[Cookie Monster]

It is said that generals tend to fight the previous war instead of the war that's actually happening, and I think the same thing is true for the exploration of space. We are unconsciously trying to repeat the great voyages of exploration which opened up the world to European colonisation and conquest back in the 16th and 17th centuries, regardless of whether or not is is appropriate to do so in the current circumstances. Because the ships of the 16th and 17th centuries were crewed by human beings, we pack our spacecraft with human beings. Because the captains of those expeditions would plant their nation's flag on the newly discovered lands, we plant an American flag or a Soviet flag or a Chinese flag in the dust of the Moon. Considered objectively, it's idiotic. It is incredibly wasteful and utterly pointless. Why are we doing this? Why are we even thinking of doing this? Mars is not the Earth; it will never be habitable for human beings. We haven't even colonised Antarctica, and we think we can colonise Mars? Even the Moon is unfit for human habitation.

I agree, but going to the Moon does make sense as it is our natural stepping stone to explore, exploit and "colonise" the Solar System. Earth is like a prison because of the enormous energy needed to lift spacecraft and content into space. Building Moon bases with production capabilities, producing the necessary spacecraft, equipment and fuel there, and launching space missions from there would be far more cost-effective than what we are doing so far.

Only machine intelligences (assuming we manage to create them) will be able to explore and operate in space - they will have the long lifespans and the robustness to survive the huge time spans required for interstellar travel and the extreme physical harshness of space. Our biology ties us to the Earth, and we need to accept this fact.

Terraforming Mars or other planets or moons in the solar system is not cost-effective and indeed very challenging because of our biological restrictions. But there may be more options to colonise/terraform in the future due to developments in technical feasibility, cost-effectiveness and revolutionary technologies. Also, future machines could expand our ecosystems and civilisation to the planets of other star systems. We could send arks with frozen eggs, cells and DNA of humans and other organisms, giving machines a mission to cultivate planets that have potential to host Terran life.

To stir the pot a little, Venus is a viable target for a colony. What to argue about it?

Under the current conditions on Venus only its upper atmosphere may be viable for colonisation; but it would be very expensive and without any advantage (except for Venus' gravity and pressure). Nor is it off any added value, a space station in orbit around Venus would be far more cost-effective than that.

Um no. NASA has proven there are planets beyond this solar system which are known to be capable of possibly supporting Human Life and other carbon based lifeforms.

There is no proof that the discovered exoplanets have any capacity to support human life. It's just that some of them are rock planets that are in the Goldilocks zone of their respective star. There is no indication so far about the actual conditions on those planets being in any way hospitable for human life. But probability is of course high that somewhere in the universe such hospitable planets/moons do exist.

[Drlee]

It is precisely "empty gesture." It will be forgotten in a week. Congress will fund no such animal as a permanent lunar base or a manned mission to Mars. Nor will Trump lift a finger to push them.

This.

Trump can't even get his wall built and with the new budget, it is going to be DOA. There is no way the government is going to raise taxes on the wealthy to go to the moon, or mars, or Walmart for that matter.

It would probably cost well over $200 billion to mount an effort like Apollo. (According to a 2005 study.) We simply can't spend that. NASA's total budget is 19 billion. We could not mount a single mission to the moon with that even if we did have the booster, capsule or lander already in the inventory. Over its lifetime each shuttle launch cost us $1.5 billion. The new heavy-lift booster alone has a pipe-dream per-launch cost of half a billion.

The days of the USG being a technology trend setter are over. We need the money to pay off campaign contributors and our once great middle class is about tapped out.

[B0ycey]

Currently I am struggling to think of any advantage there is to colonise any part of the solar system that would justify the cost associated with it.

Not only that, a stint on the ISS does damage to the human body that leaves astronauts into a jelly mess when they return back to Earth. You certainly couldn't expect anyone to remain their indefinitely - and no amount of current technology could prevent this either. This isn't a movie. Matt Damon couldn't last too long on Mars without serious health consequences, even if he remained within a station. For that reason alone I suspect that human space exploration in the next thousand years won't make much scientific advancement unless it is robotic in nature.

So with that notion, I suspect a trip to the Moon, Mars or anywhere else that involves humans would be a vanity project and only that. I suspect there is nothing a human could find out on Mars that a rover couldn't find out tomorrow. And the Moon. Is there much more we can learn from it? I seriously doubt it.

