We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Should the world colonize beyond earth?
| 156 | 17676 |
This is actually a debate topic, and a dang good one. I want to see what all of you think about this, being a controversial topic.
I personally am against it, It is just another gambit that the economy has to worry about.
- 156 Replies
it's not fact either.
we can freeze them but there is no way yet to bring them back alive.
Not yet my friend, not yet.
Not yet my friend, not yet.
there is also not yet a way it might possibly work. and that it is only a technical problem.
i'm very skeptical about this hypothesis
if it works then great we have a problem solved.
now only the problem to get there whitout being hit by anything flying around in space.
the unfreezing part can be automaticly done when landed. so earth wouldn't have to if it somehow got destroyed or whatever during the 600 year flight.
You normally have to get to another land or planet before you can colonise, we haven't even got to the moon yet despite what we're told
we haven't even got to the moon yet despite what we're told
...-.-"
You ARE just kidding, right? RIGHT?
You normally have to get to another land or planet before you can colonise
That's not the question. The question is whether we should, despite not currently being able to.
I think we should get resources, but only if we have a really stable plan to it. In the meantime we should try to make life on earth more efficient.
You normally have to get to another land or planet before you can colonise, we haven't even got to the moon yet despite what we're told
Since all governments are embodiments of Cathulu and have so many reasons to lie about everything they do.
Of course we should colonize. There is no negative factor. The colonize could produce vast amounts of resources, however do to the nature of most nearby planets, that would mostly be metals. The cost of colonization and transportation should easily be overcome by the vast untapped potential of the planets, assuming that our technology improves. Once a colony has been established, it then should be able to terraform the planet and allow more resources to be built such as timber and farms, as well as living space.
Also, energy would be easy to come by on the planets, having a ton of empty land and lesser atmosphere would probably make things like solar panels effective. A combination of the metals and energy would make this an ideal industrial location, not to mention any pollutants would not be on earth, but would actually aid some planet's terraform with it's gasses. So what is there to lose?
I would say finding a habitable and resourceful planet would be a good idea to colonize, because Earth is already holding a hefty 7 billion people.
However, finding this sort of planet would take an EXTREMELY long amount of time. Earth was made to be able to hold us, with abundant water sources and plenty of land to expand. Also, the way the Earth was placed is fantastic. Jupiter's gravitational pull relieves us of most large asteroids heading our way, and if we were only so much closer to the sun, our planet would burn.
All of this has to be considered when colonizing a new planet, if not, many lives could be lost.
However, finding this sort of planet would take an EXTREMELY long amount of time
How about Mars? It is close, probably has metals we want, and should be easy to terraform.
Earth was made to be able to hold us
Last I checked we where evolved to fit earth...
with abundant water sources and plenty of land to expand
That was all well and good for our ancestors, but just giving a colony a sizable amount of water and a water recycling plant, as well as the occasional refill that would come with the supply ship, could easily get the required water. Other planets, lacking our oceans (Which of course is good for earth) means that they actually have more land.
and if we were only so much closer to the sun, our planet would burn.
Actually we have plenty of room to move, which is why we don't burn up going around the sun.
How about Mars? It is close, probably has metals we want, and should be easy to terraform.
Mars would be acceptable, but again not very easy to expand to in the near future. We still require technologies such as sufficient green rooms that can grow plants without oxygen or carbon-dioxide (which is being worked on).
as well as the occasional refill that would come with the supply ship
This would work, but eventually we would run out of water unless we found a way to form an atmosphere, produce clouds, and create a water cycle on Mars.
You bring many good points, but for many of your ideas to work, lots of time is required to find the right sort of technology.
Mars would be acceptable, but again not very easy to expand to in the near future. We still require technologies such as sufficient green rooms that can grow plants without oxygen or carbon-dioxide (which is being worked on).
Or we could just terraform it, turning it more earth like, and allow plants to grow there like that. As that is being worked on, a transport ship could make weekly rounds to give and take resources between Mars and Earth.
This would work, but eventually we would run out of water unless we found a way to form an atmosphere, produce clouds, and create a water cycle on Mars.
Water recycling works well on space ships, assuming that there isn't a ton of people, it would be simple to recycle water, just bringing in an extra ton or so every year to make sure it has enough. The water cycle could come eventually, after Mars it terraformed, maybe a machine that combines it's molecules?
You bring many good points, but for many of your ideas to work, lots of time is required to find the right sort of technology.
Of course there is. This is all hypothetical, I am not expecting this to happen for at least ten years. Maybe five, if we get the space program back up.
The colonize could produce vast amounts of resources, however do to the nature of most nearby planets, that would mostly be metals
1st and most importend resource we will get from space is helium-3 from our own moon
mars should be easy to terraform.
it's what you call easy.
it wil be very very hard and it will take 100's of years.
