Mojlnir Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 This debate thread is starting in response to a discussion that is in its infancy in another thread in this section. Ancalagon and others are tip-toeing around the topic of human colonization of other worlds. So, let's dance. What does everyone think? Is is a good idea? A necessity? What are the technological problems? Is it realistic to assume that humans can rise to the challenge? Anybody who has done some research on this topic, please feel free to add your knowledge to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikeman85 Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 Absolutely necessary with the population increasing like it is. The technology required to do so will be incredible and will be very expensive. It will also be several decades before we have any sort of way to do any sort of largescale migration to either the moon or mars, although I suspect it will take longer than that. Personally, I'm again betting on nanotechnology to be able to do the required work needed before we can establish space colonies, but that could still take centuries to truly terraform. Personally we should send some lichen to mars asap imo, and a large transport of soil, and a great tank of water, with some heat source. This should allow a decent amount of life to start growing. But oh well, that's just an opinion of mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon Posted December 5, 2003 Share Posted December 5, 2003 I wanted to thank Mojlnir for starting this thread. Sooo...Thanks :D I also will transfer what I said in the Immortality thread to here, so I can add to this and get the proverbial 'ball rolling' for this discusion. It would seem that at the rate NASA is moving, the projection for the first manned visit to Mars would be in either 2075 or 2100. They moved it from 2025 because of poor budget planning, spending, and poor foresight of the cost of their projects. We need an International program which combines the efforts of multiple nations in establishing off-planet colonies and building better ships to traverse the stars with. It can be done (colonization of Mars and Moon) within our lifetime, the International community just needs to join in a massive project to get us off of here. I would think that we could have a colony on the moon by 2055 or even earlier at 2030 if we worked hard enough. I would like to hear some responses to this idea or suggestions, if anyone is interested. Also, I think that we should not terraform Mars before we go there, but terraform it while we are on that planet. In the long run, we would have a solid permanent colony striving to make Mars the Earth-like planet it was long long ago and they would be bale to survive if the Earth was somehow renderd un-hospitable for all life. And Pikeman, I would like to learn more about nanotechnology, I have heard of it, but I still know very little about it. Thanks -A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albareth Posted December 6, 2003 Share Posted December 6, 2003 Does it really matter? The problem is that for all the billions on earth we'd have to spend massive amount of cash/workhours per each one that we wanted to transport and build accomidations for living at the new planet. Where does that money come from? Corporations. If and only IF we manage to build technology like this it will be the rich and elite that go, leaving the rest of us behind. Just my pessimistic two cents, carry on... ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loveme4whoiam Posted December 6, 2003 Share Posted December 6, 2003 I've always been a stargazer, and i'd love for it to happen in my lifetime. However, i think it unlikely. I'm interested in what Ancalagon said (i havent read the other thread so forgive me if i miss a bit) about sending stuff to Mars to grow. My knowledge of biology is limited to a GCSE (thats the end of high school for everyone else) level, but wouldnt it need some kind of guidance? I mean, loads of stuff lying there is not exactly start anything. Perhaps if they started to actually grow something in the soil, then transported it to Mars, perhaps Darwin's rules would take effect. I don't know.Im also interested in learning about nanotechnology - all i know of it is that Seven of Nine has some inside her, so they must be good for the world :D Does anyone have any links they could add on here? I'm a real tech-addict, and anything you could point me to would be nice.The International Planetary Colonisation Program (if NASA use that they'll have the biggest law suit in the WORLD on their hands) would be a cool idea: kind of like a United Earth thing... but then, if we beleived that, then Star Trek would come true (not necessarily a bad thing mind you). But no-one would really co-operate on the level it would require, so thats out.The end-of-the-world stuff is an issue, despite what most governments would have us believe (look, i'm don't think the moon landing was staged, im not a conspiracy nut, but its obvious to anyone with half a brain), so a stable colony would be a smart idea. To summarise (sorry if i'm a bit incoherent, i just got fired :bye: and am drowning my sorrows in beer and MWSource) we need a colonisation program, but we arent going to see one for a long time. Doesn't stop peolp elike us dreaming about it though, does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojlnir Posted December 6, 2003 Author Share Posted December 6, 2003 Okay, much