How far are we from colonizing off Earth?

One problem I foresee regarding the colonization of an exoplanet that can sustain life is biological. There is no way from us to be certain that being exposed to an alien biosphere wouldn't kill the colonists.

Heck, that could even be a problem on Mars if their turns out to be some form of microscopic biological lifeform on the planet that turns out to be harmful to humans.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

In any case, do we really *know* that no stars closer than 300 light years away have planets? Or have we just not seen them yet?
Pretty much every single planet that we've detected has been Jupiter-like. So, yes, we aren't seeing the small ones yet. If the big ones are there, the little ones must also exist.

Edit: when I say Jupiter-like, I mean easy to see. =)

Heck, that could even be a problem on Mars if their turns out to be some form of microscopic biological lifeform on the planet that turns out to be harmful to humans.
Oh, we don't need there to be anything for that. The tiny stuff we bring along will be just fine. Once the bacteria we carry along adapts to Mars, it has a chance of being a degree of hostile to us.
 
Last edited:

Just saw this and said to myself; WOW! Plasma rocket may shorten space voyages

Also another link: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/08/10/4863282-next-giant-leaps-for-nasa-tech

An innovative plasma rocket being built as a spare for one heading to the International Space Station may have a space mission of its own: visiting an asteroid.

Equipped with an electric propulsion system, the rocket, known as Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR), is being developed to one day transport astronauts to Mars in 39 to 45 days — a fraction of the six to nine months the trip would take with conventional chemical rockets. Shorter travel time greatly reduces astronauts' exposure to potentially deadly cosmic and solar radiation, currently a show-stopper for human missions to Mars.

Setting sail for an asteroid would be a powerful demonstration of VASIMR technology, which uses radio waves to ionize propellant — such as argon, xenon or hydrogen — and heat the resulting plasma to temperatures 20 times hotter than the surface of the sun. In place of metal nozzles to control the direction of the exhaust, VASIMR uses magnetic fields.

"All of a sudden, the future is here," said VASIMR inventor and physicist Franklin Chang-Diaz, a seven-time shuttle flier who left NASA in 2005 to start a company and work full time developing the rocket.

Chang Diaz's Houston-based Ad Astra Rocket Co., which has raised millions of dollars from private investors, reached a significant milestone last year when it successfully operated a demonstrator VASIMR at full power in a vacuum chamber.

"The engine is actually firing right now," Chang-Diaz told Discovery News. "We have lots of hurdles and challenges; we have lots of work to do. But if you look at what has happened in the last five years since we left NASA, it's been amazing."

Ad Astra plans to launch its flight version VASIMR to the space station in 2014. As a backup, Chang-Diaz intends to manufacture two engines in case a launch accident or other major problem prevents the first from reaching the outpost.

Once the engine is safely installed outside the station, the spare could be tapped for a new mission — that did not require investment by NASA.

"I had this idea that maybe there's a way we can use this backup engine that he's already building," said Rob Kelso, a former shuttle flight director at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston now working to build innovative partnerships between NASA and commercial firms.

While the space station's VASIMR can draw power from the outpost, a free-flying engine will need its own source. As part of the proposed asteroid mission, NASA and Ad Astra would team with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to use its super-efficient, 200-kilowatt solar array currently under development.

Once the rocket reached its target asteroid, the power would be available to operate science equipment and other gear.

"You could do an extraordinary mission," Chang-Diaz said. "You don't need the power system for the rocket. Once you're there, you turn off the engine and you have 200 kilowatts to do anything you want to do. You can do all kinds of unheard of things with that level of power."

In addition to radar mapping and surveys, the mission also could pick up a sample from the asteroid and return it to Earth. Scientists are interested in learning more about where asteroids came from, how they formed and whether they carry the ingredients for life. On a practical level, learning how asteroids are structured would be useful in case one is discovered to be on a collision course with Earth and needs to be moved.

