Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Opinion on asteroid colonies.

Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 1:44:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm curious as to what your opinions are relating to asteroid colonies. If you think they are useless, give reasons. If you think they're useful, give reasons.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,067
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 4:15:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:44:06 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
I'm curious as to what your opinions are relating to asteroid colonies. If you think they are useless, give reasons. If you think they're useful, give reasons.

I think they're a lot more useful for exploitation. The way I see it, that huge amount of resources could increase humanity's wealth.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 11:30:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:44:06 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
I'm curious as to what your opinions are relating to asteroid colonies. If you think they are useless, give reasons. If you think they're useful, give reasons.

They would only be useful as protection from the harmful electromagnetic radiation permeating open space, hence the colonies would have to be buried inside of them. They would also have to be on a trajectory that doesn't find them colliding with other objects.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 12:42:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Considering that technology would be advanced enough for this. Do you think it would be worthwhile to alter the trajectory of asteroids and put them in an orbit around a populated planet?
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 1:51:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2015 12:42:08 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
Considering that technology would be advanced enough for this. Do you think it would be worthwhile to alter the trajectory of asteroids and put them in an orbit around a populated planet?

That is indeed what NASA has been contemplating.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 3:27:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:44:06 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
I'm curious as to what your opinions are relating to asteroid colonies. If you think they are useless, give reasons. If you think they're useful, give reasons.

Asteroids that have landed on Earth have contained minerals. We could mine asteroids.
You can call me Mark if you like.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 4:54:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:44:06 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
I'm curious as to what your opinions are relating to asteroid colonies. If you think they are useless, give reasons. If you think they're useful, give reasons.

Useful for extracting minerals and the likes. Otherwise, not much point in living there beyond its ability to provide materials.

I suppose a sufficiently large asteroid would certainly be useful as a colony, as it would probably be easier to build it inside an asteroid than out in space with nothing.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 5:15:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:44:06 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
I'm curious as to what your opinions are relating to asteroid colonies. If you think they are useless, give reasons. If you think they're useful, give reasons.

We can use one to build a Death Star that we desperately need:

http://www.debate.org...
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 1:43:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
They could be incredibly useful as way-stations, resupply points, and possibly as construction platforms for large space vessels that would be too costly or fragile to launch into space from Earth.

Imagine if you had an asteroid or cluster of asteroids that contained many of the raw materials necessary for constructing space faring vessels. You would no longer need to haul all that material up into space which would save millions in fuel costs. Their use as resupply points for long space faring missions is self-apparent.

But as far as actual colonies go, I just don't see them being practical. The cost of setting up a working colony for people to live would be very high without any real benefits over planetary colonization, and without the protection that a planet provides from the radiation via its magnetic field and atmosphere. Also micro-gravity has proven to be very unhealthy for us. Planetary colonization I can see, but not asteroids. Asteroids will play a key role in our future in space, but not as homes.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 4:05:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:44:06 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
I'm curious as to what your opinions are relating to asteroid colonies. If you think they are useless, give reasons. If you think they're useful, give reasons.

I don't think we should build asteroid bases or moon bases or go to Mars, instead we should focus on making more and larger space stations and getting more people living in space. The fact that it is not necessary to attach a living facility to some kind of rock is an advantage we should exploit.
dee-em
Posts: 6,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2015 10:43:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:44:06 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
I'm curious as to what your opinions are relating to asteroid colonies. If you think they are useless, give reasons. If you think they're useful, give reasons.

Any large-scale settlement in space would require an economic imperative. Other posters have already mentioned mineral resources. If we are ever going to settle on another planet in the Solar System it has to be Mars. The problem then is to terraform Mars, giving it an atmosphere and liquid water. One way this might be done is to bombard Mars with comets and asteroids over a long, long period of time.

http://bigthink.com...

