I am interested in the NASA/DARPA 100 Year Starship Project http://100yss.org/mission/purpose (http://100yss.org/mission/purpose) mostly as a teacher who wants to promote interdisciplinary projects, but thought it might be of interest here.
As a teacher, I look at this as a motivational tool: for the parents and grandparents of current students, the goal was the race to the moon http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/MkATdOcdU06X5uNHbmqm1Q.aspx (http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/MkATdOcdU06X5uNHbmqm1Q.aspx) The upcoming generation has nothing like that to inspire them.
Anyone have any meaningful thoughts on the project?
I'd not heard about it prior to your mention of it here; it seems very interesting, so I'll do some reading on the site and see if I have some comments after that :)
Well, I don't know if my thoughts are meaningful, but I think a 100 year project is just too far out to excite most students. I think that something like Planetary Resources plans to mine near earth asteroids in the next decade might be a better choice to focus on.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 15, 2013, 09:09:47 PM
I think that something like Planetary Resources plans to mine near earth asteroids in the next decade might be a better choice to focus on.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.getoutdoors.com%2Fgoblog%2Fuploads%2Fsmoking-dope-snowboarding.jpeg&hash=7abf94c44767b4149b657d9b8e325da604941976)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 15, 2013, 09:09:47 PMI think that something like Planetary Resources plans to mine near earth asteroids in the next decade might be a better choice to focus on.
But not really, since that doesn't help anyone.
Since ramscoops probably don't work, I wonder how we would travel from one system to another.
Quote from: Neil on June 15, 2013, 09:20:59 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 15, 2013, 09:09:47 PMI think that something like Planetary Resources plans to mine near earth asteroids in the next decade might be a better choice to focus on.
But not really, since that doesn't help anyone.
:huh: How can you argue that tapping the unlimited resources of the asteroid belt wouldn't be economically beneficial?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 15, 2013, 09:24:01 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 15, 2013, 09:20:59 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 15, 2013, 09:09:47 PMI think that something like Planetary Resources plans to mine near earth asteroids in the next decade might be a better choice to focus on.
But not really, since that doesn't help anyone.
:huh: How can you argue that tapping the unlimited resources of the asteroid belt wouldn't be economically beneficial?
Because there's no return on the investment for the people going out to mine it, and the executives probably won't appreciate their jail terms.
Also, economically beneficial usually doesn't help anyone. It was economically beneficial to shitcan CdM, but who did that help?
I feel like the resources, while perhaps abundant, probably aren't unlimited.
Quote from: Jaron on June 15, 2013, 10:00:09 PM
I feel like the resources, while perhaps abundant, probably aren't unlimited.
Moreover, the resources that the asteroid belt has aren't the ones we need the most. Petroleum, natural gas and wood can't be recovered from asteroids.
Quote from: grumbler on June 14, 2013, 06:16:20 PM
As a teacher, I look at this as a motivational tool: for the parents and grandparents of current students, the goal was the race to the moon http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/MkATdOcdU06X5uNHbmqm1Q.aspx (http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/MkATdOcdU06X5uNHbmqm1Q.aspx) The upcoming generation has nothing like that to inspire them.
Anyone have any meaningful thoughts
Students should be motivated to race inside the limitless recesses of their minds.
That is where ultimate inspiration comes from.
Projects can include exercises in empathy, deferred gratification, and alternate history.
I can supply natural gas and wood.
Quote from: Neil on June 15, 2013, 09:52:36 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 15, 2013, 09:24:01 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 15, 2013, 09:20:59 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 15, 2013, 09:09:47 PMI think that something like Planetary Resources plans to mine near earth asteroids in the next decade might be a better choice to focus on.
But not really, since that doesn't help anyone.
:huh: How can you argue that tapping the unlimited resources of the asteroid belt wouldn't be economically beneficial?
Because there's no return on the investment for the people going out to mine it, and the executives probably won't appreciate their jail terms.
Of course they will get a return on their investment, why wouldn't they?
Only governments are barred from claiming property space, not private companies.