You bring many good points, but for many of your ideas to work, lots of time is required to find the right sort of technology.
exactly. it isn't all that easy and done in a few years. it will be hard and taking a long time.
the moon by 2020-2030 and mars they are aiming for 2060-2100
we could just terraform it
ow yes, lets just do that. why no1 els has been thinking about it?
ow wait i know... because it aint that easy.
a transport ship could make weekly rounds to give and take resources between Mars and Earth.
how are we going to make a 9 month trip whitin a week?
I am not expecting this to happen for at least ten years. Maybe five, if we get the space program back up.
since your obviusly talking about mars =) make that 50 to 90 year
and another 200 or so to terraform it partly
also doesn't it mater if nasa starts it's space programe again (wich has never stoped. only the launching of space shuttles has ended because they are unsafe compared to other rockets that the europeans, russians and chinese have been making for lots of years already.
because nasa has stoped it's space shuttle project. doesn't mean that the rest of the world has stoped aswell. there are still almost daily flying rockets into space.
nasa is just 1 of the many space orgenisations.
1st and most importend resource we will get from space is helium-3 from our own moon
I guess that would be valuable as well, and close to. However it would be far more difficult to colonize, since it would be near impossible to terraform the atmosphere at the moment, and would have to be all inside buildings.
it's what you call easy.
it wil be very very hard and it will take 100's of years.
With today's technology, maybe, but I am assuming that we can find technology that would make it take much less time.
ow yes, lets just do that. why no1 els has been thinking about it?
ow wait i know... because it aint that easy.
They have been thinking of it. And they are probably going to do it. We just don't have the technology yet, and this is all assuming that technology improves greatly in the next fifty years.
how are we going to make a 9 month trip whitin a week?
By having better rockets?
since your obviusly talking about mars =) make that 50 to 90 year
and another 200 or so to terraform it partly
I am assuming 10-15 years to the point where we would have the technology to start colonizing it, which will pretty much be landing a semi-permanent base on it.
also doesn't it mater if nasa starts it's space programe again (wich has never stoped. only the launching of space shuttles has ended because they are unsafe compared to other rockets that the europeans, russians and chinese have been making for lots of years already.
because nasa has stoped it's space shuttle project. doesn't mean that the rest of the world has stoped aswell. there are still almost daily flying rockets into space.
nasa is just 1 of the many space orgenisations.
Sure they are. But having all of the worlds powers working on a specific goal does more than just having most of the world powers working on a specific goal.
However it would be far more difficult to colonize, since it would be near impossible to terraform the atmosphere at the moment, and would have to be all inside buildings.
no need to terraform it. it's beter this way.
if we terraform it then that will create a ozonlayer.
wich will stop solarrays or w/e that i can't remember right now.
there is almost no helium-3 on earth because of our ozonlayer. (1ltr. costs around 20 million usd) so if we terraform the moon we will lose a 100% clean enrgy form that has more or the same as nuclear power.
also doesn't it mater that it isn't terraformed because it is very close to the earth. (hack, neil armstrong did it whit 32Kbits of RAM)
With today's technology, maybe, but I am assuming that we can find technology that would make it take much less time.
assuming or hoping?
They have been thinking of it. And they are probably going to do it. We just don't have the technology yet,
sounds like a little kids dream job that he will never be able to get. but he realy wants!.... but no.
and this is all assuming that technology improves greatly in the next fifty years.
i'm sure about that. computers will become smarter then humans in a bit more or less then 10 year. what it will bring us is still evryones guess.
By having better rockets?
what nuclear rockets?
(hmmmmm makes me think... maybe the helium-3 rockets that we got from the moon. might got a point there. but i'm still skeptic whit a once a week quick flight to mars tho.)
I am assuming 10-15 years to the point where we would have the technology to start colonizing it, which will pretty much be landing a semi-permanent base on it.
except that non of the space orgizations (wich actualy go to space) in this world is focusing on mars 1st. they all have already running plans to colonise the moon for it's resource. europe and russia are aiming for 2020. china has said that they have money problems and that they aim for 2022/23. (but it wont surprise me if they are going to do it in 2018 already.) the usa has elimenated themself from being the 1st getting the resource by stoping the space shuttle program and say they aim for 2020 aswell. but that they don't know if they are going to make it.
Sure they are. But having all of the worlds powers working on a specific goal does more than just having most of the world powers working on a specific goal.
if nasa wants to then they can buy 1 of our models.
also isn't nasa shut down. all the scientists there are working together whit the other countrys. thats the basic of sience. and it's a shame to let those smart heads rot away.
if nasa would fall compleetly (wich is not even close to reality) then those scientists will have job the next hour in 1 of the other organizations.
in other words: that nasa doesn't fly atm anymore doesn't mean that they are not helping the others. or nothing at all. there are loads of companys in the space business that never have been to space.
You must be logged in to post a reply!