Expansion into space?!

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

A kinda random post but here I go:
Once like the revolution is complete and we are all free, equal, etc. do you see humanity spreading into space - as surely with everything under common ownership etc. and hopefully scientists working together for a common goal it is an achievable aim, I belive.
So do you think we should spread across the Universe, should it be possible, and do you think that a human civilisation spanning the stars is thesiable.
Also, what are your views on aliens, and should we come across them how should we treat them.

[CommunityBeliever]

So do you think we should spread across the Universe, should it be possible, and do you think that a human civilisation spanning the stars is thesiable.

Modern humans demand substantial amounts of energy to power their cars, computers, cellphones, web servers, etc. Once we have effectively secured our Earthly energy demands then we can start looking to space because ultimately spacecrafts need energy too.

One potential solution to our energy crisis is solar power. If solar energy is sufficiently utilized within the Earth's atmosphere we could meet all our Earthly energy demands, and the same solar technology could be used in space. In fact, solar power is more readily attainable in space because in space the sun's energy is unaffected by the day/night cycle and atmospheric filtering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power

That is a nice solution for exploring our own solar system. However, once we have a spacecraft (like New Horizons) that is going past Neptune, into the Kuiper belt, and beyond, then that spacecraft is too far from the sun. How is such a distant spacecraft supposed to get energy?

I do not see any immediate solution to this problem, so it is doubtful we will have any spacecrafts go past the Kuiper belt in our lifetime. We will just have spacecrafts in our own solar system that our proximal to our star, the sun.

One proposed solution to this problem is utilizing mini-black holes, which might potentially be a feasible way of getting a spacecraft outside of our solar system and to the nearest star: Proxima Centauri.

http://io9.com/5391989/a-black-hole-engine-that-could-power-spaceships

It will probably be several centuries before this sort of alternative energy is technologically feasible. We will all be long dead before then. Besides that, it will probably take a lifetime (60+ yrs) to travel to Proxima Centauri and it is doubtful humans will be able to go along for the trip. Then even if a robotic spacecraft makes the trip there, it will still take a minimum of four years just to communicate back to Earth! In conclusion, don't get your hopes up.


Also, what are your views on aliens, and should we come across them how should we treat them.

The elements that make up life (HCON) are abundant in the universe, it is likely life has evolved somewhere outside of our solar system, however, it is probably microscopic bacteria, so even if there is life outside of our solar system, I don't see how we are going to be able to detect it since it will likely be extremely small.

If there is extraterrestrial life such as bacteria, I see no reason we should treat them differently then lifeforms on Earth.

[Belisarius]

i don't think we should speculate too much about colonizing space, since it is extremely unpractical. first you need a planet with an atmosphere, some gravity and a magnetic field, since otherwise we will suffocate (without oxygen supply), our bones and muscles will deteriorate (since it is maintained by gravitational force) and we will be fried due to cosmic radiation. i know some people think we can turn Mars in a planet similar to earth, but this process will take hundreds or even thousands of years.

if we then find a planet which has all the qualities we want, then we still need to get their, which is a horrible task. we got to the moon, which is at a distance of 384,403 kilometres. Mars is 0.6 AU away from earth (1 AU=149,597,871 kilometres).

[Kléber]

We can alter planets eventually. By redirecting the orbit of, say, ice moons, and having them smash into somewhere. I definitely think we need to get out there and figure out a backup planet in case this one gets hit. Our sun could prematurely go out. Gamma rays could also terminate us pretty effectively. There could even be anaerobic star-eating creatures, and we wouldn't want to get eaten by those. So space travel is a must. It would not be very cost effective to transport resources to earth, unless we had space elevators set up, but it would probably be cheaper for the whole human race to move to a new planet and start destroying that once this one's finished. Of course yes that is not something on the agenda right now for revolutionaries or bourgeois. Although the return to a multipolar world has been encouraging imperialists to renew the space race lately :O

[Dean]

A kinda random post but here I go:
Once like the revolution is complete and we are all free, equal, etc. do you see humanity spreading into space - as surely with everything under common ownership etc. and hopefully scientists working together for a common goal it is an achievable aim, I belive.
So do you think we should spread across the Universe, should it be possible, and do you think that a human civilisation spanning the stars is thesiable.
Also, what are your views on aliens, and should we come across them how should we treat them.