Quote from: Neil on June 15, 2013, 09:52:36 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 15, 2013, 09:24:01 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 15, 2013, 09:20:59 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 15, 2013, 09:09:47 PMI think that something like Planetary Resources plans to mine near earth asteroids in the next decade might be a better choice to focus on.
But not really, since that doesn't help anyone.
:huh: How can you argue that tapping the unlimited resources of the asteroid belt wouldn't be economically beneficial?
Because there's no return on the investment for the people going out to mine it, and the executives probably won't appreciate their jail terms.
Also, economically beneficial usually doesn't help anyone. It was economically beneficial to shitcan CdM, but who did that help?
Didn't we go through all this a couple of months ago?
Have you actually read the relevant Treaties (and by that I mean the ones that were actually ratified, not the one that hasn't?)
Quote from: Neil on June 15, 2013, 09:52:36 PM
Also, economically beneficial usually doesn't help anyone. It was economically beneficial to shitcan CdM, but who did that help?
Shareholders, clearly.
Jesus, Tim can retard up a thread in one post.
It is his super power.
Quote from: PDH on June 16, 2013, 07:08:15 AM
Jesus, Tim can retard up a thread in one post.
Tim was, at least, trying to be helpful. Those responding to him: not so much.
While I understand where he is coming from, I'm going to disagree with Tim that interstellar travel, even with a more distant timeline, is less exciting for students than West-Virginia-izing near-earth space in a shorter timeline. More importantly, the concept of interstellar travel brings up a bunch of new challenges that are more inter-disciplinary than the more-engineering-oriented challenges of near-term, near-earth space efforts. For instance, in Earth science, they could ask the questions "why is earth habitable?" "Why are different areas of earth differently habitable?" "How much variation from the conditions we have on earth could we see and still call a target planet habitable?" "How would we find out whether the elements that make Earth habitable exist on another planet?" "How accurate would that knowledge have to be?" etc.
The whole idea is to involve all possible disciplines. The sciences are pretty easy to fit in. History classes could look at the question "What kind of person would be willing to make such a journey, based on what we know of human colonization in the past?" Humanities classes could look at "How can we transmit our culture to this new colony?" "What elements of our culture should we transmit?" "What elements of our culture, if any, should we deliberately
not transmit to this new colony?" Language classes could look at "What is language?" "How could we tell if a signal from the target is made up of language, as opposed to some other kind of patterned 'noise?'" etc.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 16, 2013, 02:10:15 AM
Of course they will get a return on their investment, why wouldn't they?
Only governments are barred from claiming property space, not private companies.
They won't get a return because they're doing an illegal thing.
Private actors are only allowed to operate in space under the supervision of a government. Article 6 of the Outer Space Treaty. What governments can't do, neither can private actors.
Quote from: grumbler on June 16, 2013, 08:23:56 AM
Quote from: PDH on June 16, 2013, 07:08:15 AM
Jesus, Tim can retard up a thread in one post.
Tim was, at least, trying to be helpful. Those responding to him: not so much.
When Timmay goes retardo on asteroid mining in the next decade, he deserves the abuse he gets.
QuoteThe whole idea is to involve all possible disciplines. The sciences are pretty easy to fit in. History classes could look at the question "What kind of person would be willing to make such a journey, based on what we know of human colonization in the past?" Humanities classes could look at "How can we transmit our culture to this new colony?" "What elements of our culture should we transmit?" "What elements of our culture, if any, should we deliberately not transmit to this new colony?" Language classes could look at "What is language?" "How could we tell if a signal from the target is made up of language, as opposed to some other kind of patterned 'noise?'" etc.
I agree with all this stuff.
I like it.
I'll say the Orion Project is our best bet for interstellar travel.
Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2013, 10:30:25 AM
I like it.
I'll say the Orion Project is our best bet for interstellar travel.
We'll need something much better then that.
Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2013, 10:30:25 AM
I like it.
I'll say the Orion Project is our best bet for interstellar travel.
Something like the Orion Project would certainly be something worth considering, and the physics involved is both complex and interesting.
I know Orion ships are kind of slow, 50% lightspeed at best, but right now it doesn't look like we have anything better.
If we build Orion ships with a cryogenesis stasis chambers, we can expand to near star systems, firefly style, creating independent colonies.