To achieve this goal would require a thriving colony in the asteroid belt as a first step.
MrVan
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 12:53:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 1:43:16 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
They could be incredibly useful as way-stations, resupply points, and possibly as construction platforms for large space vessels that would be too costly or fragile to launch into space from Earth.

Imagine if you had an asteroid or cluster of asteroids that contained many of the raw materials necessary for constructing space faring vessels. You would no longer need to haul all that material up into space which would save millions in fuel costs. Their use as resupply points for long space faring missions is self-apparent.


I agree! But you forgot to mention their usefulness as weapons too. A mishap in Earth's orbit or possible sabotage could turn that floating hunk of free resources into a poor man's civilization destroyer. If you want to be REALLY cynical about humanity, you could make the case that asteroids would be a pretty good way to get rid of a rival country. Large-scale exploitation of asteroids could very well lead to further militarization of space.

But as far as actual colonies go, I just don't see them being practical. The cost of setting up a working colony for people to live would be very high without any real benefits over planetary colonization, and without the protection that a planet provides from the radiation via its magnetic field and atmosphere. Also micro-gravity has proven to be very unhealthy for us. Planetary colonization I can see, but not asteroids. Asteroids will play a key role in our future in space, but not as home.

I also agree, though I'd go further by saying that colonization in general has no short-term benefits for humanity. Unless we discover some kind of McGuffin, like Unopbtainium in Avatar, there's no reason to colonize other planets - aside from the fact that it would be really cool. You don't see people lining up to colonize Antarctica, which is much more hospitable than the surface of Mars.
MrVan
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 1:05:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/24/2015 4:05:27 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:44:06 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
I'm curious as to what your opinions are relating to asteroid colonies. If you think they are useless, give reasons. If you think they're useful, give reasons.

I don't think we should build asteroid bases or moon bases or go to Mars, instead we should focus on making more and larger space stations and getting more people living in space. The fact that it is not necessary to attach a living facility to some kind of rock is an advantage we should exploit.

Why not build space stations out of asteroids? It'd be pretty convenient, all of the resources are already there. Hell, it might be the most practical way to build an O'Neill Cylinder - which could house hundreds or even thousands of people. Of course, those people would have to have some kind of incentive for living thee - and there really aren't any that I can think of.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 1:31:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 1:05:22 AM, MrVan wrote:
At 6/24/2015 4:05:27 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:44:06 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
I'm curious as to what your opinions are relating to asteroid colonies. If you think they are useless, give reasons. If you think they're useful, give reasons.

I don't think we should build asteroid bases or moon bases or go to Mars, instead we should focus on making more and larger space stations and getting more people living in space. The fact that it is not necessary to attach a living facility to some kind of rock is an advantage we should exploit.

Why not build space stations out of asteroids? It'd be pretty convenient, all of the resources are already there. Hell, it might be the most practical way to build an O'Neill Cylinder - which could house hundreds or even thousands of people. Of course, those people would have to have some kind of incentive for living thee - and there really aren't any that I can think of.

So you are saying mining the asteroid to make the materials to build and maintain the asteroid base?

I don't think that is going to be as easy to do as you might think.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 1:41:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Another advantage to a space station in earth orbit is radiation, a space station inside the earths magnetic field is protected.
MrVan
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 2:32:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 1:31:10 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 6/25/2015 1:05:22 AM, MrVan wrote:
At 6/24/2015 4:05:27 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:44:06 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
I'm curious as to what your opinions are relating to asteroid colonies. If you think they are useless, give reasons. If you think they're useful, give reasons.

I don't think we should build asteroid bases or moon bases or go to Mars, instead we should focus on making more and larger space stations and getting more people living in space. The fact that it is not necessary to attach a living facility to some kind of rock is an advantage we should exploit.

Why not build space stations out of asteroids? It'd be pretty convenient, all of the resources are already there. Hell, it might be the most practical way to build an O'Neill Cylinder - which could house hundreds or even thousands of people. Of course, those people would have to have some kind of incentive for living thee - and there really aren't any that I can think of.

