Hawking Says Colonize Space or Die

[Lemur]

One of my political beliefs that is reflected by no party in America is that human beings should colonize space as quickly as is practical. Terraforming Mars should be at the top of our agenda.

Nice to see that the eminent Stephen Hawking agrees with me (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060613/D8I7ADB81.html). (He probably cribbed the idea from me.) The best book I've ever read on the subject was Robert Zubrin's Entering Space.

What do the Orgahs think? Should we expand and colonize? Or should we fix everything, absolutely everything, and only then think about moving up and out?

Hawking Says Humans Must Go Into Space

By SYLVIA HUI

HONG KONG (AP) - The survival of the human race depends on its ability to find new homes elsewhere in the universe because there's an increasing risk that a disaster will destroy the Earth, world-renowned scientist Stephen Hawking said Tuesday.

The British astrophysicist told a news conference in Hong Kong that humans could have a permanent base on the moon in 20 years and a colony on Mars in the next 40 years.

"We won't find anywhere as nice as Earth unless we go to another star system," added Hawking, who arrived to a rock star's welcome Monday. Tickets for his lecture planned for Wednesday were sold out.

He added that if humans can avoid killing themselves in the next 100 years, they should have space settlements that can continue without support from Earth.

"It is important for the human race to spread out into space for the survival of the species," Hawking said. "Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers we have not yet thought of."

The 64-year-old scientist - author of the global best seller "A Brief History of Time" - is wheelchair-bound and communicates with the help of a computer because he suffers from a neurological disorder called amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS.

Hawking said he's teaming up with his daughter to write a children's book about the universe, aimed at the same age range as the Harry Potter books.

"It is a story for children, which explains the wonders of the universe," his daughter, Lucy, added.

They didn't provide other details.

[doc_bean]

Move out quickly, the more people are spread out the more chances of survival the human race has.

besides, colonizing space is just plain cool :cool:

[Kralizec]

I voted #2, but on second thought I'd rather have voted for #3 :oops:

While I don't think we should dedicate as much funds as possible to it (there's still a lot of messes on Earth that need to be sorted out to), it should be a higher priority then it is now. I hope China's space program will trigger another space race (but not a Cold War)

[Marcellus]

I think that funding to space explortion/colonisation should increase, but we should still remember that there are serious problems to sort out on Earth.

[Justiciar]

Intergalactic Empires? I'm all for it. *Shoots imaginary lasers around*

Methinks I chose the wrong option though. I don't think it should be any nation's #1 concern.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Looks like I'm in the minority saying no.

This is because I really believe that once all the problems here are fixed, we will easily be able to handle the stuff that Mother Nature throws at us.

Besides, if we don't clean up before we leave that's just bad manners.

[drone]

Do we really need to inflict humanity on another planet? ~;)

[Justiciar]

Do we really need to inflict humanity on another planet? ~;)
That has to be the best argument against it I've heard to date. :laugh4:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I'm not in a great rush for it, seeing as how much it will cost, what with the budget we have now. That's the biggest obstacle I see. Other than that, colonize away!

[CBR]

As long as we dont have any fancy way of getting us to the stars or even just to get off the planet in a cheap way, I dont see it being that great an option.

Might as well build some big underground self supporting shelters on Earth. They would have same effect as some small Lunar/Mars colonies.


CBR

[discovery1]

Do whatever. I don't really care what governments do. Just leave the private spacers alone.

[Papewaio]

If we are to survive as a race and/or its descendents we would actually need to make it a fair distance away from each other... other distant star systems... otherwise we are still vulnerable to supernova.

[discovery1]

If we are to survive as a race and/or its descendents we would actually need to make it a fair distance away from each other... other distant star systems... otherwise we are still vulnerable to supernova.

The sun won't die in a supernova. It will become a red giant swallowing most of the inner solar system, then its out layers will drift out leaving a white hot core(white dawrf), which will slowly cool to a black dwarf.

