Hmm. I have always considered low-gravity to be quite a big issue for any planetary colonization. Unless some cure is invented like a genetic mutation, it would seem that there is no way of coming back to Earth after spending a lifetime in eg 0.2 G. This in mind I have always thought that Venus would make the best candidate in the solar system. With 0.9 G it would be as close as we could possible get to Earth yet how…
Mars is definitely the easiest place to colonize, by far. It's much closer than the gas giants, there's no craft capable of taking people to Saturn even devised, let alone constructed. Meanwhile, we have SpaceX actively building a rocket for Martian colonization. Second, the Venusian atmosphere is oppressive as hell, you'll not be solving that problem anytime soon, as we can't even solve Earth's much easier atmospher…
Saturn's largest moon may be the only place beyond Earth where humans could live
361–370 of 393 posts
Re: Saturn's largest moon may be the only place beyond Earth where humans could live
#362Colonize the moon first: 1. plenty of solar power 2. close to earth 3. easy to launch out of its gravity well 4. lunar base technology can be iterated far more rapidly
> 1. plenty of solar power For two weeks at a time. That's a long time for batteries to run.
Re: Saturn's largest moon may be the only place beyond Earth where humans could live
#363This reminds me of Wanderers, by Erik Wernquist. https://vimeo.com/108650530 There's a scene at the end when one of our future generation looks at the surface of Saturn while standing on a station floating atop a Saturnian moon. Very motivational. Other videos by Erik Wernquist are motivational too: New Horizons: https://vimeo.com/132183032
THAT are things things turning me off, from full hard-on to instantly shrunken balls.
Try this, this is where we are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCJzUiBZItk
Re: Saturn's largest moon may be the only place beyond Earth where humans could live
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
I gotta disagree. The physics in the show is disappointingly cartoonish in my opinion. The ship is not massive enough for it's gravity to capture the, uh, various items in the orbit shown. Even the orbital mechanics of the delay are just a plot device.
The latest episode has people freezing solid after leaving through an airlock almost instantaneously- someone on earth survived a longer exposure to vacuum but at closer to room temperature in a suit failure.
(Space is cold but it's also empty. You'd boil first from the lack of pressure then freeze, eh?)
Re: Saturn's largest moon may be the only place beyond Earth where humans could live
#365Earlier quoted context omitted.
For Cosmic Rays the only thing is just a lot of atomic nuclei. You need pure mass. This is why a transit to Mars or Saturn is going to be hard for us to pull off in the near term. All those nuclei are expensive to get into orbit right now. Outside of that, there is a 'graded Z' shield. Here, you make a layer cake of various atomic nuclei (the Zs), going from heavier to lighter. Typically Tantalum down to Tin and down…
Artificial magnetic fields are another possible solution.
Re: Saturn's largest moon may be the only place beyond Earth where humans could live
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
Venus has the very big advantage of having allmost earths g. That is a big deal. The very big disadvantage except the atmosphere is the lenght of a venus day: 116 earth days and 18 hours. So a science fiction solution is asteroid bombardment to make venus spin faster ..
My big idea for Venus, assuming infinite power, would be to shoot a series of big asteroids past it and use the gravity/inertia drag to make it spin faster. Then, when Venus is spinning fast enough, collide the asteroids together to give Venus a moon and tides. While all that is going on, use some sort of huge electromagnet to spin Venus' internal heavy core to provide a strong magnetic field to deflect nasty stuff f…
Re: Saturn's largest moon may be the only place beyond Earth where humans could live
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
Building an outpost in Earth orbit that requires constant maintenance and supplies from the ground is just barely achievable right now and cost billions of dollars. We call it the ISS. The horizon to a self-sufficient orbital settlement is still decades off. A self-sufficient colony on any other planet or moon is way beyond that capability. It's not about doing one thing or another, it's one thing is a fantasy in the…
Keep in mind, though, that the costs of the ISS were inflated greatly by the pseudo-reusable Space Shuttle and cost-plus contracting, not to mention the added complication of being an international project. We now have something much closer true reusable rockets from two private, competing companies that are both squarely focused on dropping the cost of launches. If a single party were to utilize them to build an ISS…
There's also some in-space capabilities that have been lost with the retiring of the Shuttle. There's not really replacements for those capabilities on the horizon.
