Spirit & Opportunity @ + Years

[JALU3]

NASA's rovers mark five years on Red Planet (http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/01/03/mars.rovers.five.years/index.html)


(CNN) -- NASA's Mars rovers are celebrating their fifth birthday on the Red Planet, exceeding their original life span by four years and nine months, with no end in sight to their history-making work.

The rover Spirit landed January 3, 2004, with Opportunity touching down 21 days later.

NASA said the rovers had made important discoveries about the wet and violent conditions on ancient Mars.

They had returned 250,000 images, covered more than 21 kilometers (13 miles), climbed a mountain, descended into craters, struggled with sand traps and ageing hardware and survived dust storms, NASA (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/nasa) said.

Whomever the project managers for this mission is need to be rewarded, and be brought back for future major projects.

[Torplexed]

Five years is about twenty times the initial guarantee. That's pretty good.
With what we've learned about exploring Mars from this pair, and with software and computer hardware improvements, I imagine that we could build and launch smaller, cheaper, and more self-maintaining rovers that are even more capable than these.

It would be great to have a dozen different locations being explored like this. :cool:

[Kapt Z]

Five years is about twenty times the initial guarantee. That's pretty good.
With what we've learned about exploring Mars from this pair, and with software and computer hardware improvements, I imagine that we could build and launch smaller, cheaper, and more self-maintaining rovers that are even more capable than these.

It would be great to have a dozen different locations being explored like this. :cool:

I agree. Problem is, I think is that it's hard to keep in the public eye unless we are sending people up and even the shuttle launches got 'routine' until the accidents started happening.

[Zachstar]

You all got to understand.

It is no longer about the science and images. Over these 5 years a TON TON TON TON!!!! Has been learned about keeping spacecraft alive, power management, Movement under bad situations..

The book of stuff learned from it will mean the manned rovers of the future will be FAR more robust.

[Enigma]

Cool stuff.

Just in case anyone has been under a rock, Google Mars (http://www.google.com/mars/) kicks ass.

[UnderseaLcpl]

You all got to understand.

It is no longer about the science and images. Over these 5 years a TON TON TON TON!!!! Has been learned about keeping spacecraft alive, power management, Movement under bad situations..

The book of stuff learned from it will mean the manned rovers of the future will be FAR more robust.


And all that knowledge has cost a TON TON TON TON of money, to little avail. As cool as it is to know what Mars rocks are made of, it doesn't do us any good unless that knowledge is profitable. All NASA is doing, regardless of what success they might achieve, is putting the nation's economy further in the red (no pun intended)

If or when it makes economic sense to explore the red planet, private industry will do it, and it will do so in a fashion that creates economic growth. Wasting public funds on these endeavors and stonewalling private attempts at space exploration through excessive regulation are only delaying the process. Private firms like Virgin Galactic have already put NASA to shame by their efficient use of resources and ability to not waste hundreds of billions of dollars on missions that, while informative, end up benefitting the world very little. For starters, they have pursued the idea of equipping a spacecraft with wings so that it could fly as close as possible to orbit before using fuel-inefficient rockets. NASA did the exact opposite, fitting a spacecraft with wings so it could glide to earth for the completely irrelevant non-hypersonic approach to the runway, all in the name of saving money, with no regard to the hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of fuel required to fill the booster rockets.

As happy as I am for the success of the Mars rovers, I'd be a lot happier if their funding wasn't siphoned from the economy in the form of taxes, public debt, and inflation. Rather than worrying about why Mars is a dead, apparently worthless ball of rock and rust, perhaps we should worry about furthering the progress of humanity through the pursuit of economic development, so that we will have the time and resources to spend on such things in the future.

[JALU3]

Sorry LCpl however, we've already shown the numbers proving that the budget of NASA isn't even 1% of the Federal Budget, what little cost they do have for the significant data which they do produce is amazing. I am not saying that there isn't waste that may need to be cut, or more efficient ways of doing certain things, however, NASA's efforts along with those of private companies are in the best intersts of future space travel for all of us.
And why not have Private Industry design the next national manned program, make a competition of it, best one, wins the larger contract. Much like how old aircraft programs were competed for.