Of course, cryogenesis does not look like a viable technology right now.
And nobody is going to invest on colonizers that will not provide return money.
So it seems we need to develop space technology to a point where we can go there and back, creating a "trade route" of sorts, for people to invest in any interstellar expedition.
I don't think we can do this in the foreseeable future.
And I can't see people in power supporting non-return colonization.
I think the thread will be more interesting (and more useful, to be selfish) if we focus on what the questions should be, rather than attempting to provide off-the-cuff answers to questions that may not even be relevant.
It seems rather unlikely that any interstellar colony would ever provide a return on investment. When getting there takes a lifetime, it would be unlikely that we see much trade in anything other than information, which I suppose could be transmitted via large, powerful laser signals.
Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2013, 11:33:13 AM
I know Orion ships are kind of slow, 50% lightspeed at best, but right now it doesn't look like we have anything better.
If we build Orion ships with a cryogenesis stasis chambers, we can expand to near star systems, firefly style, creating independent colonies.
Of course, cryogenesis does not look like a viable technology right now.
And nobody is going to invest on colonizers that will not provide return money.
Think more like .01-.04C at best. I'm don't think Cryogenesis is actually possible. A space ship that takes several hundred years doesn't seem practical. Can you imagine a functioning machine lasting that long? You'll need something with a lot more kick. Like anti-matter. The Ramscoop is an elegant solution, but it has a bunch of problems and may not be feasible. Still, it's worth a look.
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2013, 11:44:56 AM
It seems rather unlikely that any interstellar colony would ever provide a return on investment. When getting there takes a lifetime, it would be unlikely that we see much trade in anything other than information, which I suppose could be transmitted via large, powerful laser signals.
I suspect that you are correct. I don't think pure economics will drive the first starship mission. The question "what would motivate the first starship mission" isn't necessarily a very interesting one, though.
I think that what would motivate the first starship mission is a very interesting question. But it's also very difficult to answer concretely and satisfactorily, while specific technical and social challenges might be easier and more fruitful.
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2013, 12:09:08 PM
I think that what would motivate the first starship mission is a very interesting question. But it's also very difficult to answer concretely and satisfactorily, while specific technical and social challenges might be easier and more fruitful.
I agree. One of the main problems with space exploration is motivation. Idealism is all well in good, but this is going to cost billions and billions of dollars. Somebody has to pay for that, and they are unlikely to get a return on their investment.
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2013, 12:09:08 PM
I think that what would motivate the first starship mission is a very interesting question. But it's also very difficult to answer concretely and satisfactorily, while specific technical and social challenges might be easier and more fruitful.
I agree that "what would motivate the first starship mission" is interesting in a kind of a philosophical sense, in any practical sense it isn't very interesting. The people most likely to face this question probably won't be born for another 20 or 30 years, and we know very little about the environment that will shape their decision-making, nor the specific trade-offs they would have to resolve to reach the decision.
What about seeding other planets?
We could send an slow boat to plant genetic material and let life take whatever form it will according the planetaty conditions.
Not that we are likely to get anything back from this.
Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2013, 04:22:41 PM
What about seeding other planets?
We could send an slow boat to plant genetic material and let life take whatever form it will according the planetaty conditions.
Not that we are likely to get anything back from this.
Dammit Israel isn't enough for you people?
Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2013, 04:22:41 PM
What about seeding other planets?
We could send an slow boat to plant genetic material and let life take whatever form it will according the planetaty conditions.
Not that we are likely to get anything back from this.
Yeah, I read
The Iron Dream as well. It just seems rather pointless.
Now, freezing embryos and then thawing and delivering them using some kind of artificial womb some 20 or so years before arrival - that might be doable. You still have the problem of transmitting culture, and you'd need to look carefully about the emotional and developmental impact of having no adult mentors or models.
Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2013, 04:22:41 PM
What about seeding other planets?
We could send an slow boat to plant genetic material and let life take whatever form it will according the planetaty conditions.
Not that we are likely to get anything back from this.
What's the point of that? Planets already have life of their own. I suppose that if some of it managed to stick, it'd be kind of neat that life on several worlds is interrelated, but that wouldn't be a real issue for millions and millions of years.