So you are saying mining the asteroid to make the materials to build and maintain the asteroid base?

I don't think that is going to be as easy to do as you might think.

I have no illusions about how hard such a project would be to complete. It's more feasible to hollow out an asteroid and add onto it than to build a O'Neil cylinder from scratch. It's also more practical to have colonies in space than on inhabitable planets.

Alas, the colonization of space probably isn't all that economically viable or realistic anyways - at least not now or the near future.
dee-em
Posts: 6,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 9:17:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 1:05:22 AM, MrVan wrote:
At 6/24/2015 4:05:27 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:44:06 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
I'm curious as to what your opinions are relating to asteroid colonies. If you think they are useless, give reasons. If you think they're useful, give reasons.

I don't think we should build asteroid bases or moon bases or go to Mars, instead we should focus on making more and larger space stations and getting more people living in space. The fact that it is not necessary to attach a living facility to some kind of rock is an advantage we should exploit.

Why not build space stations out of asteroids? It'd be pretty convenient, all of the resources are already there. Hell, it might be the most practical way to build an O'Neill Cylinder - which could house hundreds or even thousands of people. Of course, those people would have to have some kind of incentive for living thee - and there really aren't any that I can think of.

I don't think incentive will be a problem. There are hundreds of thousands of volunteers for a one-way trip to Mars.

http://www.abc.net.au...
MrVan
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 4:44:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 9:17:50 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/25/2015 1:05:22 AM, MrVan wrote:
At 6/24/2015 4:05:27 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:44:06 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
I'm curious as to what your opinions are relating to asteroid colonies. If you think they are useless, give reasons. If you think they're useful, give reasons.

I don't think we should build asteroid bases or moon bases or go to Mars, instead we should focus on making more and larger space stations and getting more people living in space. The fact that it is not necessary to attach a living facility to some kind of rock is an advantage we should exploit.

Why not build space stations out of asteroids? It'd be pretty convenient, all of the resources are already there. Hell, it might be the most practical way to build an O'Neill Cylinder - which could house hundreds or even thousands of people. Of course, those people would have to have some kind of incentive for living thee - and there really aren't any that I can think of.

I don't think incentive will be a problem. There are hundreds of thousands of volunteers for a one-way trip to Mars.

http://www.abc.net.au...

By the time humanity is advanced enough to build O'Neil Cylinders I doubt the idea of living in space will be as romantic as it is now. Like I said, nobody's flocking to Antarctica. It's not just the incentives of the people living there you have to worry about - but the incentives of whomever builds it.

Colonizing planets is even more pointless since there aren't that many long term benefits to sending people to live there permanently. You can always send robots and probes out to collect your unoptainium, and you won't have go worry about spending more on sustaining a human crew. Same can be said of asteroids.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 8:15:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 2:32:18 AM, MrVan wrote:
At 6/25/2015 1:31:10 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 6/25/2015 1:05:22 AM, MrVan wrote:
At 6/24/2015 4:05:27 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:44:06 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
I'm curious as to what your opinions are relating to asteroid colonies. If you think they are useless, give reasons. If you think they're useful, give reasons.

I don't think we should build asteroid bases or moon bases or go to Mars, instead we should focus on making more and larger space stations and getting more people living in space. The fact that it is not necessary to attach a living facility to some kind of rock is an advantage we should exploit.

Why not build space stations out of asteroids? It'd be pretty convenient, all of the resources are already there. Hell, it might be the most practical way to build an O'Neill Cylinder - which could house hundreds or even thousands of people. Of course, those people would have to have some kind of incentive for living thee - and there really aren't any that I can think of.

So you are saying mining the asteroid to make the materials to build and maintain the asteroid base?

I don't think that is going to be as easy to do as you might think.

I have no illusions about how hard such a project would be to complete. It's more feasible to hollow out an asteroid and add onto it than to build a O'Neil cylinder from scratch. It's also more practical to have colonies in space than on inhabitable planets.

