Its crazy to think its all actually out there

[stany]

what i mean is its so easy to forget that there's Mars or whatever planet and the surface is just there , barren, waiting - actually now right this second...for real. not to mention other planets, galaxies, black holes, other civilizations, maybe other dimentions and universes, all kinds of stuff that we got to figure out

yet here we all are on this ball of rock - anything could happen and wipe us all out (Asteroid, aliens or 2012 style disaster) yet we all seem content to just stay put playing on the net, iphones, watching X factor, dating, drinking, squabbling, persecuting, fighting, wars, killing, letting people die, using up the planets resources, overpopulating etc. almost like just hoping nothing bad happens to us anytime soon and some other future generation can figure it all out

Youd have thought it was really important to focus on getting out there star trek style asap and get looking and studying stuff…instead every day like party time. It was going well with the moon missions then …nothing

 

[marcus]

If you are thinking about the survival value of distributed habitation then I suggest paying close attention to the Vesta/Ceres mission.

The spacecraft "Dawn" goes into orbit around Vesta (500 km diameter) this summer and after almost a year at Vesta it will resume thrust and go orbit Ceres (1000 km diameter, lots of water ice).

 

[fillipeano]

Everyone has their own opinion. While you and I may feel that science should be more important than other things in this world, someone else may feel differently. Sending humans to space may be a big deal in your mind, but to someone else, finding the cure to cancer, building homes for the poor, or relaxing and exploring new opportunities and adventures may be on their mind.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."
-Dr. Suess

 

[stany]

true all that stuff is really important as well. it just sort of hit me today - not so much about potential catastrophes that could wipe us out - but that its all out there now, real time. like think of Mars the surface. its there now..same with anything. its mind blowing man! its a pity we can't make something that goes round the universe like google earth/universe but realtime..checking out the surface of planets, going into other galaxies etc

 

[fillipeano]

Well that technology is out of our reach currently..But there are people working on it. It's great that you share the same vision with these scientists. The part that matters though is if you are going to make a difference rather than dream (;

 

[marcus]

Stany, here are some links about the Dawn mission to Vesta and Ceres---the two largest in the asteroid belt.

Dawn craft is solar-powered ion drive. Xenon propellant.

Dawn and Vesta are now both about the same distance from the sun (about 2 AU) and "running neck and neck" so to speak as Dawn gradually nears Vesta.

Ion propulsion is very gradual. It will take some 4 months before Dawn is in orbit around Vesta.

The first "science orbit" will be August 2011 and Dawn will stay in orbit around Vesta for 9 or 10 months (in the general vicinity for roughly one year but not all that time in "science orbit").
In May 2012 the plan is for it to turn on the Xenon thrust and spiral out from Vesta and go spend some time studying Ceres. If all goes as planned it will be orbit Ceres for about 5 months (February-July 2015.)
For me, that will be the high point.

For economic-social-military-population reasons there may not be much will to establish manned bases (or even do as much unmanned scientific exploration) for a long time Ceres, for instance, would be a very long-range project.

But it's worth finding out about all the same. Vesta too, for that matter.
Here's a map of the Dawn journey:
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/orbits/fulltraj.jpg

Simulated view of Sun, Earth, and Venus as seen from the spacecraft 's perspective
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/orbits/fullview3.jpg

General overview:
http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/dawn_fact_sheet.pdf

Current status report:
http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/status.asp

More simulated views, if anyone is interested:
http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/live_shots.asp

Both Vesta and the spacecraft are now going about 20 km/second. Vesta is slowly overtaking and Dawn is thrusting to speed up, so that it can exactly match speeds. It is now about 0.01 AU from Vesta. That is the "neck and neck" style of approach I was talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_(dwarf_planet ) ~1000 km diameter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_Vesta (average diameter ~530 km)

There may be medical drawbacks to living in low gravity, but
1. there could be ways to counteract them and solve the medical problems
2. there are practical advantages to low gravity, easier to get down on and lift off of.
3. water is a valuable resource and ice provides shielding from vacuum and radiation, you can tunnel down into a thick ice layer

Ceres may be more suitable for habitation than Mars is. So might certain ones of the moons of Jupter, but they are farther away

Anyway it is worth paying some attention to the Dawn mission, I think,

 

[stany]

thanks for the links - i didnt know anything about those missions thanks

"The part that matters though is if you are going to make a difference rather than dream (; "

heh i wouldn't know where to begin...guess I am just a dreamer...

 

[renz]

Well that is the society that we choose to live in isn't it. Most people are going to do what they want to do. Especially when majority of them are doing the same thing.

