Space colonization.

[Dascoo]

What is your stance on it?

Do you think more money should be diverted to space agencys so more money can be spent on research for establishing settlements on other planetary bodies? Or do you think more money should be spent on our planet?

In my opinion, I think we need a self sustaining population off world just in case a life ending event occurs on Earth... 

[a-4-year-old]

I want my own enterprise.

I think its way too early for space colonization to even be considered, we can't even keep trained astronauts alive through getting out of our atmosphere.

[homey188]

Well, it will most likely become necessary eventually.   Moon is close, but not that good.  Mars is also a possibility.  Uranus is the only other possible one, but that'd be more for resources than for living space.

[LtKillroy]

Way too much cost at this point. Growing plants, just getting oxygen there, etc. is too inefficient to make it worth our while, especially since there isn't a huge return. Also, it takes awhile to get to Mars and such, so you would have to plan way ahead in supplies and stuff which could create problems; unforeseen resource needs, problems in space, etc. Eventually, when we can more efficiently grow plants (I know we have the fake dirt stuff, but its pretty expensive I thought) and get oxygen and other requirements for life.

[Svirin Kerath]

Also, where would these colonies be built? We don't have the tech to build them in space; it would take years and years and years (look at MIR... now multiply its length and width by a kilometer).

[a-4-year-old]

oh please, we could turn that into mass production and launch it into space and be done relatively quickly. its just a matter of how many billions do you want to spend.

[Svirin Kerath]

oh please, we could turn that into mass production and launch it into space and be done relatively quickly. its just a matter of how many billions do you want to spend.

Short of a space war, that situation is pretty much impossible. And so I say, at this time, we don't have the tech to do so.

Mass production of such complex and precise machines as those needed for the construction/assembly of a space colony would either have to be invented from scratch or converted from existing factories; neither of which have been done before. Those require tech we don't currently have, and won't unless there's a rapid change in policy.

[echo_trail]

I would really like to travel out there among the stars, and to see other worlds and such, to know what is out there.. I want it so much I even dream of it at night, and sometimes I just sit out in the backyard when it's totally dark around me, and look up at the stars.
The whole entering space deal has been running through my mind for as long as I can remember, and I find it hard to conclude on its ethics. I definitelæy think we should put more money in saving our own world. after all, if we can't take care of this planet, who are we to travel to any other and ruin that as well? Agent Smith really has a point in the virus thing when it comes to that.

On the other hand, we probably don't have much of a chioce. If the technology is available when this world colapses, and we all know it will at some point in a somewhat near future, there is no doubt that we will flee out in space and settle somewhere else. I guess we'll always do anything to survive.

However, as I see it, man has always given himself too much credit. Who are we to say we deserve to live, when everything else on this planet will rot in the poluted aftermath we're the cause of? We are not important, and I don't think we deserve to look upon ourselfs like that.
In the timeframe that is the birth of the earth or even the universe, we are practically nonexistant. If we continue the race for another billion years, it will still only be the blink of an eye in the big run. As I said, we are of no importance. Perhaps we should just claim responsability for the destruction we have caused and die keeping a low profile.

Or?

[LtKillroy]

Also, as of right now, no country has billions of dollars lying around for someone to spend on nothing. Bush blew it all, Russia is pretty screwed, China won't spend it on something so frivilous. It would take like the whole EU, NATO, or just a mixture of them. And as of right now, they wouldn't waste it when they have the our own planet to not destroy and stuff. I don't see it happening for at least 20 years, 50 would probably be more accurate. (maybe if we made solar power more efficient, as of right now a panel only absorbs like 8% of the total solar energy, we would like it to be like 80%)

[echo_trail]

The EU doesn't have a spaceprogram, do they? And NATO isn't exactly wealthy..

Oh, and don't be saying that about China. No one ever knows what they'll do. Sneaky bastards!