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2013, 05:06:51 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2013, 04:22:41 PM
What about seeding other planets?
We could send an slow boat to plant genetic material and let life take whatever form it will according the planetaty conditions.
Not that we are likely to get anything back from this.
What's the point of that? Planets already have life of their own. I suppose that if some of it managed to stick, it'd be kind of neat that life on several worlds is interrelated, but that wouldn't be a real issue for millions and millions of years.
They do? Tell us about the life on other planets, Tim.
A few questions I think might be interesting:
Okay, say we're about to send off one of these ships and we're doing it as an international effort; how can we put this thing together in a way that will allow countries as diverse as the US, Russia, China, Japan, Brazil, and India* to contribute? Do we structure things such that smaller countries - for example some African nations - can participate even if they cannot contribute meaningfully to the funding of the ship? Why/ why not?
What sort of decision making structure do we set up for the ship? Military style "the captain is god?" Direct democracy? Some sort of hybrid, council of experts? Something else? Again - why/ why not? How is the ship, and later colony, economy supposed to function?
If you're concerned with American civics, you can bring up contentious issues from the national debate there. Assuming a primarily American patterned culture on the ship, does the second amendment hold? Should abortion be viewed differently on this kind of mission? How about crime and punishment? Does it function differently on ship or in a colony with a limited population?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2013, 05:50:29 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 16, 2013, 05:06:51 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2013, 04:22:41 PM
What about seeding other planets?
We could send an slow boat to plant genetic material and let life take whatever form it will according the planetaty conditions.
Not that we are likely to get anything back from this.
What's the point of that? Planets already have life of their own. I suppose that if some of it managed to stick, it'd be kind of neat that life on several worlds is interrelated, but that wouldn't be a real issue for millions and millions of years.
They do? Tell us about the life on other planets, Tim.
No.
Quote from: Jacob on June 16, 2013, 05:56:42 PM
A few questions I think might be interesting:
Okay, say we're about to send off one of these ships and we're doing it as an international effort; how can we put this thing together in a way that will allow countries as diverse as the US, Russia, China, Japan, Brazil, and India* to contribute? Do we structure things such that smaller countries - for example some African nations - can participate even if they cannot contribute meaningfully to the funding of the ship? Why/ why not?
What sort of decision making structure do we set up for the ship? Military style "the captain is god?" Direct democracy? Some sort of hybrid, council of experts? Something else? Again - why/ why not? How is the ship, and later colony, economy supposed to function?
If you're concerned with American civics, you can bring up contentious issues from the national debate there. Assuming a primarily American patterned culture on the ship, does the second amendment hold? Should abortion be viewed differently on this kind of mission? How about crime and punishment? Does it function differently on ship or in a colony with a limited population?
Thanks, Jake. These are the sorts of things I am looking for. I had come up with a couple of these already, but you've added a lot to the discussion.
Indeed, the issue of "who goes" isn't just a matter of the individuals. Like I said, what cultures/languages/heritages should be exported along with the colonists? Multiple languages could make things tricky, but would, say, France cooperate in the sending of an Anglophone colony? Would such a project unite humanity, or divide it? Would, indeed, enough people with the skills needed be willing to volunteer for such a mission, knowing that they would be leaving behind successful and relatively comfortable futures for the unknown?
I think every colony should be independent at the planet level, but inside there should be at least 6 diferent city-colonies, with 6 diferent cultures.
Since not every culture can be represented, I call for the permanent members of the UNSC to have each one colony-city-state on any given planet. That will ensure that not one planet will the develop as a single culture superpower to eventually challenge Earth and its Solarian Alliance.
The worst we can do, is to allow independent colonization by either single nation-states or non-state organizations.
Imagine all the members of some cult religion or political group colonizing and taking possesion of an entire planet.