The mission also fits with the new direction President Barack Obama has outlined for NASA. Obama wants to cancel the return-to-the-moon program NASA had been developing and instead spend money on producing and testing new technologies for deep space exploration. During a speech at Kennedy Space Center earlier this month, Obama specifically called for a human mission to an asteroid by 2025.

The VASIMR asteroid mission is among several proposals currently being assessed by a NASA study team. If selected, the mission could fly somewhere around 2017, Kelso said.
 
Last edited:


Pretty much every single planet that we've detected has been Jupiter-like. So, yes, we aren't seeing the small ones yet. If the big ones are there, the little ones must also exist.

That's not exactly true...

If you check the list of Extrasolar Planets, we've discovered at least a dozen that are no more than ten times the mass of the Earth (Earth's mass is ~0.00315 Jupiter masses).

One of them, Gliese 581 e is less than twice the mass of Earth.

Another, COROT-7b is nearly fives times the mass of Earth, but has actually had it's diameter measured at 1.7 that of Earth's, and has been determined to be almost certainly a terrestrial-type planet.
 
Last edited:


I did amend that I meant 'easy to see', and not 'giant gas planet'. ;)

And those are both pretty HOT.

Absolutely, they are... More like really big Mercuries, than Earths. But still, it bodes well for the future of our exoplanet detecting abilities.

But something else that a lot of people forget about is that gas giants tend to a lot of moons... and very often, large moons. Consider that every Jupiter-like planet we see could have one or more Earth-like satellites that we can't see. If the gas giant is within its star's Goldilocks zone, some of those moons could be habitable.
 

I didn't think we had stars that "close" to us. I thought they were much further out. In any case, do we really *know* that no stars closer than 300 light years away have planets? Or have we just not seen them yet?

The closest known planet outside our solar system is 10.5 light years away. There's only a handful of starts under 10 LY from Earth.

The other known planets outside our solar system are mostly less than 300 light years away, not greater than. That's just because finding planets is harder the farther away the star is, so they've been concentrating on nearby stars in the search.

As far as I know, it's only in the last 10-20 years that we've been starting to actually, definitely "see" planets around other stars.

The first *direct* image of a planet around another star using visible light was taken in 2008, and only confirmed in this past June.

SPACE.com -- First Direct Photo of Alien Planet Finally Confirmed





Haven't astronomers said something about human civilization having evolved during a period when our solar system was passing through a part of the galaxy where there was a relatively low level of space clutter, but we're moving back into the busier areas?

The Earth takes about 200 to 250 million years to make an orbit around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. Civilization is only about 10,000 years old. In terms of moving around the galaxy, the Earth has gone next to nowhere since civilization began.

Obviously solar systems move very slowly.....but the technological, practical, and financial advances to get us to other planets are so significant, what is the likelihood we get anywhere before we get hit by something big?

I think you may not quite grasp the scale here.

The chance that the Earth will get hit by an object from outside the solar system is, for all practical purposes, zero. Space is big. Really big. Really vastly empty big. There's only a handful of stars within ten light years of Earth now, and that's only going to change on the order of millions of years, not thousands. For our purposes, there is nothing out there to hit us, and we are such a tiny target that hitting us is nigh impossible.

Now, getting hit by a rock that's already within our own solar system? That we can show has happened rather frequently in the past, so that it is likely to happen again.
 

I think you may not quite grasp the scale here.

The chance that the Earth will get hit by an object from outside the solar system is, for all practical purposes, zero. Space is big...
The statistical chances of getting hit go up when one considers how long Earth has been around for it to be hit.

But then again they go down when you consider that we've already been hit by at least one global killer. Possibly more. There wasn't anything here to kill before that. Or maybe there was and it was a total kill. There's a cheerful thought.
 

I think you may not quite grasp the scale here.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_J5rBxeTIk]YouTube - ‪Yakko's Universe Song‬‎[/ame]

It's a great big universe, and we're all really puny. We're just tiny little specks about the size of Mickey Rooney. It's big and black and inky, and we are small and dinky. It's a big universe and we're not.
 

Remove ads

Top