Edit: Actually one idea I love is that our species and/or its intellectual heirs will set up shop on the innerable objects that exist in the infinite void between stars. A race living in the vast interstellar wilderness, and occasionally stopping to visit and/or raid local civilizations.

Hehe, everyone goes out to see a comet pass, which then alters its orbit and lands troops. Hi!

[Kralizec]

If the sun goes supernova, all planets in the system will be uninhabitable right? What about city ships, large enough to carry a sufficiently large gene poul? We could become a travelling species...

[Papewaio]

Not our sun it is too small, another star going supernova close enough will be enough...

[A.Saturnus]

The sun won't die in a supernova. It will become a red giant swallowing most of the inner solar system, then its out layers will drift out leaving a white hot core(white dawrf), which will slowly cool to a black dwarf.


It doesn't have to be the sun. If Aldebaran explodes, we're screwed.

[discovery1]

It doesn't have to be the sun. If Aldebaran explodes, we're screwed.

Good point.

What does everyone think of living in the void between stars, aside from the occasion visit?

[Kralizec]

Could we conceivably get away from Aldebaran or any other potentially threatening star in time though?

[Papewaio]

Speculation as to the effects of a nearby supernova on Earth often focuses on large stars, such as Betelgeuse, a red supergiant 427 light years from Earth which is a type II supernova candidate. Several prominent stars within a few hundred light years from the Sun are candidates for becoming supernovae in as little as 1000 years. Though spectacular, these "predictable" supernovae are thought to have little potential to affect Earth. Type Ia supernovae, though, are thought to be potentially the most dangerous if they occur close enough to the Earth. Because Type Ia supernovae arise from dim, common white dwarf stars, it is likely that a supernova that could affect the Earth will occur unpredictably and take place in a star system that is not well studied. One theory suggests that a Type Ia supernova would have to be closer than 1000 parsecs (3300 light years) to affect the Earth.[1]

Just some info... now if it means that a Type Ia can kill or at the minimum effect the Earth, to give our race a chance to survive such an event would require self sustainable colonies over 3300 light years from each other... a truly massive distance.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I like your idea Discovery. Unfortunately it's a loooooooooooooooong way off, but we can still dream.

[CBR]

Could we conceivably get away from Aldebaran or any other potentially threatening star in time though?
That does depend on how much time you got. Unfortunately you could end up moving into the sphere of another potiential supernova. Oh and AFAIK Aldebaran is not a supernova candidate.

Building a ship capable of holding say a thousand people and give it a speed of a couple % lightspeed is gonna cost a lot and not really realistic. Having generation after generation to keep up with high level of training and education as well as expect equipment to last hundreds if not thousands of years...nah doesnt sound likely to me.


CBR

[Banquo's Ghost]

It took me some time to reach a decision on this, and I am still open to persuasion.

I have always been a strong supporter of space exploration, being a child who watched Neil Armstrong's step with utter wonder. But I had somehow thought, in my Cold War environment, that if we ever saw the Iron Curtain fall, the peace dividend that followed would bring both the finance and the international goodwill and optimism to provide a springboard to the stars.

Well, the Iron Curtain did come down, and we managed to make things even worse. This child of the sixties became the cynical man of the new century.

Mankind seems to be unable to learn except through adversity and catastrophe. We will stay locked on this planet until we destroy it and most of ourselves - or currently, reach out to the stars and find new ways to ruin our new homes. Ideally, the former course will leave just enough alive to learn to live together in diversity and co-operation. Then we can look to live in peace on other worlds.

I return you to your regularly scheduled century. :bounce:

[Boohugh]

Conflict at its most basic level is due to humans coming into contact with other humans and fighting over something they both desire. Therefore, the more we spread out, the lower the chance there will be conflict between us. I think we should get out into space and spread our wings as far as possible, as soon as possible, thus lowering our chance of fighting each other (although we'll probably just end up fighting other forms of life instead :wall: )

[Avicenna]

If the sun goes supernova, all planets in the system will be uninhabitable right? What about city ships, large enough to carry a sufficiently large gene poul? We could become a travelling species...

