, for example. So, ok, there's your outpost. Now- grow it for me. What incentives exist to make it bigger?

I see two: 1) Nationalistic competition (ie, the Chinese show up), and 2) They find some life. If that happened, then yeah, we couldnt get enough people there fast enough.

Those are very unpredictable though. Can anyone think of some other incentives?

Not really. Whole space exploration alone depends on good will of the goverment and public. As long as public isn't demanding we spend money on space, not going to happen. Hopefully Virgin Galactic and others can reignite same interest in space as space race did.

^^ There is no 'central location', other than maybe the Earth as a product destination.

We can't be sure of that Eddie, atleast for starters. Who knows, call me delusional fool but maybe someday humanitys new "home" will be another planet, a new capital sort of.

Didn't they say the same about the Americas?

FE: That model makes sense. But in my estimation it won't really be space "colonization" because I do think those outposts will be manned by rotating crews rather than a permanent population. It's in any case the kinder variant...

Luxuries can make companies lots of money no matter the number of people. It could be as simple as the government pushed to improve working conditions at the outpost and makes an open-bid contract to supply the workers with luxuries at a cost of whatever.

edited 29th Jan '12 3:53:14 PM by breadloaf

Not sure if rotation of personnel makes any difference if the net off-planet count of population remains at a certain level or grows in number. Who the individuals are doesn't matter. Their number does.

I do doubt, though, that people will rotate away from their businesses. It is a hard thing to get a business owner to take a vacation, much less build a business up then just stop because of some 'rotation' schedule. That model works when the businesses are owned by absentees, with the off-planet work being done by employees. Or government drones. Either way, you get inefficiency that can be bested by an on-site, committed owner.

There may be physiological reasons to rotate out of space. The only ones I am aware of are related to gravity deficiency. Seems cheaper to build centrifugal gravity sources, though, than to drag people up and down the steep gravity well of a planet. Nice thing about centrifugal force is that it is easy to approach without fighting gravity and easy to depart when you are done with it. Just let go.