Future in Space?

^^ Replied.

We won't get to see this in or lifetime, to reach the nearest habitable planet we need FTL technology, such things are so far away, specially with earths depleting resources, maybe a settlement in mars and moon will be made withing 50 yrs. But no Pandora(from Avatar)

filled
underwater first, then space

@tkin
Not necessarily on mars or moon, we can have something stationary wrt earth in space.

@Anorion
Underwater is too dirty and high pressured, space would be easier to reach

And thanks for filling it guys

bump (sorry i know it doesn't look good but I need responses)

SlashDK said:

@tkin
Not necessarily on mars or moon, we can have something stationary wrt earth in space.

@Anorion
Underwater is too dirty and high pressured, space would be easier to reach

And thanks for filling it guys

Click to expand...

Not enough space, the sky is clouded with satellites etc, not enough space, maybe around moon.

Eventually man will make this planet inhabitable in another 20 years and nature will spew its revenge , so its a rage against time.

May Be..

@tkin
I meant outside any of the orbits. Just free floating in space, somewhere between the earth and moon or sun

just like deadspace.

Lol definitely not like deadspace. I'd rather it be free of aliens.

SlashDK said:

@tkin
I meant outside any of the orbits. Just free floating in space, somewhere between the earth and moon or sun

Click to expand...

Too risky, from asteroids(a small hit can destroy the ship, not to mention the kinetic energy transfer will cause the ship to gain momentum and may destabilize it from its trajectory, correctional thrusters may take care of that but once the fuel runs out...), then the issue of transferring oxygen, water, food, to mitigate all that we will be needing a gigantic spacecraft that can house an entire miniature ecosystem(watch an episode of Dr. Who where there was a forest inside a spacecraft), not feasible in this economy.

^^ Check out Lagrangian points. As for the sustainable ecosystem, why not? I mean its possible to have a sustainable ecosystem without forests (growing food doesn't always need soil).

SlashDK said:

^^ Check out Lagrangian points. As for the sustainable ecosystem, why not? I mean its possible to have a sustainable ecosystem without forests (growing food doesn't always need soil).

Click to expand...

Bacteria could be used to prepare food.

^^ Why not we could probably use mineral infused water for growing plants too. Transporting minerals in solid state should be easy enough from earth.

Replied. Humanity future is in Space; no two ways about it. It's better we spend money on research, set up space stations, moon base and then spread out to other planets. That's the way forward. Also we should work on preserving the consciousnesses without the fragile human body as it is not ideally suited for space travel. cyborg could be the way out.

^^ thats a scary proposition. I agree with the first part that humans must expand, but cyborgs *brrrrrr* just feel morally wrong

why is being a cyborg "morally" wrong? dont we have prosthetics and artificial limbs and even artificial hearts?
this body is just a vessel for the brain.

i'd gladly give up this weak shell of meat for a more durable one made of metal and synthetics.

do you realize how much time and effort is "wasted" just in taking care of our bodies?
we brush, eat food, clip nails, bathe, take medicines jsut to be "presentable".

billions of dollars of research is done each year, just to make the human body more "safe". this includes crash testing cars, researching medicine, etc.

ok let's say we have spaces in space designed for a load of humans
these structures will be highly compact, and very economical in terms of space
so you can expect meat and grain farms, office quarters, living quarters and energy sources, computation centers and waste disposal in one place
such economical use of space, combined with isolation will be much more beneficial on land than in space, so, we are stuck here, at least till the sun goes nova
we have so many options, it is better to terraform first then occupy, instead of occupy first then terraform. nine, good, varied planets to test this on first. if we can colonies space, we can colonise mercury, venus, jupiter, saturn and pluto... phew... the benefits of these are over and beyond extreme, we instantly have more in elemental supplies than mankind will require before the sun goes nova
the farms are more likely to go in space before humans
underwater is next, just because it's a little more economical than space, plus it simulates most of it's conditions, so if ever outer space colonisation happens, underwater colonisation is the cheaper option
much cheaper is using land we have in a more economical way

mercury... colonize?
what about the radiation? temperature? how will anything be able to survive?
same about jupiter. insane pressures, gaseous nature, huge size. all but impossible.
pluto can be done, but the only problem will be the temperature. maybe explode a few nukes

mars is the only viable terraforming candidate, taking into account current and projected technology levels for the next 50 years.
venus might be doable, but that would require buttloads of perseverance and some way of dispelling all that gas from the atmosphere.

how about living in space and having hydroponic farms on earth, in stacks of soil, each of which is several hectares in size? or vice versa?
we could strip-mine asteroids and some planets to provide the required materials.

