3 ms·
Taking aside the unknown unknowns and known unknowns in the speculative science of really creating generation ships, the article puts forth a forced narrative t
by southernplaces7 3y ago
Taking aside the unknown unknowns and known unknowns in the speculative science of really creating generation ships, the article puts forth a forced narrative that Plan B has to involve colonizing extrasolar worlds and then breaks down why it's impossible (again, a highly debatable conclusion). What it doesn't talk about so much is that we don't need to leave the solar system to create a Plan B. While nearby solar systems are very speculatively feasiable for humanity, our own solar system is outright technically feasible and at a much lower technological threshhold. We could put deep effort into colonizing many places right here and in some cases even with something close to current technology, just massively scaled up. A few basic ideas in descending order of feasability:
The obvious candidate, Mars (despite its supposed problems, still a much more reasonable choice than anything outside the solar system and the planet with the most benign climatic conditions outside earth our whole system. This is a huge plus even when weighed against all of the difficulties of Mars)
The upper atmosphere of Venus (extremely amenable and doable even with something very close to current tech)
The subsurface of Mercury (easy climate control and so much free solar power once you set up the collection systems)
Asteroids hauled into the inner solar system, or even asteroids as they currently orbit in the Belt
At least a couple of Jupiter's moons.
With enough long-term investment and effort, potentially millions, or even hundreds of millions of people could live scattered across these places, with the resources of Earth still in the background as a backup to potential problems and creating a humanity that's much more robust against terrestrial cataclysms.
On that last note, asteroids would cease being one of those potential cataclysms, since our being able to fulfill any of the above colonization plans presupposes our being able to capture and redirect all but the most gargantuan asteroids if they're discovered heading for Earth.
- jvanderbot 3y agoNot to mention that the article attacks the currently known technology with reasonable extensions, and treats those as a Ark or cruise ship that somehow has to get to another solar system. Rightfully skeptical there. But there's so many other ways, ways that our descendents will think of that were beyond our imagination. Think tiny robots and gene bombs, or peppering interstellar visitors with inert payloads, etc. Once you abandon the meme of a brave ship full of sailors, it's fair to return to an optimistic future millennium where humans are sending life to the stars. And that's completely without considering all the very real possibilities in our solar system, which are more challenges of degree, rather than kind. Perhaps human lifespan in orbit is 30 years at first. It wouldn't be the first time a population took root in a hostile area.
- throwuwu 3y agoThe answer is right there in front of everyone. I’m surprised hardly anyone sees it when it has shown up in popular fiction before. In order to colonize space in our solar system we have to master living in space and building space habitats. If you live on a habitat full time then what do you care if it’s travelling around a star or towards another star or not even trying to go to a star and just moving from one interstellar object to another? If the habitat is big enough to contain two hundred million people then it is effectively the size of the world that most humans lived in for a large chunk of recorded history. The idea may seem strange to us but our current lives are very strange compared to the lives of those who lived when there were only two hundred million people alive on the planet.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago> While nearby solar systems are very speculatively feasiable for humanity... Such confidence. We aren't even living sustainably on our home world. Strongly doubt we'll ever do so in craft that can reach other stars, much less once we arrive there.
- southernplaces7 3y agoLiving sustainably is an ambiguous goal in so many ways, for one thing. Secondly and more fundamentally, there's no direct connection between achieving it by some clear definition and being able to colonize the rest of the solar system. We could just as well end up living very unsustainably on Earth while still pulling off all kinds of colonial feats elsewhere in our system. Again, nothing stops the one from being done while the other is the case.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago> We could just as well end up living very unsustainably on Earth while still pulling off all kinds of colonial feats elsewhere in our system. That is theoretically possible. It's theoretically possible billions of humans could achieve perfect cooperation and peace on one continent whilst all others remain in the usual cycles of conflict. Both these seem highly unlikely to me, given natural constraints.
- johnbcoughlin 3y agoThe author of the article is Kim Stanley Robinson, whose Mars Trilogy and novel 2312 include all of the possible in-solar system alternatives you mention and more.
- southernplaces7 3y agoAnd? Because he wrote several science fiction books on the colonization of the solar system, his word is law on what we can and can't achieve in space?
- JoeAltmaier 3y agoTo be fair, you'd have to make an argument. Like KSR does, with facts and such. Simple Pollyanna optimism isn't an argument. I hope its such as the optimists predict - a great bright future for us all. Still it's worrisome that each time somebody researches it, they get depressed and won't talk about it any more. Or writes a depressing book.
- throwuwu 3y agoThe facts are pretty thin in Aurora and mostly used as set dressing. It’s a novel not a textbook.
- JoeAltmaier 3y agoTry this: https://www.acityonmars.com/ https://www.acityonmars.com/
- throwuwu 3y agoWhat a joke
- jl6 3y agoAsteroids have at least one advantage over planets - their shallow gravity well makes it much easier to come and go. Perhaps a little too easy. The sci-fi vision of a travel/trade network in space seems more feasible between asteroids than between planets.
- Terr_ 3y agoThe question is what one would trade, especially if there has to be an actual early growth phase rather than just having it poofed into existence with regional value-added manufacturing specialties out of nowhere.
- XorNot 3y agoPrecious industrial metals and beamed solar power would be one thing. Spaceborne agriculture would be another, if only for species like bananas which are too vulnerable to parasites on Earth now (easier sterile, isolated environments).
- Terr_ 3y ago> Precious industrial metals and beamed solar power would be one thing. I think you're dramatically underestimating the distances involved to the asteroid belt. Beaming power over one to two astronomical units is something in between impractical and a death-ray superlaser. (And that's assuming Earth is exporting the energy, because the other way around makes even less sense--the asteroid belt only gets 10 to 20% as much light.) > bananas Lastly, sterile environments on Earth will be wayyy easier and cheaper an equivalent facilities in orbit, to construct, maintain, and house a workforce, etc. The problem of screening/cleaning everything that passes through the airlock is the same regardless of gravity.
- throwuwu 3y ago> Lastly, sterile environments on Earth will be wayyy easier and cheaper an equivalent facilities in orbit Not when you’re competing with belters growing truck sized GMO bananas in massive inflatable aeroponic spheres with 24 hours of lensed daylight and a robotic workforce that only needs tiny motors and propellors to move around. Not to mention the savings on freeze drying and sterilizing the crops before transit, they aren’t selling the water back at those prices!
- dash2 3y agoHow easy is it to grow an atmosphere on Mars? Either for the whole planet, or say for some 1km x 1km bubbles?
- stevenwoo 3y agoThe author's fictional works (Mars trilogy for instance) speculate that it would require the concentrated effort of the human race (via a UN type government or corporation) and Von Neumann factory robots that can replicate themselves or other robots and hundreds of years of a multiple pronged approach in space around Mars and on surface of Mars - spread out over many thousands of acres, just based on what we knew at the time of the writing. At the present time we cannnot make a Von Neumann automata outside of paper or electronic versions.
- throwuwu 3y agoNah you just need a bunch o rocks. Bombard Mars for 50 years with every chunk of rock and ice you can strap a couple engines and fuel tanks to, aka a used Starship second stage, and it’ll be plenty warm and wet.
- golem14 3y agoHah! We can't even build nuclear plants surviving a 20m tsunami or airplanes where the front (door) doesn't fall off ... I jest, but I believe we're far away from anything truly useful for space travel even to MARS or Belt objects. We should obviously try, so we can eventually succeed. I suspect our (democratic) culture is making long term thinking and planning harder than ever, since these efforts will require sacrificing short term comforts. It will be interesting to see if the much more centralized Chinese or private US-based efforts will speed up our progress.