Our next step out?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I was thinking of our next step into the Great Dark, and it appeared to me that there were the following options:

1) Return to the Moon. We have some experience with this option, and Luna is the closest major body with valuable materials such Helium-3 (useful if we get nuclear fusion going) and Titanium.

2) Mission to Mars. Will give us valuable information about actually travelling in interplanetary space and supporting human life on Mars. The more we know about Mars the better.

3) Asteroid Retrieval Mission. Certain asteroids are rich in valuable and useful materials, and bringing one within an easily exploitable distance or returning with significant amounts of such materials would be a massive boon to the world's resources and tell us much about asteroid geology.

4) Establish a Habitat. Work to build a truly independant human presence, either in Earth orbit, one of the Earth-Moon Lagrange points (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_point), in a near-Earth orbit around the Sun, or in one of the Sun-Earth Lagrange points. In-situ resource utilization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-situ_resource_utilization) including Asteroid Colonies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_asteroids) will provide plenty of materials.

5) Something Else. That's all I can think of, maybe you've a different mission in mind.

Personally I'm partial to the Asteroid Retrieval Mission, but I can see the merits of the other options. What do you think?

[F9]

Definitely mission to mars!Cant wait to establish Anarchism-Communism on the red planet!;)
We would establish our world there and by time all will move from earth to the red planet!:thumbup:
Seriously now(i mean more seriously) a mission to the unknown is always better, which can give you a lot more things!!They might be useless but they are a lot new things!;)

Fuserg9:star:

[Plagueround]

Realistically, I think more missions to the moon or Mars are likely to come first, but I'd like to see a genuine habitat, either colonized planets or orbital. I've been told one of the major hurdles we would have to figure out ways to make such a place either imitate Earth's gravity or adapt our bodies to space and new planets...otherwise healthy babies are a problem. (Anyone know any sources on that, or do I just watch too much sci-fi? :D)

Asteroid retrieval would be a great "Malthus buster" too...so many good choices!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Realistically, I think more missions to the moon or Mars are likely to come first, but I'd like to see a genuine habitat, either colonized planets or orbital. I've been told one of the major hurdles we would have to figure out ways to make such a place either imitate Earth's gravity or adapt our bodies to space and new planets...otherwise healthy babies are a problem. (Anyone know any sources on that, or do I just watch too much sci-fi? :D)

It shouldn't be too much of a problem on Mars, which has 1/3rd of the Earth's gravity.

[swirling_vortex]

It shouldn't be too much of a problem on Mars, which has 1/3rd of the Earth's gravity.
But then you have other problems to factor such as muscle strength and bone density. What would happen if someone that was born either in zero-g or on Mars wanted to return to Earth? Their physical structure might be too weak to withstand the increased gravity. Even astronauts have to exercise daily in space in order to stay fit.

But yes, I do see trips to the moon and Mars as the first step. Colonization might still be a ways off.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But then you have other problems to factor such as muscle strength and bone density. What would happen if someone that was born either in zero-g or on Mars wanted to return to Earth? Their physical structure might be too weak to withstand the increased gravity. Even astronauts have to exercise daily in space in order to stay fit.

Well, isn't that a good argument for option 4? A permanent, independant colony would be large enough to make artificial gravity through rotation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity#Rotation) viable.

Of course, it's also an argument for human genetic modification, which I definately support.

[mikelepore]

I'm skeptical of #3. Thousands of dollars per kilogram just to get some mass in and out of earth orbit, not including the travel all the way to the asteroid belt. After all that expense, the asteroids are mostly the same silicon that we have in the earth's crust and the same iron that we have in the earth's mantle.

[butterfly]

No.4 sounds romantic. It's actually one of the solutions proposed by radical environmentalists to solve over population and climate change.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm skeptical of #3. Thousands of dollars per kilogram just to get some mass in and out of earth orbit, not including the travel all the way to the asteroid belt. After all that expense, the asteroids are mostly the same silicon that we have in the earth's crust and the same iron that we have in the earth's mantle.

There are asteroids in Near-Earth and Earthcrossing orbits that will be easier to reach than the Asteroid Belt.

[Knight of Cydonia]

establish a habitat in an asteroid would be fun:)
but the disadvantage of low gravity would be a serious problem, i know that we have invented the articial gravity but what if the A-G doesn't solve the gravity problem? and the availability of solar energy is also low, so can any plant survive with the less sunlight?

[Glenn Beck]

Three, then Four. By then we'll probably have enough knowledge and technology to make visiting the moon worth our time, and then we can make the jump to Mars from a more shallow gravity well.

Priorities people! Getting a viable economy going in space through habitats and resource extraction would be ideal

[mikelepore]

There are asteroids in Near-Earth and Earthcrossing orbits that will be easier to reach than the Asteroid Belt.