I think the possibility is feasible. But the amount of resources required, in addition to technological progress, would be enormous. I don't see this as something to expect, or even generally work for, in the near future.

[Tablo]

Some day maybe, but I feel like we will all be dead before we get the opportunity. We would certainly have more resources invested into such alternatives post-capitalism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think the possibility is feasible. But the amount of resources required, in addition to technological progress, would be enormous. I don't see this as something to expect, or even generally work for, in the near future.

Really? I think the sooner we establish an independant foothold in space the better. Apart from survival arguments, such a presence in space has the potential to enormously enrich the Earth in the course of it's establishment, since it would require the knowledge and infrastructure to exploit the resources of the Solar System beyond Earth.

[Belisarius]

Really? I think the sooner we establish an independant foothold in space the better. Apart from survival arguments, such a presence in space has the potential to enormously enrich the Earth in the course of it's establishment, since it would require the knowledge and infrastructure to exploit the resources of the Solar System beyond Earth.
i wouldn't expect too much from resources from the solar system. most planets are made up of helium, hydrogen and methane, hardly chemicals we don't already have enough of.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i wouldn't expect too much from resources from the solar system. most planets are made up of helium, hydrogen and methane, hardly chemicals we don't already have enough of.

Planets were not the primary sources of energy and materials that I was thinking of. Asteroids are far more numerous, have more of the kind of resources that would be useful to a spaceborne society, and are far less expensive to mine in terms of energy - for a start, you don't have to drag it out of a massive gravity well.

[Dean]

Really? I think the sooner we establish an independant foothold in space the better. Apart from survival arguments, such a presence in space has the potential to enormously enrich the Earth in the course of it's establishment, since it would require the knowledge and infrastructure to exploit the resources of the Solar System beyond Earth.

I think that just looking at the enormous amount that needs to be done to expand comprehensive, resource-intensive medical procedures to a wider constituency exhibits how much work we need to do on earth before applying those resources outwardly to space.

That is not to say that I think we should cease research into the subject; indeed I think all sciences which serve distinct human interests should be constantly researched. But I think research should primarily focus on the expansion and quality of the medical field, and resources should definitely go there first, in addition to other basic life-sustaining industries. Remember that we don't just have to level the playing field for the first worlders, but also rigorously provide industrialization to the third world in an autonomy-preserving fashion. This is a daunting task, but also one which requires a lot of resources and tactful political maneuvering.

Simply put, until the proletariat, lumpen proletariat and third-worlders have been able to reach an equitable state of industrial production and consumption, as well as control, we are facing a task which requires huge resources, and we can't even rely on western-centric modes of production and distribution - it won't be as efficient to provide industrial capabilities to developing nations rather than simply providing broader distribution, but this is the only way to execute a vast assimilative socialist structure, while actively maintaining a socialist mode of worker control. And again, this will take a lot of time, material and production.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think that just looking at the enormous amount that needs to be done to expand comprehensive, resource-intensive medical procedures to a wider constituency exhibits how much work we need to do on earth before applying those resources outwardly to space.

Indeed, I consider it a necessary step.


That is not to say that I think we should cease research into the subject; indeed I think all sciences which serve distinct human interests should be constantly researched. But I think research should primarily focus on the expansion and quality of the medical field, and resources should definitely go there first, in addition to other basic life-sustaining industries.

Extraterrestrial colonisation and resource exploitaiton is a life-sustaining industry.


Remember that we don't just have to level the playing field for the first worlders, but also rigorously provide industrialization to the third world in an autonomy-preserving fashion. This is a daunting task, but also one which requires a lot of resources and tactful political maneuvering.

What do you mean by "provide industrialisation" exactly? Do you mean right now or in some hypothetical future society?


Simply put, until the proletariat, lumpen proletariat and third-worlders have been able to reach an equitable state of industrial production and consumption, as well as control, we are facing a task which requires huge resources, and we can't even rely on western-centric modes of production and distribution - it won't be as efficient to provide industrial capabilities to developing nations rather than simply providing broader distribution, but this is the only way to execute a vast assimilative socialist structure, while actively maintaining a socialist mode of worker control. And again, this will take a lot of time, material and production.

