So, Earth can not sustain a growing human population that consumes more each day forever. Floating all around us in the depths of the Solar System and space, are the resources to sustain and grow the Human population for a long period of time. By having the entire human population on Earth, we run the risk of going extinct if something happens to the Earth (whether it be catastrophic climate change, nuclear war, or an asteroid etc.). We also have the potential to truly explore the unknown, and see if we are alone in this universe.

I believe that it is possible and a necessity. With materials from space, we could sustain/grow our population and prevent us from having all of our eggs in one basket.

Do you believe it is possible that we could expand across the solar system and/or the depths of space? Should we?

Do we actually know that planets/satellites of reasonable distance from Earth are rich in resources? I agree that space exploration is a neglected and potentially beneficial area of research but what governments are looking for are short-term benefits as they are what keep a political party in power.

I do think that a manned base on the Moon would be a good start. However, once governments start setting up bases on other celestial bodies we end up with the issue of ownership. Also, how would we construct such a base? Given that the Moon has no atmosphere or tectonic activity, prefabricated buildings could be dropped from low orbit, with gas-filled bags protecting from impact with the surface.

I think we need some kind of breakthrough technology to make space exploration easier. The cost is currently prohibitive.

I think the first space colonies might be by mega corporations wanting national sovereignty. Wallmart probably has the resources to start a moon base.

Assuming that we do not kill ourselves on this planet, someday in the future- we will colonize space, and expand. And yes we should, it is not of a moral question- but a testament to our race's worthiness of existence. Nature does not allow the weak(being stuck on a planet too long counts as one) to continue to exist- simply put, a waste of atoms.

This is why the ownership of space territories shouldn't be up to a single nation of Earth, but all the nations of Earth. Iam not saying it will, but should. Otherwise we'd lose coherence and end up fighting over it. But with due respect, I don't think colonizing even the Moon wouldn't be possible without the help from the entire planet.
If we truly are, then we are truly doomed- since that proves the existence of God.

The most viable place to colonize would currently be the Moon- but still needs alot of breakthrough technologies- such as a cheap way to 'get to the moon'. And the nearest one is probably Jet and rocket hybrid shuttle. Not a space elevator or space catapults.
We'd need a material or 'shields' that are resistant to constant bombardments from micrometeorites as Moon does not have an atmosphere that burns most of them up.
We'd need a viable way of producing self sustainable Oxygen in the colony, and producing food.
We'd need gravity producing technology for a sustainable colony. (We have one, but it is really inefficient- especially in a place where there is natural gravity)

I agree that space colonization should be near a priority, for obvious reasons. However, I think that in the meantime, some population control wouldn't hurt.

As for countries... I strongly disagree that 'all nations' should have a say in this. I think that it would be best if either countries competed for space-land, or if there was a unified government that regulated it.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 4 2009, 1:43 pm by Centreri.

We need to completely revamp the space program to make it more efficient. As most of you said, look at the fuel required. I guess we could colonize the moon...if people wanted to pay billions to move in there. We'd have to create an entire self-sustainable network of water and food, unless you'd like to spend another billion just to do the weekly shopping.

Not to mention, in our solar system Earth is the only planet in the Habitable zone. Outside our solar system, its proven to be quite a task to find earth like planets within the habitable zone. It is quite easier to find "hot Jupiters" (very hot gaseous planets very close to it's star, easy to find because of irstellar wobble), which are obviously a no go. For Astronomy last year a group project made us come up with a way to survive on 51 Pegasi b. Needless to say, if the close proximity to the sun wouldn't kill us, the radiation from them both would. I think we decided that since it was tidally locked onto the sun, we would leave on the dark side of the planet and hope to at least block the sun's heat and radiation. Ha. That was a fun project.

And even if we found a habitable planet, it would take hundreds to thousands of years of getting there. Like others have said, it would be awesome to colonize in space, but we need energy breakthroughs (on top of other things) in order to achieve it.

There is one major problem for each of those suggestions. Albeit it would be good if it became true, no country in this world has enough resources to colonize outer space, alone. It is an enormous project. And a unified government is realistically impossible for now.

Not just energy breakthroughs, propulsion too.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 4 2009, 5:53 pm by BeDazed.

I think the technologies we need for space colonization will happen in our lifetime (that being, next thirty years. Dead serious with that estimate). But I don't think it will be applied for space colonization for a long time.