For starters the Shuttle was designed as an orbital work platform. In its construction configuration it launched with the CanadaArm, an airlock, and whatever ISS module it was delivering in the cargo bay. This was all in addition to the OMS, power and life support, and the crew cabin. It could fly modules to the station and assemble them without using resources of the station itself.
The Shuttle as a space truck facilitated one of the best aspects of the ISS design: the integrated truss structure. The truss structure of the ISS contains most of its base infrastructure. It mounts the solar and radiator panels, power and coolant distribution for same, and other support infrastructure. The individual crew modules on the non-Russian segment of the station don't need to use their mass or volume carrying these support elements. This leaves more of their interior envelope for astronauts, supplies, and scientific equipment.
The Shuttle also facilitated dedicated crew modules. Because the Shuttle's engines delivered modules to the station and could be placed with the CanadaArm/Shuttle crew they did not need to be mated to an independent spacecraft bus.
Compare the non-Russian modules of the ISS to the Russian segment. Because the Russian segment is essentially two docked independent spacecraft there's a lot of dead weight and needlessly redundant support systems. Each of the Russian modules have their own power and cooling since each needed those things before they were part of a larger station.
The Mir and Salyut stations, from whom the Russian segment of the ISS are derived, had the same sort of redundancy. The Mir was crowded and had very limited space and power for experiments. The modules also did not have the ability to support each other. If the power or thermal systems broke in a module it was dead and needed to be sealed off from the rest of the station. Because the modules were independent spacecraft they didn't have exterior connections or serviceable parts that could be repaired with a space walk.
Without the Shuttle or permanent orbital work platform like it, near term space stations have to be constructed out of docked independent spacecraft like Mir. A bunch of Dragon craft mated to a central docking module has far less capability as the ISS truss/module design.
It would be possible to build an ISS-like station without the Shuttle. The SpaceX Starship could be given a cargo bay, remote arm, and integral airlock. It could do a pretty good job configured such but that is not currently something SpaceX has announced. It would also require a lot of development effort as cargo bay doors are a structural weak point in addition to who knows how many changes to the Starship's design. Even a couple mated Starships in a "wet workshop" configuration would make for good orbital stations.
Assembling things in orbit is hard and unforgiving. Don't just assume that a reusable launch vehicle magically makes it cheap or easy. Launching shit into orbit is relatively easy, it's at least a solved problem. Docking that shit to other shit in orbit is much harder. Designing and building all that shit is expensive. Keep in mind, if your toilet breaks in space it could kill you if it can't be repaired or replaced quickly. So everything from the airlock to power distribution to toilet needs to be well designed, tested, and built or it is likely to kill you.
Re: Saturn's largest moon may be the only place beyond Earth where humans could live
#368https://phys.org/news/2017-09-lava-tubes-hidden-sites-future...
https://www.inverse.com/article/36777-mars-moon-human-colony...
Re: Saturn's largest moon may be the only place beyond Earth where humans could live
#369Everyone in the comments here debating the merits of Mars vs the Moon vs Titan seems to have missed the whole point of this article. The author is arguing that anywhere other than Titan is infeasible due to recent research suggesting that Galactic Cosmic Rays cause significant brain damage (not just increased risk of cancer). In fact, the article argues that the danger is so severe that even getting to Titan quickly…
Re: Saturn's largest moon may be the only place beyond Earth where humans could live
#370Both Mars and Titan currently lack an economical reason to try and live there. As long as it's just about the science or bragging rights, it will be completely paid for from earth's resources, instead of building on its own. Any idea what tangible "export products" could make a Mars colony sustainable? I don't think space tourism is enough.
Re: Economics 'The belt' would best be mined by automated, semi-remote controlled machines. The Moon offers a good target to fire those resources at (aim to roughly keep it's orbital momentum the same), a low but not No G fab area with easy access to 'free' vacuum, and is usefully close to Earth orbits. Mars... I can't really think of any particular thing it does better offhand, that couldn't instead... Lagrange Poin…