Alas, the colonization of space probably isn't all that economically viable or realistic anyways - at least not now or the near future.

So what do you think about space sciences in general is it worth it?
dee-em
Posts: 6,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 6:04:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 4:44:27 PM, MrVan wrote:
At 6/25/2015 9:17:50 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/25/2015 1:05:22 AM, MrVan wrote:
At 6/24/2015 4:05:27 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:44:06 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
I'm curious as to what your opinions are relating to asteroid colonies. If you think they are useless, give reasons. If you think they're useful, give reasons.

I don't think we should build asteroid bases or moon bases or go to Mars, instead we should focus on making more and larger space stations and getting more people living in space. The fact that it is not necessary to attach a living facility to some kind of rock is an advantage we should exploit.

Why not build space stations out of asteroids? It'd be pretty convenient, all of the resources are already there. Hell, it might be the most practical way to build an O'Neill Cylinder - which could house hundreds or even thousands of people. Of course, those people would have to have some kind of incentive for living thee - and there really aren't any that I can think of.

I don't think incentive will be a problem. There are hundreds of thousands of volunteers for a one-way trip to Mars.

http://www.abc.net.au...

By the time humanity is advanced enough to build O'Neil Cylinders I doubt the idea of living in space will be as romantic as it is now. Like I said, nobody's flocking to Antarctica.

Well, the Antarctic Treaty System limits human acivity in Antarctica, otherwise there might be some colonization. That's not the real issue though. You're comparing apples with oranges. In terms of romantic appeal and the spirit of adventure, the Red Planet wins hands down over an icy wasteland. I think the same situation would apply to colonizing the asteroid belt. There would be intrepid volunteers, believe me.

It's not just the incentives of the people living there you have to worry about - but the incentives of whomever builds it.

I was responding to your statement "those people would have to have some kind of incentive for living thee - and there really aren't any that I can think of". As for incentives by government and industry to be involved, I believe I listed some in previous posts.

Colonizing planets is even more pointless since there aren't that many long term benefits to sending people to live there permanently. You can always send robots and probes out to collect your unoptainium, and you won't have go worry about spending more on sustaining a human crew. Same can be said of asteroids.

Who services the robots when they inevitably break down? Check out the film "Moon". Even with extreme automation, a human (or a series of them) is still required.

Besides, as a member of homo sapiens I would feel a lot more secure about our survival as a species if our eggs were not all in one basket. Colonization of our solar system is inevitable IMHO. Once the Chinese establish a base on Mars, the Americans, Russians and perhaps Indians won't be far behind. Competition will ensure that human settlement of Mars will eventually happen.
MrVan
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 2:23:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 8:15:20 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:32:18 AM, MrVan wrote:
At 6/25/2015 1:31:10 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 6/25/2015 1:05:22 AM, MrVan wrote:
At 6/24/2015 4:05:27 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:44:06 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
I'm curious as to what your opinions are relating to asteroid colonies. If you think they are useless, give reasons. If you think they're useful, give reasons.

I don't think we should build asteroid bases or moon bases or go to Mars, instead we should focus on making more and larger space stations and getting more people living in space. The fact that it is not necessary to attach a living facility to some kind of rock is an advantage we should exploit.

Why not build space stations out of asteroids? It'd be pretty convenient, all of the resources are already there. Hell, it might be the most practical way to build an O'Neill Cylinder - which could house hundreds or even thousands of people. Of course, those people would have to have some kind of incentive for living thee - and there really aren't any that I can think of.

So you are saying mining the asteroid to make the materials to build and maintain the asteroid base?

I don't think that is going to be as easy to do as you might think.

I have no illusions about how hard such a project would be to complete. It's more feasible to hollow out an asteroid and add onto it than to build a O'Neil cylinder from scratch. It's also more practical to have colonies in space than on inhabitable planets.

Alas, the colonization of space probably isn't all that economically viable or realistic anyways - at least not now or the near future.