If the sun supernovas, which it won't the planets in this system won't just be uninhabitable, they'll be obliterated. Back to stage one, dust clouds.

Mars in 40 years sounds a bit ambitious though. Living there permanently before we have even lived on the moon for any length of time?

[Fragony]

http://utterlyboring.com/archives/yankeegohome.jpg

[thrashaholic]

Having watched the BBC documentary "China" last night and being both appalled and amused by the way the Chinese Communist Party goes about things (although I imagine that it'll implode when China becomes wealthy enough), I think the West should pull up its socks up and get on with making space Western before the Red planet is red for a completely different reason, because China seems vastly more prestige driven than us, so that's precisely the sort of thing they'd do. (I didn't want this to sound like paranoia btw, even if it comes across that way, more concern)

Plus I think it'd be a good idea anyway, the ESA and NASA and so on should be trying much harder than sending the odd probe about the place. Maybe encouraging some private enterprise in it wouldn't be a bad idea either. We have the technology needed to get the ball rolling, so the sooner we start the sooner we'll get there.

[doc_bean]

I like your idea Discovery. Unfortunately it's a loooooooooooooooong way off, but we can still dream.

People dreamt of flying less than 200 years ago. If there's one thing good to say about humanity it's that we seem to always find a way to make something work.

IMHO if we're going to be serious about long distance space travel we're going to have to change our education accordingly. Our knowledge about quantum physics is far greater than our use for it in technology. Most (all) engineers are still trained in Newtonian physics first and foremost, even those in aerospace engineering (here at least). Our pool of people who can make contributions is too small.

Of course, this is mostly due to a lack of finance. Aerospace is all about satellites and telecommunication these days. No one is really interested in space travel it seems. Until the first country/organization/company lays claim on the moon or Mars possibly. Then it will be like the cold war all over again. :oops:

[Rodion Romanovich]

There's no way we can invent fast enough space shuttles to colonize space before we have destroyed our own earth with the current rate of environmental damage. We need to concentrate on saving earth in any case. Once we've fixed those problems we should perhaps work as hard as possible to find a way of colonizing space, because given how many people on earth like to destroy environment it's dangerous to live on the same planet as those.

[English assassin]

We should certainly get on with it, although I'm afraid I don't see how, economically or socially.

As things stand, it seems more or less inevitable that in 500 years time we will be looked back on as one of the (few) generations who plundered the planet's resources, for ever, and used them to fund a temporary blip in the world population, whilst seriously degrading the environment for millennia to come.

It would be nice to have something to put in the "credit" side of our balance.

I'm afraid, though, its going to be plundering and fornication as usual.

[Samurai Waki]

I have a better idea, to all those people that want to live on another planet, I suggest we strap a small rocket to their back, give them 20 Dollars, a handshake and a salute and say "best of luck" just before we launch them into orbit...money better spent I'd say.

[Papewaio]

It won't be us, it will by our childrens generation that might see a tiny fraction of them live on another planet.

It's not about individual survival or even just our species, it is about our ecosystem expanding.

As it stands we are a single cell, we are less then a zygote on a galatic scale.

We either improve ourselves and expand or be a sterile single cell.

[AntiochusIII]

I'd rather we save Mother Earth first from our own hands before we'll have to launch a "SAVE MARS FROM LITTER AND NUCLEAR HOLES" campaign.

Too much of the past is left of humanity's history here for me to go forth in the future unbounded.

Obviously, we have plenty of time, considering our timescale and the pattern of our overall development rate. After all, the entire written history is really nothing when we consider "the sun's timeline."

To the sci-fi zone, I'd be more interested in allowing an individual human to live, technically, forever (i.e. stopping the aging process) before we start thinking of the big picture. Maybe with self-regenerating organs, maybe with other, crazier stuff. After all, who cares about humanity if I'm not gonna be there to appreciate the Death Star's rise?

