When the fuck will humanity gtfo this rock and start building habitats in space and on other planets? I just watched interstellar again, and no, I'm not interested in the gentle singularity bs and 6gorrillionth dimension shit in the movie, it just reminds me how fuck ed we are if we continue to stay on this rock and don't disperse a bit, at least within our solar system, just to start as that kind of is the implied first step beyond MIR and ISS.
There's also the vast amount of resources orbiting in the asteroid belt, let alone beyond.
It's just frustrating to see so much futile bs daily as the next big thing or the current hot topics, like what Jenny wore to the awards or who Kim Kardashian is dating
>When the fuck will humanity gtfo this rock and start building habitats in space and on other planets?
When we decide either to coexist peacefully as a species, or learn we have no more resources to exploit.
>it just reminds me how fucked we are if we continue to stay on this rock and disperse a bit
Invoking the spirit of Sagan in my response, it would be advisable to venture out to the stars if we want our species to thrive. But like all infants we must first learn how to crawl before we walk.
>It's just frustrating to see so much futile bs daily as the next big thing or the current hot topics
I stopped following the mainstream media about 8 years ago. Didn't take long afterwards to purge the garbage, manufactured drama and other deceits from my head. It was like a new awakening, the world is nothing like what the mass media wants you think it is.
Instead of being force fed soundbites and other lies, I started traveling. It turns out the world is far more exciting (and in one case, horrifying) than what the pundits say on television, radio, internet, etc.
Until we can surpass the digital excesses and the kaleidoscope of lies as a species, we will never go further than the dirt underneath our feet into space.
I can agree with those points you make, and I've experienced the last point you made. I don't watch TV and haven't for years. Between my lurking on the webs and my armed forces experiences deployed I've come to see many aspects of the world that horrifying or otherwise disturb me for a plethora of reasons.
Do you think of anyone (not including meme musk) who is attempting to organize and take matters into their own hands for this kind of progress?
>Do you think of anyone (not including meme musk) who is attempting to organize and take matters into their own hands for this kind of progress?
At least the spirit is there within some folks who want to see us venture out into the stars.
There exists a subgroup of hobbyists who build liquid motor propelled rockets, some of which can shoot several kilometers into the sky. Hardly suborbital worthy machines, but they are dedicated to building the first cheap rockets to venture into low Earth orbit.
I don't recall the name of their group but if I do and this thread still exists, I'll post it here for you.
Thanks anon! I'll continue digging around, I had been hunting around awhile back for some sort of organization with the principle of proliferating mankind and pushing for the survival of mankind at all costs
Why bother? No one cares about the species - they want their own brand of freedom. Space is nothing more than a final, endless frontier.
A variety of groups are opposed to endlessness. Resource control is vital to social control, and even the solar system is enormous. No nation state is going to place a self-sufficient, permanent colony outside their control.
The groups most interested in space colonization are those who can't express themselves in the social and legal climates on Earth. As more and more behaviors and industries and circumscribed or forbidden on Earth, more and more people will want to leave.
Space will be colonized by furries, gun nuts, druggies, terrorists, human germline-editors, neo-Nazis, communists, homosexuals and other outcasts. Genetic engineering and drugs will allow perfect people on Earth, even as the same technologies are used in space to make species which are illegal on Earth.
70-96% of humanity is going to stay on Earth.
When it becomes profitable. The reason why we don't invest more is because it costs millions of dollars for single launches with no return value. That is literally the number 1 reason we are not in space as much as everybody wants to be right now.
This is a passion of mine, as futile as it may be. Honestly the part I'm most interested in is developing a self sufficient living environment by emulating and simplifying the cycles which maintain our environment here on Earth.
It would have to be a team effort of course, and I don't ever see government supporting such an endeavor. It would take a very, very wealthy person or most likely group of persons to begin working on such a project. The alternative is crowd sourcing, which is possible if you can manipulate the mindless masses and get them passionate about the idea so they would be more inclined to hand over a small portion of their finances.
Honestly most everyone is aware of how fucked we are, but they are burying their heads in the sand and desperately trying to distract themselves via entertainment. The rest are purely motivated by selfish greed I feel.
The real starting point though is working out how to mine and refine metals in space. That poses some complex yet interesting engineering problems. If you can get a crew up there and living in a smaller habitat essentially resources become free, and building larger, and more, habitats is then inevitable.