You can start by getting to know about the place we live in a bit better ;)
Then do whatever you think should be done. Little steps.

 

[Drakkith]

I find that most people don't even understand the basics of science and technology. So thinking ahead to a time that requires better technology and science just isn't possible to most of them. (And most the others tend to come into our forum and ask why we can't break light speed) :tongue2:

 

[jnorman]

this comment may be removed by our esteemed moderators, but IMO, politics and organized religion are antithetical to scientific and social progress. there simply is no agreement on how society should invest its efforts and capital, so we get bogged down in partisanship and cannot move forward.

 

[planethunter]

what i mean is its so easy to forget that there's Mars or whatever planet and the surface is just there , barren, waiting - actually now right this second...for real. not to mention other planets, galaxies, black holes, other civilizations, maybe other dimentions and universes, all kinds of stuff that we got to figure out

Your comment above is exactly why someone like me wants to become an astronomer

 

[Chronos]

Manned space exploration is a necessary step in human evolution, but, not until the purpose of such a costly endeavor is well defined. The serendiptitous joy of discovery does not justify the expense. As technology advances, we will discover more resource efficient ways to explore the universe - and in a way that makes sense. At present, colonizing Mars makes about as much economic sense as harvesting every tree on Earth to power an international hot tub.

 

[capt stevie]

Getting funding for any project in the US is going to be difficult with our present situation.
Most of us are on auto pilot. In the back of our mind there might be some idea that we need to expand our reach but paying the monthly bills and our favorite reality show seems to take precedence over science. We all want to believe someone else is working on these problems, yet we don't make the correlation when we read in the news that congress has cut some budget for something we don't even understand.

Its all about messaging. The documentaries are there, but how do we get people to watch and learn? I have watched enough to know that the survival of the human race is a crap shoot at best.

What can we do as individuals?
Support politicians who support science is a good place to start. And its as easy as filling in a circle when you vote.

 

[test4]

FWIW,

To have a focus on the sciences as you suggest would require the "ignorance" of 80% of the worlds "well offs", meaning anyone who can feed themselves to stop searching for trivial entertainment, immediate gratification, and get off drugs.

The amount of brain power wasted in our societies is tragic.
Its not entirely an individuals fault. Culture as a whole, greed for power, secrecy and outright lies by religious maniacs have placed a barrier between "whats worthy of pursuit and what's not".

If there is saving grace, a silver lining, its that we do have people whom feel as you do and dedicate their lives in the pursuit for TRUTH...Scientific truth.

My dream, my hope, would be that Academia all over the world, finally take on certain pressing issues and work together in a Manhattan style effort.

Forget University competition, Individual stardom and focus on solving the great problems of our time.
Together, transparent, without any motives besides solving the problems/equations.

Cancer for example IMO could be solved in a decade if all the brilliants minds on our planet in all disciplines came together, and dedicated a majority of their time on the problem.
Now you say, what good a physicist could do for a biological problem?
Well, it would be physicist's who could create the tools to eliminate what a geneticist has suggested as the cancer problem.

I think we have (as a planet) spread our resources to thin to solve anything quickly.

We need to focus on one giant problem at a time. Together.

Test,

 

[marcus]

thanks for the links - i didnt know anything about those missions thanks

"The part that matters though is if you are going to make a difference rather than dream (; "

heh i wouldn't know where to begin...guess I am just a dreamer...

At this point you can make a difference by knowing something, by gaining and sharing information.

I think it might be a stupid idea to try to colonize the Moon. If that is right, if say it makes better sense to colonize Ceres, then it will take a well-informed public to steer leadership in that direction.

Check out Ceres and make up your own mind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_(dwarf_planet )

The outer layers are believed to be largely made of water ice. Ice is a rock with a low melting point. It is interesting as a habitat material.

Living on Mars or Ceres or a Jupiter Moon or wherever almost always is going to mean living IN the body. Not on the surface.

You need a cheap thick roof to protect from vacuum and radiation. Ice is nice for that.
It is easy to tunnel into.

Conventional nuclear power plants also need COOLING. To generate power you need some kind of heat sink. A pocket of liquid water some distance down in the ice can serve as heat sink.

I suppose it would also be possible to colonize somewhere using only solar cells as a source of power. So it's something to learn about so one can balance the trade-offs.

Most of the surface of Mars does not have much in the way of a heat sink available. Waste heat would have to be radiated off into space, which is clumsy. The atmosphere is pretty lean (less than 1 percent of Earth normal pressure).