[yesdachi]

Even though I really like the idea of space travel and the discovery of new places to colonize, I really think we need to focus on things here for a while. We need a unified, under control and functional Earth government, medical advancements that eliminate many of the issues we currently face and the ability to better control our own weather. Work on that stuff for the next 100 years while simultaneously developing (and using) the technology necessary for space travel. Like, stronger composite building materials, more efficient fuels and engines and other tech necessary for the challenges space presents.

Want to colonize another world, play Alpha Centauri. ~D

The US education system rests at the bottom of the list, out stupid kids don’t even know where Iraq is on a map and people want to send them into space.

[Duke Malcolm]

Yes! We should force the countries of the British Commonwealth of Nations into making HM Space Agency, and make mighty space ships to fly the white ensign, and establish another British Empire, of planets instead of continents! Huzzah!

[Mikeus Caesar]

I'm sure if all Western Countries were to divert about 50% of their meaningless defence bugets towards space exploration, we'd have colonies on Mars within 20 years, plus enough money left over to sort out all the problems with our planet.

[Duke Malcolm]

Just how big do you think most Western defence budgets are (America is exceptionally meaningless, though, yes)

[Kommodus]

Stephen Hawking may be a brilliant man, but I think he's stepping a little outside of his area of expertise here. I tend to doubt most doomsday scenarios, and I suspect that even in a near-worst-case scenario, humanity would survive.

Now I'm not saying it would be pretty. Let's suppose some natural and/or man-made disasters do occur:

1. Global warming causes coastal areas to be flooded and other areas to be rendered uninhabitable due to climate change. As a further side-effect, chaotic weather destroys many major population centers all over the world.

2. Dwindling natural resources and burgeoning populations in undeveloped areas fuel mass migrations, leading to conflict and, in some cases, genocide.

3. Nuclear war breaks out, and many other population centers are wiped out, rendered uninhabitable for years, or even decades.

4. If you like, throw in another natural disaster here, such as a large asteroid hitting the earth or a supervolcano exploding.

All this combined would certainly lead to a massive reduction in the population of humans and other species - many would of course become extinct. Civilization as we know it would be destroyed, and human knowledge would be set back by centuries at least.

However, according to geologists/biologists/theologians, extinction-level events have occurred previously in the history of the world. As before, while most life would be wiped out, there would probably be a few survivors left to rebuild. Who knows, they might even do a better job next time. :-)

[Ironside]

Stephen Hawking may be a brilliant man, but I think he's stepping a little outside of his area of expertise here. I tend to doubt most doomsday scenarios, and I suspect that even in a near-worst-case scenario, humanity would survive.


Now I agree with you, but to be on the safe side, I suggest starting "Project Human Survival" (or PROHUS to have a senceless abbreviation that's still pronounceble). While not all details are ready, it involves self-sustaining colonies on the Moon, Mars and later on Venus and some of the Jupiter moons (needs quite a bit of terraforming there though) and several massive underground bunkers/cities deep into the crust, with a large production capacity. The production is then used for re-building after the disaster or military production, as PROHUS also prepares for possible alien invasions. Better cover all possibilities when you start a project like this.
And as soon as you got extra-terrestrial self-sustainable colonies you'll immidiatly start building simular bunkers there.

There, now you have to vipe out the solar system to take us out :laugh4:

Oh and alternative nr 2 for me ~;p

[ZombieFriedNuts]

The earth is DOOMED, to the stars and then we all die if a new disease from another planet :laugh4:

[Goofball]

I voted "As soon as possible" because I don't want to wait any longer than I have to for my government issued light saber, which, I assume, will be standard equipment for all emigrants to space.

[GoreBag]

I think it's interesting, and that more resources could be spent on it, but I don't know about ASAP.

[Papewaio]

Stephen Hawking may be a brilliant man, but I think he's stepping a little outside of his area of expertise here.