So what do you think about space sciences in general is it worth it?

Definitely! Especially in the long term. I would personally love to see humanity branch out into the stars and colonize other planets - who wouldn't? I'm just trying to be realistic.
MrVan
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 3:41:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 6:04:16 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:44:27 PM, MrVan wrote:
At 6/25/2015 9:17:50 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/25/2015 1:05:22 AM, MrVan wrote:
At 6/24/2015 4:05:27 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:44:06 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
I'm curious as to what your opinions are relating to asteroid colonies. If you think they are useless, give reasons. If you think they're useful, give reasons.

I don't think we should build asteroid bases or moon bases or go to Mars, instead we should focus on making more and larger space stations and getting more people living in space. The fact that it is not necessary to attach a living facility to some kind of rock is an advantage we should exploit.

Why not build space stations out of asteroids? It'd be pretty convenient, all of the resources are already there. Hell, it might be the most practical way to build an O'Neill Cylinder - which could house hundreds or even thousands of people. Of course, those people would have to have some kind of incentive for living thee - and there really aren't any that I can think of.

I don't think incentive will be a problem. There are hundreds of thousands of volunteers for a one-way trip to Mars.

http://www.abc.net.au...

By the time humanity is advanced enough to build O'Neil Cylinders I doubt the idea of living in space will be as romantic as it is now. Like I said, nobody's flocking to Antarctica.

Well, the Antarctic Treaty System limits human acivity in Antarctica, otherwise there might be some colonization. That's not the real issue though. You're comparing apples with oranges. In terms of romantic appeal and the spirit of adventure, the Red Planet wins hands down over an icy wasteland. I think the same situation would apply to colonizing the asteroid belt. There would be intrepid volunteers, believe me.


I'm comparing Earth to Mars; Antarctica is much more suitable for us than the red planet, and is much more easy to colonize by comparison - even with that pesky treaty. They're both inhospitable wastelands, one just lacks oxygen, requires more expenses, and provides less protection from solar radiation. That said, I don't completely disagree with you.

We may very well get to Mars and colonize it, driven by little more than our own curiosity. However, space travel will continue to be extremely expensive and limited to a small number of people well after we're dead so long as we continue progressing into space at our current pace.

It's not just the incentives of the people living there you have to worry about - but the incentives of whomever builds it.

I was responding to your statement "those people would have to have some kind of incentive for living thee - and there really aren't any that I can think of". As for incentives by government and industry to be involved, I believe I listed some in previous posts.


We don't need to spend resources on settlements to mine asteroids and other planets (at least not like what we see in science fiction) because we still have resources available here on Earth. And even if we did decide to look for resources on other planets that doesn't necessarily mean you'll need to build colonies to acquire them.

It would be more practical to start a program for the express purpose of gathering resources and bringing them directly back to Earth. That way you won't have to spend billions of extra money building and maintaining a colony.

Colonizing planets is even more pointless since there aren't that many long term benefits to sending people to live there permanently. You can always send robots and probes out to collect your unoptainium, and you won't have go worry about spending more on sustaining a human crew. Same can be said of asteroids.

Who services the robots when they inevitably break down? Check out the film "Moon". Even with extreme automation, a human (or a series of them) is still required.


That's more like the outer space equivalent of an oil rig than an actual colony, and it still doesn't account for potential improvements of humanity's technological prowess. You're also ignoring the fact that recourse gathering, like every other economic monocultures, doesn't foster rich ecosystems like what we see in sci-fi. I highly recommend reading the Rocketpunk Manifesto, it touches on this very topic.

http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com...
http://www.rocketpunk-manifesto.com...

Besides, as a member of homo sapiens I would feel a lot more secure about our survival as a species if our eggs were not all in one basket. Colonization of our solar system is inevitable IMHO. Once the Chinese establish a base on Mars, the Americans, Russians and perhaps Indians won't be far behind. Competition will ensure that human settlement of Mars will eventually happen.

