T[ech]WI: Humanity can start colonizing the stars. (1997+)

Starseed

Banned
Short version
Starting in 1997 instellar and interplanatary colonization is cheap(ish) and easy (enough) that every nation on Earth wants in on the action. The Galaxy is empty (in terms of other races.) Ships travel relativistic speeds because the cryogenics may start to fail after four years. (1% chance first year, 2% additional chance next, onwards to 50% chance (although 50% may be retrievable indefinatly, or until power fails and the human inside is euthanised; the alternative is scary to contimplate.) Limit 100,000 colonists per ship.

In 1997, it costs 20bn a ship. (Insystem, it's a mere 1bn a ship)
In 2003, it costs 10bn per ship. (Insystem .5bn)
in 2009, it costs 5bn per ship. (Insystem 250mill!)
In 2015. FTL speed is upped to a max of 20c (2.5bn per ship, Insystem 125mill!)

What I want to know is: What nations will send colonists, and what nations would partner to send colonists to other worlds? Who gets what in the Sol system specifically? And how many send colonists to other systems? (Consider each asteroid colony seperate, the the entire Belt, Kuiper Belt, and Oort Clout able to accept a unlimited number of colonization attempts. Secondly, yes the 'prices' have been simplified to make the WI easier to work with.)

(Removed longer backstory because of technical issues. Thanks for poking holes in it. It's plotbonium.

Also requesting move to ASB forum.)
 
Last edited:
Project Orion would be the way to go, but I don't think it could go much more than 10 PSL, good for in-system but I'm not sure how much it would work for manned interstellar travel. But, having the technology to send interstellar probes would be a driving force behind developing AI, the same way Apollo drove the miniturization of computers.
 
This is ASB stuff. It really belongs over there, since it depends on an implausible change in our understanding of physics.

Point by point:

Starseed said:
In 1997, it costs 20bn a ship. (Insystem, it's a mere 1bn a ship)
In 2003, it costs 10bn per ship. (Insystem .5bn)
in 2009, it costs 5bn per ship. (Insystem 250mill!)
In 2015. FTL speed is upped to a max of 20c (2.5bn per ship, Insystem 125mill!)
Those are very low numbers, indeed. Assuming 100,000 people per ship, no infrastructure costs (like life support systems, reentry systems, spacecraft structure...), and an average weight of 80 kg per person (which is pretty close to the average weight in the US), then you need to launch 8 million kilograms of mass just in people. At a current launch cost of about $5000/kg (which is a lowish number), that totals to $40 billion. Just for the people. Since I'm assuming you don't want to launch frozen chunks of meat into space, nor are your spaceships massless, nor do you want to use an Orion drive on Earth, this is problematic at best for your figures. Also, FTL is definitely ASB territory by itself; for one thing, it might allow for time travel, more importantly it's physically implausible (since it requires more than infinite energy. Yeah.)

In 1989, a researcher working on old data from the Orion project finds something fantastic, and sends it to a mathmetitian friend. Said friend proves the idea using math. With a suprise advancement in the creation of charged metal plating that can stop all radiation (solar only at this point), the US builds the first ship, the Lighthawk, a prototype of a FTL engine. By the end of the year, a ship has gone a lightyear (advoiding the Oort cloud in a most simple manner), and back again.
Parts of this are better than other parts. For example, the part about blocking radiation: You just need thick layers of metal. No special tech needed, it's done all the time.

But, 'proves the idea using math'? Oh man, that's um, that's um...yeah. Sorry, but not really reflective of how mathematicians actually work at all. Furthermore, given this is a physical phenomena, you'd be better off talking to a physicist.

Also, it's basically impossible to avoid the Oort Cloud--it's a spherical cloud of comet nuclei around the Sun at some distance. Avoiding it is like trying to avoid the atmosphere. Happily, it's probably not too *dense* (there are a huge number of comets, but in a mind-bogglingly huge volume), so you probably wouldn't run into them anyways. Besides, going FTL you're probably not going to be able to interact with them (since, unless you're using some variant of the Alcubierre Drive you'd probably need imaginary momentum).