That's simply put?! :lol:

I don't think I understand your meaning. "Third-world countries" are not all lacking in technical expertise, and if they can't or won't get it from each other, I have no objection to them approaching the "first world" for assistance given freely.

As for material respources and energy, many "third-world countries" are actually lacking in neither, but they see little or no benefit because it's more or less exported abroad.

[Dean]

Extraterrestrial colonisation and resource exploitaiton is a life-sustaining industry.
Perhaps, but it's life sustaining character does not have the immediacy which other industries, such as agriculture and land-based transport do.


What do you mean by "provide industrialisation" exactly? Do you mean right now or in some hypothetical future society?
A future socialist society. I don't expect the present power structures to willingly shift their focus.



That's simply put?! :lol:

I don't think I understand your meaning. "Third-world countries" are not all lacking in technical expertise, and if they can't or won't get it from each other, I have no objection to them approaching the "first world" for assistance given freely.

As for material respources and energy, many "third-world countries" are actually lacking in neither, but they see little or no benefit because it's more or less exported abroad.
Third world countries typically have weaker educational systems, with less focus on advanced industrial systems. This is a result of the material conditions of these societies, and I really don't see how there can be any honest debate on this issue.

I think it is incredibly evident that an uneven distribution of expertise and ability to manage these industries would lead to unequal control of the means of production, and its pretty obvious what comes from that. The industrialized world absolutely has a responsibility to help fledgling economies, but the production forces must at least gradually shift towards localized control by the same population wherein the industry acts.

I think it is incredibly obvious that if all the old national and economic identities (borders) continue to represent the same population which is largely in control of the advanced industry, we will see the same nationalist destabilization occur, perhaps much more acutely, under a new regime which would have egalitarian distribution, but not production.

One of the primary goals of any new socialist regime is an aggressive push towards material conditions, not just political organization, which provides for populist control of the means of production.

Thisis a daunting task. And it definitely will take a large amount of material resources and labor. In turn, the resources necessary for successful space flight and colonization are, at least for the foreseeable future, much better spent on immediately beneficial production.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Perhaps, but it's life sustaining character does not have the immediacy which other industries, such as agriculture and land-based transport do.

In the long term they do, and long-term thinking is currently in pretty short supply, and desperately needed.


A future socialist society. I don't expect the present power structures to willingly shift their focus.

In that case, if we exploit the riches of the Solar system we'll have so much more we can give them. In fact, I think a better idea would be to give such countries/regions the means to exploit the Solar system's riches for themselves, without handouts from us. Both South America and Africa have more than their fair share of the worse-off, but both of them have many locations on the Equator, the ideal spot (actually a circle) for a spaceport or space elevator. Further, a spaceport/space elevator on Borneo would enrich South East Asia immensely.


Third world countries typically have weaker educational systems, with less focus on advanced industrial systems. This is a result of the material conditions of these societies, and I really don't see how there can be any honest debate on this issue.

But people from such countries are not stupid, and I don't think it will put us out too much to provide schools/universities and/or scholarships if that's what they want.


I think it is incredibly evident that an uneven distribution of expertise and ability to manage these industries would lead to unequal control of the means of production, and its pretty obvious what comes from that. The industrialized world absolutely has a responsibility to help fledgling economies, but the production forces must at least gradually shift towards localized control by the same population wherein the industry acts.

Which won't happen if we give it to them on a plate as opposed to giving them the means to do so for themselves. If they have a decent education system and control of their own resources and political destiny, I think they'll manage.


I think it is incredibly obvious that if all the old national and economic identities (borders) continue to represent the same population which is largely in control of the advanced industry, we will see the same nationalist destabilization occur, perhaps much more acutely, under a new regime which would have egalitarian distribution, but not production.

Again, I don't see how this conflicts with industrial expansion into space - if anything, such a thing would help because we would have no need to steal or swindle others' resources.


One of the primary goals of any new socialist regime is an aggressive push towards material conditions, not just political organization, which provides for populist control of the means of production.

Thisis a daunting task. And it definitely will take a large amount of material resources and labor.

Which "third-world countries" have no shortage of.


In turn, the resources necessary for successful space flight and colonization are, at least for the foreseeable future, much better spent on immediately beneficial production.