energy could be had by having permanent solar collectors in orbit. we could heatup/cool down areas of earth by making giant lenses/mirrors and focusing/defocusing on particular areas.

imho, we should have a ecological experiment, where we test out a biosphere thats made out of only a small amount of species. like, only a small percentage of the species, so that ecological disasters can be mitigated. this will also help with reducing food shortages, coz then we'd not have to worry about over harvesting a particular species.

hmm mercury, constantly shift base to the far side from the sun
jupiter, stick to the outer atmosphere, drifting towards the surface is death... pressure calculations here, similar to deep sea divers... mostly, use the gravity as an inter-solar system sling/ fueling station
forget the details, think about it this way, every planet in a solar system has it's unique uses, and we have explored only a fraction of the options available (lol just what we have done on this one planet... so far)...
these plans are over ambitious we cannot even plan or conceptualize of disposing a galaxy's worth of energy in a sensible manner, so there is no point in fantasizing at this stage
venus, oh wow, use the volcanoes as power sources, fix the acid rains to rain the chemicals that are desirable, colonise the clouds first, a drastically diff approach to say mars, or the moon, where we should address the surface and the atmosphere itself, as against harnessing it
we have a series of puzzles to solve, not one quick fix solution, and it is actually borderline impossible, otherwise we would be already warring with interstellar human descendants
in all this thought, think of earth as a viable option

still, its way too close. temperatures routinely exceed 700Kelvin and the surface is quite poisonous to life. think shimmering pools of molten arsenic and zinc, with a hot, dusty breeze carrying bromides. insta-death.

yeah. thats the only use of jupiter, and for extraction of gasses.

nope. at the present rate, these people will render earth inhabitable, unless drastic measures are taken.
1. remove the present BS about "nations" and install a single world order
2. efficient distribution of resources (needs the above)
3. re-distribute population according to resources available
4. re-think living condition for everyone.
5. education.

i dont think we can have proper equality and quality of life for everyone on this planet, unless 2 things are done first (EITHER of them is enough, not both)
1. drastically reduce population, to around 3-4 billion
2. change how people live

think about it. you wont own a car, will have to use public transport, everything will be rationed, there will be super-rich people, but they wont be able to build 27 storey houses, there will be poor, but they will have proper skills, so that they contribute something to society.

in short, humanity should be made more efficient. every able person must contribute something of value to the planet, be it manual labor, or philosophical thinking.

suggesting a communist state. that is natural, that is a bit of space-think. what will take us out there is capitalism. NASA has decommissioned it's space shuttles and the one space station this sector has is gonna be serviced by private enterprises.
also, we have so much space here on earth

it's a matter of calculating the advantages of space... prolly we can use sunlinght in some way to manufacture proteins rather than the all fertilizer we use right now to make humans

yes. space communists. has a nice ring to it.
because jealousy on a space station can only lead to open airlocks and leaking air.

TBH communism if implemented properly is pretty much the most efficient form of government but it cuts down on innovation, aspirations and incentives. A space government should be a combination of both good democracy and communism. As for teraforming, it costs too much. It would be more economical to build a self sustaining system in space rather than teraforming a planet.

Though we find a habitable planet like earth anywhere, it will take many years for us to develop a settlement over there.
As always, people like Mr.Wayne/Mr.Stark will be the one, who first board there.

Moreover, it should be a multi-govt collaboration between the countries to form or at least test the possibility of settlement over there.

fair point, who will bear the cost of such an enterprise?
if anyone does bear it, it will be entirely symbolic, a show of power, as against any practical use

Our current Super-powers definitely wont work cool with each other.
They will even fight for, naming the "Shuttle-carrier" that carries the first-product there.

Well a lot of superpowers do collaborate on the ISS. Seeing that the cost of building a space settlement (in space not on a planet) should easily run into 100s of billions of dollars, there's a good chance that private companies will invest along with governments, who knows the settlement would even be named Apple

doomgiver said:

why is being a cyborg "morally" wrong? dont we have prosthetics and artificial limbs and even artificial hearts?
this body is just a vessel for the brain.

i'd gladly give up this weak shell of meat for a more durable one made of metal and synthetics.

do you realize how much time and effort is "wasted" just in taking care of our bodies?
we brush, eat food, clip nails, bathe, take medicines jsut to be "presentable".

billions of dollars of research is done each year, just to make the human body more "safe". this includes crash testing cars, researching medicine, etc.

Click to expand...

You can be world's first cybord

In that case, people with "Artificial-Pacemaker's" are Cyborgs, in my view.

swordfish said:

You can be world's first cybord

Click to expand...

yes. i want to. at least i will outlast my grandchildren.