I think you can make a difference by being informed about the tradeoffs and options.

Only an informed public can spare us the stupid waste of resources that trying to colonize the moon would represent.

You underestimate the importance of having a few more informed interested people at this point. It's early days and there is a "butterfly effect" so flap your wings.

 

[test4]

I think you can make a difference by being informed about the tradeoffs and options.

Only an informed public can spare us the stupid waste of resources that trying to colonize the moon would represent.

You underestimate the importance of having a few more informed interested people at this point. It's early days and there is a "butterfly effect" so flap your wings.

Exactly.

Test

 

[marcus]

Thanks, I'm glad you see it that way too.
I think one can argue that Mars and Ceres are two competing candidates for colonization where some relatively early use of available materials can be made.

You or someone else might want to rule out Ceres because of its low gravity (3% of earth, escape velocity 0.5 km/second) and its greater distance from the sun (2.77 AU).

Someone might wish to argue for Mars by saying that in addition to obvious advantages it has water icecaps at the poles, so one could use some of the same strategies that might be employed at Ceres. Hollowing out places to live in the ice, where one could have normal atmospheric pressure and reservoirs of liquid water as heat sinks for power generation.

This depends somewhat on the depth and integrity of Mars ice. Pictures show seasonal change.

I think it's by weighing tradeoffs that we learn. So maybe Mars is the right answer for a first colony, but I will try to make a case for Ceres.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars
Average distance from sun 1.62 AU
Surface gravity 0.38 of earth
Escape velocity 5000 meter/second
Axial tilt 25 degrees

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_(dwarf_planet)
Average distance from sun 2.77 AU
Surface gravity 0.03 of earth
Escape velocity 510 meters/second
Axial tilt 3 degrees

We will have more definite information in 2015 when the Dawn spacecraft orbits Ceres. What Wikipedia says here contains some educated guesses:

With a diameter of about 950 km (590 mi), Ceres is by far the largest and most massive body in the asteroid belt, and contains almost a third (32%) of the belt's total mass.[19][20] Observations have revealed that it is spherical, unlike the irregular shapes of smaller bodies with lower gravity.[12] The Cererian surface is probably a mixture of water ice and various hydrated minerals such as carbonates and clays.[13] Ceres appears to be differentiated into a rocky core and ice mantle,[7] and may harbour an ocean of liquid water underneath its surface.[21][22]​

Axial tilt is relevant if you imagine powering a colony with sunlight. Mars polar regions, attractive in some respects (water ice), experience long periods when the sun is not visible because of the 25 degree axial tilt.
The square of the body's distance from sun is obviously important in the same context.
1.62² = 2.62
2.77² = 7.67

The sun is only 34% "as good" on Ceres as it is on Mars (assuming you are not in the middle of one of those long polar winters.) You would need 2.9 times as much area. On the other hand Mars rarified atmosphere does have high winds and dust storms. So solar panels on Ceres might have some advantages such as lighter construction and longer life.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Space colonisation would require an inordinate amount of know-how that we lack. Apart from getting there you have to build a full industrial complex and a sustainable ecosystem to live in (Why sustainable? Because if this colony is meant to be a safe-guard against having all our eggs in one basket it would be useless if it was dependent on Earth).

Thing is if you could do that you could just rebuild/maintain the Earth so that it doesn't fail...

IMHO the only reason for space colonisation is to fulfil our desire to do so; there is no justifiable economic or practical (eggs-in-basket) argument to do so more than having back up factories in orbit ready to swoop in and re-terraform the Earth in event of catastrophic failure.

 

[marcus]

IMHO the only reason for space colonisation is to fulfil our desire to do so; there is no justifiable economic or practical (eggs-in-basket) argument to do so more than having back up factories in orbit ready to swoop in and re-terraform the Earth in event of catastrophic failure.

I know that people make the "eggs" argument for colonization. I'm not very interested in arguing about practical justification at this point.

"Desire" means collective political will. Humanity is not governed by a single rational intelligence that makes logical choices in its own best interest. It is governed by a political process.

We can not be sure that the humans on this or any planet will have the political will to avoid wars, limit their population, keep their house clean, and regulate their use of scarce resources.

Thing is if you could do that you could just rebuild/maintain the Earth so that it doesn't fail...

Yes it is technically possible for many things to be done if the political will exists. If there is the collective will one could put backup factories in orbit, as you suggested.
If there is the will the Earth could be "rebuilt/maintained" in a robustly sustainable way.