If only there was some way to create a generator that generated energy faster than it consumed it. Too bad that's impossible, otherwise we wouldn't have any problems.

Maybe not forever, but definitely a long way past our lifetimes.
We've run this risk for(if you are evolutionist( billions of years. What's a few billion more?

I personally think that while it would be interesting to colonize space, it isn't a necessity. I don't think it ever will be a necessity.

You cannot be certain of this.

The universe, isn't a friendly universe. Everything wants to consume you, and strip you of your life. And the chances of survival goes down to 0% if people never embrace the next frontier.

Oh. Well lets hope for superconductors to come cheap by then.

This is short sighted.


I see exploration and eventual colonization of space as one of the greatest ventures we can invest in. Eventually we will need to expand as a species as both part of survival and in a natural need to progress.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Sep 5 2009, 3:41 pm by Vrael. Reason: sarcasm isn't necessary here cleaning topic

With space colonies comes space crafts, with space crafts comes space pirates. Oh the days are comin' and I cant wait to see em.

I am a firm believer in the need of space colonization, and agree completely that it needs to be done to preserve human existence. The problem I see is that we'll need stronger and stronger metals to even consider landing on other planets (Too hot, too cold, too acidic, etc), and if we find those materials on other planets that we can inhabit using earths materials, then I really think it could be done.

Otherwise...Eve, need I say more?

And I think you do or don't realize that just means inevitable doom.

1. You won't live to see em.
2. Spaceships don't burn up in a controlled entry process. They only burn up when it freefalls. Although we don't have the technology necessary to make a controlled reentry.

Which is why we need to find out if another planet has something better than ours, so we can provide a ship that doesnt burn up with a single reentry.

That or we could just build a giant tube to outer space

If you've learned chemistry, we're nearly hitting the limit on how many possible elements there can be- and alot of materials we havent found out- seems like they usually have a half-life of less then a second. Which means we turn to composite alloys, which provide us with more options (as alloys provide more diverse characteristics then single elements). Plus, if we're talking about going to other planets- then we would already have a technology viable for a controlled reentry.

And giant tubes are physically impossible.

It's interesting how everything is being done to prolong human existence, rather than for purely economic or scientific purposes. Seems like evolution got it right.
Did I miss something? How did people get to and from Mir, how are they going to get to the ISS, how the hell did your astronauts return from the moon if your space shuttles can't make a controlled reentry?
The Soyuz is single-use. The Russian Buran and the American Space Shuttles were designed with reusability in mind, so they obviously don't burn up in a single reentry. The Buran can also do it on autopilot.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 5 2009, 4:36 am by Centreri.

They're not in all a sense, a controlled reentry. They still freefall and require a special plating of composite materials to prevent the shuttle from burning up. And they glide back down to the serface from low orbit. And in a sense, they're still inside the Earth's thin atmosphere and on low orbit. Well atleast thats my definition of it. You could call it controlled because we still make it back in one piece.

The moon is rather high orbit. Also, it seems that your definition of controlled is simply 'slow', which is completely unnecessary. The shuttle gets to the location it needs to in one piece.

Island of Stability. No telling what element(s) can be be used if we ever reach it. But after that, the chance of getting a stable nuclei, or even a rapidly decaying isotope, quickly approaches zero.

Actually it is.
Space shuttles don't go anywhere near the moon. A rocket with alot of modules attached did- and they weren't reusable. Shuttles are low orbit vehicles designed to have multiple uses when putting up satellites and getting parts to space stations (which are also low orbit). It is cheaper that way. And the space shuttles have a composite panels that are heat resistant, therefore allowing a freefall reentry.
Unfortunately, the space has these tiny little asteroids called micrometeorites that compromise any chance of having those composite panels on the ship for a re-entry process- because the panels are fragile, and even a tiny misplacement makes the shuttle explode. So if you want a spaceship to travel outside low orbit and high atmosphere, it is likely that the ship has to use 'slow' reentry- otherwise it will burn up.
So. You have to have a 'strong' material that shields you from harmful radiation, something that is resistant to constant bombardment of a small meteorite (about the size of a big hail to a fist) that impacts mostlikely at 10km/s. I mean, what can possibly go wrong with our strong alloys when they can withstand those? Well guess what, metals are not heat resistant and they will burn up if you try to 'freefall' your way down.
I hope you understood that.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Sep 5 2009, 12:29 pm by BeDazed.