[Torplexed]

As happy as I am for the success of the Mars rovers, I'd be a lot happier if their funding wasn't siphoned from the economy in the form of taxes, public debt, and inflation. Rather than worrying about why Mars is a dead, apparently worthless ball of rock and rust, perhaps we should worry about furthering the progress of humanity through the pursuit of economic development, so that we will have the time and resources to spend on such things in the future.
Unfortunately that worthless ball of rock and rust is the most earth-like planet in this entire solar system, so it's always going to be the subject of the greatest interest when it comes to an eye for future settlement. The arctic was once seen as a howling waste and now nations are going to great lengths to claim even underwater title to great portions of it. I can guarantee you that the same people who begrudge the waste of money are the same ones who will howl "who lost Mars?" if China or some other nation gets there even with an unmanned craft.

However, Venus....now that's a waste of money. :p I think the Russian Venera probes lasted twenty minutes before the corrosive atmosphere cooked them.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Sorry LCpl however, we've already shown the numbers proving that the budget of NASA isn't even 1% of the Federal Budget, what little cost they do have for the significant data which they do produce is amazing. I am not saying that there isn't waste that may need to be cut, or more efficient ways of doing certain things, however, NASA's efforts along with those of private companies are in the best intersts of future space travel for all of us.
And why not have Private Industry design the next national manned program, make a competition of it, best one, wins the larger contract. Much like how old aircraft programs were competed for.

I'll admit, it's one of my crazier opinions, and I suppose that there are worse things that NASA's 25 billion dollar budget could be spent on. The folks at NASA have done some amazing things, you're right, and I suspect it's because they have a passion for what they do.
Nonetheless, in any limited-competition environment (including semi-private endeavors with long-term contracts) there will be a lot of waste. The military-industrial complex is a sterling example. I think there's a real danger that space exploration and research could actually end up being impeded compared to what the private sector could do.
I'm afraid that NASA is alot like Amtrak in many respects. It provides a very valuable service that very few people want, so it ends up being a giant waste.
It fails to innovate, because it is stifled by red tape and lack of incentive (once again, NASA does at least seem to have some incentive). When people do end up wanting the valuable service that they provide, they'll opt for a completely different method, but NASA still won't go away. Ultimately it will end up getting in the way of private space ventures and leeching off of their infrastructure.

Well, that's enough thread-derailing for me for one day, so I'll just add that however I may feel about NASA, I'm glad their rovers survived and got all that data. Does anyone know if they got any samples that gave us much info about Mars' magnetic field?

[TLAM Strike]

Unfortunately that worthless ball of rock and rust is the most earth-like planet in this entire solar system... Don't forget Titan. :know:

Yes yes not a "planet" but... :p

[TLAM Strike]

Well, that's enough thread-derailing for me for one day, so I'll just add that however I may feel about NASA, I'm glad their rovers survived and got all that data. Does anyone know if they got any samples that gave us much info about Mars' magnetic field? Well it wasn't the rovers that discovered this but one of NASA's orbiters. There are a number of magnetic fields on Mars, its thought that the planets magnetic field is in its last stages before it vanishes because the planets core is becoming solid rock again and thus has stopped spinning. This is though have been caused by a moon that was captured by Mars, the tital forces of the moon caused the planet to spin more until the core heated up much like Earth's until the moon crashed in to Mars and oblitrated the northern half of the planet.

[Dowly]

Just watched a 6 part show on telly about the challenges behind the first manned Mars flight. Darn, sooo many things that can go wrong. And even if they make it to the surface, every moment they are on the surface outside their pod can kill them (the huge sand tornados & radiation). :-?

[AVGWarhawk]

Now, if they could get these mechanical marvels to last that long and glitch free, why can't MS get Windows to last that long and glitch free?

There next step is a flying miniture machine with wings designed after a moth. This machine will be delivered in the same manner as these two rovers. The rover will be the flying machines home base.

http://www.gtri.gatech.edu/casestudy/flying-mars

Talk about high tech wizardry!

[Zachstar]

Because Windows does not have to run on just one type of CPU and RAM and memory.

The rovers have amazingly little CPU and RAM for programs.