Lets see a world leading expert in cosmology being outside of his expertise by saying humans should colonize the cosmos?

What area of science expertise would one need to suggest humans going into space?

[Quietus]

Hawking pulled a fast one.

He's not really talking about 'space travel' at all. He's simply cautioning people of highly potential pitfalls in the future (note he highlighted man-made disasters). He's just not being obvious or didactic.

Direct but inelegant:
Hawking: [robot voice]Today, I'd like to talk about the dangers man creates. First is the nuclear armamentation of the world. Those can effective destroy our civilization and life as we know it! Another we must avoid is Global Warming. Let me tell you....[/robot voice]

Audience 1: :inquisitive: Sermon....
Audience 2: ~:confused: Hmm, anything else...?

Indirect but elegant:
Hawking: [robot voice]Today, I'd like to say that humans must initiate space travel as soon as possible. Why? Due to human negligence, we are the cusp of our own destruction. We'll go the moon, we'll go to Mars, we'll explore the stars....[/robot voice]

Audience 1: :jumping: Cool, space travel! And oh yeah, Nuclear weapons suck.
Audience 2: ~:cool: Sweet, star trek comes true! And yup, Global Warming blows.


He added that if humans can avoid killing themselves in the next 100 years, they should have space settlements that can continue without support from Earth.

"It is important for the human race to spread out into space for the survival of the species," Hawking said. "Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers WE have not yet thought of."
Space travel will eventually happen but humans have really nowhere to go with the current technology except to the moon and Mars (and Mars is closer to the sun :dizzy2: ).

edit: Mars is the not closer to the sun :P [brainfart}

[Radier]

Yes, colonizing is cool. I hope I may experience it in my lifetime.

[Kommodus]

Lets see a world leading expert in cosmology being outside of his expertise by saying humans should colonize the cosmos?

What area of science expertise would one need to suggest humans going into space?

If you read the article, you'll see I'm not the only one who thinks this - some of Mr. Hawking's peers in the scientific community said the same thing. His primary area of expertise, as I understand it, is theoretical physics.

Of course, anyone can suggest that humans colonize space - many, including non-scientists, have done so. However, to suggest (credibly) that humans must colonize space in order to avoid self-destruction, you need to know about more than just theoretical physics and/or cosmology. I would suggest that relevant areas here include:

- The earth sciences
- The "human" sciences (sociology, etc.)
- Biology

There may be some that I've left out. Basically, you need to know about humanity's prospects for survival if we stick to our original planet. That's not something you learn by studying the stars.

[yesdachi]

However, to suggest (credibly) that humans must colonize space in order to avoid self-destruction...
I'd rather we just work on fixing our self destructive ways before spreading them across the galaxy. :wink:

I think he is fricking amazing but I think you right about him being out of his area of expertise. Being an expert on the stars doesn’t mean he is an expert on how people should interact with them. He is as out of touch with the average world as Elton John, I would not expect either of them to make decisions for me.

[rory_20_uk]

Going gung ho in space ASAP makes no sense IMO. A far better option is to research the space option and as technology improves the options will increase. Obtaining rare elements might be one area, as might obtaining large quantities of Helium 3 (cleaner fusion).

There's already masses of unused or badly used land (and that can be where we already are and not merely stating that everything else is "badly used"). The oceans are also basically untapped. Our methods are archaic considering the damage we do to obtain food, not to mention an energy source or possibly the development of floating cities. And if space is the other option, why not?

Assuming that no sci fi breakthrough of wormholes or whatever occurs, we've got to go the slow way elsewhere.

Of course, there is the option of living humans trekking over the stars, but why? A ship that was computer based would be far smaller, much more resistant to radiation and could also end up carrying more genetic diversity than people alone.

I'm assuming that by the time we view building a massive ship and looking for another planet "exo-wombs" will be possible.

But although the idea of spreading our DNA over a wide area, the forst thing that a developed colony is going to do is declare independence / war on Earth. Let's make the distance a long one - preferable using one-way ships...