Sounds equivalent to being stuck in a strange city for a night and spending one's money early on a meal at an expensive fancy resturaunt instead of buying a train ticket home, if you get my meaning.

In other words, resources on Earth are limited (at least for industrial societies), but resources in space are unlimited. If we (that is, the human species) expend all our resources feathering our cradle without getting out there in a practical manner, we will sink all back into medieval idiocy at best, and eventually become extinct with certainty.

[Tifosi]

Well if you want to life like we do here on earth you will have to spend a hell of a lot of time looking for the right planet or moon. Then you will have to travel a few million years to get there. You would have to find a planet or moon with an Atmosphere, Water, a sun in the right place, gravity to name a few things. All a bit pointless when we have it all here.

Then where are you going to get all the materials to start up a new earth? The earth of course so you will have transport everything. And what will this do to the earth? As we can see the amount of things we have taking out of our planet hasn't been to good on it. We will have to take stuff out of our earth at a massive scale which won't be good.*


You get the people who talk about the sun dieing and in the process growing. It will eat up Mercury and Venus (life has fuck all chance on those planets so they can die:p). Those people need to get a life, the sun has around 3 billion years left, humans will be finished before that, something will have killed us off by then. Mabye all life will been gone by then, who knows?


Modern humans demand substantial amounts of energy to power their cars, computers, cellphones, web servers, etc. Once we have effectively secured our Earthly energy demands then we can start looking to space because ultimately spacecrafts need energy too.

The sun always shines in space, but that is the only form of energy you will find in space. Oil is made from animals that died thousands of years ago and have been pushed down over time to form oil. You don't have life anywhere else so you won't get oil. There is only water here on earth, so you won't get wave power. No wind so...


I think the sooner we establish an independant foothold in space the better

Capitalism would love it, a new world to use and all that.

We will only get a foothold on the moon, what good will that be? A dieing sun will still cook us, a blackhole will still eat us up.

Some people have said that the moon will a stepping stone towards Mars, that is like flying from Ireland to New Zealand and using your back garden as a stepping stone. Great idea.


i wouldn't expect too much from resources from the solar system. most planets are made up of helium, hydrogen and methane, hardly chemicals we don't already have enough of.

All the gases plants are good for sweet f all. They can't store anything, can't build on them, can't take anything from them. They just look nice.


Asteroids are far more numerous

There is a theory that Asteroids where the source of Earth's water is there not?


That is not to say that I think we should cease research into the subject; indeed I think all sciences which serve distinct human interests should be constantly researched.

Of course

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well if you want to life like we do here on earth you will have to spend a hell of a lot of time looking for the right planet or moon.

Who says life has to be the same? As long as it's safe and comfortable, it's acceptable, surely?


Then you will have to travel a few million years to get there. You would have to find a planet or moon with an Atmosphere, Water, a sun in the right place, gravity to name a few things. All a bit pointless when we have it all here.

That's only if you want to live on an Earth-like planet. But we have the ability to create a comfortable environment in space, and the potential to alter and/or augment our biology to survive better in the native environment.


Then where are you going to get all the materials to start up a new earth?

We don't have to set up a new Earth. As for materials, space has plenty of them, and are easier to access than on Earth; once you're in orbit you're half-way to anywhere.


The earth of course so you will have transport everything.

Only at first.


And what will this do to the earth?

In the short term, some environmental damage is inevitable, as with all large-scale human activities. But in the longer term, it means we're depleting less of the Earth's resources and causing less pollution and other environmental damage (particularly mining).


As we can see the amount of things we have taking out of our planet hasn't been to good on it. We will have to take stuff out of our earth at a massive scale which won't be good.*

The Earth contains a tiny fraction of the solar system's mass, most it being out of reach due to being hundreds of kilometres below ground. But in space you only have to extract it from asteroids and comets (which have negligable gravity) or moons, which are all less massive than the Earth by a significant amount.

We only have to set up one mining operation with the ability to create another using resources gathered from space, and the project can sustain itself from then. When it's large enough, they'll have the ability to undertake infrastructure building without material help from Earth.


You get the people who talk about the sun dieing and in the process growing. It will eat up Mercury and Venus (life has fuck all chance on those planets so they can die:p). Those people need to get a life, the sun has around 3 billion years left, humans will be finished before that, something will have killed us off by then.