Good point, but most people, especially world leaders and politicians, don't really care all that much for the long-term prospects of humanity. They're concerned with issues close to home, it's only human nature. We will inevitable expand into the stars, it's just going to be an extremely slow, gradual process. Maybe competitions between nations will help speed things up a little, but most countries aren't advanced enough to compete with NASA and the US Air Force just yet.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 8:55:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 1:44:06 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
I'm curious as to what your opinions are relating to asteroid colonies. If you think they are useless, give reasons. If you think they're useful, give reasons.

Until exposure to gamma radiation is solved any kind of space venture is pointless. You will be dead with in months of cellular destruction from exposer to gamma radiation. Any ideas about being in space outside of the earths magnetic field without solving this problem first is just pie in the sky fantasy. Scientific fact. Every astronaut that visited the moon all suffered measurable cell damage and all without exception developed glaucoma from being outside of the earths magnetic field for just a few days.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
dee-em
Posts: 6,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 10:57:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 8:55:01 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:44:06 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
I'm curious as to what your opinions are relating to asteroid colonies. If you think they are useless, give reasons. If you think they're useful, give reasons.

Until exposure to gamma radiation is solved any kind of space venture is pointless. You will be dead with in months of cellular destruction from exposer to gamma radiation. Any ideas about being in space outside of the earths magnetic field without solving this problem first is just pie in the sky fantasy. Scientific fact. Every astronaut that visited the moon all suffered measurable cell damage and all without exception developed glaucoma from being outside of the earths magnetic field for just a few days.

So those astronauts who have spent months in the international space station are all dead?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,576
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 11:05:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 10:57:05 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/28/2015 8:55:01 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:44:06 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
I'm curious as to what your opinions are relating to asteroid colonies. If you think they are useless, give reasons. If you think they're useful, give reasons.

Until exposure to gamma radiation is solved any kind of space venture is pointless. You will be dead with in months of cellular destruction from exposer to gamma radiation. Any ideas about being in space outside of the earths magnetic field without solving this problem first is just pie in the sky fantasy. Scientific fact. Every astronaut that visited the moon all suffered measurable cell damage and all without exception developed glaucoma from being outside of the earths magnetic field for just a few days.

So those astronauts who have spent months in the international space station are all dead?

The ISS is within the earth's magnetic field, hence they too are protected, although not as much as we are on the surface, some harmful rays do indeed penetrate the hull of the ISS and does cellular damage to those on board.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 12:42:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 10:57:05 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/28/2015 8:55:01 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:44:06 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
I'm curious as to what your opinions are relating to asteroid colonies. If you think they are useless, give reasons. If you think they're useful, give reasons.

Until exposure to gamma radiation is solved any kind of space venture is pointless. You will be dead with in months of cellular destruction from exposer to gamma radiation. Any ideas about being in space outside of the earths magnetic field without solving this problem first is just pie in the sky fantasy. Scientific fact. Every astronaut that visited the moon all suffered measurable cell damage and all without exception developed glaucoma from being outside of the earths magnetic field for just a few days.

So those astronauts who have spent months in the international space station are all dead?

Think real hard about why they are not harmed
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 12:46:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 12:42:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2015 10:57:05 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/28/2015 8:55:01 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:44:06 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
I'm curious as to what your opinions are relating to asteroid colonies. If you think they are useless, give reasons. If you think they're useful, give reasons.

Until exposure to gamma radiation is solved any kind of space venture is pointless. You will be dead with in months of cellular destruction from exposer to gamma radiation. Any ideas about being in space outside of the earths magnetic field without solving this problem first is just pie in the sky fantasy. Scientific fact. Every astronaut that visited the moon all suffered measurable cell damage and all without exception developed glaucoma from being outside of the earths magnetic field for just a few days.

So those astronauts who have spent months in the international space station are all dead?