~:smoking:

[Papewaio]

Hawking has for some time been involved in the why and why nots of humans going to outerspace. His primary area of expertise is indeed theoretical physics fields of research in cosmology and gravity. I would also assume that he has the ability to understand other areas of science above that of the layperson and would have a better understanding then myself of humans survival rates on staying on earth. Just getting a degree in physics covers alot of ground and gives one a lot of mathematical insight. As for astrophysics and studying the stars one part of that is the Drake equation and its supporting arguements (and the counterarguements) which combines a lot of disciplines and also gives an insight into what can wipe out a species.

Also add in Kardashev scale and the potential for self distruction & social upheavels that at large scale energy transitions.

From my limited understandings we have zero chance of survival in the ultra long geological term if we stay on our original planet.

[solypsist]

nope.

i'm sure there's a good reason us little monkeys were placed out here by ourselves in this little corner where we couldnt bother anybody. a race that evolved from the most aggressive animal is better off living and dying in solitude without messing up the rest of outer space...

[Papewaio]

Actually we are fairly passive compared with the likes of Ebola... afterall the vast majority of life on earth is bacteria and they certainly on the whole aren't vegans...

[AntiochusIII]

nope.

i'm sure there's a good reason us little monkeys were placed out here by ourselves in this little corner where we couldnt bother anybody. a race that evolved from the most aggressive animal is better off living and dying in solitude without messing up the rest of outer space...That somehow reminds me of that brilliant novel One Hundred Years of Solitude and its enigmatic endline.

[Devastatin Dave]

I think its time to change Stephen's batteries. Sure, lets do it, but there's no rush.

[ZombieFriedNuts]

That’s a bit cruel isn’t it.

[Devastatin Dave]

That’s a bit cruel isn’t it.
So is frying the nuts of Zombies, but I'm not here to judge you.:laugh4:

[Alexanderofmacedon]

We need to fix problems on earth first, but it's possible to fix problems using more space, so it's a hard poll choice.:inquisitive:

[_Martyr_]

Surely pretty much all of the technologies developed for space exporation are very usable on earth to better life down here... Take the Apollo missions, its thanks to those that we have computers as we know them. Pretty much all modern technology is a spin off from developments in space exporation. The field of medicine is benefiting greatly from research done in zero gravity. International cooperation in achieving goals in space can have a very positive impact as well. Im just saying that the two arent totally mutually exclusive.

[rory_20_uk]

The technologies are due to the massive amounts of funding that were given to space.

If that were given to another discipline we'd have seen advances from that. If it had gone to exploring the oceans we'd probably be far more advanced there.

~:smoking:

[_Martyr_]

I disagree, the huge payout in technology from space investment comes mainly from the technical challenges and scientific break throughs that must be overcome to succeed. Obviously the huge amount of money that was spent was also required but that alone is not what made it work. Throwing money at a problem rarely works...

[rory_20_uk]

Hence choosing ANY project would achieve. Deep sea exploration would have required challenges equal to that of space.

As yet we can't sufficiently explore the oceans. Perhaps with the investment that space gain we would have a far better understanding of a far more important issue.

~:smoking:

[_Martyr_]

I dont know... I see space exploration as being extremely more demanding, on a technical level, than deep sea exploration. Deep sea exploration is simply a matter of dropping heavily reinforced preassure vessels, or non manned automated robots onto the sea floor, snooping around a little an returning with any finds. The getting there and back alone is tecnically extremely simple, its just a matter of exploiting Archemede's principle... not exactly groundbreaking stuff. Im not saying we shouldnt explore the ocean floors, but from a technical gain point of view, its on a MUCH lower level than interplanitary travel.

[rory_20_uk]

What have we got from space so far of any use? Pretty much bugger all. From unexplored areas of the world there is a wealth of new compounds to be reviewed and utilised. Compare the possibility of one coral reef compared to what in essence is a barren rock.