I wonder given overpopulation of the Earth, the general lack of desire to go into space to do manual labor (and unwillingness to pay high amounts of money for that kind of work), if we'd see some return to slavery/forced labor in the future. I'd say it is highly likely. Maybe forced relocation. Maybe that's how the 3rd world can contribute? :P
Quote from: Jaron on June 16, 2013, 06:35:36 PM
I wonder given overpopulation of the Earth, the general lack of desire to go into space to do manual labor (and unwillingness to pay high amounts of money for that kind of work), if we'd see some return to slavery/forced labor in the future. I'd say it is highly likely. Maybe forced relocation. Maybe that's how the 3rd world can contribute? :P
Australia was founded as a penal colony, so that's not out of the realm of reason.
As much as I'm a hard science guy, the social engineering angle really does fascinate me when it comes to this. Without finding a way to cheat the speed of light for speed of communications, early colonists won't really be able to rely on support from back home for any kind of legal or logistics questions. So the options for early colonies seem to me to be:
1) Lawlessness. Possible if we go the penal colony route; society decides that some people are too dangerous to integrate back into normal society and put them out of sight and out of mind.
In this scenario, convicts would probably be delivered via automated ferry ships that don't land; dropships deliver colonists to the surface to minimize the population required to secure a spaceport.
2) Militarization. This is the way the Mars One project seems to be leaning, and in my opinion, the most likely scenario. Clear chain of command, with an administrator or governor responsible for policy decisions.
Private actors need to operate within government supervision, but that doesn't mean they can't set their own chains of command, and privatized companies like their hierarchy as much as, if not more than, governments. This way probably provides the most connection to terrestrial government, since the administrator could be answerable to earthside superiors via a "check-in" process.
3) Start from scratch. I think of this one as the "hippie commune" option. In this scenario, the colonists and their sponsors recognize the lack of feasibility in remaining tethered to a terrestrial hierarchy and are given powers to create their own charter/constitution/legal framework. The downside to this is for any kind of sustainability, it would probably require the largest seed population to see/consider effects of and on inter-colony trade, immigration and expatriation, etc, etc.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 16, 2013, 07:51:27 PM
1) Lawlessness. Possible if we go the penal colony route; society decides that some people are too dangerous to integrate back into normal society and put them out of sight and out of mind.
In this scenario, convicts would probably be delivered via automated ferry ships that don't land; dropships deliver colonists to the surface to minimize the population required to secure a spaceport.
I suspect prisons on Earth will always be cheaper than prisons in space. Australians were expected to grow or catch their own food.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 16, 2013, 07:56:25 PM
I suspect prisons on Earth will always be cheaper than prisons in space. Australians were expected to grow or catch their own food.
Actually, that reminds me of a fourth scenario, a corollary where the "haves" leave the "have nots" to dwindling resources on Earth. I call it the "Blade Runner" scenario. :P
Are these scenarios of yours involving interstellar travel or just our solar system? In the first case, the cost of the transport won't be worth it for prisoners. In the second, Earth will always have more resources.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 16, 2013, 07:56:25 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 16, 2013, 07:51:27 PM
1) Lawlessness. Possible if we go the penal colony route; society decides that some people are too dangerous to integrate back into normal society and put them out of sight and out of mind.
In this scenario, convicts would probably be delivered via automated ferry ships that don't land; dropships deliver colonists to the surface to minimize the population required to secure a spaceport.
I suspect prisons on Earth will always be cheaper than prisons in space. Australians were expected to grow or catch their own food.
It would be cheaper to push convicts out of the airlock.
Which brings to mind, why didn't the brits drop their convicts into the sea instead of the expense of the trip all the way to Australia?
Quote from: Jacob on June 16, 2013, 05:56:42 PM
A few questions I think might be interesting:
Okay, say we're about to send off one of these ships and we're doing it as an international effort; how can we put this thing together in a way that will allow countries as diverse as the US, Russia, China, Japan, Brazil, and India* to contribute? Do we structure things such that smaller countries - for example some African nations - can participate even if they cannot contribute meaningfully to the funding of the ship? Why/ why not?
What sort of decision making structure do we set up for the ship? Military style "the captain is god?" Direct democracy? Some sort of hybrid, council of experts? Something else? Again - why/ why not? How is the ship, and later colony, economy supposed to function?