[AVGWarhawk]

Because Windows does not have to run on just one type of CPU and RAM and memory.

The rovers have amazingly little CPU and RAM for programs.

Why not amazingly send them to MS?

[Blacklight]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torplexed
Unfortunately that worthless ball of rock and rust is the most earth-like planet in this entire solar system...

Don't forget Titan. :know:


What makes Titan so interesting is that it has an atmosphere and is covered in organic molecules. Despite the fact that it's so cold that methane runs like water and ice is as solid as rock up there, it's actually pretty Earthlike in it's compositions. The same can be said for Venus, but that planet just doesn't have the abundance of organic molecules that Titan has.

As far as Mars goes. It's probably the only other inhabitable planet in our solar system other than Earth with resources that could be exploited and used to sustain life. We should learn as much about it as possible. Also, there is SOME economic gain that can come from planetary exploration. They're always discovering new things about chemistry and physics from studying compounds and penomenon on other planets. A lot of these discoveries CAN have economic benefit, maybe not NOW, but in the long run, probably. Too many people think of the short term. "Where is my cash NOW !!" "How does this help me TODAY ?"
It seems that the corporate minded don't think too much about anything beyond next years financial outlook. :nope:

[Zachstar]

Going to mars has little to do with economics as it is dealing with population growth.

7 billion people will become 10 in a blink of an eye. 10 will become 20 in another and shortly afterwards there will be chaos because even with advanced technology you simply cant get enough food to sustain such without crazed things like screwing with plant genes.

Colonizing Mars is important because almost every part of it can be refined to grow and support.

The chain goes like this.

Ship, Shelther, Robot factory, Refineries/mines, lots of factories, dome buildings, Dome cities, Dome states, etc...

Obviously humans will not build these domes. Doing anything in a spacesuit (even a skintight one) is much harder than on earth so this will be a robot thing.

The impotant thing is you don't have to worry about "Ruining the environment" on mars because you wont waste anything and also whatever envrionment will be in domes not on the outside.

Also important is that you have all the materials you need on Mars. Steel? No problem! Glass? Easy! Rocket fuel? Are you kidding? dig a few feet and you got it. Silica? Plenty!

[Torplexed]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torplexed
Unfortunately that worthless ball of rock and rust is the most earth-like planet in this entire solar system...

Don't forget Titan. :know:

What makes Titan so interesting is that it has an atmosphere and is covered in organic molecules. Despite the fact that it's so cold that methane runs like water and ice is as solid as rock up there, it's actually pretty Earthlike in it's compositions. The same can be said for Venus, but that planet just doesn't have the abundance of organic molecules that Titan has.
Maybe we can talk Saturn into a swap. Their promising moon for our dead and airless one. ;)

Once transport matters have been brought to a reasonable level of reliability, colonization of Mars is simply a matter of critical mass on site. Get enough material and people in the right spot with the ability to function with some level of self sufficiency, and matters take care of themselves.

The biggest hurdle in the long run is going to be to create something more there than a glorified Antarctic research outpost. Colonization doesn't do anyone any good if it's a constant money drain. The people on the colony will eventually need to dabble in more than meteorology and geology to grow and justify the expensive supply line from Earth. I do think future taxpayers would eventually get weary of throwing people into space just to create an extraterrestrial welfare state. The flow has to be both ways, so wherever we go, sooner or later something we find there needs to be of value back home. Mining has been mentioned for the Moon, maybe some minerals that can't be found commonly on Earth. I personally put money on the first economically viable mining operations on asteroids will be for iridium. Its a pretty useful metal, and its rarity on Earth limits its applications.

Putting footprints on other worlds will happen again in our lifetimes. Putting down roots and raising families, I can see that taking another century or so.

[August]

Going to mars has little to do with economics as it is dealing with population growth.

7 billion people will become 10 in a blink of an eye. 10 will become 20 in another and shortly afterwards there will be chaos because even with advanced technology you simply cant get enough food to sustain such without crazed things like screwing with plant genes.

Colonizing Mars is important because almost every part of it can be refined to grow and support.

The chain goes like this.

Ship, Shelther, Robot factory, Refineries/mines, lots of factories, dome buildings, Dome cities, Dome states, etc...