[Drlee]

So with that notion, I suspect a trip to the Moon, Mars or anywhere else that involves humans would be a vanity project and only that. I suspect there is nothing a human could find out on Mars that a rover couldn't find out tomorrow. And the Moon. Is there much more we can learn from it? I seriously doubt it.

I completely agree. It would be a vanity program. There is nothing wrong with that of course but that is what it was before too.

When I was young we idolized astronauts. Now they open supermarkets. Few people can even name one.

How about we spend 200 billion curing cancer and heart disease. There is a project in which we all can participate. In fact. For that kind of money I would not be surprised if doubling the lifespan of people might not be possible.

[Rugoz]

Building Moon bases with production capabilities, producing the necessary spacecraft, equipment and fuel there, and launching space missions from there would be far more cost-effective than what we are doing so far.

If you build space-based solar power or anything that requires the launch of enormous mass into orbit, Moon-based production might make sense. Nothing we launch today justifies it even remotely.

Under the current conditions on Venus only its upper atmosphere may be viable for colonisation; but it would be very expensive and without any advantage (except for Venus' gravity and pressure).

You get water and other basic resources from the atmosphere. Temperature and pressure in the upper atmosphere is Earth-like. Floating is easy because of the high density of the atmosphere. All significant advantages.

There is no indication so far about the actual conditions on those planets being in any way hospitable for human life. But probability is of course high that somewhere in the universe such hospitable planets/moons do exist.

Won't take long until we find biosignatures.

Not only that, a stint on the ISS does damage to the human body that leaves astronauts into a jelly mess when they return back to Earth. You certainly couldn't expect anyone to remain their indefinitely - and no amount of current technology could prevent this either.

Artificial gravity is very easy to do. The ISS was built for micro-gravity research, among other things, so gravity would be pointless.
Passive radiation protection is also easy to do, just add a few meters of water shielding. Unfortunately that would hugely increase the mass of any habitat, unless the habitat is huge and the shielding thickness negligible (pressure vessel thickness scales with volume, shielding not, hence the bigger the better).

It would probably cost well over $200 billion to mount an effort like Apollo. (According to a 2005 study.) We simply can't spend that. NASA's total budget is 19 billion. We could not mount a single mission to the moon with that even if we did have the booster, capsule or lander already in the inventory. Over its lifetime each shuttle launch cost us $1.5 billion. The new heavy-lift booster alone has a pipe-dream per-launch cost of half a billion.

If NASA's commercial resupply and commercial crew programs are any indication (both fixed-price contracts), lunar landings should be doable with the existing budget, once SLS/Orion development is finished. The question is whether Americans will be wowed by a rehash of Apollo almost 60 years later. For a lunar base to be affordable, NASA would have to replace ISS with something more cost-effective and ask for international contributions (both feasible in principle).

[B0ycey]

Artificial gravity is very easy to do.

[Rugoz]

:lol:

How about you consult the Wiki article at the very least before embarrassing yourself?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity

[B0ycey]

How about you consult the Wiki article at the very least before embarrassing yourself?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity

Perhaps don't say it is very easy to do.

[Rugoz]

Perhaps don't say it is very easy to do.

Technically it is very easy to do, compared to other challenges in spaceflight. All you need is a counterweight and a tether. It adds mass, but not spectacularly so.

[B0ycey]

Technically it is very easy to do, compared to other challenges in spaceflight. All you need is a counterweight and a tether. It adds mass, but not spectacularly so.

The idea is sound, but it is not easy to do. In fact, if it was easy to do, we would be doing it now as weightlessness is a massive hurdle in space!

[Rugoz]

The idea is sound, but it is not easy to do. In fact, if it was easy to do, we would be doing it now as weightlessness is a massive hurdle in space!

Do you ever read what I write? ISS was designed for micro-gravity research. In fact studying the effect of weightlessness on human health is one of its purposes. Moreover astronauts can deal with the effect of weightlessness pretty well up to a year in space. There's no need to keep astronauts longer there (a crew rotation every 6 months is the standard). We're talking about colonization where artificial gravity is essential.

[B0ycey]

Do you ever read what I write? ISS was designed for micro-gravity research. In fact studying the effect of weightlessness on human health is one of its purposes. Moreover astronauts can deal with the effect of weightlessness pretty well up to a year in space. There's no need to keep astronauts longer there (a crew rotation every 6 months is the standard). We're talking about colonization where artificial gravity is essential.

