[Figlio di Moros]

Provoked a bit by Igor's thread, I was contemplating colonization of the Solar System earlier. With so many places viable for mining, terraforming, and settlement, and w/ the extent of technology as it exists today, it's a shame we aren't already stepping out into space. However, before we can colonize the trans-uranic space, we need to have a viable proposal for our expansion onto new worlds. Currently the focus is on Mars, which I agree is one viable option, but there's no reason it can't occur as part of a larger program; I'd suggest it more as part of a three pronged approach.

1- Mars. Enough said.
2- At the same time, we should establish a satellite around Venus and begin terraforming that planet. While it won't be viable anywhere in the near future, it has the most potential out of any planet, having the nearest gravity to Earth's and a thick atmosphere. Two problems facing Venus are the lack of hydrogen and a magnetosphere. Both problems will have to be addressed in order to convert it's CO2-rich atmosphere into breathable air, a magnetosphere necessary to protect against solar radiation. One proposed solution for it's dense, carbon-rich atmosphere has been the use of mass drivers to propel it's atmosphere into space; yet, hydrogen is abundant throughout the solar system and the universe, and mas drivers that propel hydrogen into Venus's atmosphere might make it more amenable to the long process of terraforming ahead of it. Another approach involves using magnesium and calcium to sequester carbond dioxide. One notable point is that Mercury has magnesium deposits, and viable space stations surrounding Venus could form a base for mining operations there, and would act in concert with hydrogen bombardment.
3- Finally, Ceres is unlikely to be terraformed, but could provide a viable base. It has large stores of water, and is strategically placed for two future goals- the mining of the Asteroid belt, and the exploration of the outer solar system. A base here is practically necessary for asteroid mining and the resources available, and could provide a hub for incipient voyages to Europa, Titan, and Callisto.

While we tend to focus on one proposal more than others, planning these three operations in concert would actual provide a larger scale for the technology necessary. They also have roughly equivalent windows, ranging from 15 months for Ceres to 25 months for Mars, with a 19 month window for Venus. Finally, they all provide different functions for expanding beyond earth. Mars would be the most immediate colony, providing us w/ much early experience terraforming and settling another planet, and, if we can figure out how to produce an artificial magnetosphere, a long-term habitat. Venus would provide another habitable planet, and very different terraforming challenges, but perhaps more hospitable in the long run, as well as form a trade-triangle w/ Mercury. Ceres, of course, provides us w/ resources and an outpost into the outer planets. All these experiences in concert will place us in a better position to continue moving outward.

[slybaldguy]

Where is the money going to come from to fund this?

[Figlio di Moros]

You're on the Technocracy subforum, please acquaint yourself w/ the basis of a post-scarcity society, or at least study MMT. The resources, human capital, and technology all exist, no more need be said.

[Igor Antunov]

Where is the money going to come from to fund this?

The Iraq/Afghan war funds.

I believe once we make space based resource collection profitable to any degree, however minor, we will be moving quickly towards a post-scarcity resource based economy. Having resources at hand up there, able to barge them around at little cost in the zero G vaccum, It will also allow us to build large structures in space, which would do wonders for deep space manned missions and colonisation attempts.

The asteroid belt just beyond Mars is awash in countless riches, and relatively close to us. One 50m sized rock would net any aspiring space miner copious metals and valuable gases, probably in the billions of dollars in worth. I can see them moving into the field, planting a few small retro rockets and nudging a nice rock into oribt around earth or even mars for exploitation. Ideally we could drill into these and build bases inside. Particularly useful in the harsh environment around Jupiter.

If we are to explore Europa further in and around the Jovian system, then we need safe, mobile habitats at hand. Hollowed out asteroids with thick rocky shells would provide the protection we so sorely need, and would save us so much energy. No need to build an elaborate shell, just drill.

The biggest hurdle is our inability to send stuff up for cheap. This would be addressed with either a space elevator or a space mining industry. I would go for the mining. We need earths resources for earth.

In time national and cultural sentiments will vanish. Probably would increasingly be born in zero g environments. Barring any long term health considerations, these people would be significantly different to earthlings and other planet-siders. Very tall, fragile and unable to operate in gravity ridden planetary environments, unless they wear exoskeletons. This could prompt the creation of independent habitat clusters, who would seek to monopolise the richest sectors of the solar system and as usual this breed conflict.