Obviously humans will not build these domes. Doing anything in a spacesuit (even a skintight one) is much harder than on earth so this will be a robot thing.

The impotant thing is you don't have to worry about "Ruining the environment" on mars because you wont waste anything and also whatever envrionment will be in domes not on the outside.

Also important is that you have all the materials you need on Mars. Steel? No problem! Glass? Easy! Rocket fuel? Are you kidding? dig a few feet and you got it. Silica? Plenty!

Do you have any idea what it would cost to move billions of people from the Earth to Mars? Don't get me wrong, i wholeheartedly support the colonization of space but I don't believe it can ever be an answer to overpopulation.

[Zachstar]

It is the only answer besides the elephant in the room...

As for cost. Trillions.. And that is assuming they develop a super high ISP and thrust engine so you can carry 777 sized human cargo into space.

It is not going to be cheap. And nobody is going to develop the stuff to do it for free. That is why there has to be incentive. Like agreements to give mineral rights to many asteroids containing precious metals.

[August]

It is the only answer besides the elephant in the room...

I'd say trillions would be more like 10's of trillions at least and it'd still take way too long to avoid overpopulation critical mass.

Now I can think of a much simpler and easier solution, get the human race to reign it's pregnancy rate. That can't be any more difficult than what you're proposing.

[Zachstar]

And how do we do it?

China style? What if a mother wants to have 5 kids? Extra taxes?

[August]

And how do we do it?

China style? What if a mother wants to have 5 kids? Extra taxes?
Well negative population growth, not including the "old school" methods like war, genocide, starvation and disease, etc, does seem to happen on it's own upon occasion so i'd expect the solution might be found in that direction.

But to answer your question, yeah I suppose it's only fair that if someone really wants a big family and we aren't as a society prepared to forcibly prevent them from having it, then they ought to have to pay in some way for the extra worlds resources they will consume don't you think?

In any case there is no way that solar system colonization can be a solution to unchecked population growth. Even with a worldwide 100% effort, highly unlikely i'm sure you'd agree, I believe human population would have already reached critical mass, and crashed the old school way, long before the project could begin to operate.

[Zachstar]

Ok say we make some kind of "law" saying that those who say have more than 4 children lose all assistance and have to pay more taxes.

What will happen? The networks will go crazy over "Child Deaths from starvation" And "Garbage Can" incidents and what will happen. The opposition party will run a "No tax on many child families" or whatever plan that will surely mean the reinstating of welfare and all that back to the way it was. Nobody will care about how it will mean loss later.

There is NO such thing as population reduction in most democracies the ones with supposed population decline are mainly due to local conditions or other things that do not reflect on the rest of the world.

Maybe I am wrong to believe in the saving grace from space but what else can I do? Population reaching critical mass will mean one thing. Loss

Loss of freedom

Loss of life from constant war

Loss of the environment as environmentalism dies and everyone does whatever they can to get resources

I am not going to think about those things.

Hell have you stopped to think about how terrible going critical can be? 15-20 or so BILLION going nuts for food and resources?

[August]

Maybe I am wrong to believe in the saving grace from space but what else can I do?

You can stop holding it forth as a solution to the problem for one thing. All it does is give people a false sense of security and keeps folks from seeing the necessity of controlling population growth.

Hell have you stopped to think about how terrible going critical can be? 15-20 or so BILLION going nuts for food and resources?

I have and that's why i see an effort to limit world pregnancy rate, regardless of how draconian, as the lesser evil by far.

[TLAM Strike]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torplexed
Unfortunately that worthless ball of rock and rust is the most earth-like planet in this entire solar system...

