Where is everybody? (Fermi paradox)

[Umbran]

Heck, what rocket will they use? A delta rocket? That thing as a pay loa of 500 kilos.

Not at all.

Mars One expects to use the Falcon Heavy, from Space X. It's got shots to Mars among its basic design goals - payload is designed to be 13,200 kilograms (29,100 lb) to Mars (considerably more to low-earth or geosynch orbits). The Falcon Heavy is based on the Falcon 9, already in use. The Falcon Heavy is expected to have its first test flight this year, and its first scheduled customer in 2015. The Falcon 9 program has had significant success (IIRC, out of 8 missions, one secondary payload had a problem, but all others were fine), and there's no reason to suspect that the Falcon Heavy isn't going to happen.

And, as a friendly suggestion - you probably want to be very, very careful about suggesting folks are dishonest. In fact, I'd avoid it altogether, if I were you.

 

[Kramodlog]

You don't need tech. Water and dirt both block cosmic radiation just fine. It's actually pretty easy; the issue in a spacecraft is just weight. Moon colonization would be in caves, likely, which is completely protected.

It is easy to get large digging equipement on the Moon? Plus the people to do that? On which fuel will that machinery work on? Digging requires lots of energy. Do we have machinery that works in vacuum in the temperatures of space?. Do we even have rockets that can lift that kind of payload?

Even if we go for lava tubes that already exist, you still have to make them inhabitable. Building the ISS started in 1998 and in 2014 another module will be attached, giving it a weight of 400 tons. It can't grow its own food, produce its air or water, host more than a few people at a time, etc. The ISS is not a colony. It is a luxury lab/summer camp.

We do not have the tech to make a lunar colonies.

Yeah, that sort of stuff is a real problem. I have no idea how you'd get around that.

Nanites. Which aren't around the corner, and/or GMO humans, which aren't around thecorner either, not to mention the ethical problems it raises.

I don't feel like those are desperately difficult. Greenhouses, solar energy, and there's loads of ice on the moon. Again, more a cost issue to set up and an engineering challenge than a major technological leap. Plus a reason to do it.

Melting ice requires a lot of energy, so does lighting and heating the all those greenhouses. Solar tech is not there yet.

For now all that we could manage is a small outpost that is constantly resupplied with a few people who are relieved every year or so. Colonization is not around the corner.

If you wanna think it is just an engineering challenge, well it means that a technology has to be develop, which means it isn't there yet.

 

[Kramodlog]

And, as a friendly suggestion - you probably want to be very, very careful about suggesting folks are dishonest. In fact, I'd avoid it altogether, if I were you.

Threats from a moderator? How professional.

I'm free to say what I think. Censor me if you want, it doesn't mean I am wrong.

 

[Kramodlog]

Not at all.

Mars One expects to use the Falcon Heavy, from Space X. It's got shots to Mars among its basic design goals - payload is designed to be 13,200 kilograms (29,100 lb) to Mars (considerably more to low-earth or geosynch orbits). The Falcon Heavy is based on the Falcon 9, already in use. The Falcon Heavy is expected to have its first test flight this year, and its first scheduled customer in 2015. The Falcon 9 program has had significant success (IIRC, out of 8 missions, one secondary payload had a problem, but all others were fine), and there's no reason to suspect that the Falcon Heavy isn't going to happen.

13 tons is not a lot if you substract the vehicule, the food, the water, air just for the two year trip to Mars.

That thing is a scam. Don't send money.

 

[WayneLigon]

What tech do we have to protect colonist from cosmic raditions?

The same thing that protects people on space stations: Metal. Actually, we'd use dirt, by burying a lunar base under a few feet of regolith.

From decalcification and muslce atrophy from low gravity? What tech do we have to help kids grow normally and avoid health problems?

Those are indeed significant and ongoing problems, still, but for the most part we'd rotate personnel - the loss isn't nearly as bad in Lunar gravity as it is in microgravity. And these are problems we'd eventually solve, given the need to do so.