Such conflict would necessitate the creation of spacecraft designed for war. Ideally, due to the distances involved, it would be prudent to design very large carriers, or motherships, that would ferry smaller battlecraft around the system. I am assuming that Earth would seek to re-establish control of these rebel sectors. The strongest rebel groups would be led by the giant corporations that would arise from these space mining endeavours. With their access to the most lucrative markets on earth cut off, they would be fighting a defensive battle for survival. Their greatest weapon would be hurtling large asteroids at earth, but by now one assumes that earth would have an adequate planetary defence system.

Terraforming would come much later, both because it is easier to alter our own bodies to suit a particular envionrment (just don a spacesuit) and because change on such scales is time consuming, no matter your technological capability.

Once this initial period of tribal bickering ends and the solar system is unified into a single empire with a singular focus (you can forget democracy, population of up to 1 trillion people can't make one work, but I do envision small independent groups hiding in the vastness of space, or a very decentralised autonomous imperial regime), focus would shift to interstellar colonisation. Vast nuclear pulse propulsion starships would be built, perhaps coupled with cryogenic technologies that would harbor skeleton crews who would eventually oversee the seeding of far off habitable worlds with their cargo of human/animal gametes, plants and cloning capabilities. If we can make instant quantum communication work-exploiting photon entanglement, in a few millenia we will have a civilisation spanning a tiny stretch of the milky way galactic arm.

[Figlio di Moros]

I believe once we make space based resource collection profitable to any degree, however minor, we will be moving quickly towards a post-scarcity resource based economy. Having resources at hand up there, able to barge them around at little cost in the zero G vaccum, It will also allow us to build large structures in space, which would do wonders for deep space manned missions and colonisation attempts.

We have the potential for a PSS today, Igor. With all the existing technology- you know, LFTRs, MagLev, turbo-coolers, carbon fibers, 3D printers, net-positive housing, etc.,- what we lack is implementation and coordination. "Oh, it's too expensive to create a VacTrain system, we have to wait until they can bring the cost down." Yeah, because pumping half a trillion into the super conductor industry won't enable them to scale up quickly, drive down costs and drive up demand?

The asteroid belt just beyond Mars is awash in countless riches, and relatively close to us. One 50m sized rock would net any aspiring space miner copious metals and valuable gases, probably in the billions of dollars in worth. I can see them moving into the field, planting a few small retro rockets and nudging a nice rock into oribt around earth or even mars for exploitation. Ideally we could drill into these and build bases inside. Particularly useful in the harsh environment around Jupiter.

Hence my suggestion to invest in a permanent base on Ceres. It actually has a shorter window than Mars, and would be ideal both as a base of operations for mining asteroids and sending resources back to Earth, and later Mars and Venus as well, and also for sending missions to the outer Solar System. I'm sure mining techniques will improve w/ technology, plasma-drilling being more effective than mechanical drilling or explosives, but we'd have to wait for a decent power source. However, Ceres ought to be built up by then.

If we are to explore Europa further in and around the Jovian system, then we need safe, mobile habitats at hand. Hollowed out asteroids with thick rocky shells would provide the protection we so sorely need, and would save us so much energy. No need to build an elaborate shell, just drill.

Which, of course, is a good idea, assuming we don't have better, more readily available technology by that point. Paraforming Europa, Calliste, and Titan would be a perfectly suitable option, and we could always drill into the mantle of Europa itself for protection. Honestly, though, I think the moons would be more valuable as exploration outposts or resource locations than colonies given their low gravity, lack of atmosphere, lack of a magnetosphere (which theoretically we could provide), lack of solar energy, and potentially high radiation (looking at Europa).

However, we seem to be getting ahead of ourselves. It's 2013, and despite over half a century of space exploration we haven't been back to the moon in 30 yrs and aren't even preparing to step foot on Mars. That is what I'm calling for, immediate proposals for colonizing those three bodies. The Ceres weigh station would set us up for manned missions to the outer solar system, though.

The biggest hurdle is our inability to send stuff up for cheap. This would be addressed with either a space elevator or a space mining industry. I would go for the mining. We need earths resources for earth.

May I introduce you to the Mag Lifter proposal?

While I agree both the Space Elevator and Space mining are superb proposals, space mining requires us getting the equipment into space in the first place; space mining is a long-term goal that requires investments from earth. The Space Elevator would certainly be a highly efficient means of introducing the equipment into space, but we cannot produce carbon fibers long enough to make it a reality at this point, and we cannot afford to continue waiting on the next promising piece of technology to move ahead. MagLev and mass-driver (as a possible component) technology exists today, we know high-altitude launches require less energy input and, especially, fuel to escape the atmosphere, and by eliminating Stage-one boosters we save an extraordinary amount of fuel and can more regularly launch supplies, equipment, etc. into LEO. More importantly, by either expanding the ISS or building a competing structure to launch missions to the three target colonies, we can begin to operate an extraterrestrial economy.