Don't forget Titan. :know:

What makes Titan so interesting is that it has an atmosphere and is covered in organic molecules. Despite the fact that it's so cold that methane runs like water and ice is as solid as rock up there, it's actually pretty Earthlike in it's compositions. The same can be said for Venus, but that planet just doesn't have the abundance of organic molecules that Titan has.
Maybe we can talk Saturn into a swap. Their promising moon for our dead and airless one. ;) We could just steal it! Just get a few asteroids redirected to ever so gently tug with their gravaty Titan out of Saturn orbit and over here. Heck while we are at it why don't we swap the orbits of Venus and Mars and move Europa and make it the new moon of Mars it could be a touristy water park while stablizing Mars's rotation and getting the old planet core spinning again. Now what about a moon for Venus? Anyone got an idea? ;)

[Do you have any idea what it would cost to move billions of people from the Earth to Mars? Don't get me wrong, i wholeheartedly support the colonization of space but I don't believe it can ever be an answer to overpopulation.Launches could be done cheaply if in place of a rocket a magnetic catapult was used. Think Railgun with human cargo. Fling it in to LEO and have a trans-lunar shuttle pick it up. Then use a cycler to send the people to Mars. BTW a cycler is basicly a space station in a perabolic orbit that goes between Earth and Mars orbit. If we ever get a space elevator working off loading people from Earth would be dirt cheap, they could even live on the elevator much like in Clarke's 3001 and The Fountians of Paradise.

[August]

Launches could be done cheaply if in place of a rocket a magnetic catapult was used. Think Railgun with human cargo. Fling it in to LEO and have a trans-lunar shuttle pick it up. Then use a cycler to send the people to Mars. BTW a cycler is basicly a space station in a perabolic orbit that goes between Earth and Mars orbit. If we ever get a space elevator working off loading people from Earth would be dirt cheap, they could even live on the elevator much like in Clarke's 3001 and The Fountians of Paradise.

Interesting. Do you think these things could be invented and built before the latter half of this century and the critical mass that Zachstar and I have been talking about?

[Zachstar]

I say no.

Anything other than a constant thrust to orbit is pointless to even discuss right now and that includes space elevator.

The only MAJOR problem we have right now is the base problem of fuel it takes to get into Orbit. Everything else is easily fixed with research and robots.

An aircraft engine has extremely HIGH ISP but requires access to air. As air gets thinner it loses thrust and thus is no good to get into orbit. But if it maintained the thrust it has on the ground and the ISP it could theoretically take a craft into orbit.

So this is what you need. an engine about the size of a 777 engine that can convert fuel or mass into energy at extremely high ISP all the way into Orbit.

VASIMR has that ISP in space but space does not matter cause even ion engines have plenty of ISP. You need VASIMR ISP with 777 thust at sea level.

I suspect it will be some VASIMR like thing connected to a reactor. and a few normal engines to assist for takeoff and climb to 40k ft. It will take a few hours to get into orbit but it surely can carry 500 people a flight.

[August]

This is why I think that regardless of the consequences or the unintended effects it's just got to be easier to learn to regulate our population at sustainable levels.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Launches could be done cheaply if in place of a rocket a magnetic catapult was used. Think Railgun with human cargo. Fling it in to LEO and have a trans-lunar shuttle pick it up. Then use a cycler to send the people to Mars. BTW a cycler is basicly a space station in a parabolic orbit that goes between Earth and Mars orbit. If we ever get a space elevator working off loading people from Earth would be dirt cheap, they could even live on the elevator much like in Clarke's 3001 and The Fountians of Paradise.


Think "crushing G-forces killing everyone on board and destroying most of the cargo". You could use a railgun to launch payloads from orbit at sufficiently low velocities, but not from the ground. The speed required to escape Earth's gravity is too great. Rockets are punishing enough, and they have a constant source of thrust.
It might be wiser to invest in an aerodynamic vehicle that flies as close to space as possible before using rocket propulsion. Very simple, very effective, and we have the technology to do it relatively cheaply right now.


There is NO such thing as population reduction in most democracies the ones with supposed population decline are mainly due to local conditions or other things that do not reflect on the rest of the world.

As far as the overpopulation thing goes, it's best to start with this misconception. While democracies do not neccessarily have negative population growth (if indeed one exsisted, anywhere, but that's nitpicking) first-world nations do. Any positive growth is generally due to immigration. The U.S. is a good example. Most net population growth in the U.S. is from immigration and the families of first-generation citizens. Even then, the birth rate is about 2.1 children per woman or less. Hardly enough to cause a population crisis. Since each child replaces a parent that eventually dies, the net effect is not that drastic.
However, poor countries, which almost always have high birth rates, contribute the most to global overpopulation. They also consume fewer resources, in every instance I am aware of. They also have a lot of famines and wars.

