[Aardwolf]

the optimal population on earth would be about 3 billion people.

I agree, but by golly the solution is not to expand. We should reduce the total population to 3 billion. We don't even need mass-murder. Just stop breeding faster than we're dieing. Free contraceptives for everybody, and nobody gets to have more than two kids (simultaneously?), until the population is down to 3 billion. Anybody who tries for at third gets sterilized.

But nobody will agree to that, unless everyone agrees to it.

I'm curious where you two are getting this 3 billion figure.  Demographers are fairly united in predicting the population will have peaked, then dropped and stabilized by 2025 as development continues in the nations primarily contributing to the population boom, but the last stabilization figure I saw was in the neighborhood of 8 billion.

Meh. I was just going along with the number whosits posted.

[The E]

Um.... permanent residential area for people, since the optimal population on earth would be about 3 billion people.

ENGAGE RANT MODE

Cite your ****ing sources. Cite them right the hell now. Then find proof for their accuracy and the accuracy of the scientific methods by which the "3 billion" number was reached.

Here's the thing though: You won't be able to. Why? Because that number, and the stuff behind it, are bull****. It's based on the belief by certain green idiots that the only way of life that is "sustainable" is that of subsistence farming. In other words, a return to preindustrial ways of life, where a majority of the population was directly involved in producing food. They think that the modern advances in farming are bad, that being able to feed a large number of people efficiently is not a good thing to have.

Also, if you are saying "there should be only 3 billion of us", I want you to make a list of the people you want dead. I want you to ask everyone you know to draw up similar lists. Because that is what this whole "sustainable population" bit entails. Now, you may be a sociopath like Nuke, or you may be a teenager (which, by and large, amounts to the same thing) who would have no problem whatsoever. Or you may actually be a normal human being, who wouldn't like this idea one bit.

[FlamingCobra]

I see no point. Most of the winners of the contest are variations of the Stanford Torus. We already have 3 designs that should work. Colony design isn't a problem.

The biggest problem is financing. The second biggest problem, imo, is launch systems. Of course, it would be a lot cheaper (and require less launches) to construct colonies from secret soviet moonbase solaris using the bootstrap principle.

So why don't we tackle those two obstacles first, hm?

Because, as usual, you are missing the point. This contest isn't about providing a new, revolutionary design for a space station (although that's a nice bonus), it's about stimulating people into thinking about space colonization. Specifically, people young enough to be inspired by working on such a project. It's an effort to create a base of people NASA might eventually recruit from.

That's kind of what I was getting at. What's the point in pushing the idea of space colonization if you simply can't do it because of launch costs and/or (a lack of) funding?

That just gets kids' hopes up and then crushes their dreams and aspirations.

-snip-

This is precisely why it's a terrible idea to have a residential space station. Also I'd rather see humanity consume all available resources and then die off in a nuclear war. But that's just me, and there's hardly room for an objective take on humanity's goals.

What? Do you not give a damn about the long-term survival of the human race? Disasters are lining up to wipe us out. Pollution (think about what would happen if the level of environmental estrogens got really high), flooding (global warming), superbugs, super volcanoes, nuclear war. Imagine what would happen if another Tunguska Incident occurred in New York City. All fledglings must eventually leave the nest. Humanity is no exception. We must go to space or face extinction.

-snip-
I'm curious where you two are getting this 3 billion figure.  Demographers are fairly united in predicting the population will have peaked, then dropped and stabilized by 2025 as development continues in the nations primarily contributing to the population boom, but the last stabilization figure I saw was in the neighborhood of 8 billion.

Um.... permanent residential area for people, since the optimal population on earth would be about 3 billion people.

ENGAGE RANT MODE

Cite your ****ing sources. Cite them right the hell now. Then find proof for their accuracy and the accuracy of the scientific methods by which the "3 billion" number was reached.

Here's the thing though: You won't be able to. Why? Because that number, and the stuff behind it, are bull****. It's based on the belief by certain green idiots that the only way of life that is "sustainable" is that of subsistence farming. In other words, a return to preindustrial ways of life, where a majority of the population was directly involved in producing food. They think that the modern advances in farming are bad, that being able to feed a large number of people efficiently is not a good thing to have.

Also, if you are saying "there should be only 3 billion of us", I want you to make a list of the people you want dead. I want you to ask everyone you know to draw up similar lists. Because that is what this whole "sustainable population" bit entails. Now, you may be a sociopath like Nuke, or you may be a teenager (which, by and large, amounts to the same thing) who would have no problem whatsoever. Or you may actually be a normal human being, who wouldn't like this idea one bit.