In time national and cultural sentiments will vanish. Probably would increasingly be born in zero g environments. Barring any long term health considerations, these people would be significantly different to earthlings and other planet-siders. Very tall, fragile and unable to operate in gravity ridden planetary environments, unless they wear exoskeletons. This could prompt the creation of independent habitat clusters, who would seek to monopolise the richest sectors of the solar system and as usual this breed conflict.

I disagree, Igor. For one, centrifugal force acts as an artificial gravity. Two, most people would only stay in zero g environments long enough to perform whatever mission they're intending, but would not personally live in such an environment. Three, we wouldn't launch any pregnant women into space; the launch alone is a health risk, and the time to travel to Mars, Venus, or Ceres is less than the time to carry a child to term. Four, non-terrestrial humans would be more likely to settle on Mars and, later, Venus than 0-g environments. Plus, where would they get the equipment to manufacture exoskeletons from, anyways?

Oh, and I'd prefer not to be called a planet-sider, that's gay. We should be called planeteers.

Terraforming would come much later, both because it is easier to alter our own bodies to suit a particular envionrment (just don a spacesuit) and because change on such scales is time consuming, no matter your technological capability.

Half correct, it certainly will take time to terraform, depending on the planet. However, the sooner we begin, the sooner we can learn from our experiences and make two more planets habitable, and the better prepared we'll be for terraforming exoplanets when the time comes. We will, however, be able to settle Mars while terraforming, and at least have a manned space station or two orbiting Venus while we terraform it; in fact, I'd say it'd be necessary to keep people nearby to manage the terraforming of Venus.

Once this initial period of tribal bickering ends and the solar system is unified into a single empire with a singular focus (you can forget democracy, population of up to 1 trillion people can't make one work, but I do envision small independent groups hiding in the vastness of space, or a very decentralised autonomous imperial regime), focus would shift to interstellar colonisation. Vast nuclear pulse propulsion starships would be built, perhaps coupled with cryogenic technologies that would harbor skeleton crews who would eventually oversee the seeding of far off habitable worlds with their cargo of human/animal gametes, plants and cloning capabilities. If we can make instant quantum communication work-exploiting photon entanglement, in a few millenia we will have a civilisation spanning a tiny stretch of the milky way galactic arm.

1) I'm not sure we'd get up to 1 trillion. Population levels are expected to stabilize at 10 billion by the end of the century, assuming we can maintain current agricultural outputs; the population of earth might end up holding considerably less. A terraformed Venus would provide roughly the same landmass as earth, the agricultural capacity unkown do to much longer days (119 earth-days) as well as much higher rates of carbon; in theory, it could supply anywhere from 5% to 500% Earths agricultural capacity. Mars has thinner atmosphere, receives less sunlight, and has only 40% of the mass of earth to begin with; I'd guesstimate it at 20% of Earth's agricultural output. Combined, they could produce from 125% to 620% Earth's total output; agricultural science also being important, Earth's output could drop by 50% w/ the loss of petroleum-based fertilizers, new technologies could make it stable, or new advances could double it's capacity. Given the complete random variables involved, the total combined population supported by the three planets could be 6.25 billion, lower than our current population, or as high as 124 billion if everything is perfect- still bellow a trillion.

2) NASA already has an Alcubierre Drive. It fits on a workbench, requires an incredibly sensitive infrometer to measure it, and sucks up a hell of a lot of energy, but it exists. By the time we're ready to move out of this Solar system, we'll be trading in our ten-speeds for jets. We'll have fusion by then, providing copious amounts of energy, and be able to bugger w/ the efficiency of this device.

[Poelmo]

When you look at it purely from a resource standpoint space mining increases the amount of matter we can work with. The amount of energy we have available determines how we can use the matter we have available (for example how often per century we can recycle the same metric ton of iron into a new car). For space mining to make sense we need an abundance of energy, right now we have a lot of mineable matter on this planet that we're not using yet because the amount of energy we have available is lacking relative to our level of technology and the available matter. That's the problem: right now (and 10-20 years from now it will still be that way) if we were to space mine we would loose a lot of energy to acquire matter while we already didn't have enough energy to fully utilize the matter here on Earth. So we need new energy generation technologies (like advanced solar, perhaps some of it in space, and nuclear fusion) before we begin space mining, not just to power the spaceships but also for space mining to make economic sense.