Perhaps read what I write as it was you who responded to me. If it was affordable or possible to have gravity mimic chambers on the ISS, they would have one I can assure you. But sure @Rugoz, believe there are no hurdles in colonisation that the human body can't handle. Because to mimic the environment of Earth that the human body requires to maintain a healthy state is super easy.

[Rugoz]

Perhaps read what I write as it was you who responded to me. If it was affordable or possible to have gravity mimic chambers on the ISS, they would have one I can assure you.

Gravity mimic chambers? ISS wasn't designed for AG, you have to rotate the entire station (centrifuges are (a less effective) alternative but I wouldn't call them AG). See those slides for potential designs and mass estimates:

https://www.scribd.com/document/2693880 ... lyer-Study

But sure @Rugoz, believe there are no hurdles in colonisation that the human body can't handle. Because to mimic the environment of Earth that the human body requires to maintain a healthy state is super easy.

Closed-loop life support systems that are reliable and use little resources are probably the biggest hurdle. Radiation protection is also a big hurdle unless you are in low equatorial orbit (where none is needed), because launching that much mass is expensive. AG increases your mass as well but of those three I'd say it's the least difficult hurdle to overcome.

[Cookie Monster]

If you build space-based solar power or anything that requires the launch of enormous mass into orbit, Moon-based production might make sense. Nothing we launch today justifies it even remotely.

Or perhaps nothing we launch today is at such scale since it is very expensive. Supply would create its own demand and we could rapidly expand exploration and exploitation.

You get water and other basic resources from the atmosphere. Temperature and pressure in the upper atmosphere is Earth-like. Floating is easy because of the high density of the atmosphere. All significant advantages.

I don't see sustainability to permanently settle Venus' atmosphere. Its surface is too hot and toxic to exploit resources and it has no moons. So anything not extractable from the atmosphere or growable on the colony would have to be imported from Earth.

Won't take long until we find biosignatures.

I hope so but I doubt it.

How about we spend 200 billion curing cancer and heart disease. There is a project in which we all can participate. In fact. For that kind of money I would not be surprised if doubling the lifespan of people might not be possible.

Neil deGrasse Tyson has a convincing argument why space exploration is relevant and important.

[Godstud]

Venus? You mean where the probes last hours before they are destroyed by heat and atmosphere? That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Present-day Venus, on the other hand, is not quite as hospitable. The barren planet is known for having a suffocating carbon dioxide atmosphere that is 90 times thicker than Earth's, with clouds of sulfuric acid and extremely hot surface temperatures that reach 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius).

[Rugoz]

Venus? You mean where the probes last hours before they are destroyed by heat and atmosphere? That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Present-day Venus, on the other hand, is not quite as hospitable. The barren planet is known for having a suffocating carbon dioxide atmosphere that is 90 times thicker than Earth's, with clouds of sulfuric acid and extremely hot surface temperatures that reach 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius).

Not a new idea:

http://www.science20.com/robert_invento ... ine-127573

[The Immortal Goon]

I'm pro space exploration.

I even considered voting Newt because he promised a moon base within eight years.

And I hate that Keebler-Elf mother-fucker.



So I would welcome Trump fulfilling this promise, but I just don't see it happening by looking at the numbers.

What's going to probably have to happen is the Chinese and Europeans beating the US at something space-oriented, which is already in talks.

Americans have extremely fragile egos, and that's about the only thing that will spur them onto do something impressive.

[ness31]

I can’t believe Venus doesn’t have a moon. And according to the internet neither does Mercury. How strange.

I bet you they do have moons but we’ve just not detected them. After all the trend in space is for planets to have natural moons.

Therefore, I declare the next lot of space warriors keep their eyes keenly peeled for moons around Venus.

Here’s a theory, hear me out. Venus and Mercury do have moons but they’re invisible to space travelling humans because these planets have already been colonised and the colonisers have given the moon cloaking shields

[Drlee]

Here’s a theory, hear me out. Venus and Mercury do have moons but they’re invisible to space travelling humans because these planets have already been colonised and the colonisers have given the moon cloaking shields

Nice post. Way to go Einstein. Let that cat right out of the bag, didn't you. If I were you I would not open the door for a few weeks. And if there is a bright light in your window....well.

[ness31]