During the years between 1989 and 1992, Project Orion was secretly fumded, and a few nuclear tests in space prove that a Orion Drive works good enough for basic STL manuvreability.
The problem is that nuclear tests in space would be very, very visible. And promptly lead to howls of outrage from other Limited Test Ban Treaty signers. If they took place anywhere in the magnetosphere, they might also have nasty effects on satellites and some ground equipment, plus the possibility of dumping radioactive particles into the atmosphere. Also, it would be difficult to covertly fund Orion, since it has a number of difficulties requiring a fair bit of funding to work out, and the ships just have to be so massive. The amount of material to be lifted is huge, and everyone will notice if NASA starts launching Saturn Vs again!
 

Starseed

Banned
I admit.. it's ASBish.. and am requesting a forum move. Can people please asnwer the questions now?
 
Okay, accepting the ASB nature of it...
Which countries send colonists? Since we're starting in 1997, that probably means China and the US. Possibly Russia (the prestige man, the prestige!), the ESA/EU or individual European states, India, or Japan. African, South American, or Oceanian states are unlikely to actually spearhead a mission, but may be able to leverage their favorable locations (lets assume we get space elevators, might as well. Makes the low costs a lot more plausible) into colonists or economic development.

As to who gets what in the Solar System: Probably the US, Russia (if they go), and China get most of it. If the ESA/EU participates, they'll probably end up with a nice chunk of territory as well. It'll be a competition for the best 'land', like metallic main-belt asteroids or bases around Saturn (for He3 production, of course) The non-metallic asteroids, comets, moons, and planets will be booby prizes, for the most part, being less economically valuable in the short term. However, expect a US colony on Mars, at least.

Outside of the Solar System: Well, that depends. Given that there isn't going to be a whole lot of traffic between systems, even with FTL, I can't see it happening for a while. Probably minorities or some such--China, for example, might decide to 'solve' the problem with Tibet and the Uighurs by dispatching them to other stellar systems. Russia might do the same thing with some of its minorities. The Europeans and the US are unlikely to do that, though, so I suspect Russia and China will have the 'advantage' there. Not that they'll really get much benefit out of the colonies themselves, possibly not even flag-planting. Otherwise, I don't think much interstellar activity will occur for several centuries, until the majority of the inner Solar System's resources are being exploited or explored.
 
If we are talking about colonizing the solar system, the topic does not have to be ASB. But the POD to advance technology this far would be so many centuries (if not millennia) ago that the designations of today's nations would be nearly irrelevant, except maybe for China.
 
Consider there are several major problems that would arise:

* Considering that the vast majority of the worlds that we will encounter are hostile to life (e.g. Venus, Mercury, Mars, Asteroid Belt, et al.) the incentive to travel will be small. Think of it like travel to Anarctica. You are asking people to travel to a place where travel without a spacesuit is lethal, artifical lighting (e.g. fluorescent lighting) is the only way to see things, no Internet access, no cable TV, no cellular phone service, et al. This could severely limit travel appeal...

* Considering modern finances, cryogenics would be a bad idea. First, consider that if you invested in Lehmann Brothers or GM, 6 years ago, it was considered "blue-chip" stocks (low-risk stocks). Unfortunately, if you checked that same portfolio today, you would have been wiped out financially. Also, consider that 12 years ago, economists were predicting the "25-year boom" and the "New Economy". If you had invested with those people, today, you would have lost your life savings. To make matters worse, this also points out that in many cases, the bank you placed money in, might not exist after a trip (e.g. any bank that invested in Fannie Mae)...

* Trade and commerce is going to suck. Just consider that the fulfill basic orders for a colony would be 6-12 years, unless you have FTL communications. Just consider that we already get angry when we have to wait 2-weeks for a product from www.amazon.com or www.ebay.com, try to imagine the frustration with the wait of c. 6 years
 
Can people please asnwer the questions now?


Starseed,

Beg much? :rolleyes:

We can't answer your questions because you haven't provided enough information yet. It seems the numbers you provided dealing with ship cost, speeds, and cryogenic survival rates in this ASB nonsense didn't manage to address the most important issue concerning interstellar colonization:

What are your colonists colonizing?

How many Earth-like planets are there and how close are they to Sol? Can human crops grow there? Will any terraforming be necessary? How much, at what cost, and how long will it take? How easily will diseases "jump" between humans and the alien biospheres? There are thousands of issues at work here.