[LtKillroy]

I'm not saying do they want too, I'm saying who has the means. Pretty much its the EU, the US/NATO, and China. And no, China wouldn't, they have better things to spend money on, like army stuff. It would serve no purpose, especially since if they made it for military purpuses, the US would just shoot an ICBM at it, killing billions of chinese dollars and wasting tons of their time. Its not really possible for anyone. Maybe if the whole UN decided to, but once again, no one would waste that much money.

[Valorman]

I read somewhere that people will be able to live on the moon in 50 years or so.
With rapid growth in technology, I wouldn't be surprised if it happened.

[Dascoo]

Do you guys know how much money is being spent on NASA, compared to the military? Remember when the U.S.A was able to get a man on the moon in less the 10 years?

I want my own enterprise.

I think its way too early for space colonization to even be considered, we can't even keep trained astronauts alive through getting out of our atmosphere.

It's not the fact that the astronauts are terribly trained, it's that the Columbia was an old shuttle...

Uranus

wut

*snip*

Budget again.

Also, go look at the United States military budget.

[Svirin Kerath]

NASA is paid next to nothing, far under budget- all the $$ is going to Iraq and defense programs, what money NASA does get the gov't makes them use to experiment with orbital weapons and anti missiles. And they can't even afford to do that.

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/index.html

The EU does have a space agency, but they're pretty amateur so far. They need to try getting tot he moon first, then worry about space colonies.

[BondJamesBond]

Um. Yes, China is and probably WILL be investing a lot of money and time into their space program. NASA has a 2020 deadline for the moon, and China is expected to beat that.

But as for as colonization goes...

[Blazing Tiger]

I believe we shouldn't even think about space colonization until we find more practical means of getting there. Just getting to the moon. the nearest planet-like thing to Earth, takes a massive amount of fuel. And to get somewhere like Mars? A couple years? Decades? These things are really, really fscking far away. Nothing short of Wormhole technology will make something like colonization a reality, except for maybe establishing an oxygen-dome on the moon. And even that will be a challenge.

[Dascoo]

I believe we shouldn't even think about space colonization until we find more practical means of getting there. Just getting to the moon. the nearest planet-like thing to Earth, takes a massive amount of fuel. And to get somewhere like Mars? A couple years? Decades? These things are really, really fscking far away. Nothing short of Wormhole technology will make something like colonization a reality, except for maybe establishing an oxygen-dome on the moon. And even that will be a challenge.

Estimated travel time between the Earth and Mars varies depending on the location of each planet in the solar system. When closest, it's about 1 year. So....no to decades.

Travel to the moon doesn't take that much fuel either...not as much as you're exagerating it.

[Svirin Kerath]

Mars is only close once every 8 years or so, so if you really wanted to go, it could take decades. and getting out of the atmosphere takes a lot of fuel, let alone getting to the moon (which depends on what kind of fuel you use.. you can use electric power, but that'll take a long time. you can use chemical propellant, but that requires fuel which take sup a lot of space).

[PANZERCATWAGON]

I want my own enterprise.

I think its way too early for space colonization to even be considered, we can't even keep trained astronauts alive through getting out of our atmosphere.

That's how it is with everything. Flying was one of the most dangerous activities known when it was first being used but then all of a sudden, when war starts, the technology comes on leaps and bounds until what we have today. If more pressure were to be put on developing this kind of space technology, for any reason such as pollution, I'm sure we could have cities on the moon within the next 50-70 years.

I'm all for space colonisation. I can't seem to find any reason as to why it's not feasable. We've already   ed this planet over well and truly so it's probably best, too.

We've already conquered the problem of getting to the moon. I don't see with the technology we have here on earth, we can't stay there. The only reason nature can't survive on the moon is because the environment is too harsh. We could bring over a bit of mud, some oxygen, some solar panels, some water and some big arse biome tents that you can prop up. Get a small ecosystem set up. You can grow berries and all kinds of stuff.

Sure you'd need to harvest the earth every once and a while for resources but that's not a problem.

[Dascoo]

I don't remember what the main problem was with the biodome experiment but I think it had to do with bacteria growing at such a high rate, that everything started to die after a few months.

Needs more research.