Now of course there are non-economic factors as well: exploration of space is valuable in itself, space mining will lead to technological spin-off, colonization of other planets may one day save the human race if anything were to happen to Earth and space mining to preserve mineral reserves on Earth for a rainy day (like the Romans preserved Italian metal deposits) can be strategically sound.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Unfortunately mankind likes to waste what valuable resources we have on killing each other. I'm sure if the fuel research and manpower that were burned up fighting both world wars and each war conducted ever since were instead spent on space travel and exploration we would probably be living and mining on Mars today. If I were to put my money on either planetary colonization or nuclear Armageddon I would chose the latter.

[slybaldguy]

Sounds a bit pie in the sky to me. There won't be a post-scarcity economy in any of our life times.

[Sithsaber]

We should go internal before mastering the external. I say we start dixking around in quantum computers and unlock the secrets of consciousness and technology before we set up a city or two on some god forsaken asteroid. In the end you'd only lose a week, and the motherfuckas who come out could could teach us how to harness molecular suns.

[Someone5]

You're on the Technocracy subforum, please acquaint yourself w/ the basis of a post-scarcity society, or at least study MMT. The resources, human capital, and technology all exist, no more need be said.

No one has the means to terraform a planet, nor to build long-term self-sustaining sealed environments. People can't even do the latter here on Earth, let alone in microgravity. Of those three suggestions, the only colonization target that is within current means would be Venus, and only because there happens to be a vaguely habitable layer of the Venusian atmosphere. It still wouldn't be sustainable, or be a participant in a "trade-triangle" with a net positive to the economy. It could, however, be accomplished with current technology.

Mars is completely not an option currently, neither are asteroids which are not first relocated to an energetically attractive orbit.

[Someone5]

Sounds a bit pie in the sky to me. There won't be a post-scarcity economy in any of our life times.

Post-scarcity cannot happen under capitalism, because capitalism will regulate its own production to preclude it. Post-scarcity for essentials of living is actually possible today, for the people living in "western" states.

[slybaldguy]

I accept that the knowhow and resources for a post scarcity society exists. However, we're kidding ourselves if we think the capitalist elite are going to roll over and give up their power. The general public are also too docile and ignorant to participate in any kind of revolution.

[Figlio di Moros]

That is a discussion for a different thread, slybald.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Figgy, I enjoyed our short conversation about colonization the other day. I am also disappointed with how timid and shortsighted we are when it comes to space. Despite the fact that I do think extraterrestrial life we encounter will be either billions and millions of years more or less technologically advanced than us due to the enormous gaps in time for the evolution of life on Earth, and that I think we have the technological know-how to survive a major catastrophe on this planet, humanity has to look to the stars for the future. There's an inspiring quote from the (extremely underrated) TV show Babylon 5 about this:

Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics, and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-Tzu, and Einstein, ... and Buddy Holly, and Aristophanes, and - all of this - all of this - was for nothing. Unless we go to the stars.

Humanity's future is in space, off of this rock. The sooner, the better, and it is disturbing to me that governments and scientists aren't urging this enough. The funds we wasted completely in Iraq and Afghanistan could have been spent on establishing a permanent human presence on Mars, with more regularly-scheduled trips of people and supplies en-route as we speak. But, at least it isn't too late.

Although people talk frequently about Mars when it comes to in-system terraforming and colonization, Venus is an interesting prospect. It does seem like you're right about Venus needing an artificial satellite and a long-term atmospheric program to transform its existing atmosphere to something less lethal, if we want to make Venus Earth-like. The whole solar system is ripe for colonization, terraforming, and with plenty of resources to make any venture worth the trip and funding. We have many moons and asteroids with water throughout our solar system that can fuel any prospective mining/research/colonial settlement. The asteroid belt seems like a logical place to have stepping-stone waypoint stations for mining, refueling, and to send on people and supplies to the outer solar system. I think your idea of using Mars as a logical first step in colonization, conducting research on Venus into reshaping its atmosphere, and establishing a presence in the asteroid belt is a pretty viable first step in establishing ourselves permanently off-world.

There's a four-book science fiction series called Hyperion; the first won several awards for literature and I really enjoyed reading them: they were well-written and the ideas contained within were very intriguing. This doesn't really spoil much, but there's a group of humans in the book who are called the Ousters and they have a simple philosophy, which is quoted in my signature. Instead of terraforming planets, they essentially terraform themselves. They alter themselves on a genetic level to adapt to conditions on many worlds and asteroids. I think in time bioengineering will be sufficiently advanced to allow a radical reshaping of our ideas on living elsewhere, and allow for humanity to branch out into strange and wonderful variations.

[Oxymoron]

I think we should just ship of the dreks of society to Mars, tell them Arnold tereformed it for them already. Solves all issues.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Hey oxy, maybe there's a Zion on Mars.