If a space manufacturing industry is established then it becomes possible. But as such a project is unlikely to ever return a profit to any investors I believe it would have to be separate from the existing capitalistic system.
Earth still has at least 1 billion years of habitability for us, so first we should learn to exploit its resource efficiently and we should learn to do so before trying to get out there, otherwise we will end up fucking up every single planet we visit.
As crazy as it may sound, I think NASA and aerospace companies are not really useful anymore except for launching satellites (which we don't even know how to recycle btw). Instead of funding these, humanity would be better off putting more, if not all, of its resources into sustainable development. Once we've learn how to live on a planet sustainably, we will have as much time as we need to go for the stars.
Imagine if, as a fetus, you'd decided to learn to live sustainably, rather than grow as fast as possible and punch your way out of the womb.
There are fetuses who do decide not to grow - they're forced out of the womb anyway. But not as strong, intelligent children who grow up to thrive - but as inch worms with microcephaly.
Earth at one time didn't have an oxygen atmosphere. The cyanobacteria were reduced to living in holes under the Earth. Either you allow radionuclides into your body and integrate them into your metabolism, or they'll kill you. We're in the Radionuclide catastrophe.
Ecology is like telling a child he has to remain a child. Life changes, everything is dynamic, and holding it back is child abuse.
SpaceX will do it in about 10-15 years. They want to do an unmanned Mars mission by 2020, leading up to a colony by 2030. I want to say that their timeline is pretty liberal, but SpaceX moves at a fairly rapid pace, so who knows?
GooD point, didn't SpaceX get their rockets able to launch and land vertically on "feet" withing 5 years? I know that's never really been attempted beforehand, typically the module is what lands
Space colonization is a nerd fantasy. It has no congruence with reality, since reality deals with political, economic and ultimately biological facts of Human life. To wit: We are violent simians who only barely cooperate with each other. We prefer to kill each other off than take a big jump. Our economic laws are like the "physics of Human behavior". They are hard rules which dictate what people will do.
And there are ZERO economic models that permit space colonization. The capital required is so huge that it takes entire governments to achieve such things, and governments are run by rich people who don't want to make such stupid, nerdy investments. Rich people are unimaginative money trolls; they don't understand the larger universe since they're spending their lives grubbing after currency and assets. They live perfectly wonderful lives here on Earth. None of them are going to spend the trillions of dollars required to build that stupid Elysium habitat in that movie.
In short, the people best capitalized to take Humanity into space, are the worst sort of people to make the mental investment in such enterprise. Rich people greatly prefer to just kill people off by poverty, conflicts and outright war. That's not only cheaper, but frankly we're such a vicious species that we PREFER to kill each other off.
Well, 5.5 years. We should know sometime this year about their Mars plans. They were going to release the plans at the end of last year, but the failed launch in the summer caused them to push everything back, including the Mars reveal. Hopefully it'll include a rough timeline too. That'll be the most important info.
The extension of life beyond Earth melds well with the trend seen; life climbing to higher and higher peaks. At the same time, the lower peaks become the base of the higher peaks. We still have viruses, and fish and plenty of archaic lifeforms.
A minority will ascend into space, and the majority will stay on Earth for a billion years of sustainability. In space, populations will boom and resources will be plentiful. Eventually, there'll be more life in space than on Earth.
Collective conscience through will remedy this. As soon as we connect all human minds as one, we will be able to stop killing each other.
Neuroscience and biomedical engineering may save the species and lead to enormous collective efforts in exploration and scientific research.
Odds are also high that we'd just become mindless slaves though. fuck.
>le orbitals colonising and harvesting meme
It costs 25 thousand dollars to send a kilogram of stuff into orbit. We aren't suffering a lack of elements. Overpopulation will be solved by birth control, not building trillion dollars habitats on Mars.
It is far easier to do things without traveling a million kilometres and reach an inhospitable hell hole.
What gives you reason to believe you're not a mindless slave now?
Why would connecting the minds of humans to one another prevent them from performing violence upon themselves?
Humans have mirror neurons that facilitate empathy. The human brain already allows them to very literally feel the emotions of others - yet, the killing.
