Quote from: jibbajibba;446596Now I think that is a bit of a myth. Space exploration isn't like exploring another country. It's not something you can do with minimal investment a stout heart and a sturdy ship. I know there are plenty of Clash's and Estars willing to head out into the wild black yonder but you have to have perspective. Rather than looking to the colonisation of America or Australia we need to compare to the colonisation of the ocean floor.
The Ocean floor is less hazardous and more accessible than space. There is lots of room down there, lots of mineral deposits lots of exploration to do but it hasn't been colonised. Why ? because it costs millions of dollars and takes really skilled people and if you don't do it right you die, not over a few years you find your crops fail die but shit there is an air-leak oops we are all dead die.

Actually, the sea floor is considerably more difficult to colonize than space. In space you have to resist at most one atmosphere of pressure. On the sea floor, the pressure differential is far, far higher.

-clash

Quote from: jibbajibba;446596The Ocean floor is less hazardous and more accessible than space. There is lots of room down there, lots of mineral deposits lots of exploration to do but it hasn't been colonised. Why ? because it costs millions of dollars and takes really skilled people and if you don't do it right you die, not over a few years you find your crops fail die but shit there is an air-leak oops we are all dead die.

The ocean floor may be more accessible but not less hazardous. But the Ocean floor is one environment defined by the depth and the ensuing water pressure. If you ONLY consider hard vacuum environments then maybe you have a point.

But in the black there are a considerable number of environment to pick from. Plus we know how to modify many of these environments to become more earthlike in ways that doesn't involve magical science. So it would be more like trying to settle sub polar Alaska than the ocean floor of your example.

Quote from: flyingmice;446602Actually, the sea floor is considerably more difficult to colonize than space. In space you have to resist at most one atmosphere of pressure. On the sea floor, the pressure differential is far, far higher.

-clash

You see whilst I get the pressure issue. I do think that a few things ranging from ease of transportation, availability of liquid water, temperature range, availablity of food stuffs, lack of marble sized space rocks moving at thousands of miles an hour, lack of radiation issues, lack of oseoporosis, ease of return journey, etc etc are all valid.

I mean we seem to be saying that Terrafroming an entire planet when we would need to ship all the stuff to do it from earth is easier than building a permanent undersea habitat... is that really true ?

Quote from: flyingmice;446593The existence - the necessity - of the irrational with regard to human beings always seems to slip the minds of planners.
-clash

Why else would John Carmack programmer extraordinaire of Doom fame, would sunk so much money and time into Amardillo Aerospace. And he accomplished is amazing. Thanks to Carmack and his competiors, Masten Space System, we have working vertical takeoff, vertical landing rockets. More importantly they are developing operational experience. All this from guys operating on budgets two order of magnitude less than NASA.

http://www.armadilloaerospace.com
http://masten-space.com/

Many poo-poo them because they are sub-orbital for now.  But give them time and they will get there.

Quote from: estar;446603The ocean floor may be more accessible but not less hazardous. But the Ocean floor is one environment defined by the depth and the ensuing water pressure. If you ONLY consider hard vacuum environments then maybe you have a point.

But in the black there are a considerable number of environment to pick from. Plus we know how to modify many of these environments to become more earthlike in ways that doesn't involve magical science. So it would be more like trying to settle sub polar Alaska than the ocean floor of your example.

Well Sub polar alaska if it was 60 million km away had no breathable air and no food.

Quote from: estar;446606Why else would John Carmack programmer extraordinaire of Doom fame, would sunk so much money and time into Amardillo Aerospace. And he accomplished is amazing. Thanks to Carmack and his competiors, Masten Space System, we have working vertical takeoff, vertical landing rockets. More importantly they are developing operational experience. All this from guys operating on budgets two order of magnitude less than NASA.

http://www.armadilloaerospace.com
http://masten-space.com/

Many poo-poo them because they are sub-orbital for now.  But give them time and they will get there.

I get the romance of it I really do but ....

Quote from: jibbajibba;446604ease of transportation

Biggest stumbling block so far. $10,000/lb to orbit is not going to see any development of space except for the most lucrative of applications. Namely what we see now communications, position finding, and imaging.

The only way to drive down launch cost with chemical rockets is to increase your launch frequency. The cost of the rocket itself isn't cheap but it is dwarf by the supporting infrastructure.  The importance of the various new space companies is that they are able to launch with minimal ground support. In time I believe this will get us down to a $1,000/lb. To get to $100 we need sheer volume of launches or some type of technological or operational breakthrough.

Quote from: jibbajibba;446604availability of liquid water,

There is a good chance the moon has ice at the poles.
Mars definitely has considerable amounts of water. Although we don't know if it is enough to terraform the planet. But certainly enough to use in-situ.

The moons of the outer planets have water and other volatiles.
We know we can make Oxygen out of the lunar regolith.

The resources are there, we just need to figure out to get to them, and the best way to operationally use them.

Quote from: jibbajibba;446604temperature range,

Take your pick. The equator of Mare, the Poles of Mars, the surface of Titan, the upper atmosphere of Venus. All of these areas have different combination of pressure, and temperature to pick from.

Quote from: jibbajibba;446604availablity of food stuffs,

This is an area that needs more research. I believe currently it is hit or miss from Mir and ISS on whether they can a plant to grow from seed, germinate, plant those seed, and grow again.