Yes, the principle of going to depths is simple. As is sticking a man on top of a rocket. It's the details that are interesting: operating at a range of depths, reviewing the oceanic floor, gaining insight into new flora and fauna and reviewing use for them.

Space is easier. We can do vacuums better than pressures. Zero gravity is another fad that as far as I am aware has achieved nothing yet, but always is said to be the Next Big Thing... NASA has to get its money somehow, right?

~:smoking:

[yesdachi]

What have we got from space so far of any use?
Tang!~D

Actually, I think there have been a lot of advancements made technologically and their uses have been many. I saw an article a while back in national geographic or popular science of something like it that kind of flowcharted some of the advancements and their uses.

But I’ll bet many of them would have discovered if we tied to explore the sea with as much attention as space.

We definitely gain more advancements while trying to explore something rather than nothing, so I think we should do both but concentrate on our own little planet first.

[_Martyr_]

What have we got from space so far of any use?

Oh I dont know... composite materials, satellite navigation systems, modern electronics and computers, many modern fabrics, rocket engines, aircraft engines, modern aerodynamics, the multitude of medical research in zero gravity, the implantable heart pump, solar energy pannels, planetary observation satellites, the hubbel telescope, much better understanding of the universe, intercontinental telephone communication through the network of satellites, ultrasound scanners, MRI... I could actually go on all day. There are an estimated 30,000 direct spin off technologies from space exploration. Pretty much any modern technology we take for granted today has its roots in space exploration.

I flat out disagree with your assessment of the relative technical difficulties in getting to space and getting to the bottom of the ocean. The two are simply put, totally and utterly incomparable. Its no massive coincidence that getting probes to other planets takes billions and billions of dollars, many decades of experience of some of the brightest people on earth, an incredibly complicated array of technologies developed for that purpose, and extreme difficulty in final execution of such a mission... while at the same time small private expeditions can reach pretty much any depth of sea floor by simply dropping a "probe on a line" down to the bottom. The technical difficulties of even getting to orbit are immense, let me give you a hint, its not called rocket science for nothing. Then navigating across the solar system (the shear scale of it...) in three dimensions with constantly moving points of reference with constanly moving targets... Good luck. Im not saying going to the bottom of the sea has no merit, but to compare it to space exploration is frankly ludicrous. Because of the greater technical difficulties posed by space exploration, the breakthroughs achieved in solving those engineering challenges is going to be of a much higher yield. Nasa estimates that for every dollor it spends, it creates $7 from tax revenue from the technologies it develops.

[Navaros]

I predict mankind will cease to exist long before it would have needed to colonize space to survive.

Plus the technology isn't there to do it. It costs billions of dollars to send a primitive robot to mars to take pictures of rocks. That's a quite a far cry from the ability to colonize space.

[Cronos Impera]

It's SF. Untill we have the technology for colonization and the resources to do that there will pass 20000 years or even more. Just think. The Earth is an unique enviroment which alows the development of life. Other planets in our solar system don't.
Facts
1. Lack of resources ( the Earth is beginning to suffer from lack of fossile fuels).At the current consumption rate by the time we develop the technology to colonize something the gas/oil resources will run out and prevent the launch of any space misssion to the Moon and beyound.
2. Lack of options ( be aware that other planets have different gravitation forces and/or different chemical compositions. It's not like building a biosphere on Mars as the sand storms could blow it up.) To be succesful you'll need to find a planet close to home and with simmilar conditions(1-100000000).
3.The hazards of prolongued space flights on the human body. Devastating.
4. Planetary hazards on the new colony ( Meteor strikes, Radiation, Supernovas)

It's imposible but a nice thought anyway.