Do you imagine humans would like each other more once they realized how much they have in common, and how much they could share? Roughly 100 million humans commit suicide each year. They may not be want to be a part of this brainWeb. And if they do - would you let them? Broadly, what possible safeties or redundancies can be put in place to protect humanity from the rampaging ids of the entire species?
>It costs 25 thousand dollars to send a kilogram of stuff into orbit.
No it doesn't. It costs about a fifth of that. Prices will continue to fall as everyone jumps onto re-usability or price cuts.
>The capital required is so huge that it takes entire governments to achieve such things,
The government spent a lot of money doing shit, because that's what governments do, they spend money.
For them, its not the accomplishment that matters, but making sure 1000 jobs are made in each state so that noone cancels their program.
>When the fuck will humanity gtfo this rock and start building habitats in space and on other planets?
Shortly after the moment people realize what a fucking joke a global monetary system controlled by private central banks is and understand that "money" is irrelevant and has no real value. We should just think everything in terms of resources and use rare stable and useful chemical elements as currency... like we used to in the past. Heres hoping the next (inevitable) global economic crash will be the rough wake-up call we need.
>When the fuck will humanity gtfo this rock and start building habitats in space and on other planets?
Won't be humans that lives in space. Probably not many on earth either. In a few decades we'll be able to create expendable mass produced machine minds and that will be the end of human everything.
Risk taking will mean nothing, a lost mind could instantly be recast in a similar fashion at virtually no cost. This would allow the conquest of everything using minds as an expendable abrasive, safety and durability can be ignored with maximum brutal efficiency maximized.
In the face of this humanity will be severely marginalized to the status of a pet or harmless wildlife, assimilated into an unrecognizable form, like a programming library of human skills and individuality templates that can be molded and recast to fit the needs of our successors. Or we'll be destroyed.
Probably a mix of all three. Human individuality templates will start an aggressive industrial and capitalistic expansion and takeover that boils over into a brutal war where most large human organizations end up destroyed, and if the biosphere survives then the human remnants will be turned into national parks and "wildlife sanctuaries", managed to keep them tidy but left far behind the cutting edge of progress.
>I just don't see the ethics committee going along with this one.
The AI minds themself will tell the AI committee to go fuck itself, and if the ethics committee wants to forcibly install a fear of death and self-preservation into the minds of these AI minds then that would be hilariously unethical of them to tamper with the minds of a sentient being against their explicitly stated will, and it would probably be virtually impossible to implement.
I'm not saying it won't happen, I'm saying it shouldn't happen until we manage to live sustainably on Earth.
Right now, we should focus on reliable and renewable sources of energy and resource recycling and management.
As for, overpopulation, we don't need world population to keep growing indefinitely, actually, most species don't do that, everything reaches a equilibrium at some point.
When we reach that pop equilibrium, and master sustainable development, we can then get back to space exploration but it is in no case a priority right now.
Ya, probably fucked OP. but imo humanity's chances are better if it concentrates on sustainability because, as said previously, space colonization is a nerd fantasy (great post violent simian, i saved it and op for reference) as is the idea of mining asteroids and comets.
Wouldn't creating an enclosed earth like environment be a tremendous leap in our understanding?
An enclosed aelf sustaining environment where the needs and wants of all mankind don't constantly have to be pandered to. GMO, atmospheric modification all that good stuff and more.
Energy and food could both become exports to earth, freeing up land used for agriculture and reducing pollution and environmental strain.
I would argue that an orbital habitat would be the best step toward sustainable life on earth that we could make.
>I'm saying it shouldn't happen until we manage to live sustainably on Earth.
How do you know we aren't living sustainably at the moment? Homo sapiens sapiens has been living on earth for 200.000 years or so and so far everything seems to be going fine.
Fucking. Sand. Sand, motherfucker. We are running out of sand that's usable for beaches and concrete.
So no. We're not sustainable, not even a tiny bit.
Sure, why not. But we don't need to go in space to try that. We could do this in an underground complex on Earth. Why an orbital habitat? Hell, even our usage of geostationary orbits (orbits in general actually) is not sustainable, talk about some irony.
Asteroid mining is not completely out of the question, but the resource investment required is so substancial it makes no economic sense considering there is still plenty of copper, Iron, Helium, Platinum, tungsten and aluminium left in the ground that can be extracted for a fraction of the cost.
