News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Exponential Economist Meets Finite Physicist (2012) by TaylorAlexander on Wednesday May 29, 2019 @06:52PM (#20046517)
Mars does look a lot closer in 2019 than it did in 2012. Back then it seemed like no real plan existed, except for one little company not a lot of folks believed in. Now we’ve got billionaires in a space race and suddenly it seems obvious that we’ll colonize space to some degree even in the next 100 years, likely with some aggressive growth. We’ve only recently come off the gloomy decades after Apollo where space exploration was so muted compared to the glory days.
Re:Exponential Economist Meets Finite Physicist (2012) by ajnin on Wednesday May 29, 2019 @10:26PM (#20047820)
Sure it seems closer now than before, but reaching Mars is still very very far, it's nothing like going down the road to the chemist, for example let's say that we want to pursue the current population growth but on Mars, that's an estimated 82 million new people per year (130 million if you count only births), using the Starship SpaceX is currently developing that would take 820000 launches per year or 2250 per day.

But those ships are not like planes, you can't reuse them multiple times a day, the trip to Mars takes something like 6 months, and that's a launch window that opens only once every 2 years, the rest of the time it takes longer and more propellant, so your ships would make the round trip in 1 or 2 years, so you'd need to build 820k to 1.6 million ships only to be able to shuttle the population to Mars and stay constant on Earth.

That would be a serious industrial investment. A quick search says that there are around 24000 planes in service in the world, and over the course of history, 150000 planes have been built, including all military and commercial aircraft. So we'd need to build a production with many many times more capacity that all the airplane builder that exist today.

Then there is the energy cost of those ships, Earth gravity well is actually pretty deep and chemical propulsion only just is able to escape it. That many launches is going to need a lot of energy, a rocket can hold up to 500 tons of fuel, multiplied by several thousands of launches per day, and you reach a non-negligible percentage of the current daily worldwide energy expenditure.

The idea of being able to mine asteroids or outsource production in a meaningful way on another planet is similarly unrealistic, escaping gravity is not easy. Of course the technology will improve, but not by the several orders of magnitude that would be needed. When we colonize space, it is likely that it will be more like seeds, with only relatively minimal exchanges when the scale reaches a whole planet.

Re:Exponential Economist Meets Finite Physicist (2012) by BlueTemplar on Thursday May 30, 2019 @07:43AM (#20050177)
Actually, a space elevator would help a lot here, but it's questionable when/if we will be able to build one...
Re:Exponential Economist Meets Finite Physicist (2012) by jammygit on Wednesday May 29, 2019 @07:26PM (#20046790)
The biotech to terraform (or live under domes sustainably) is a longer ways off though. All the attempts to create biodomes I’ve read about have either failed or cheated on a large scale.

Unless we have an Asimov-esque robot driven “colonization”, but does that fully count?

Re:Exponential Economist Meets Finite Physicist (2012) by Mirioron on Wednesday May 29, 2019 @09:58PM (#20047687)
You mean caves instead of domes, right? You need protection against radiation and rock provides a lot more of that.
Re:Exponential Economist Meets Finite Physicist (2012) by rotexo on Thursday May 30, 2019 @12:24PM (#20052820)
I think the parent was talking about all of the ecosystem services we take for granted on Earth that we still don’t know that we can reproduce artificially.

The fires in California this past fall? That represented a lot going wrong, but you could still go outside in the Bay Area and breathe.

On Mars or in space? Everything goes perfectly except for one little thing, and you are dead instantaneously.