Quote from: jibbajibba;446604lack of marble sized space rocks moving at thousands of miles an hour,

The probes, and stations we sent up do quite fine in this regard. It is a hazard but manageable if you are prepared.

Quote from: jibbajibba;446604lack of radiation issues,

It a hazard but managable. It not some magic death ray. It has certain effect that can be minimized or avoided. Like the effect of not wearing your UV sunglasses on Mount Everest, or leaving your glove off for too long at the South Pole Station in the middle of winter.  It bad when the accident occurs but the risks can be managed.

Quote from: jibbajibba;446604lack of oseoporosis,

The effects of weightlessness probably allow people to live in station unless they have spin gravity. Short term it is not an issue for voyages of length needed for Mars.

Quote from: jibbajibba;446604I mean we seem to be saying that Terrafroming an entire planet when we would need to ship all the stuff to do it from earth is easier than building a permanent undersea habitat... is that really true ?

Well with terraforming you get an earth-like environment. Under the Sea even if you live under a dome you have all the issues with Water pressures.

Are there industrial needs that would justify the cost factories in low gravity?

@Jibbajibba: is it just a matter of setting the calendar far enough into the future so there's believable reasons to reach for space or are you just convinced that space colonization is unrealistic utopia forever?

Quote from: jibbajibba;446607Well Sub polar alaska if it was 60 million km away had no breathable air and no food.

No you have -40 degree temperatures and no sunlight for five months out of the year. There is little marginal for error as there is in space. The main difference is that it fairly easy to get there these days. Which is not the case of space.

Quote from: jibbajibba;446608I get the romance of it I really do but ....

And the romance is the point. They will do it and establish the first beachheads, then it is a little easier with the next wave, then easier for the next wave after that.

It may be that it never feasible to sustain a civilization in space. The conditions may be too harsh allow a family to be established and children to grow into adulthood. After all there are no permanent human habitations on Earth above 12000 feet (or roughly 4,000 M) I believe.  

But then we haven't begun to try and the Black is vast with many many different places to go.

Quote from: boulet;446613Are there industrial needs that would justify the cost factories in low gravity?

@Jibbajibba: is it just a matter of setting the calendar far enough into the future so there's believable reasons to reach for space or are you just convinced that space colonization is unrealistic utopia forever?

There are some uses for microgravity. But the main use is to get the industrial crap of our planet. Want to be a Green, work it out so that most of our industrial resources come from space.

Quote from: boulet;446613Are there industrial needs that would justify the cost factories in low gravity?

@Jibbajibba: is it just a matter of setting the calendar far enough into the future so there's believable reasons to reach for space or are you just convinced that space colonization is unrealistic utopia forever?

No you are right but I think that to explore the topic you need to explain the drivers because the drivers alter the pattern of exploration.

So say in 1000 years we have explored the solar system with drones, we know there is no life and terraforming didn't take on Mars , Venus, or Europa. But there is some catacylsmic event say with the earth's core or a huge meteor .. or whatever... this means we have to get as many people off the earth as possible... this colonisation has a different pattern to one that occurs because we find life on a planet orbiting Sirus, or one where we sucessfully terraform Mars with Drones so we start to move people there to a habitable environment.

The killer issue is entirely one of transportation, jibbajabba. I.e. technology. Reducing the massive cost to get to orbit enables everything, because all other issues are solvable and trivial in comparison. Once you are in orbit, you are half way to anywhere, as (IIRC) Jerry Pournelle once said.

There are ways to defeat this ogre, we are just not sure how as yet, and a huge part of solving that question is removing NASA from the loop. NASA is inherently conservative, and has just plain dropped the ball on everything. They refuse to take chances, and have continuously subordinated practical research and development on this question to maintaining their status quo. The shuttle program was a dinosaur that gobbled up resources on routine space launches that could far better be spent on vehicle research.

Remotely piloted recoverable ramjet boosters? SSTO vehicles? Mid-air launches? High altitude balloon launches? All these ideas are being tried out by private space companies, and all of them are aimed squarely at reducing the ground support - and thus the cost - of launch. As that cost gets driven down, it becomes more and more practical to utilize space.

Despite our differences of which planet would be best to terraform - we agree that both are possible if that is what is wanted - estar and I see this thing entirely synoptically. Whether our goal is to live on other planets or to settle space itself - or more likely some combination - getting out of our gravity well without exhausting ourselves with the effort is the first step. Every other problem can be tackled as we come to it with assurance that the problem is ultimately manageable.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;446629The killer issue is entirely one of transportation, jibbajabba. I.e. technology. Reducing the massive cost to get to orbit enables everything, because all other issues are solvable and trivial in comparison. Once you are in orbit, you are half way to anywhere, as (IIRC) Jerry Pournelle once said.

Remotely piloted recoverable ramjet boosters? SSTO vehicles? Mid-air launches? High altitude balloon launches? All these ideas are being tried out by private space companies, and all of them are aimed squarely at reducing the ground support - and thus the cost - of launch. As that cost gets driven down, it becomes more and more practical to utilize space.



-clash

Why does everyone forget laser launch systems?

Charlie Stross outlines his issues with space exploration here

Pretty much shares my view, or I his, well we have moreorless the same view of it anyway....

He covers most of the 'but you haven't thought ofs and there is a comments section that would make JM proud (ie its really long not its full of Republican dogma spouted as fact.... oooh hark at me )