If you're concerned with American civics, you can bring up contentious issues from the national debate there. Assuming a primarily American patterned culture on the ship, does the second amendment hold? Should abortion be viewed differently on this kind of mission? How about crime and punishment? Does it function differently on ship or in a colony with a limited population?
I really do wonder how a traditional military command structure would react to a lifetime in transit. On the one hand, space is the most hazardous environment possible, and that would make a centralized command system pretty useful. On the other hand, autocratic systems can get pretty weird over time.
Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2013, 08:56:26 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 16, 2013, 07:56:25 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 16, 2013, 07:51:27 PM
1) Lawlessness. Possible if we go the penal colony route; society decides that some people are too dangerous to integrate back into normal society and put them out of sight and out of mind.
In this scenario, convicts would probably be delivered via automated ferry ships that don't land; dropships deliver colonists to the surface to minimize the population required to secure a spaceport.
I suspect prisons on Earth will always be cheaper than prisons in space. Australians were expected to grow or catch their own food.
It would be cheaper to push convicts out of the airlock.
Which brings to mind, why didn't the brits drop their convicts into the sea instead of the expense of the trip all the way to Australia?
The British colonies needed labour. That won't be the case with space colonies.
If mankind set up an interstellar colony it would be done by machines. You wouldn't need "exowombs". There's no reason that an adult human being can't be built from the ground up with sufficient technology using only genetic code as a guide line. Such a person could be implanted with an AI modeled on a human being and raise a family. Hell, it doesn't violate any known law of physics to build a human being with memories built into the brain. I mean, memories are organic not magical. They should be able to replicated with sufficient tech.
A plus side to this is you could have the machines tailor the human colonists to whatever econsystem you find.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2013, 11:47:36 AM
Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2013, 11:33:13 AM
I know Orion ships are kind of slow, 50% lightspeed at best, but right now it doesn't look like we have anything better.
If we build Orion ships with a cryogenesis stasis chambers, we can expand to near star systems, firefly style, creating independent colonies.
Of course, cryogenesis does not look like a viable technology right now.
And nobody is going to invest on colonizers that will not provide return money.
Think more like .01-.04C at best. I'm don't think Cryogenesis is actually possible. A space ship that takes several hundred years doesn't seem practical. Can you imagine a functioning machine lasting that long? You'll need something with a lot more kick. Like anti-matter. The Ramscoop is an elegant solution, but it has a bunch of problems and may not be feasible. Still, it's worth a look.
If you use anti-matter rather than nukes it can get that fast, and fusion can get it up to .12 IIRC
Where do you get enough antimatter?
Quote from: Neil on June 17, 2013, 12:15:15 AM
Where do you get enough antimatter?
Unicorns poop antimatter. Just breed up a big herd of them.
Quote from: grumbler on June 16, 2013, 06:24:24 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 16, 2013, 05:56:42 PM
A few questions I think might be interesting:
Okay, say we're about to send off one of these ships and we're doing it as an international effort; how can we put this thing together in a way that will allow countries as diverse as the US, Russia, China, Japan, Brazil, and India* to contribute? Do we structure things such that smaller countries - for example some African nations - can participate even if they cannot contribute meaningfully to the funding of the ship? Why/ why not?
What sort of decision making structure do we set up for the ship? Military style "the captain is god?" Direct democracy? Some sort of hybrid, council of experts? Something else? Again - why/ why not? How is the ship, and later colony, economy supposed to function?
If you're concerned with American civics, you can bring up contentious issues from the national debate there. Assuming a primarily American patterned culture on the ship, does the second amendment hold? Should abortion be viewed differently on this kind of mission? How about crime and punishment? Does it function differently on ship or in a colony with a limited population?
Thanks, Jake. These are the sorts of things I am looking for. I had come up with a couple of these already, but you've added a lot to the discussion.
Indeed, the issue of "who goes" isn't just a matter of the individuals. Like I said, what cultures/languages/heritages should be exported along with the colonists? Multiple languages could make things tricky, but would, say, France cooperate in the sending of an Anglophone colony? Would such a project unite humanity, or divide it? Would, indeed, enough people with the skills needed be willing to volunteer for such a mission, knowing that they would be leaving behind successful and relatively comfortable futures for the unknown?
