Community > Forum > Perception, Barriers & Regulation of Privatized Space Travel > Well, what would cause people to move into space?

Well, what would cause people to move into space?

Posted by: Bindar - Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:56 am
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 26 posts ] 
Well, what would cause people to move into space? 

What is the one thing that will be the long term drive for space exploration and the impetus for the financial backing of space exploration in the future?
Poll ended at Thu Jul 15, 2004 2:56 am
Space Tourism 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Mining 36%  36%  [ 4 ]
Colonialism (prison overcrowding results in new transportation laws) 36%  36%  [ 4 ]
Industrial Manufacturing 18%  18%  [ 2 ]
Forced Population Displacement (war or overpopulation) 9%  9%  [ 1 ]
Total votes : 11

Well, what would cause people to move into space? 
Author Message
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 8:23 am
Posts: 195
Location: Lincoln, England
Post    Posted on: Mon Jun 28, 2004 12:54 pm
Diverting a medium sized asteroid would be difficult, cos they're huge. If you only had five years before the thing was due, then you really haven't any choice, but to move house.

The question though, is how do you keep society working to enable to resources to be created to build your escape route? Mmm! Tricky.

_________________
Sean Girling

Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled.


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 12:26 am
Posts: 180
Post    Posted on: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:53 pm
sicko...


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 8:23 am
Posts: 195
Location: Lincoln, England
Post    Posted on: Tue Jun 29, 2004 1:25 pm
Maybe, but I like playing the part. Imagine you're in charge, and you have to ensure the survival of some of Earths species. The people of Earth are not going to be terribly productive are they? So how do you get together the required resources. The moon will have to have something like the Biosphere2 to send your people to. That test habitat had huge biomes that in the end just weren't big enough. All that for a small number of people. Resize it for a hundred or more people and many more animals, and you can see how much effort it's going to take.

_________________
Sean Girling

Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 11:52 am
Posts: 1379
Location: Exeter, Devon, England
Post    Posted on: Tue Jun 29, 2004 3:51 pm
I think there would be loads of weird * terrarists* using the giant rock as a sign that we have done something and be very exreme and if they could not escape they could not escape they would no want us to. But anyway away from the negative aspect if possible:
I think amateur rocketry and the large governments would have to ship paylods of goos to the moon, thousands of rockets fired there only taking 2 days to reach it! and the first priate rocke o space has already happened this year. Then with he crew exploration vehicle tests in 208 tey would have to advance his and crate infltable habitats to selter us on the moon, maybeon rockets hen to self fil on the moon for atleast a temp structure to hold the people. we could send up the matrials to build stations there and when we get there start building haitat. Afer we were struck, which hate to say bu would bean amazing seen from the moon! we would have t wait for the earth to become table and maybe speed his up somehow! then slowly start moving life back there years later! afterall prob still safer than mars!
NO?

_________________
> http://www.fullmoonclothing.com
> http://www.facebook.com/robsastrophotography
> robgoldsmith@hotmail.co.uk


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
User avatar
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:21 pm
Posts: 297
Location: LI/NY - currently
Post    Posted on: Tue Jun 29, 2004 9:12 pm
Actually it can be argued either way which is safer the Moon or Mars. Each has pluses and minuses. The moon is closer, which is good if something goes wrong but it is a much harsher environment than Mars. Mars while further away has easier to extract life supporting resources.


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 12:26 am
Posts: 180
Post    Posted on: Tue Jun 29, 2004 9:31 pm
The moon should come first, our first colony will involve the first real world testing of alot of theories and technologies. If the colony needs something, better to be able to get with a transit time of three days than a transit time of 5 months.

Once we have tested our ideas, THEN we should go to mars.

I would rather live on Mars btw.


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 8:23 am
Posts: 195
Location: Lincoln, England
Post    Posted on: Wed Jun 30, 2004 7:34 am
Yeah, I'd like Mars as my backyard too. Take a deep, yet narrow canyon, and glass over the top. Instant habitat. Bit simplistic, but it'd look great.

But an escape is a bit selfish if we don't also try to rescue some of the flora and fauna of our world. What do we take? Somethings are simply out of the question, like big whales, but should we try to save dolphins, cats, birds? Plants are a little easier, what with the seed bank at Kew Gardens storing 24,000 different species.

Pity we couldn't just take the genetic finger prints of things, and grow them wherever we end up.

_________________
Sean Girling

Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:49 am
What does the term "industrial manufacturing" include in detail?

The consequence of some industries is environmental contamination - may be a reason for going to space.

Some things cannot produced or developed on earth - at the ISS threedimensional tumors have been searched because the effect of chemical therapy on it couldn't searched sufficiently on earth - may be a reason for going to space too.

Space is rich of ennergy sources - light, radiation, solar wind - another possible reason.

Other things may be easier to be made without gravity - but if they are big it will difficult to move them to the surface.

So "industrial manufacturing" needs to be considered in details perhaps down to elementary details.

I'm missing Transportion Services and Traffic - flights from Hamburg to Sydney are lasting much more than half a day. Going to space they might be reduced to 90 minutes. That's suborbital - yes - but the ends of the trajectories are very distant compared to the XPRIZE. Let's better use the term "Infrastructure" - it's expressing the point better than "Transportation and Traffic".



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Wed Jun 30, 2004 12:07 pm
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
Some things cannot produced or developed on earth - at the ISS threedimensional tumors have been searched because the effect of chemical therapy on it couldn't searched sufficiently on earth - may be a reason for going to space too.

As someone who performs research on cancer I thought this one needed a bit of clearing up. So here is a link from which I think Ekkehard may have got his interpretation. (It's a bit dated though, from 2001)

ISS to study ovarian cancer cells

Hey! Even I could go into space! That should be proof enough that almost anyone is eligible. In fact, in the future, I think it might be possible that you would have to work very hard in order to not be eligible to serve some sort of useful function in an off world colony somewhere.

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 12:26 am
Posts: 180
Post    Posted on: Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:49 pm
I think that by 2300 most people could be living in space.

One reason I prefer mars to the moon for my house, the moon will populate faster---at first. ... Well maybe not.

Yes Sean, I would want to bring animals with me...

if I were rich a game preserve might be in order.....


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Fri Jul 02, 2004 6:34 am
In general the different attractiveness of Moon and Mars is of a similar nature as the difference between Berlin and Sydney seen from Hamburg: The first is nearer and you can get there within a short time, visit and then return within a short time - the other is far away and long vacations are needed to visit it or you have to work and to live there.

That may change if one day drives providing higher velocities are available, but here a financial barrier is found that requires "exploitation" of the Mars by work and industries. You would have to give several years of your life to see the martian surface. And from these thoughts looking out to the outer planets nebulous at the horizon the first edge of the barrier of time seems to show itself - the need to live the whole life upon moons or asteroids as the only chance mankind has to move to the stars, a need increasing by distance, by every billion of km on the way out of the solar system.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use