They're closer, but traveling about 70,000 km/hour relative to the earth. The cost of space travel is for speeding up and slowing down. Coasting at any constant velocity, and for any distance, is free. You pay for the fuel four times -- on the way there, to accelerate at the beginning and then to decelerate at the end -- and on the way home, to accelerate at the beginning and then to decelerate at the end. The cost of each of these four steps is proportional to the mass at that moment. During the return trip home, you need fuel to accelerate a lot of additional mass, the cargo. Then the first half of the trip must also have more mass, because on your way there you have to carry the fuel for the trip home. I would be surprised if the cargo is worth the fuel consumption.

[casper]

solar sail? might help in lowering fuel. ion engines maby as well. be cool if we could ever get a teleporting or such technology.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

They're closer, but traveling about 70,000 km/hour relative to the earth.

Wouldn't that figure depend on the asteroid in question?


The cost of space travel is for speeding up and slowing down. Coasting at any constant velocity, and for any distance, is free. You pay for the fuel four times -- on the way there, to accelerate at the beginning and then to decelerate at the end -- and on the way home, to accelerate at the beginning and then to decelerate at the end. The cost of each of these four steps is proportional to the mass at that moment. During the return trip home, you need fuel to accelerate a lot of additional mass, the cargo. Then the first half of the trip must also have more mass, because on your way there you have to carry the fuel for the trip home. I would be surprised if the cargo is worth the fuel consumption.That's why you save on lugging unnecessary fuel by fabricating as much infrastructure as possible out of materials available on the asteroid in question, and use a solar-powered mass driver (using slag and spoil and/or other waste materials from the mining process as propellant) to bring the asteroid or mined materials back to Earth.

Of course, I'm not a rocket scientist, so maybe they'll have a better idea of how to go about it.

But even an asteroid as small as 1km would provide a massive boon to Earth's economy, and potentially kick-start the development of a decent orbital manufacturing capability.

[Circle E Society]

the habitat option seems good because it can help hear learning about renewable energy and resources!

[Killfacer]

The only way to defeat the alien menace is with the colonisation of space by the ISDF (International Space Defence Federation).

Seriously though, i picked habitat. It would be the biggest step forward or it might just be because the boy in me thinks it would be cool.

[piet11111]

establish a colony on the moon from there build a ship capable of going to mars with stuff found on the moon and from there establish a colony on mars.

a lunar colony would allow us to build a much bigger ship because of the lower gravity it could take off with less effort.

and i consider it important for the ship to be as big as possible so that enough resources can be brought along to be used in establishing a proper colony on mars with all the machines and resources needed to tide the colonists over until they are able to get resources from mars itself.

[Yazman]

I voted for a mission to mars as I think there are enough resources being devoted to exploring it at the moment already to justify the "logical next step" which would be sending humans there, equipped with as many resources as possible to bring back samples and conduct research while there, of course.

[piet11111]

the logical step would be a colony on the moon its much closer so if something goes wrong we can do something in a meaningful time-frame.
and we would be able to try stuff out before committing ourselves to a specific plan and hoping for the best.

and if we are to build the spaceship to mars on the moon or in orbit around the earth we could build it much bigger so that the astronauts have more living space and can bring along much more stuff.

[Yazman]

But we are discussing hypotheticals here (I think, correct me if I'm wrong in saying that), the colony on the moon is already in the process of being established with construction projected for 2020, I believe.

[piet11111]

But we are discussing hypotheticals here (I think, correct me if I'm wrong in saying that), the colony on the moon is already in the process of being established with construction projected for 2020, I believe.

i recall Bush calling for a manned mission to mars.

[Yazman]

Interesting. Could you potentially provide a link for that?

We are perhaps closer to a habitat in space than we may think.

[TheCagedLion]

I remember reading in a danish science magazine, called Illustrated Science, how some scientists had thought of terraforming Mars - using bacteria specially designed to live off the specific contents of Mars' atmosphere, and producing CO2 in the process.

Although this process would take a considerable amount of time, I still see it as a feasible solution to make Mars our first "new earth", if we don't screw up our first one too soon that is...

[piet11111]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4551-bush-to-announce-manned-mission-to-mars.html

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I remember reading in a danish science magazine, called Illustrated Science, how some scientists had thought of terraforming Mars - using bacteria specially designed to live off the specific contents of Mars' atmosphere, and producing CO2 in the process.

Although this process would take a considerable amount of time, I still see it as a feasible solution to make Mars our first "new earth", if we don't screw up our first one too soon that is...

Even if we were to somehow start right now, by the time Mars would be inhabitable without technological assistance we would have had enough time to do all the missions I mentioned and a bit more besides.

Of course, I'm in favour of terraforming Mars, I just don't see it as a short-term option.

Whatever we decide to do, we really need to develop a space elevator and/or a decent Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Lift_Launch_Vehicle) if we're to achieve anything meaningful within our lifetimes.