The cruel reality is that there will not be a need to introduce population-control measures or export people to space in the forseeable future. The "excess" population will simply die off. It's certainly a terrible fate, but it is one that will happen nonetheless. Eventually, we will come to the point where first-world nations are no longer willing to increase foreign aid to poor countries because of economic stress or production shortfalls. At that point, their high birth rates will be offset to at least an equal degree by high death rates and infant mortality rates.

In a worst-case scenario, like say, a bunch of idiots demanding that we transform our agricultural products into expensive and inefficient petroleum supplements, the supply of agricultural products to third-world nations will reach its' apex much more quickly, resulting in mass starvation and war. It's happening right now, and getting worse evey day. Of course, every third-world nation is also a primarily autocratic state, with very limiting trade policies.

Overpopulation is going to happen and space exploration isn't going to solve it. A government that simply has the ability to blow a bunch of money on space exploration, or any other dubious enterprise, is going to blow a lot of money. That money has to come from somewhere. If it is from taxation, it destroys market incentive and creates a market-government complex, and we all know what that does. It also removes currency from efficient use.
The much more common example involves the state borrowing or printing money, which artificially inflates the currency.
The result of either policy is that a nation is made less wealthy. Obviously, if people don't have disposable income to spend or invest, the economy suffers, yes?

If the economy suffers, the tax base and the supply of investment capital suffer. When an economy is suffering, the people that comprise it aren't very inclined to worry about overpopulation or space exploration or anything other than making ends meet.

The means to solving the problem of overpopulation is not in space. It is on this planet, and it involves economic freedom and prosperity, not taxing a suffering economy with wasteful expenditures on space travel/exploration/colonization. Those will come when the time is right.

[Zachstar]

This is why I think that regardless of the consequences or the unintended effects it's just got to be easier to learn to regulate our population at sustainable levels.

Lets see.

Either make a high thrust high ISP engine that is not dependant on outside air pressure or its oxygen.

OR

Lose rights more and more until finally the .gov has amassed enough power to silence any "Bad news" when they remove the incentives for having lots of children.

I pick letting the damn scientists continue as they are. A small team of scientists made VASIMR. I am sure in a decade someone will create the right engine for the jobs.

And robots are taking over the service jobs by then anyway. So they will be able to be mass produced.

Again with this cost thing. I mentioned the solution earlier. Mineral rights on asteroids. Even one good asteroid is enough as it can be mined for years. And with such high ISP and thrust you can get to the belt in a few months. (VASIMR can get to mars in 1 month now) So transport it not an issue.

Here is how it will happen in my view. A treaty will put forward a trillion or two to fully develop and manufacture the craft and the mobile factories to use martian materials. In return. Private industry must develop the plans and services and parts. And must fly the "List" of people who want to go for zero cost. (Obviously the first gen colonists will be a mix of specialists and people from 3rd world nations that accept the challenge of living on another planet to get away from their situation) the plans developed mean they can make what they need to harvest one asteroid for every few million or so they transport.

It wont exactly reduce the population but it will stabilize it and give companies one hell of an incentive to participate to the fullest.

[Zachstar]

BTW before someone mentions reentry. That issue has been solved.

The shuttle tiles are brittle because they are an OLD design. Modern reentry protection is MUCH better and not easily damaged.

Also with a large craft you get a MUCH larger force keeping you afloat. Do it right and the entry will take over an orbit to complete with MUCH less stress and heat the shuttle experiences. Not to mention you dont have to actually rely on drag to slow you down as such an high ISP engine can be reversed meaning you can basically "drop" into the atmosphere after you are low enough. Very safe and very economical.

[August]

Lets see.

Either make a high thrust high ISP engine that is not dependant on outside air pressure or its oxygen.

OR...
It's not just an engine Zachstar, it's a whole transportation system, habitation, food and water production as well as a million other new and improved technologies that would all have to be developed, and built, in space or millions of miles away on a planet we know very little about, all on an enormous scale, and all within the next few decades. The degree of human commitment and regimentation necessary to achieve even half of it would make regulating pregnancies a trivial matter by comparison.