A comparison/contrast to the early days of colonialism and exploration would be cool...in what way would interstellar colonization share the same characteristics of the colonization of the New World, and where would they be different? Would there be economic drivers, political considerations that Jacob touched up, etc. The very concept of how the US political model developed through empirical collectivism was a direct result of colonization, when groups of colonists separated by the mother country by so much time and distance required them to solve their own problems collectively. Would the exploitation of new worlds be economically driven, like European colonialism, or would humanity try to avoid the same mistakes when it came to the environment and alien cultures they came across?
From a historical viewpoint the various colonies from ancient to more recent would be a good place to look. Would the set up of such a base be fairly successful like the sister-cities of the Greeks/Phoenicians, or would they be the slapdash affairs because of unexpected happenings of the English in the late 16th Century? Does planning for as many possible problems as can be foreseen make the entire thing too sclerotic or does it ensure success?
Quote from: Neil on June 17, 2013, 12:15:15 AM
Where do you get enough antimatter?
That's the rub, ain't it? Still Anti-matter has the benefit of actually existing it's possible to produce.
Quote from: PDH on June 17, 2013, 10:23:48 AM
From a historical viewpoint the various colonies from ancient to more recent would be a good place to look. Would the set up of such a base be fairly successful like the sister-cities of the Greeks/Phoenicians, or would they be the slapdash affairs because of unexpected happenings of the English in the late 16th Century? Does planning for as many possible problems as can be foreseen make the entire thing too sclerotic or does it ensure success?
I disagree. When the Greeks and English colonized new Lands they did so with the knowledge that these new lands could support human life. This may not be the case on another planet.
Quote from: PDH on June 17, 2013, 10:23:48 AM
From a historical viewpoint the various colonies from ancient to more recent would be a good place to look. Would the set up of such a base be fairly successful like the sister-cities of the Greeks/Phoenicians, or would they be the slapdash affairs because of unexpected happenings of the English in the late 16th Century? Does planning for as many possible problems as can be foreseen make the entire thing too sclerotic or does it ensure success?
Agree. The difference between the mercantilist colonies of the 16th and 17th centuries and the "daughter city" colonies of the Greeks et al would be interesting in this context. It is pretty clear to us that no mercantilist motive could drive interstellar colonization (even did we believe in mercantilism) because of the lack of trade opportunities, but that would be a useful conclusion for students to reach.
Alien trade will drive our expansion. We give them space beads and blankets and they sign away their paradise worlds.
I don't think I saw questions on how to deal with the ecology on another planet. Setting up rules for proper caring for plant, aquatic, animal life. Most importantly if the colonists encountered intelligent life but not as developed/advanced how will that be dealt with? If encountering more advanced life then it's a whole different issue and colonists would have some laws/rules to go by as they wouldn't want to risk war or especially bringing war to Earth.
Do you think space colonization will require genetic manipulation of the human body to adapt and survive in the new enviroment.
If so, these colonials will definitively become a diferent culture, no matter what country they originally came from.
Quote from: Siege on June 17, 2013, 05:33:25 PM
Do you think space colonization will require genetic manipulation of the human body to adapt and survive in the new enviroment.
If so, these colonials will definitively become a diferent culture, no matter what country they originally came from.
I think that colonists will become their own culture no matter what. With no ability to quickly communicate with Earth, people will adopt their own way based on the social fabric and their environment. I would think that initial colonization strategies will focus on keeping separate from the local environment, just because there are so many dangers that couldn't be detected remotely. If a group wants to make alterations, they would be done on-site.
I wonder how people would be selected for such a mission in terms of their psych profile. You would probably need people with good social skills who can build and maintain a strong functioning community.
But people with that characteristic would likely have strong attachments on earth and so may be less likely to commit to such an endeavor as they would likely never see their friends and family again.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2013, 02:23:23 PM
Quote from: PDH on June 17, 2013, 10:23:48 AM
From a historical viewpoint the various colonies from ancient to more recent would be a good place to look. Would the set up of such a base be fairly successful like the sister-cities of the Greeks/Phoenicians, or would they be the slapdash affairs because of unexpected happenings of the English in the late 16th Century? Does planning for as many possible problems as can be foreseen make the entire thing too sclerotic or does it ensure success?