of what people discuss when it comes to colonization is drawn from SF (Sci-Fi) because those writers seem to come up with the best ideas around. I found a site last night that was the report from a joint ESA (European Space Agency) and SF convention were they held discussions of possibilities for space travel and colonization. SF has a pretty decent grounding in fact, so it's a good a place as any to start.Now, as far as terraforming Mars is concerned I want to make a suggestion before I start spouting off. There is a trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson that dicusses this exact subject. The books are called Red Mars, Green Mars, and Blue Mars respectively. If you want to read something good, pick them up.Okay, the first step, as I understand it would be to introduce forms of genetically engineered mosses and lichens that could survive in the current Mars environment. This is not impossible, in fact nature already does something quite similar if you think of the worms and algae that live around deep-ocean vents. These mosses/lichens would be designed to live off of the hig concentrations of oxides present in Martian soil and their by product would oxygen gasses into the atmosphere.These "plants" will have to be extremely hardy because it appears that Mars has very high concentrations of what scientists are calling "superoxides" the closer you get to the ground. This is the result of extremely high oxide contents in the soil and unltraviolet radiation. The problem with these "superoxides" is that they are like the "free radicals" that doctors and health nuts are talking about as possible causes for cancer, they are like those but significantly more powerful. They literally destroy biological life. Some scientists are arguing that this may also be the reason that we have not discovered any trace of biota on Mars at all.Okay, so you have the little plants churning out O2, but the atmosphere is still thin to essentially non-existent. This is one case where green-house gasses are desperately needed. Fortunately they exist in mass quantities at both poles because Martian ice caps are made of frozen CO2. Automated machines that crawl across the surface of these caps melting them as they go would release massive amount of gasses to thicken the atmosphere and reduce the levels of ultra violet radiation and superoxides in the atmosphere.Lastly, we need to heat the planet up so we dig massive holes down a klick or two and let the planet heat itself back up. These holes would be like giant strip mines, only more tubular and possibly a kilometer across or more. The entire process could be automated, and we know we're already good at strip mining (sigh...) so its not impossible either.We could use nanotechnology to create all the machinery that was needed, as well as habitations for explorers and laborers. That way we would not have to ship large pieces of equipment there, just a lander full of nanomachines programed to build automated factories and more nanomachines to make large machines. There is plenty of silicon, iron, and magnesium there to support an automated construction process. Anyway, thats my take on it. What do you all think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faust870 Posted December 6, 2003 Share Posted December 6, 2003 Mars is the place we have in mind... And after mars the icey moon of jupitur... First we would need an atmosphere on mars, meaning we would probably have to nuke it several million times... Or send up gaint machines to kick up large amounts of dust... to eventually make an atmosphere... Its possible of course...but the money it would take...thats a different story For the icey moon.. Ice...= Water = Oxygen, so life is able to live there... (Note i saw all that i say on TLC) and by the time we are ready to start living on different planets, we will have GREATER technoligy... We would probably ahve to build air tight domes under the icey surface to live... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojlnir Posted December 7, 2003 Author Share Posted December 7, 2003 Faust, thanks for pointing out the moon of Jupiter as well, it's Ios isn't it? Thats the one where some scientists think there may be a liquid h2o ocean under the ice that may contain life right?As for Mars, I think both the possibilities suggested may prove too problematic to be tried. Nuclear weapons don't create atmosphere, they burn it off. That was the whole concern of "nuclear winter" during the cold war. Not only that, there is little point in adding to the high levels of radiation that are already present from the sun.As for dust, the shear amount that would have to be created would be prohibitive, not only in terms of machinery but also time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faust870 Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 Yes! Ios, thats it...Thanks :P.. Well i think the purpose of the nukes were so the hit...cause sending extreme amounts of dust into the air, slowly creating an atmosphere... The only thing i can really see with this technique... it the fact that the radiation left behind would prevent any life from surviving for a long period of time... Everyone would simply get radiation poisoning and die.... Perhaps we are doomed to stay on this earth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikeman85 Posted December 7, 2003 Share Posted December 7, 2003 Doomed to Earth = Doomed to death Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.