Chill out, bro.

Looks like I was wrong. My environmental science textbook from last year stated that David Pimentel claims the optimum human population would be two billion. The text goes on to state that he is an extreme neo-Malthusian.

This book also gives three stabilization projections for the human population. An optimistic one, a medium one, and a pessimistic one. It claims the UN Projection Division made these three projections in 2003.

Optimistic (good): 8 billion by 2050, back to where it is today by 2150.
Medium: 9.3 billion by 2050, stabilize at 10 billion by 2150.
Pessimistic (ugly): Continued exponential growth, 25 billion people by 2150.

OK, E, I'LL GIVE SOURCE INFORMATION FOR THE BOOK IF YOU WANT IT. YOU LIKE MLA OR APA FORMAT?

Environmental Science: A Global Concern. Eighth Edition. William P. Cunningham, Mary Ann Cunningham, Barbara Saigo. 2005. Published by McGraw-Hill.

PS: 2 billion is too few. I personally believe the optimum population would be anywhere from 3 to 4 billion. I'm not going to back it up because I can't. And I'm not going to make a list of people I want dead because right now, the majority of population growth is occurring in developing nations. If the people in those countries were more educated and/or had a more secure food-and-income base, they would most likely have less kids. If that didn't do it, we could provide incentives for people to have less kids. Over time, the population would drop on its own.

Or we could just ship half the people in the world off the planet and into orbital colonies. And you already know I am a teenager.

EDIT:

the optimal population on earth would be about 3 billion people.

I agree, but by golly the solution is not to expand. We should reduce the total population to 3 billion. We don't even need mass-murder. Just stop breeding faster than we're dieing. Free contraceptives for everybody, and nobody gets to have more than two kids (simultaneously?), until the population is down to 3 billion. Anybody who tries for at third gets sterilized.

But nobody will agree to that, unless everyone agrees to it.

See my above argument about extinction.

EDIT2:

In 2001, Stephen Hawking is reported to have said: "I don't think the human race will survive the next 1,000 years, unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet. But I'm an optimist. We will reach out to the stars."

Y'all wanna argue with Stephen Hawking?

EDIT3: Nuke isn't a sociopath. He's just misunderstood.

[The E]

That's kind of what I was getting at. What's the point in pushing the idea of space colonization if you simply can't do it because of launch costs and/or (a lack of) funding?

That just gets kids' hopes up and then crushes their dreams and aspirations.

You're expecting these projects to produce actual, usable results. That is not and has never been the point. The point is to get these kids to start dreaming, so that maybe a few more of them would try and get into science and engineering to make these dreams a reality.

[FlamingCobra]

That's kind of what I was getting at. What's the point in pushing the idea of space colonization if you simply can't do it because of launch costs and/or (a lack of) funding?

That just gets kids' hopes up and then crushes their dreams and aspirations.

You're expecting these projects to produce actual, usable results. That is not and has never been the point. The point is to get these kids to start dreaming, so that maybe a few more of them would try and get into science and engineering to make these dreams a reality.

Yeah. I was one of those people. Then I realized that one person can't change the world. I realized that on my own. HLP made me realize mass drivers are not and will never be economical, so engineering for me is pointless. We already have the technology to do the sled-assisted rocket launch, which one thread on this forum stated would actually be pretty cheap. So now the only two obstacles are public opinion and politics (finances). I think.

You yourself said that space colonization is not economical, is a bad idea, and will never happen. Or something along those lines. If you want to know where/when you said that, check that thread I made about terraforming venus. It's somewhere in there.

[The E]

Yep, and I stand by those statements. With current technology, space colonization is not economical. But I am more than happy to be proven wrong in that regard, and one step to be proven wrong is getting people into thinking about the issues attached to this whole thing. Oh, and while I am critical of the idea of colonization efforts, exploration is something else entirely. And that's a task that can use some good scientists and engineers.

As for one person not being able to change the world, Isaac Newton would like to throw apples at you. Albert Einstein finds your pessimism relatively amusing. Robert Oppenheimer is blown away by the ease with which you give up hope. Alan Turing, informed of your opinions, has declared that he would not rest until he could inject some intelligence into you. Dennis Ritchie has a programming paradigm for cases like yours.

[Polpolion]

We can't recycle materials forever. Eventually we will need a new source of raw materials.