You've only talking about the journey, how about thinking about the destination instead? You know, the reason people are colonizing in the first place?


Bill
 

Starseed

Banned
Consider there are several major problems that would arise:

* Considering that the vast majority of the worlds that we will encounter are hostile to life (e.g. Venus, Mercury, Mars, Asteroid Belt, et al.) the incentive to travel will be small. Think of it like travel to Anarctica. You are asking people to travel to a place where travel without a spacesuit is lethal, artifical lighting (e.g. fluorescent lighting) is the only way to see things, no Internet access, no cable TV, no cellular phone service, et al. This could severely limit travel appeal...

Various groups like Socialists/Communists can be convinced to go.. And nobody said your entire colonizing ship had to put the colonists at one location, sending 'minor colonies' away from the main colony would work. (esp. if you can get said minor colonies to do specialised mining, either through talent, or keeping automated worker drones in repair.) (This also helps multi-nation trips - each nation on a trip can part ways after arriving at their destination.)

* Considering modern finances, cryogenics would be a bad idea. First, consider that if you invested in Lehmann Brothers or GM, 6 years ago, it was considered "blue-chip" stocks (low-risk stocks). Unfortunately, if you checked that same portfolio today, you would have been wiped out financially. Also, consider that 12 years ago, economists were predicting the "25-year boom" and the "New Economy". If you had invested with those people, today, you would have lost your life savings. To make matters worse, this also points out that in many cases, the bank you placed money in, might not exist after a trip (e.g. any bank that invested in Fannie Mae)...
Half those private citizens going will have to clear out bankaccounts or given some of their accounts over to somebody staying on earth. (Unless intersystem. Controlling finances on another intersolar body when the money is on earth, is possible with a earth laywer.

Or people could clear out their finances and go about securing their portfolio.

Or said person is leaving earth, and doesn't care about worldly money stuck on earth. If they want 'wealth, they better take plenty of useful things meant to make money when they reach the colony. (Like personal equipment to set up a early specialized mining camp at the colonization site.)

* Trade and commerce is going to suck. Just consider that the fulfill basic orders for a colony would be 6-12 years, unless you have FTL communications. Just consider that we already get angry when we have to wait 2-weeks for a product from www.amazon.com or www.ebay.com, try to imagine the frustration with the wait of c. 6 years
Traditional SF has it that interworld trade is mostly going to be bulk goods. (So possible that items will be traded with a world, in bulk.) Also in resources (mostly back to earth.) Also intersytem colonies can purchase items not brought on the ship - part of the cheap cost of intersystem colonization - like coffee beans and silkworms. (For local production when the colony becomes large enough to want luxuries.)


What are your colonists colonizing?
How many Earth-like planets are there and how close are they to Sol? Can human crops grow there? Will any terraforming be necessary? How much, at what cost, and how long will it take? How easily will diseases "jump" between humans and the alien biospheres? There are thousands of issues at work here.

You've only talking about the journey, how about thinking about the destination instead?

As to how many Earth like planets, that is pratically a non-issue once you have the tech for a colony that is in habitats, as well as can make habitats from scratch. (Utilizing the basic elements found on the planet to creat materials.) Or you can colonize astroids or create orbital colonies. (Again, harvest elements and turn elements into materials you can use. In the Mars trilogy, colonists were making underground habitats (with internal air), using bricks and bamboo, and lots of local soil on top. (Bricks from clay, coloured bricks from elements being added to the recipe, and bamboo from inclosed habitats purposed to grow plants.) In the long run, every sytem has the resources to reform a world/large enclosed habitat. (Not always terraforming. But making a more habitable environment.)

You know, the reason people are colonizing in the first place?

Humanity has always wanted to get away from the old world and create anew. That was the problem with Communism, the old world was set in it's ways, and there was no 'new land' to colonize and set up the're own nation, with their own ideals. (There is a 'motivator' about the very subject, with the tagline 'if you don't like it, go found your own nation somewhere'. The problem is where do you go as to not 'threaten' the old order, yet build your own 'utopia'?

