MarcusIII
Cosmic Mongoose
Aeroponics works even better and uses less water
Food synthesizing creates real post scarcity.
- Thread starter MarcusIII
- Start date
MarcusIII
Cosmic Mongoose
Our own dung has all the needed microorganisms it needs to break it down if left on an alien planet that has different biology. Given light and some type of O2 in the atmosphere.
ottarrus
Emperor Mongoose
Let me point out that we are here at somewhere between TL 7.75 and 8.25 and we don't have the foggiest idea of how to colonize another world, build self-sustaining O'Neil cylinders at the Trojan Points or even how to get our asses off Earth in an affordable enough way to make it common.
We have dreams. We have theories. We have conjecture. But we have absolutely NO concrete nuts-and-bolts proof that any of that stuff in 'The Martian' will actually work. It works in theory. The math works out. But math is not experience, nor is it engineering. The math worked out for Chaffee, Grissom, and White aboard Apollo 1. And it worked out for the crew of Challenger. The math says it's possible, but only because we don't have the engineering experience to know what real problems are going to be.
And to put a very sharp point on it, even if the Artemis Project works without a hitch, it's still not a self sustaining colony. It will be, essentially, an 'oil rig on the Moon', utterly dependent on monthly supply runs by spacecraft we haven't gotten to work yet. Skylab was a failed cometary display, Mir lasted longer but also fell to Earth. And the so-called International Space Station is a bunch laboratory soup cans held in place by girders. It's not much more advanced that Skylab was. NASA is bogged down by its own bureaucracy, Space-X is a bust, the Space Force is joke and I honestly don't see a self-sustaining colony being a success in my lifetime.
Don't get me wrong here. I'd LOVE to see off-Earth settlement in my lifetime. But 'hope is not a strategy'. Hope is about as useful in the real world as 'thoughts and prayers'. Real, honest work needs to happen where the sole agenda is getting Mankind off Earth. And nobody is doing that work yet. All the interested parties are too married to their own agendas to get any real progress made.
I've posted this meme more than once here, but it is particularly apt for this conversation.
BGen. Ed 'Buzz' Aldren, MIT Tech Review Oct 2012
We have dreams. We have theories. We have conjecture. But we have absolutely NO concrete nuts-and-bolts proof that any of that stuff in 'The Martian' will actually work. It works in theory. The math works out. But math is not experience, nor is it engineering. The math worked out for Chaffee, Grissom, and White aboard Apollo 1. And it worked out for the crew of Challenger. The math says it's possible, but only because we don't have the engineering experience to know what real problems are going to be.
And to put a very sharp point on it, even if the Artemis Project works without a hitch, it's still not a self sustaining colony. It will be, essentially, an 'oil rig on the Moon', utterly dependent on monthly supply runs by spacecraft we haven't gotten to work yet. Skylab was a failed cometary display, Mir lasted longer but also fell to Earth. And the so-called International Space Station is a bunch laboratory soup cans held in place by girders. It's not much more advanced that Skylab was. NASA is bogged down by its own bureaucracy, Space-X is a bust, the Space Force is joke and I honestly don't see a self-sustaining colony being a success in my lifetime.
Don't get me wrong here. I'd LOVE to see off-Earth settlement in my lifetime. But 'hope is not a strategy'. Hope is about as useful in the real world as 'thoughts and prayers'. Real, honest work needs to happen where the sole agenda is getting Mankind off Earth. And nobody is doing that work yet. All the interested parties are too married to their own agendas to get any real progress made.
I've posted this meme more than once here, but it is particularly apt for this conversation.
BGen. Ed 'Buzz' Aldren, MIT Tech Review Oct 2012
Last edited:
Is all this a result of lack of technology or a lack of will or leadership?
We don't need to these things at the moment and the tragedy of the commons indicates that if I personally don't need it I won't do anything about it (including voting for leaders that will).
We know there are vast reserves of raw materials in space, but it requires a significant investment to realise (but that will repay the investment). Once we do the scarcity of earth based resources will diminish and their value will drop. Anyone with investments in terrestrial resources will lose out and therefore will block any programme to exploit. Those with such investments will own politicians.
Traveller posits a non-elected emperor. They do whatever the hell they want.
ottarrus
Emperor Mongoose
We suspect that there are raw materials in the solor system. Chemical spectrography says the elements are present. But we have zero /zilch /bubkus /nada /nichts /nil/ no idea how those resources could be obtained. We speculate that it's possible that they could be harvested, but that is solidly in the realm of science fiction and not even speculative fact as yet.
First we have to design and field a life support system that will last multiple years in space without resupply.
Then we have to figure out a way to get off Earth using methods that will not further pollute the environment.
Then we have to design and test techniques to build a long term habitat off Earth.
And I suspect there's another 75 or 100 things I haven't thought of that must be dealt with before we can even begin to thing about asteroid mining and scooping petrochemicals out of Jupiter.
First we need to decide we want to do it. Then decide how much we want to pay to do it and what other constraints apply. Then we can start deciding on how we are going to do it within those constraints.
There is no theoretical or technological issue UNTIL we establish those criteria. We will often relax those criteria IF we identify a technological constraint.
Requirement drives the engineering solution. As yet there is NO requirement. That is why we don't have any firm ideas, it does not mean we don't have the technology, we just haven't really looked at it in the required detail. Going to the moon was a theory until a sufficiently motivated administration decided it was a priority.
Your examples of the failures in the space programs (and not knowing what we don't know until we try it) requires us to try it. All technology is theory until it is tested.
We had practical rockets in the 1940s after another dedicated administration under a charismatic leader decided it was a priority. The second world war drove a lot of technological development, not because scientists suddenly got smarter, but because war leaders decided that they wanted the end result of the research and gave the scientists the resources they needed to find the answers.
So if we want to KNOW if there are resources in space we need to invest in sending something to find out. We sent probes before (with varying degrees of success). It is not a technological problem it is a lack of desire to spend the considerable sums. The 2004 Mars Expedition Rover cost around 1 Billion. The 2004 US presidential election cost about the same. The MER lasted over a decade, the presidency less that half that. MER led to Perseverance which cost $2.4 Billion, the 2024 election costing twice that led us to the current administration. I leave it to the reader to decide which investment outcome they prefer.
Last edited:
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
If it's a question of money and incentive, the attractiveness of gated communities.