This is precisely why it's a terrible idea to have a residential space station.

What? Do you not give a damn about the long-term survival of the human race? Disasters are lining up to wipe us out. Pollution (think about what would happen if the level of environmental estrogens got really high), flooding (global warming), superbugs, super volcanoes, nuclear war. Imagine what would happen if another Tunguska Incident occurred in New York City. All fledglings must eventually leave the nest. Humanity is no exception. We must go to space or face extinction.

You've managed to miss my point entirely. What resources do you expect to find at Earth's L4?

[FlamingCobra]

We can't recycle materials forever. Eventually we will need a new source of raw materials.

This is precisely why it's a terrible idea to have a residential space station.

What? Do you not give a damn about the long-term survival of the human race? Disasters are lining up to wipe us out. Pollution (think about what would happen if the level of environmental estrogens got really high), flooding (global warming), superbugs, super volcanoes, nuclear war. Imagine what would happen if another Tunguska Incident occurred in New York City. All fledglings must eventually leave the nest. Humanity is no exception. We must go to space or face extinction.

You've managed to miss my point entirely. What resources do you expect to find at Earth's L4?

None. But the Moon and the asteroids are rich in precious metals.

Yep, and I stand by those statements. With current technology, space colonization is not economical. But I am more than happy to be proven wrong in that regard, and one step to be proven wrong is getting people into thinking about the issues attached to this whole thing. Oh, and while I am critical of the idea of colonization efforts, exploration is something else entirely. And that's a task that can use some good scientists and engineers.

As for one person not being able to change the world, Isaac Newton would like to throw apples at you. Albert Einstein finds your pessimism relatively amusing. Robert Oppenheimer is blown away by the ease with which you give up hope. Alan Turing, informed of your opinions, has declared that he would not rest until he could inject some intelligence into you. Dennis Ritchie has a programming paradigm for cases like yours.

I get your point. Individuals can change the world. I also like the way you worded that.

I think the technology is there but we just don't have the finances to do it. The only thing that is preventing us from making a space elevator tether made of diamond is.......... money.

[karajorma]

So the NASA challenge has managed to inspire a whole generation of young bright minds AND pursuade Flaming Cobra not to risk our lives by going into engineering.

And they say NASA never achieves anything.

[z64555]

The only thing that is preventing us from making a space elevator tether made of diamond is.......... money.

I believe that Money is the product of collective willpower and available resources because:

(No will) *  (abundant resources) = no money

(abundant will) * (no resources) = no money

One could deduce that if there is an abundant will and limited resources, there might be a large chunk of money. But to that I point out that much of this money is lost when the resources dwindle or doesn't increase.


Money is not the true reason why a space elevator isn't economically feasible. Rather, its the fact that diamonds are still very rare, difficult-if-not-impossible to use for constructions, and expensive in terms of energy needed to extract & refine them AND the impact said processes have on the environment.

Not only that, but there is no collective will to make a diamond space tether in the first place.

Why make a drab community item when you can make numerous, glamerous personal items?

What? Do you not give a damn about the long-term survival of the human race?

Human nature with its large population is unsustainable. That's the cold, hard fact. Since the dawn of time, it's always been Us vs. Nature, and it is a war that will never be won by us, unless we can achieve the powers of gods and actually bend nature to our will (scary...).

[Nuke]

main thing we need is infrastructure outside of the gravity well. and non necessarily space stations, though they will play a role (you need a place to change over from your launch vehicle to your transfer vehicle, or your transfer vehicle to your re-entry vehicle). we need to produce air, power, fuel, water, food, your basic 5. provide those and you can colonize, this colony will move on to manufacturing space-fairing tech, spacecraft hulls, fuel tanks, building materials, hardware, engines. fairly low tech stuff. high tech stuff like ion engines and computers can be shipped in from earth. put simply, moon base. 

it doesnt even need to be a very high tech base. were talking cavemen on the moon here. growing mushrooms in human **** and drinking pee to survive. when you can smelt iron, bake bricks, and make glass you can build a greenhouse and grow actual food.once agriculture is out of the way, move on to industrialization. make the heavy **** locally and ship in the lightweight stuff thats above your tech level. it will pay off in the long term. lunar made structural materials and fuel can be traded for terrestrial tech and resources and both get a better space program out of it. get that helium 3 reactor online. as the lunar tech level catches up to the earth that becomes the new base for expansion.

screw manned exploration of anything till this happens. you might have a useless publicity stunt like going to mars and doing nothing useful in the process. but until we have a thriving moon colony were stuck on the blue ball. think of it as an investment. it will drop space exploration to a fraction of what it is now, and the only thing you would need to launch into space is the people. by then we should have a working ssto platform and the cost to put your ass into space will be something that can be affordable for anyone invested for a career in space. you sign on for a tour, do your job on the moon base and come back a year later. permanent settlement depends on how well humans can adapt to the low grav environment. will breeding be possible, well, that remains to be seen.