Yes, something which we have the potential ability to avoid by doubling our chances (at the absolute minimum) and spreading out from Earth into space and other planetary bodies.


Mabye all life will been gone by then, who knows?

Why don't we try and live long enough to find out?


The sun always shines in space, but that is the only form of energy you will find in space. Oil is made from animals that died thousands of years ago and have been pushed down over time to form oil. You don't have life anywhere else so you won't get oil. There is only water here on earth, so you won't get wave power. No wind so...

Actually, the outer Solar System contains plenty of hydrocarbons, as do some asteroids and all comets. Since we'll be literally taking our shit with us, we can also derive hydrocarbons (or at least methane) from our sewage. Other rocky bodies will have fissionables such as uranium and thorium, at least in the inner Solar System.

Then there is fusion, if we can get it to work. More speculatively, covering Mercury in solar panels built with local materials will give us enough energy to manufacture antimatter, or more likely, beam it elsewhere.


Capitalism would love it, a new world to use and all that.

Really? They don't seem all that interested. I think they're too short-sighted.


We will only get a foothold on the moon, what good will that be? A dieing sun will still cook us, a blackhole will still eat us up.

Firstly, the Sun isn't massive enough to become a black hole; it will swell up into a red giant and throw off its outer layers (changing the solar system in the process) leaving a white-hot cinder called a white dwarf that will glow for about a trillion years, fading slowly. By the time that happens, we will not be there - but our descendants will, if we get into space.


Some people have said that the moon will a stepping stone towards Mars, that is like flying from Ireland to New Zealand and using your back garden as a stepping stone. Great idea.

No it isn't. Your analogy is completely broken; a stone doesn't even have any motive power.


All the gases plants are good for sweet f all. They can't store anything, can't build on them, can't take anything from them. They just look nice.

Not true. Their atmosphere contain a cocktail of useful chemicals as well as fusion fuel. Structures can be supported by balloons or aerostats.


There is a theory that Asteroids where the source of Earth's water is there not?

It was more likely to be comets, since they're composed mostly of ice.

[Tifosi]

Who says life has to be the same? As long as it's safe and comfortable, it's acceptable, surely?

Why move away from Earth to something worse, even if it is "safe and comfortable"?


That's only if you want to live on an Earth-like planet. But we have the ability to create a comfortable environment in space, and the potential to alter and/or augment our biology to survive better in the native environment.

I think a lot of people would want to life on an Earth like planet, with Trees, Rivers, Hills, Weather etc. I'm sure your right when you say we could could make a comfortable life for ourself's on the moon but I really doubt it will be*
better than Earth, we could life in volts or something.

Altering our biology? I'll belivie (spelling, sorry) it when I see it.


We don't have to set up a new Earth. As for materials, space has plenty of them, and are easier to access than on Earth; once you're in orbit you're half-way to anywhere.

Space has many materials and yes some will be easy to access, but many are not. Some will be on other planets, you have to land, find the right place, set up everything then start digging. Also things move in space, smaller objects like comets will be hard to get hold of as it will very hard to land on them.


In the short term, some environmental damage is inevitable, as with all large-scale human activities. But in the longer term, it means we're depleting less of the Earth's resources and causing less pollution and other environmental damage (particularly mining).

That depends greatly on what people in the future do or don't do.


We only have to set up one mining operation with the ability to create another using resources gathered from space, and the project can sustain itself from then. When it's large enough, they'll have the ability to undertake infrastructure building without material help from Earth.

I can see that working


Why don't we try and live long enough to find out?

We sure as hell won't life that long :lol:


Really? They don't seem all that interested. I think they're too short-sighted.

They would love new materials to use from other planets,


*Firstly, the Sun isn't massive enough to become a black hole; it will swell up into a red giant and throw off its outer layers (changing the solar system in the process) leaving a white-hot cinder called a white dwarf that will glow for about a trillion years, fading slowly. By the time that happens, we will not be there - but our descendants will, if we get into space.

If humans keep moving out into space we will increase the risk of running it to some scary sci-fi shit. Also what is stopping a black hole coming into our galaxy? It would eat up the sun to would it not?


Not true. Their atmosphere contain a cocktail of useful chemicals as well as fusion fuel. Structures can be supported by balloons or aerostats.

How will these gases be taking out of the atmosphere?