Think real hard about why they are not harmed

I'll give you a hint. The same thing that protects astronauts from gamma radiation in low earth orbit is the same thing that protects you from gamma radiation on the surface of the earth.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
dee-em
Posts: 6,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 8:08:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 12:46:39 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2015 12:42:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2015 10:57:05 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/28/2015 8:55:01 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:44:06 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
I'm curious as to what your opinions are relating to asteroid colonies. If you think they are useless, give reasons. If you think they're useful, give reasons.

Until exposure to gamma radiation is solved any kind of space venture is pointless. You will be dead with in months of cellular destruction from exposer to gamma radiation. Any ideas about being in space outside of the earths magnetic field without solving this problem first is just pie in the sky fantasy. Scientific fact. Every astronaut that visited the moon all suffered measurable cell damage and all without exception developed glaucoma from being outside of the earths magnetic field for just a few days.

So those astronauts who have spent months in the international space station are all dead?

Think real hard about why they are not harmed

I'll give you a hint. The same thing that protects astronauts from gamma radiation in low earth orbit is the same thing that protects you from gamma radiation on the surface of the earth.

It offers some protection since the orbit of the ISS at 400km above the Earth is still within the inner radiation (Van Allen) belt, but not as much as you might think:

Ionizing Radiation in Earth's Atmosphere and in Space Near Earth

http://www.dtic.mil...

The trapped radiation of the South Atlantic Anomaly cannot be avoided. Also, the orbit of the ISS is at a high inclination, so for part of each orbit, it is outside latitudes well-protected by Earth's magnetic field, and ISS occupants receive little protection from GCR (Galactic Cosmic Radiation).
(Page 15)

Interestingly, even long-serving pilots and crew of aircraft are at increased risk from the cellular damage you mentioned depending on the regular flight paths they travel.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 1:49:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 2:23:54 AM, MrVan wrote:
At 6/25/2015 8:15:20 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:32:18 AM, MrVan wrote:
At 6/25/2015 1:31:10 AM, Accipiter wrote:
At 6/25/2015 1:05:22 AM, MrVan wrote:
At 6/24/2015 4:05:27 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 6/19/2015 1:44:06 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
I'm curious as to what your opinions are relating to asteroid colonies. If you think they are useless, give reasons. If you think they're useful, give reasons.

I don't think we should build asteroid bases or moon bases or go to Mars, instead we should focus on making more and larger space stations and getting more people living in space. The fact that it is not necessary to attach a living facility to some kind of rock is an advantage we should exploit.

Why not build space stations out of asteroids? It'd be pretty convenient, all of the resources are already there. Hell, it might be the most practical way to build an O'Neill Cylinder - which could house hundreds or even thousands of people. Of course, those people would have to have some kind of incentive for living thee - and there really aren't any that I can think of.

So you are saying mining the asteroid to make the materials to build and maintain the asteroid base?

I don't think that is going to be as easy to do as you might think.

I have no illusions about how hard such a project would be to complete. It's more feasible to hollow out an asteroid and add onto it than to build a O'Neil cylinder from scratch. It's also more practical to have colonies in space than on inhabitable planets.

Alas, the colonization of space probably isn't all that economically viable or realistic anyways - at least not now or the near future.

So what do you think about space sciences in general is it worth it?

Definitely! Especially in the long term. I would personally love to see humanity branch out into the stars and colonize other planets - who wouldn't? I'm just trying to be realistic.

Yeah, me too. Hollow out an asteroid? Sorry it's just not going to happen, it's not even on the radar.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 12:02:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Are useful if you can protect them.

NEED:
1)Would need an energy shield to protect the asteroid.

Why good?
1)Allows for a land rush, if you will. People wanting to get free land could find it. It could be colonized with gardens, trees, a lake, etc.
2)It could be used as a dumping ground for Earth trash.
3)Could do space research from it.
4)Could turn it into vacation hot spot. "Vacation in space".
5)Astronauts could have a safe haven further out from Earth.
5)
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.