But indeed the main factor here is humanity itself, not the physical-industrial hardware. A benign rational intelligence would probably begin by "rebuilding" humanity (as the most dynamic and unpredictable element of the system) so as to control population and use of resources, and reduce the level of violence.

It remains to be seen if we humans have the desire---the political will---to address our problems in a longterm sustainable way on this planet.

... Apart from getting there you have to build a full industrial complex and a sustainable ecosystem to live in ...

It also remains to be seen if humanity has the desire to colonize some other solar system body. And I agree with you that a colony must eventually be self-sustaining, otherwise it is merely a "base" of some sort.

I am not interested in debating the eggs justification because I think the desire could arise in many ways. Now doesn't seem a sensible or opportune time to be debating motives of future generations.

Just my two cents, but think it is more interesting at this point to consider the technical options and strategies that could be employed IF for whatever reason there's the political will to start an eventually self-sustaining colony--and not try to second-guess the reasons.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

@marcus

I agree! The desire doesn't really matter, humans have partaken in huge projects before for no real reason. What I find fascinating are the development of technologies that could both help here on Earth as well as colonise off of Earth. Before we terraform anywhere else how about terraforming the deserts, fixing up polluted habitats, mitigating climate change etc etc

 

[marcus]

@marcus

I agree! The desire doesn't really matter, humans have partaken in huge projects before for no real reason. What I find fascinating are the development of technologies that could both help here on Earth as well as colonise off of Earth. Before we terraform anywhere else how about terraforming the deserts, fixing up polluted habitats, mitigating climate change etc etc

I see what you are talking about better now. Terraforming is a central concept.

I wasn't thinking about terraforming, just about cheap places to colonize.

My idea of humans is that they are extremely adaptible creatures, who can be happy and creative in environments which don't at all resemble what we think of as the desirable places to live on earth.

That could be a mistaken notion of mine.

I was thinking it could be beautiful to live in pressurized ice-caves in Ceres, under artificial light breathing an artificial atmosphere.

With maybe a chilly lake in one of the large central caves. Some wild-life.

I was thinking that people get the urge to emigrate to colonies for all sorts of reasons and that people might sometime WANT to live in a Ceres colony. Either there, or under Mars polar icecap look to me like cheap places to colonize.

You don't have to "terraform" anything---no need to cope with a whole planet atmosphere, or bring in huge expensive domes. No need to worry about solarflare radiation or meteorites busting your dome roof and letting out the air. Cheap quick and relatively secure, in other words.

I think of terraforming projects as kind of "grandiose"---something to come centuries later, if at all.

So your idea of applying terraforming technology to the Earth INSTEAD does not arise, since I am not imagining such projects on the surface of any solar system body.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

By terraforming I didn't entirely mean a whole planet merely biomes.

The biggest problem is that we humans evolved for Earth environments. Wherever we go we are going to need to build an Earth like habitat. The ice caves on Ceres are going to need an Earth like atmosphere (pressure, composition, temperature etc) and there is going to have to be an environment to grow crops in, produce the 1kg of gut bacteria we carry around and the list goes on and on and on.

As a biologist I have never been convinced by the space cadet assumptions that we can produce an atmosphere in a box and replicate an ecosystem in a tin. Of course this only holds true if we are talking about colonies, if we're talking about bases then these things can be shipped in.

 

[marcus]

Ryan,
I'm glad to learn that you are a biologist, as well as having clearly thought about the problems associated with off-earth habitation.

To some extent one could TEST the Ceres or Mars ice cave idea in the Greenland ice sheet or in Antarctica. One could actually see how difficult and how expensive it would be to establish a sealed habitat down below the surface, assuming a power source and artificial light.

So biological problems like those you mentioned could be studied experimentally.

I think people are only going to start being aware of Ceres in 2015, when the spacecraft (now approaching Vesta) finally gets there.

We don't KNOW that Ceres outer mantle is a thick layer mainly composed of water ice. This is just what the experts think. This has to be checked. The density of the tiny planet is 2 grams per cc---twice the density of liquid water. So it has some denser mineral component which is probably mixed in with the ice and more concentrated as you go deeper.

In 2015, when the Dawn spacecraft is orbiting Ceres, it will be possible to make more reliable guesses about the planet's structure and composition.

I anticipate that at that time there will be research interest in strategies for occupying Ceres and that biologists may get grants for studying subsurface ice ecosystems and habitats.
Just a hunch.
Primarily because it will be widely realized that it is easier to tunnel into an iceball than into a rock ball

and easier to seal around the airlocks at the entrance afterwards and mend any cracks----basically at that ambient temperature ice is a meltable rock.

and cheaper to extract oxygen from ice than from silicate.

and cheaper to set down on and lift off from a body whose escape velocity is a modest 500 meters per second.