[Sarah Palin]

I voted to "establish a habitat," but the habitat I voted for would be something similar to the Mcmurdo base in Antarctica, on the moon. Of course an orbiting habitat would be cool as well.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Even if we were to somehow start right now, by the time Mars would be inhabitable without technological assistance we would have had enough time to do all the missions I mentioned and a bit more besides.

Of course, I'm in favour of terraforming Mars, I just don't see it as a short-term option.

Whatever we decide to do, we really need to develop a space elevator and/or a decent Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Lift_Launch_Vehicle) if we're to achieve anything meaningful within our lifetimes.
Good points here, especially about the space elevator. Relying on rocket-based technology is largely backward and inefficient when taking into consideration the incredible amount of materials and resources we would need to be taking with us if humans are to establish colonies in space.

I voted mission to mars because moon colonization/other return missions are already in the early planning stages. So the next step would be Mars, as it is important to begin establishing a settlement there facilitating the eventual large scale colonization of Mars. We need to have sufficient knowledge about how to sustain life on Mars by using the abundant useful resources that are on the planet itself, as well as developing ways to build up the atmosphere of Mars so it can heat up and eventually be terraformed.

[Dr Mindbender]

I voted mission to Mars but i would also love to see a manned mission to the Jupiter system. Even with current technology it's do-able.

Maybe a ten or twelve year round trip? I would go.

[More Fire for the People]

In my wildest dreams I'd like to see a continually occupied moon habitat in 15 years and a mars mission in 20, a civilian colony on the moon in 25 and martian one in 30.:drool:

[Glorious Union]

Mars has an atmosphere of 95% CO2. Find a reliable heat source (or a plant that can withstand -45 degrees Clecius) and we can easily live on the red planet. I wonder if changing the atmosphere's content to oxygen will heat it up a bit more.

[NecroCommie]

Some primitive form of terraforming should be started immediately in mars. I read in a local science paper, that NASA has developed initial plans for a terraforming project on mars, that would render the planet hospitable in just a thousand years.

They would plant genemanipulated bacteria upon the surface of mars. These bacteria are designed to resist high levels of radiation, and to produce high levels of oxygen and hydrogen out of the materials found on Mars. the magazine did not specify the exact chemical reactions needed for such things, but it did claim it to be possible in the near future?

The second stage would be to assist evolution in creating multicellular creatures. This would be done by choosing the right place for these bacteria to be planted. They are to be placed on a site in which it is favorable for the bacteria to co-operate. Also they would be exposed to mutagen virus with the genome favourable to simple multicellular life. After this initial stage the life on mars would start to evolve by itself, and during this evolution the life would spread rapidly (for it was manipulated to feed an martian substances) and thus produce vast amounts of oxygen and hydrogen. After several centuries Mars would have some simple plant life and a atmosphere of sorts.

With similar efforts the process would be manipulated to produce earth-like atmosphere (with mars it is impossible to get completely hospitable atmosphere due to low gravitation), and a soil capable of sustaining agriculture. Humans would still need to cover themselves from radiation, and the atmospheric preassure would be too low for unprotected colonisation. However, according to the plan in the magazine, it would be possible to colonize largely within thousand years.

[Black Sheep]

More planets for us to work our asses off to revolutionize.

[Dr Mindbender]

More planets for us to work our asses off to revolutionize.

I dont think we'll be likely to see a permanent civillian habitat on any other planet in our lifetime.

I wouldnt lose any sleep over it.

[Yazman]

I dont think we'll be likely to see a permanent civillian habitat on any other planet in our lifetime.

I wouldnt lose any sleep over it.

There's a small chance we might. Plans for a permanent habitat on the moon by 2020 are already in motion.

[More Fire for the People]

I doubt NASA will realize those funds seeing as NASA gets a budget of 17 billion compared to the several more billions it would take.

[Dr Mindbender]

There's a small chance we might. Plans for a permanent habitat on the moon by 2020 are already in motion.

The logistical effort in building a permanent colony on Mars will make lunar colonisation seem like a picnic. The moon is only 300 000 km away. Mars is usually in the order of 60 million km from Earth.

With current technology, it takes 8 months to a year to reach Mars. A manned vessel will probably take longer again due to it being invariably more massive and requiring more thrust. I remember reading somewhere that just a manned return excursion to Mars would cost in the order of $500 billion.

[Hit The North]

Humanity's next step out should be to step out of class society and into a truly human society. :cool:

[Killfacer]

Humanity's next step out should be to step out of class society and into a truly human society. :cool:

Yawn.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Humanity's next step out should be to step out of class society and into a truly human society. :cool:

Yeah, but where to? ;)

[Dr Mindbender]

Humanity's next step out should be to step out of class society and into a truly human society. :cool:

*attacks btb with peashooter*

that killed my techno-hard on. Not cool.

[Wtf]

I voted for asteroid retrieval mission. We could definately use resources from it.

Moving to a new planet would be pretty cool too. But I like Earth, as it is a beautiful planet. :)