What tech do we have to grow food on the Moon.

Hydroponics and aeroponics at first, then later we'd simply turn lunar soil into topsoil the same way we make it by the gigaton here on Earth: poop and other waste organics.

What about growing water?

The moon has a significant source of water on it, in the form of ice, but later we'd probably go out, capture an ice asteroid, and bring that sucker back to mine for the gigatons of free ice it'll have. Also, even crappy recycling systems today can recapture a vast amount of water from grey-water and waste-water sources. A significant amount of the water you drink now is recycled urine anyway.

Energy?

Solar. Later, nuclear. Later on, microwave power satellites. One of the simplest problems, actually.

 

[tomBitonti]

I thought the blockers for a moon colony, or for a colony in space, was more of the sort of getting tech that seems like it will work, to actually work, and, that there were major problems of maintaining health, and of achieving self sustainability. I'd accept "close" to self sufficient to be good enough for a start.

That is: Large scale spinning habitats in one of Earth's Lagrange points. Mass drivers on the moon to boost raw material to those points. Rabbits and hydroponics for food. The moon is a pretty lousy target for habitation. We would want a base on the moon as a supply of raw material, as a much cheaper alternative to boosting material out of Earth's much deeper well. A problem there is whether there are sufficient volatiles on the moon to avoid having to bring that from Earth. The leading and trailing lagrange (trojan) points are the places for near-Earth habitats.

But, even questions like how big does the habitat need to be are unanswered: Too small and folks get motion sickness. Large enough may be miles wide. There are big unanswered questions about building close to 100% recycling environments. The dome experiment that was tried failed miserably, and I'm not aware of any new attempts. I'm imagining that there are huge technical problems still be solved, some which can predict, and others which have yet to discover.

So probably we can put habitats in space. But, as it seems to me, not definitely.

Thx!

TomB

 

[WayneLigon]

The dome experiment that was tried failed miserably, and I'm not aware of any new attempts. I'm imagining that there are huge technical problems still be solved, some which can predict, and others which have yet to discover.

If you're referring to the Biosphere 2 situations, the term 'experiment' wouldn't be applicable. These people were for the most part not scientists, ecologists, or recycling engineers. What they did was more stunt that any sort of serious research, and a space colony is not going to be trying to recreate entire diverse and different biosystems the way Biospehere tried to do for many, many years.

 

[Morrus]

It is easy to get large digging equipement on the Moon?

No, it's not easy. But it's possible.

Threats from a moderator? How professional.

I'm free to say what I think. Censor me if you want, it doesn't mean I am wrong.

Are you posting drunk, goldomark? Please do not try butting heads with moderators.

 

[Kramodlog]

No, it's not easy. But it's possible.

That is a strawman. It is not the question of possibility that I'm debating, but the current lack of that technology that would let us do it.

Are you posting drunk, goldomark? Please do not try butting heads with moderators.

I'm not. I'm responding to intimidation. Being a mod doesn't mean you get to make threats. I would report but that won't lead anywhere, but a blind eye is turned on mod behavior.

Think what you want of me, but Umbran was not being professional. All EWolders should be treated professionally, whether OTTers or not.

 

[Morrus]

That is a strawman. It is not the question of possibility that I'm debating, but the current lack of that technology that would let us do it.

Out technology would et us do it. It would be challenging, but completely doable. We just need to be willing to spend the money. There's no technological barrier.

I'm not. I'm responding to intimidation. Being a mod doesn't mean you get to make threats. I would report but that won't lead anywhere, but a blind eye is turned on mod behavior.

Think what you want of me, but Umbran was not being professional.

And this bit goes in red. He admonished you for calling someone dishonest. Now I'm admonishing you for being a complete tool about it after the fact. Got a problem, take it up by email.

All EWolders should be treated professionally, whether OTTers or not.

I don't know what that means.