As to why nations would spend money on this, partly to rid themselves of problems (only when it's cheap), partly for the pride of being abel to send colonies and miniversions of themselves out so that in the long run, they will have 'friendly neighbors to their ideals, or have extrasolar colonies ready and willing to rejoin the fold. (Or to be conquered with a insystem industrial base set up.) Long term planning would suggest athat at some point, FTL would exist quick enough inuniverse that whichever nations neighbor Sol would have some social pull on Sol, and the nations within. Plus, any near extrasolar nation would b e able to send troops to earth, to help allies. Better to plan on having your own extra-solar allies.)I can also see 'spreading our own ideals and philsophy/hegemony' as a very good reason past mere nationalism.
 
Last edited:
Various groups like Socialists/Communists can be convinced to go.. And nobody said your entire colonizing ship had to put the colonists at one location, sending 'minor colonies' away from the main colony would work. (esp. if you can get said minor colonies to do specialised mining, either through talent, or keeping automated worker drones in repair.) (This also helps multi-nation trips - each nation on a trip can part ways after arriving at their destination.)

Actually, even the Communists have to realize that this is a terrible model. During the Cultural Revolution, the Chinese government sent their young "to the country, to spread the righteous virtues of Maoist socialism". This led to a "lost generation", along with breaking the social stability of the country with a near civil war, and killing close to 300 million people.

Second, much like the Cultural Revolution, by spreading out the people into different areas, you insured the failure of the colonies, as supply lines broke down, specialized groups collapsed as the government transfered them to various outposts ignoring recommendations and ideas. Also consider the failed collectivization of the Ukraine in the 1930s, the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, Romanian collectivization in the 1970s and 1980s, et al.


Half those private citizens going will have to clear out bankaccounts or given some of their accounts over to somebody staying on earth. (Unless intersystem. Controlling finances on another intersolar body when the money is on earth, is possible with a earth laywer.

Or people could clear out their finances and go about securing their portfolio.

Or said person is leaving earth, and doesn't care about worldly money stuck on earth. If they want 'wealth, they better take plenty of useful things meant to make money when they reach the colony. (Like personal equipment to set up a early specialized mining camp at the colonization site.)

Actually, what you have described is the exact definition of a brokerage house, saving and loans bank, or investment firm. As seen by the cases of Merill-Lynch, Lehmann Brothers, Charles-Schwabb, et al., this actually means that the finances of the client can be wiped out. As seen by the S&L collapse of 1989 along with the current home foreclosure crisis

Also, you forget that 80% of the mining towns of the Wild West were completely broke within 2-5 years. The only reason the towns had been established in the first place had been the fact that loans were made by banks who would charge both loan and interest fees for a moderate return. Based on the current economic system, the only way to insure long-term investors (e.g. 10-year, 30-year loans) in these mining colonies, would be to charge a higher rate on the loan payments, insuring a higher failure rate of colonies...

Traditional SF has it that interworld trade is mostly going to be bulk goods. (So possible that items will be traded with a world, in bulk.) Also in resources (mostly back to earth.) Also intersytem colonies can purchase items not brought on the ship - part of the cheap cost of intersystem colonization - like coffee beans and silkworms. (For local production when the colony becomes large enough to want luxuries.)
Unfortunately, ordering only in bulk means two things, missed or failed shipments can have devastating results on the survival of a colony. Second, this also means that in medical supplies and services are severely rationed, many potential colonists with pre-existing medical conditions will be prevented from colonization. As for local production, you forget that most of the worlds (e.g. 99.99%) of the worlds being colonized would be inhospitable to life from Earth, much less any type of local production. Just consider the "epic failure" of Biosphere-2:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2
 
As to how many Earth like planets, that is pratically a non-issue once you have the tech for a colony that is in habitats, as well as can make habitats from scratch.


Starseed,

Habitats? So they're travelling all that distance in a ship to live in what is just a bigger version of a ship?

If building habitats is that easy and habitats are that attractive why are you colonists traveling across interstellar distances again? They could just build a habitat somewhere in the Sol system and still get fast mail service from home.

It's your fantasy so it's your call, but don't expect the rest of us to buy into your nonsense or abandon things like logic, economics, human behavior, and the rest.

Have fun fantasizing.


Bill
 
Top