I disagree. When the Greeks and English colonized new Lands they did so with the knowledge that these new lands could support human life. This may not be the case on another planet.
I don't know, I mean colonists that came to Plymouth and Roanoke were still taking a big risk that they wouldn't survive - even if there were humans that could live there.
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2013, 12:13:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2013, 02:23:23 PM
Quote from: PDH on June 17, 2013, 10:23:48 AM
From a historical viewpoint the various colonies from ancient to more recent would be a good place to look. Would the set up of such a base be fairly successful like the sister-cities of the Greeks/Phoenicians, or would they be the slapdash affairs because of unexpected happenings of the English in the late 16th Century? Does planning for as many possible problems as can be foreseen make the entire thing too sclerotic or does it ensure success?
I disagree. When the Greeks and English colonized new Lands they did so with the knowledge that these new lands could support human life. This may not be the case on another planet.
I don't know, I mean colonists that came to Plymouth and Roanoke were still taking a big risk that they wouldn't survive - even if there were humans that could live there.
They were taking a risk sure, but they knew the plant crops there and they expected some shipments from home.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 19, 2013, 12:22:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2013, 12:13:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 17, 2013, 02:23:23 PM
Quote from: PDH on June 17, 2013, 10:23:48 AM
From a historical viewpoint the various colonies from ancient to more recent would be a good place to look. Would the set up of such a base be fairly successful like the sister-cities of the Greeks/Phoenicians, or would they be the slapdash affairs because of unexpected happenings of the English in the late 16th Century? Does planning for as many possible problems as can be foreseen make the entire thing too sclerotic or does it ensure success?
I disagree. When the Greeks and English colonized new Lands they did so with the knowledge that these new lands could support human life. This may not be the case on another planet.
I don't know, I mean colonists that came to Plymouth and Roanoke were still taking a big risk that they wouldn't survive - even if there were humans that could live there.
They were taking a risk sure, but they knew the plant crops there and they expected some shipments from home.
I think you are overstating both for the initial/early colonists. Not that you aren't right that there are still substantial differences between that and these space faring colonists.
These days it's not about leaving Earth per se, but about leaving the internet. If you can't check FB to see that some retard somewhere is having brunch right now then what's the point with life? Good luck finding volunteers.
Quote from: The Brain on June 19, 2013, 01:01:40 PM
These days it's not about leaving Earth per se, but about leaving the internet. If you can't check FB to see that some retard somewhere is having brunch right now then what's the point with life? Good luck finding volunteers.
:lol:
Quote from: The Brain on June 19, 2013, 01:01:40 PM
These days it's not about leaving Earth per se, but about leaving the internet. If you can't check FB to see that some retard somewhere is having brunch right now then what's the point with life? Good luck finding volunteers.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/05/vint-cerf-interplanetary-internet/
Quote from: Maximus on June 19, 2013, 01:21:06 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 19, 2013, 01:01:40 PM
These days it's not about leaving Earth per se, but about leaving the internet. If you can't check FB to see that some retard somewhere is having brunch right now then what's the point with life? Good luck finding volunteers.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/05/vint-cerf-interplanetary-internet/
That's just interplanetary. We need some serious FTL tech for interstellar.
Quote from: Neil on June 15, 2013, 10:06:08 PM
Moreover, the resources that the asteroid belt has aren't the ones we need the most. Petroleum, natural gas and wood can't be recovered from asteroids.
I am guessing it would be easier to produce those things on an asteroid than to transport them back to earth cost-effectively.
Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2013, 12:40:40 PM
I think you are overstating both for the initial/early colonists. Not that you aren't right that there are still substantial differences between that and these space faring colonists.
I simply don't think that previous colonists attempts in history apply well. From the perspective of Earth you are essentially destroying equipment and personnel for no return. Imagine if Sir. Walter Raleigh told the Queen he wanted three ships, a bunch of colonists, supplies, food stuff and weapons and take them where nobody would ever see them again. And If all went well, he'd send back a letter in 300 years.