[MP-Ryan]

None. But the Moon and the asteroids are rich in precious metals.

That's your endgame?

Exploration and colonization of space has to produce two resources:  extra physical space capable of being occupied by human beings for indefinite periods, and the resources (food, water) necessary for their survival.  The moon and asteroids do not meet either of these criteria.

The cost of retrieving the precious metals found on the moon makes any effort to do so cost-prohibitive, given that the same materials can be extracted and used on Earth for less money than extraplanetary efforts.

Ultimately, we can guarantee that eventually humanity is going to have to mount a colonization-just-for-the-sake-of-it attempt if we ever have any serious intentional of travel and exploration in space, but that eventually is a long way off.  Meanwhile, project's like this help inspire people and move toward the design implications of such an endeavour.

Pollution (think about what would happen if the level of environmental estrogens got really high), flooding (global warming), superbugs, super volcanoes, nuclear war.

Methinks you have been watching too many disaster movies.  Incidentally, the costs of addressing either the causes or responses to any of these problems is far less than a serious attempt at colonization in space.

[z64555]

The cost of retrieving the precious metals found on the moon makes any effort to do so cost-prohibitive, given that the same materials can be extracted and used on Earth for less money than extraplanetary efforts.

Pretty much, which is why it would be more attractive to use the resources on Luna to further its colonization/moonbase establishment, rather than try to ship everything over the Earth... unless there's a high enough demand for a Luna-exclusive resource.

Incidentally, the costs of addressing either the causes or responses to any of these [pollution] problems is far less than a serious attempt at colonization in space.

Money = willpower * resources. We have the resources to do exploration, but we don't have enough will to do so yet.

...project's like this help inspire people and move toward the design implications of such an endeavour.

[FlamingCobra]

The only thing that is preventing us from making a space elevator tether -snip-

Money is not the true reason why a space elevator isn't economically feasible. Rather, its the fact that diamonds are still very rare, difficult-if-not-impossible to use for constructions, and expensive in terms of energy needed to extract & refine them AND the impact said processes have on the environment.
-snip-

What? Do you not give a damn about the long-term survival of the human race?

Human nature with its large population is unsustainable. That's the cold, hard fact. Since the dawn of time, it's always been Us vs. Nature, and it is a war that will never be won by us, unless we can achieve the powers of gods and actually bend nature to our will (scary...).

First of all, why would you want to use natural diamonds in the first place? Simply synthesize them as you're building the tether. No less damage to the environment that way too.

Second, we would pretty much create our own version of "nature" if we used O'Neill colonies, so we would have bent nature to our will in that respect.

None. But the Moon and the asteroids are rich in precious metals.

That's your endgame?

Exploration and colonization of space has to produce two resources:  extra physical space capable of being occupied by human beings for indefinite periods, and the resources (food, water) necessary for their survival.  The moon and asteroids do not meet either of these criteria.

The cost of retrieving the precious metals found on the moon makes any effort to do so cost-prohibitive, given that the same materials can be extracted and used on Earth for less money than extraplanetary efforts.

Ultimately, we can guarantee that eventually humanity is going to have to mount a colonization-just-for-the-sake-of-it attempt if we ever have any serious intentional of travel and exploration in space, but that eventually is a long way off.  Meanwhile, project's like this help inspire people and move toward the design implications of such an endeavour.

Pollution (think about what would happen if the level of environmental estrogens got really high), flooding (global warming), superbugs, super volcanoes, nuclear war.

Methinks you have been watching too many disaster movies.  Incidentally, the costs of addressing either the causes or responses to any of these problems is far less than a serious attempt at colonization in space.

For one, the moon and many of the asteroids have water in the form of ice. For two, they contain metals, which could be extracted and refined in-situ. O'Neill colonies simulate gravity through centrifugation. You could fill them with oxygen, since oxygen would be a byproduct of the metal refining process. Nitrogen would probably come from earth. O'Neill worked out a design for growing food in little bubble things outside the colony, so food should not be an issue.