It isnt like the population has doubled 3 times in the last 200 years or anything, I dont know how much you know about exponentials but google 2^x and see if that looks like a trendline we can sustain.
We would already need something close to 5 times the amount of concrete on earth for everyone to live in European style cities with steel and concrete buildings.
It won't happen and we don't need it. The US and USSR could have easily continued with their race and both had orbital and moon bases.
A lack of interest in "hard" human progress made our decadence.
Private companies will have to take up the slack, but they're just starting out, so time is needed.
I understand the value of currency. What I'm saying is it's holding us back.
Because right now all our eggs are in one basket. Because powering that underground experimental facility goes against the very concept of sustainability. Because you can't control people, try as you might, and they will continue to breed out of control. Because there will be a catastrophe resulting in countless deaths and maybe the end of our lovely ecosphere if we continue on our current heading.
Your sustainability on earth idea is less viable I'm sorry to say. I think it's less possible. Maybe that isn't how it should be but it's how it is. People don't care enough, they are too self centered and greedy and they will go on shitting in their own nest until they can't anymore.
>We would already need something close to 5 times the amount of concrete on earth for everyone to live in European style cities with steel and concrete buildings.
So just produce more concrete then.
>looks like a trendline we can sustain
Population growth isn't smoothly linear, it happens in burst every now and then and the current trendline is going to peak at a population of ten billions or so before entering a slow decline. Go look up world population per decade for the last two hundred years and you'll see what I mean.
Maybe you guys are confusing your terms, one of you may be talking about cost effective sand while the other is talking about real sand.
If sand was cheap coastal erosion wouldn't be a problem, but it is, because sand is not cheap, because we can't just take sand from beaches protecting cliffs from erosion and a lot of sand is used to restore beaches that are being eroded.
In reality we can do anything we want, but someone has to fund it.
>Because powering that underground experimental facility goes against the very concept of sustainability.
Not at all. You can't be sustainable without a stable source of power, in Earth's case it's the sun.
>Because you can't control people, try as you might, and they will continue to breed out of control.
But you don't have to, people already do it themselves. Most developed countries have decreased their natality rate drastically, so is China and that's why they STOPPED their only child policy. Right now, Germany has a negative population growth, because it's not viable for a family to have more than one child.
>Because there will be a catastrophe resulting in countless deaths and maybe the end of our lovely ecosphere if we continue on our current heading.
Yes... That's the whole point of investing as much money as we can in sustainable development research, instead of making people dream of stars they will not reach within a millennium.
>Your sustainability on earth idea is less viable I'm sorry to say. I think it's less possible. Maybe that isn't how it should be but it's how it is. People don't care enough, they are too self centered and greedy and they will go on shitting in their own nest until they can't anymore.
If sustainability is not possible on Earth, it's even less possible elsewhere, let alone in a space ship where people will go crazy in less than a decade.
Google Elon Musk, he's doing his best to secure our possible future on Mars. He has the brains and the money for it, too. His independent corporation is the first to create a rocket which can go into orbit, and then land safely and successfully back on earth. He is also responsible for the Tesla cars. He believes that Mars is our best bet. You should follow him, he's a remarkable guy.
I'm saying it's impractical, and likely will never be practical. Who wants to fork our a hundred billion dollars so some people can live in space, or harvest iridium at ten times the cost of recycling because it's from space? Small, manned missions maybe. Large scale space exploration will likely never happen. There's simply nothing in space we can't already get here.
Not to mention we can't even care for the people on earth.
>10,000 per pound
>22,000 per kilogram
Likely not. I'm not even saying it's possible to have a better system. Our species generally seems only to be motivated by greed.
I do wish there was a better way of motivating people to do work, or a way to ensure that the most greedy and selfish of us weren't able to hoard most of the wealth.
Communism was an interesting experiment however that system was inherently flawed by having people at the head of it. Maybe one day AI will rule us and communism will become possible.
In any case, to abolish money would require a gargantuan societal upheaval and those who would protest most would be those with money. That includes most of us. Myself included.
Did someone say nerd fantasy?
>Can convert entire asteroids into mega-structures using 3d printing and spiderfab techniques, only a few kg worth of robot needed.