So I think people are going to start seriously asking "what would it take to set up a Ceres base?" that was at least able to grow its own food and maintain its own breathable atmosphere without gross amounts of re-supply. A moderately self-sustaining base.
I think they will start asking that in 2015 when the pictures of Ceres, taken from orbit, are published, or at least will IF the pictures look good and the spectrometry says thick outer layer of ice. Which I expect.

We'll see. 2015 is still a long time in the future.

 

[marcus]

Ryan,
I may be mistaken. Some things I didn't think through carefully enough.
Mars polar area could be more practical for a base because Mars atmosphere, even though rarified, in enough to keep ice from subliming.

Here's a conjectured cutaway of Ceres structure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ceres_Cutaway.jpg

Note the outer shell of ordinary asteroid material---e.g. carbonate rock, clay are mentioned in the article. I'll quote a bunch:
==quote==
Internal structure
Peter Thomas of Cornell University has proposed that Ceres has a differentiated interior;[7] its oblateness appears too small for an undifferentiated body, which indicates that it consists of a rocky core overlain with an icy mantle.[7] This 100 km-thick mantle (23–28 percent of Ceres by mass; 50 percent by volume)[49] contains 200 million cubic kilometres of water, which is more than the amount of fresh water on the Earth.[50] This result is supported by the observations made by the Keck telescope in 2002 and by evolutionary modelling.[8][21] Also, some characteristics of its surface and history (such as its distance from the Sun, which weakened solar radiation enough to allow some fairly low-freezing-point components to be incorporated during its formation), point to the presence of volatile materials in the interior of Ceres.[8]
Alternatively, the shape and dimensions of Ceres may be explained by an interior that is porous and either partially differentiated or completely undifferentiated. The presence of a layer of rock on top of ice would be gravitationally unstable. If any of the rock deposits sank into a layer of differentiated ice, salt deposits would be formed. Such deposits have not been detected. Thus it is possible that Ceres does not contain a large ice shell, but was instead formed from low density asteroids with an aqueous component. The decay of radioactive isotopes may not have been sufficient to cause differentiation.[51]

Surface
The surface composition of Ceres is broadly similar to that of C-type asteroids.[13] However, some differences do exist. The ubiquitous features of the Cererian IR spectra are those of hydrated materials, which indicate the presence of significant amounts of water in the interior. Other possible surface constituents include iron-rich clays (cronstedtite) and carbonate minerals (dolomite and siderite), which are common minerals in carbonaceous chondrite meteorites.[13] The spectral features of carbonates and clay are usually absent in the spectra of other C-type asteroids.[13] Sometimes Ceres is classified as G-type asteroid.[52]...
==endquote==

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Very interesting, :) thankyou marcus. I hadn't given much thought to Ceres before.

It is very interesting trying to work through all the problems of space exploration and colonisation, the ramifications of the technologies needed are staggering! I do find it a shame how most of the lay public only give attention to big rockets rather than all the other scientists who are contributing to solving the various problems.

 

[marcus]

Ryan, most likely you saw the indication of surface water ice in a crater at the Moon's south pole. Some space junk was crashed into the crater and sent up a plume of material including water vapor.

Polar craters can be among the coldest places in the solar system because they are open to the dark sky and so can radiate all their heat out into space, but (assuming neglible axial tilt) they never get any sunlight. So if there is no atmosphere to carry heat in, the pit of the crater in permanent darkness can achieve a very low equilibrium temp.

Ceres has an axial tilt of about 2 degrees. Earlier I encountered the conceptual problem that (at least at the equator in full sunlight) ice would begin to sublime when exposed to vacuum. So if you scrape off a patch of surface layer (e.g. carbonate etc. rocky material) you get sublimation.

However I guess that a natural or artificial crater near Ceres pole would not have this problem, and would give a structurally safe access to the putative ice mantle.

You mentioned the interest of working through problems and I agree. There are a lot of elementary (one could say even pedagogically useful) problems in basic physics chemistry and biology which immediately appear when one transfers context.

Not all the problems are grimly serious ones , one can for instance ask how far could I jump? Say I live in a large artificially lit cavern with 3% Earth gravity. So if my mass is 200 pounds my weight is 6 pounds. How do I keep physically fit? Would it be possible to fly? (say with a couple of hand-powered propellers?) Would I be able to jump long distances?