What is needed is economic incentives. Energy is relatively cheap, Earth is awash in solar energy. What would make it worthwhile to go?

Helium 3 has been proposed as a nuclear fuel. The moon has lots of titanium. Basically mining would be the industry.

Depending on location water is available in reasonable quantities on the moon and Mars. Carbon could be a problem for the moon, and nitrogen for both is not abundant.

It would probably require an industrial presence in orbit. It is likely there are processes that can only be done in low G field that will be cultivated.

Space flight is getting cheaper over time.

 

Colonization for its own sake? Not likely, but there are resources that are there that are no where else.

 

Nice post wendy!

Also, what is the purpose of starting a space program in the first place? Whats the purpose of the ISS? In the infancy of a field you can NEVER predict the outcomes and you can NEVER assume anything. The space program (which many consider pointless), has given us countless opportunities and intentions.

 

I just don't see a Moon or Mars colony being feasible any time soon.

My money's on "never."

 

Yep, the old folk like us have to die for new ideas to take hold.

Ever see "The Second Industrial Revolution" by Harry Stien?

 

Guys did you forget that money runs the earth?Humans are greedy by nature and the world is still run by creatures called "politicians".

Most of the progress is made when our asses(especially politicians) are in danger like during WWII/Cold War.

 

One aspect of a colony that would be very important is mineral extraction.

With resource reserves on earth falling and rising prices of crucial elements such as gold and platinum the only place left to get them will be on asteroids/other bodies. Sending crew from earth over a long time is very costly but sending them off the moon is very easy to do. So it may be more economical to have a small mining colony who operate on the moon and on near earth asteroids who can send the material back to earth.

 

I think it will happen because we are money driven. Eventually people will realise the economic benefit of space and maybe in the far future the cost of mining uranium and gold on earth becomes so great that a space trip or colony seems like peanuts by comparason.

 

Well we seem to manage the size on earth. When I say that I mean that vegitation is enough to support life otherwise it would not work here! BUT, if I remember correctly a single human needs around 2 acers of land in order to survive. This land contains things like different crops and animals.

So how many people in a self sustaining colony? Hundred? Thousands?

 

Well we seem to manage the size on earth.

I doubt that very much. What is the target population per square mile for this planet? Start with the square miles required to grow the requisite food.

Also, what is the purpose of starting a space program in the first place?

The USSR launched Sputnik which began the space race began. JFK set an ambitious schedule to land on the moon before the end of the decade.

 

Using the 2 acres per person definition, this planet's population must be 18,322,864,036 ... this assumes we have access to all 36,645,728,072 acres and they all are capable of supporting humans. We know that is not a practical number and one day in the future, there will be a culling of the human herd. Whether it's by war, natural disaster, or other.

Currently they estimate the world population at 7.3 Billion.

 

That 2 acre defenition was written some time ago and it was simply asking the question how much space would a human need to live in the wild. The answer was 2 acers but the more people you have and the more land you get you can change opens up a whole new range of farming techniques which allow less land per head.

Going into space today can be considered pointless, my point is that people tend not to see the benefits from such exploration. One other potential reason for having a colony is for the sake of having one. Human curiosity is incredibly strong and is one of the reasons why we have now explored the entire planet. Yes, people expanded to grow more food and own more land but there was no need to sails the oceans for new land. People did that for the sake of exploration, to conqure the unknown.

I have no doubt that humans will do it eventually. The reason however is unclear (maybe over population, lack in minerals or the sake of exploration).

 

By the way I just checked the required space and some believe it to be only 1.2 acers

 

Going into space today can be considered pointless, my point is that people tend not to see the benefits from such exploration.

Look what happened since we first started the space program. The hand held programmable calculators had more power than the computer on the Lunar Landers. I'd say there was a lot of progress since Sputnik. You and I wouldn't be able to hold this discussion.

The space program launched more than a few astronauts into space.

 

Look what happened since we first started the space program. The hand held programmable calculators had more power than the computer on the Lunar Landers. I'd say there was a lot of progress since Sputnik. You and I wouldn't be able to hold this discussion.

The space program launched more than a few astronauts into space.

Back then, people were worried about nuclear war, now they are worried about their kid getting shot at school or their wife getting shot at the mall. It certainly is great that we can find Pi to 12 digits with our pocket calculator and communicate with electronic gadgets, but, are we happier? Are we spending more hours engaging with our families and friends, do we have less stress?

Would the national debt be where it is today without the handheld calculator? Is progress for the sake of progress helpful?

What is the benefit of increasing the life expectancy of a population when there are limited resources?

It is true that we would not be able to communicate with each other with the device I am typing in right now but, is that better than walking out my door and going to talk to someone face-to-face at a local club - electronics or otherwise?

I am not sure everything go "better". I am sure everyone can tell me about what is better but, before you do, think about the alternative and the unintended consequences of the "progress" and what lives would have (could have) been like without before you deem it an improvement.

And, it everything is so much better now, why are classic cars, classic motorcycles, vintage clothes, mid-century furniture and all things 1950s - 1960s so popular?

 

Would the national debt be where it is today without the handheld calculator? Is progress for the sake of progress helpful?

The closest this nation came to being debt free was a little under 34,000 in 1835. We started this nation in DEBT.

 

The closest this nation came to being debt free was a little under 34,000 in 1835. We started this nation in DEBT.

I knew that. But thanks.

Is my writing so bad that a history lesson of the National debt was a logical response? I need to take some writing lessons. That is not what I was expecting.

 

No, your writing is not too bad. Your reference to the national debt was tenuous at best in your statement. The correlation between the debt and the hand held calculator is non-existent at best.

 

Are we 1,000 years from getting to this point?

Probably not.

The biggest challenge is energy source and water, for a biological form like humans. Energy sources likely will come in the form of geothermal or nuclear. Geothermal sources require a big planet so moon isn't that good of a candidate. Nor is Mars but the outer planets are perfect for that. Many of them have liquids (not necessarily water-based however).

Once you have energy, you get light and you can extract construction materials and the rest is easy.

Water is tougher to obtain. Maybe we just need to find a frozen / icy planet to start with.

Moon's value is likely for us to practice and perfect various ways to colonize planets far away.