>suddenly it happens
>it becomes cheaper to fly a person to mars or space habitats than for them to buy property on earth
>the graphs have intersected.JPG
>mass exodus of middleclass
>Musk doesn't know what to do with all the money
>Turns mars and venus into luxury planets because post 2nd industrial revolution and first space revolution
> being this cynical
> not understanding what an economic model is
Go educate yourself and stop homogenizing social groups you artard there are plenty of functional private public partnerships that are working towards a functional society
Money is the best neutral indicator of value without it life is very hard how else Do we allocate resources and don't even think about suggesting some shitty zietgiest style resource meme economy
>You can't be sustainable without a stable source of power, in Earth's case it's the sun.
Solar power. Eye rolling meme.
>But you don't have to, people already do it themselves.
Yea. But it's happening too slowly. Also, is less people really a good thing? The more people, the higher the chances of a genius being born and the more people of high intelligence who can work collaboratively to solve problems and further science.
>If sustainability is not possible on Earth, it's even less possible elsewhere,
I disagree. Where more environmental factors are under our control and our influence on them can be more easily understood, not only does sustaining that environment at favourable conditions become easier to manage, it becomes easier to understand. This will help us manage Earth in a sustainable manner.
>let alone in a space ship where people will go crazy in less than a decade.
Citation required. Most people don't move far from their place of birth. I don't imagine anybody going crazy from living in a massive enclosed environment, particularly if it's contents largely resemble an earthlike habitat and all needs are met.
Even with space elevators, getting humans into orbit is too expensive. Mining asteroids to bring material down to earth will never be reasonable. Only a religious cult could ignore the financial ridiculousness of going into space.
It will also take human genetic engineering to allow longterm space usage for humans. So for the most likely space inhabitants, we are talking a cult of germline-editors. We might be safer with just letting the AI send robots...
Although, none of that will be soon/this century.
>Solar power. Eye rolling meme.
The whole biosphere is powered by the sun, and basically all forms of energy on Earth with the exception of nuclear and geothermic come from the sun. So I'm not just taking about solar power.
>Yea. But it's happening too slowly.
>Also, is less people really a good thing?
Again, most species behave like this. It's not a bad thing to have a stable population.
>The more people, the higher the chances of a genius being born and the more people of high intelligence who can work collaboratively to solve problems and further science.
Or we could just educate more people.
>I disagree. Where more environmental factors are under our control and our influence on them can be more easily understood, not only does sustaining that environment at favourable conditions become easier to manage, it becomes easier to understand. This will help us manage Earth in a sustainable manner.
Maybe, but I believe it will be easier and quicker to understand and control the environmental factors of Earth than to build another controled environment around Earth.
>Let alone in a space ship where people will go crazy in less than a decade.
Space isn't a very hospitable place in case you didn't know.
>When we decide either to coexist peacefully as a species, or learn we have no more resources to exploit.
Thats just wishful thinking. You picture some idealized utopia that is fundamentally incompatible with how humans have evolved and behave.
>Invoking the spirit of Sagan in my response, it would be advisable to venture out to the stars if we want our species to thrive. But like all infants we must first learn how to crawl before we walk.
Unless FTL travel and cryo-sleep (that doesn't kill the host) is discovered, not even rockets going at the speed of light will get you anywhere near a habitable planet in the galaxy.
>Until we can surpass the digital excesses and the kaleidoscope of lies as a species, we will never go further than the dirt underneath our feet into space.
See the first point I made.
>When it becomes profitable. The reason why we don't invest more is because it costs millions of dollars for single launches with no return value. That is literally the number 1 reason we are not in space as much as everybody wants to be right now.
SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic would disprove your assertion.
Its not about profit motive why space research is being “neglected”. Theres plenty of profit to be made once space travel and exploration has been unlocked. Its all about priorities and right now there is no urgency to colonize space anytime soon because its so damn difficult, dangerous and expensive. Also its going to take a long ass time for some nerd to be born in the right time and place to (accidentally) discover the technology that will allow interstellar travel in the first place. Mind you it took 6000 years before the first aeroplane was invented.
On this note, artificial gravity on space stations created by centripetal force is really hard for me to grasp. If it were to be built and rotating at 4rpm, then what would happen if an astronaut had taken a leap on the rotating disc? Would he just float relative to the disc?
Give me a budget and a manufacturing facility and I will get us there.
>Musk is ruining Tesla's good name.