Besides, what about the 3rd worlder who doesn't want to be sent to the asteroid belts? What about your freedom concerns then?

[Zachstar]

You don't send the entire 3rd world. That is not possible by any stretch. (Takes each transport a day or two per mission)

As for the side systems. Why the heck do you think I say a trillion dollars? To get alot of Xboxes?

The engine tho is the key to EVERYTHING. Nobody is going to give the trillions if there is no way to even propel it there economically.

As for the next few decades. Everything will be different.

As for human commitment? What? Again this is robotic territory not big bulky dude lifting a engine to be fitted. Yes we will need more people to design these things but they will be HIGHLY assisted by even today's systems which can tell you a great deal about an idea before you even start to bend metal. And I am quite sure other nations will be eager to be involved to get access to resources and to not be left behind in the next great space push.

Read lots of Ebooks to prepare for a trip to mars or push a cart full of produce all day. Not exactly a need to force is there?

This is a way out for poorer nations and their people. Their Einsteins will get their chance. Saying commitment like it is something difficult to decide on it rather silly in my view. Just about everyone will be happy to work with this.

And what do you think they will be giving up? Minimum Wage jobs? A trillion or 2 dollars from AROUND the world?

BTW can you imagine the spin off tech? Space Tech pays for itself due to spin off.

[August]

Just about everyone will be happy to work with this.

That's a rather large assumption about a race of beings that can't manage to put the brakes on their libido. :D

Hey, the technical advances you're describing might happen and I hope they do, but they won't be a solution to the overpopulation problem here on earth.

In the scale necessary to rocket excess billions of people to other planets before they breed their way into a population crash will be way too expensive and intrusive to even be considered seriously.

[baggygreen]

In australia at least, the population is set to drop without any large increase in migrant intake.

Our population is getting much older at a fairly quick rate. IIRC there is going to be something along these lines: 20 years time, 60%+ of the population (around 25 million) are expected to be aged 45+, and as such they're not going to be at a (natural) child-rearing age.

60% of 25 million is about 15 million. If you have 15 million die over say 30 years, I don't see the remaining 10 million replacing that 15 million.

If those numbers are correct (and I am a bit sketchy, this is taking me back to yr 12 at school) then we could expect numbers here to stabilise again at about 15 million.

Of course, should this ever happen, I expect we'd be almost swarmed by large numbers from our north, who (no offense) will continue breeding like rabbits.

[TLAM Strike]

Launches could be done cheaply if in place of a rocket a magnetic catapult was used. Think Railgun with human cargo. Fling it in to LEO and have a trans-lunar shuttle pick it up. Then use a cycler to send the people to Mars. BTW a cycler is basicly a space station in a perabolic orbit that goes between Earth and Mars orbit. If we ever get a space elevator working off loading people from Earth would be dirt cheap, they could even live on the elevator much like in Clarke's 3001 and The Fountians of Paradise.

Interesting. Do you think these things could be invented and built before the latter half of this century and the critical mass that Zachstar and I have been talking about? Clarke and Heinlein thought we would have them by now! :lol: Everything but the launch system/engine could be built with current technolgy. (Space Elevators probaly won't be feasable for a long time). The engine is a near future technolgy. ALl thats really needed would be money.

Launches could be done cheaply if in place of a rocket a magnetic catapult was used. Think Railgun with human cargo. Fling it in to LEO and have a trans-lunar shuttle pick it up. Then use a cycler to send the people to Mars. BTW a cycler is basicly a space station in a parabolic orbit that goes between Earth and Mars orbit. If we ever get a space elevator working off loading people from Earth would be dirt cheap, they could even live on the elevator much like in Clarke's 3001 and The Fountians of Paradise.


Think "crushing G-forces killing everyone on board and destroying most of the cargo". You could use a railgun to launch payloads from orbit at sufficiently low velocities, but not from the ground. The speed required to escape Earth's gravity is too great. Rockets are punishing enough, and they have a constant source of thrust. Escape velocity is less at higher altitude so building a Mag Catapult on mountian would be nessary.