Don't you guys realize? Colonization should not happen "for the sake of it." Colonization is an insurance policy for our species!

[z64555]

First of all, why would you want to use natural diamonds in the first place? Simply synthesize them as you're building the tether. No less damage to the environment that way too.

Tell me how much power it takes to create an artificial diamond, as well as the success rate. Then, tell me where most of that power is going to come from.

Second, we would pretty much create our own version of "nature" if we used O'Neill colonies, so we would have bent nature to our will in that respect.

Not quite. if O'Neil colonies where built, we'd be making our own artificial environment... but we still have to play by nature's rules when it comes down to how long it takes to cycle matter through its stages and how energy flows throughout the station.

[Nuke]

i get the feeling it would be cheaper to build an industrial and agricultural complexes on the moon than it would be to set up a space elevator. idea is you build almost all the stuff you need for exploration, exploitation and colonization of space on the moon and reduce the amount of stuff you need to launch from earth, so that the only thing you need to launch are the scientists, miners, and colonists.

id rather have colonies on low grav moons than floating in space. you would need space stations for 2 main reasons though. first off you need a bus stop. these dont need gravity, just a place to stay while you wait for your ship. sure beats sitting out in your space suit till your ship comes in. using the same vehicle for both launch and transfer is less efficient than having purpose built craft. launch engines will likely be chemical for some time, while transfer engines will be ion or mpd thrusters and will need a reactor to power them. transfer vehicles will just be a single engine (or more likely engine array) with thrusters and no landing or re-entry capacity. re-entry vehicles need to be heat shielded and aerodynamic but dont need very large engines, landing vehicles for non-atmospheric targets may need vertical thrust engines. both need landing gear. launch vehicles need to be light and powerful, and carrying a reactor could be dangerous (build your reactors on the moon).

the other reason you need space stations (ones with gravity) is to adjust space travelers to different gravitational fields. you come back from the moon at the end of your tour, stop in at the grav ring and it slowly spins up at the appropriate rate for earth gravity. after which you may board a ship to earth.

stick with bases with at least some gravity, asteroid miners will likely have a refinery base at ceres and on large asteroids. titan would be mined for hydrocarbons for fuel and perhaps also for plastics manufacture. being as cold as it is would require a lot of power to remain habitable. of course these are more long term.

[FlamingCobra]

First of all, why would you want to use natural diamonds in the first place? Simply synthesize them as you're building the tether. No less damage to the environment that way too.

Tell me how much power it takes to create an artificial diamond, as well as the success rate. Then, tell me where most of that power is going to come from.

Second, we would pretty much create our own version of "nature" if we used O'Neill colonies, so we would have bent nature to our will in that respect.

Not quite. if O'Neil colonies where built, we'd be making our own artificial environment... but we still have to play by nature's rules when it comes down to how long it takes to cycle matter through its stages and how energy flows throughout the station.

1. wikipedia doesn't actually say :/ And I don't have any books on space elevators. I still don't see why we can't use StarTrams. They use existing maglev technology. And I don't think they have the switching issues that classic mass drivers do.
2. I thought you meant nature like storms and hurricanes, not laws of physics.

i get the feeling it would be cheaper to build an industrial and agricultural complexes on the moon than it would be to set up a space elevator. idea is you build almost all the stuff you need for exploration, exploitation and colonization of space on the moon and reduce the amount of stuff you need to launch from earth, so that the only thing you need to launch are the scientists, miners, and colonists.

That's what O'Neill said. That was his proposal. basically.

[redsniper]

Why the **** would you make a space elevator tether out of diamond? Holy ****.

[Polpolion]

Another space elevator discussion? Let me bypass all of the drivel and go the part where we conclude that some people still need to do a lot of research. In increasing order of headhurt:

http://www.howstuffworks.com/space-elevator.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator
http://spaceelevatorwiki.com/wiki/index.php/Overview

[Nuke]

im not a big proponent of the space elevator. i mean it seems like a good idea now considering what it costs to launch to leo now. but by the time we get to where we can make the damn thing our launch cost will have been greatly lowered. even then it will not be feasable to build the tether on earth, launch it, and string it down. its going to be really really massive and the engine you need to launch it will equate to a weapon of mass destruction. you aint going to be able to build it bottom up because it will be impossible to stabilize without being under tension. it will need to be lowered from space. lunar or orbital manufacture will be your best bet. and what does this mean? it means you will already have production infrastructure in space and will not need to build space hardware on terrestrial ground.