[Sithsaber]

I think we should just ship of the dreks of society to Mars, tell them Arnold tereformed it for them already. Solves all issues.

Do you really want a space Australia?

[Oxymoron]

Space Australia with no air.

[Figlio di Moros]

Do you really want a space Australia?

Space Aussie chicks...

Figgy, I enjoyed our short conversation about colonization the other day. I am also disappointed with how timid and shortsighted we are when it comes to space. Despite the fact that I do think extraterrestrial life we encounter will be either billions and millions of years more or less technologically advanced than us due to the enormous gaps in time for the evolution of life on Earth, and that I think we have the technological know-how to survive a major catastrophe on this planet, humanity has to look to the stars for the future. There's an inspiring quote from the (extremely underrated) TV show Babylon 5 about this:

Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics, and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-Tzu, and Einstein, ... and Buddy Holly, and Aristophanes, and - all of this - all of this - was for nothing. Unless we go to the stars.

Humanity's future is in space, off of this rock. The sooner, the better, and it is disturbing to me that governments and scientists aren't urging this enough. The funds we wasted completely in Iraq and Afghanistan could have been spent on establishing a permanent human presence on Mars, with more regularly-scheduled trips of people and supplies en-route as we speak. But, at least it isn't too late.

It's a misnomer money was "wasted"- it denotes it being of an exhaustible supply. It isn't- see MMT. However, yes, NASA is doing amazing things w/ .5% of the Federal budget; I'd like to see what they could do w/ 5%.

Although people talk frequently about Mars when it comes to in-system terraforming and colonization, Venus is an interesting prospect. It does seem like you're right about Venus needing an artificial satellite and a long-term atmospheric program to transform its existing atmosphere to something less lethal, if we want to make Venus Earth-like.

One of the main issues is that it lacks hydrogen, being siphoned off due to it's lack of an ionosphere. Without hydrogen, we can't transform the CO2 into Carbon and water, or Ozone, or fossil fuels, or organic materials... fortunately, hydrogen is pretty abundant. On proposal is to simply use mass drivers to eject the CO2 and acid out of Venus's atmosphere and into space; what sense does that, when we can use the mass drivers to inject hydrogen into the atmosphere? Between that and mining Mercury for minerals to help sequester carbon, Venus could be terraformed by the end of the century. It certainly has more long-term potential that people give it credit for.

The whole solar system is ripe for colonization, terraforming, and with plenty of resources to make any venture worth the trip and funding. We have many moons and asteroids with water throughout our solar system that can fuel any prospective mining/research/colonial settlement. The asteroid belt seems like a logical place to have stepping-stone waypoint stations for mining, refueling, and to send on people and supplies to the outer solar system. I think your idea of using Mars as a logical first step in colonization, conducting research on Venus into reshaping its atmosphere, and establishing a presence in the asteroid belt is a pretty viable first step in establishing ourselves permanently off-world.

Thank you, it'd be nice if we had more people thinking this way. The most extraordinary vision we see today is to reach Mars in 20-25 years... We can do better than that.

I don't believe the whole solar system is viable yet, but certainly the inner solar system is easy pickings. Setting up bases in the right place will certainly help us extend our focus outward.

There's a four-book science fiction series called Hyperion; the first won several awards for literature and I really enjoyed reading them: they were well-written and the ideas contained within were very intriguing. This doesn't really spoil much, but there's a group of humans in the book who are called the Ousters and they have a simple philosophy, which is quoted in my signature. Instead of terraforming planets, they essentially terraform themselves. They alter themselves on a genetic level to adapt to conditions on many worlds and asteroids. I think in time bioengineering will be sufficiently advanced to allow a radical reshaping of our ideas on living elsewhere, and allow for humanity to branch out into strange and wonderful variations.

I don't believe that'll happen, but I believe we did discuss gene-culture coevolution. We won't genetically engineer ourselves to be perfect Martians, but we'll terraform planets to the best of our ability and evolve as a result of both space travel and the pressures of living in new environments. Not everyone is fit to get off this planet; they're not inteligent or productive enough for more advanced technology, they can't handle a broad enough spectrum of g's, their body atrophies quicker, they can't handle high pressure or low oxygen atmospheres, etc. Future humanity will, naturally, be the decedents of astronauts.

[mikema63]

Fiddling with genes to prevent muscular atrophy and loss of bone density isn't that hard theoretically.

Myostatin inhibitors, which are currently in clinical trials for muscular dystrophy, could probably be used to deal with the muscular atrophy.