[rory_20_uk]

Oh I dont know... composite materials, satellite navigation systems, modern electronics and computers, many modern fabrics, rocket engines, aircraft engines, modern aerodynamics, the multitude of medical research in zero gravity, the implantable heart pump, solar energy pannels, planetary observation satellites, the hubbel telescope, much better understanding of the universe, intercontinental telephone communication through the network of satellites, ultrasound scanners, MRI... I could actually go on all day. There are an estimated 30,000 direct spin off technologies from space exploration. Pretty much any modern technology we take for granted today has its roots in space exploration.

I flat out disagree with your assessment of the relative technical difficulties in getting to space and getting to the bottom of the ocean. The two are simply put, totally and utterly incomparable. Its no massive coincidence that getting probes to other planets takes billions and billions of dollars, many decades of experience of some of the brightest people on earth, an incredibly complicated array of technologies developed for that purpose, and extreme difficulty in final execution of such a mission... while at the same time small private expeditions can reach pretty much any depth of sea floor by simply dropping a "probe on a line" down to the bottom. The technical difficulties of even getting to orbit are immense, let me give you a hint, its not called rocket science for nothing. Then navigating across the solar system (the shear scale of it...) in three dimensions with constantly moving points of reference with constanly moving targets... Good luck. Im not saying going to the bottom of the sea has no merit, but to compare it to space exploration is frankly ludicrous. Because of the greater technical difficulties posed by space exploration, the breakthroughs achieved in solving those engineering challenges is going to be of a much higher yield. Nasa estimates that for every dollor it spends, it creates $7 from tax revenue from the technologies it develops.

Placing a satelite is hardly space exploration.
Medical research in zero gravity... uses?
Aircraft engines require space travel?

When did probes get to the bottom of the sea? Sputnik was in the 1950's
How many men have walked on the bootom of the ocean? None. So you can't compare the two.

I am not sure when probes have started going to the bottom of the sea. But if you're comparing something to events 30 years later the two are vastly dissimilar - probably due to the government spending the billions on the space race.

Reversing roles, much that would be needed to get to the bottom of the sea (plastics, pressure hulls, computers, cameras, batteries, propulsion systems, advanced sonar, and possibly GPS or similar to track vessels could then have made space cheaper 30 years later.

So NASA says it gets $7 for every $1. Again, so what? we have nothing to compare that with. The money doesn't come from mining space, does it? Perhaps if there were no spaceships sent up the returns would be far greater.

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

1. Lack of resources ( the Earth is beginning to suffer from lack of fossile fuels).At the current consumption rate by the time we develop the technology to colonize something the gas/oil resources will run out and prevent the launch of any space misssion to the Moon and beyound.


Fission / fusion can be the power supply. Or renewable. The sun has a lot of spare energy.


3.The hazards of prolongued space flights on the human body. Devastating.

True. Cryogenics might be the solution.


4. Planetary hazards on the new colony ( Meteor strikes, Radiation, Supernovas)

Send out loads then

~:smoking:

[BDC]

Of course space colonisation will happen. It's just difficult and dangerous and expensive, and probably wouldn't pay for itself at the moment.

When America ceases to be so bothered with safety and some companies find something it's actually worth bringing back then it'll happen.

Just for the the record it's actually pretty easy and cheap to move about the solar system, if you're willing to spend long enough doing it. It's the getting into orbit bit that's expensive. I can't see any sort of human exploration between stars for millennia, it's just vast distances and immense amounts of background radiation. We need warp/hyperspace first...

[doc_bean]

It's SF. Untill we have the technology for colonization and the resources to do that there will pass 20000 years or even more.

That's probably what they said about flying.

[rotorgun]

The idea reminds me of two old sci-fi movies from the 1950's, When Worlds Collide and The Day the Earth Stood Still. In the first one a bunch of scientists build a rocket to launch some preselected survivors to a new world when the Earth is threatened by collision with a rouge planet. In the second, a visitor from space,along with Klatu, his trusty robot with the "power to destroy the planet", arrive to inform the people of Earth to get their act together before venturing into space or face annihilation by the "Federation of Planets" he belonngs to....maybe he won't let us go to Mars either?