It might be wiser to invest in an aerodynamic vehicle that flies as close to space as possible before using rocket propulsion. Very simple, very effective, and we have the technology to do it relatively cheaply right now. Or a vehicle that brings a spacecraft to sufficently high altitude for it to blast in to suborbital flight then use its VASIMR or other engine to gain orbit. After all unless the ship is returning to Earth why bother with the exess wight required for an aerodynamic form.

Why not combine all three ideas a magnetic catapult launches an aerodynamic launch aircraft in to a ballistic trejectory, which then releases the spacecraft at high alitude. Infact its such a good idea that Sir Clarke though it up in 1968 when he wrote 2001.

Lets see.

Either make a high thrust high ISP engine that is not dependant on outside air pressure or its oxygen.

OR...
It's not just an engine Zachstar, it's a whole transportation system, habitation, food and water production as well as a million other new and improved technologies that would all have to be developed, and built, in space or millions of miles away on a planet we know very little about, all on an enormous scale, and all within the next few decades. The degree of human commitment and regimentation necessary to achieve even half of it would make regulating pregnancies a trivial matter by comparison.

Besides, what about the 3rd worlder who doesn't want to be sent to the asteroid belts? What about your freedom concerns then? Long term space habitation has been under development since Apollo mostly in the USSR (they were planing a Mars mission right about the time Neil took his small step). Also learning how to build a long term habitat in space is one of the major mission of the ISS. Every set back on the ISS is one less set back on a future space mission.

Don't forceably send those starving 3rd worlders to Ceres off them a well paying job there! A lot of them a risking traveling to Europe and the USA for a better life why not offer them a chance to travel to another planet for work. Once done building habitats and underground farms for a future colony they can live there in relitive safety (no rival clans running around chopping off arms). Just don't tell them that once their bodies get acclmated to the low gravity there is no return. ;)

[August]

All this high tech stuff sounds great but i see little or no progress being made toward actually turning those concepts into reality, meanwhile critical population mass approaches unabated.

I think at least we could begin talking about controlling population. Educating folks as to why not having a passel of kids they won't be able to feed is a smart move. Maybe even stop rewarding people who have kids they can't afford.

If we preached self control with half as much urgency as we preach useless carbon control schemes maybe we'd have a real effect on the true source of human caused global warming.

[Zachstar]

Little or no progress?

What do you call VASIMR?

What do you call Bussard Fusion?

There have been MASSIVE advances in just the past decade. And the idea of a high thrust engine with high ISP is not that crazy. You mostly need a hell of alot of watts of energy.

As for "self control" that is useless. The generations have watched their parents struggle to raise kids but still they don't slow down. If the idea of a life of spending most of your money to raise the kids in a crappy house with a crappy job does not stop it. Nothing will.

[August]

Little or no progress?

What do you call VASIMR?

What do you call Bussard Fusion?

There have been MASSIVE advances in just the past decade. And the idea of a high thrust engine with high ISP is not that crazy. You mostly need a hell of alot of watts of energy.

As for "self control" that is useless. The generations have watched their parents struggle to raise kids but still they don't slow down. If the idea of a life of spending most of your money to raise the kids in a crappy house with a crappy job does not stop it. Nothing will.

Woah, i'm not saying people shouldn't have children. Just not more than they and their society can support. Now if every person on earth limited themselves to just two children we'd this overpopulation caused climate change problem licked

Say if you want to provide an incentive to immigrate into space how about letting off world immigrants have as many children as they want?

[Zachstar]

It is an idea. Once we get this going we will need to spread as fast as ethically possible in order to get as many brilliant minds as possible working on future issues.


Converting even part of the raw minerals of the asteroid belts into habitats would mean many trillions of people. Without a great deal of poverty and an emphesis on education means the smart ones will not die young and such means technology and science and the arts would advance at an astounding speed.

Why would I want such? Well one day we will need to leave the solar system. And we will need some sort of FTL system to do it. So such an effort requires many many many bright minds working on extremely complicated theories and ideas.

But yes none of this will happen if we hit critical before it can begin. But when does the .govs involve proclaim a limit "If you want to go" or whatever?.. 10 Billion? 15? As late as 20?

Even I will admit I would want some serious proof that I will get a ticket in my lifetime before I would accept such. Atleast the engine and self replicating robot technology.