Stephen Hawking on Space Colonisation

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

A_Wanderer

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
12,518
Location
The Wild West
The survival of the human race depends on its ability to find new homes elsewhere in the universe because there's an increasing risk that a disaster will destroy the Earth, world-renowned scientist Stephen Hawking said Tuesday.

The British astrophysicist told a news conference in Hong Kong that humans could have a permanent base on the moon in 20 years and a colony on Mars in the next 40 years. . . .

"It is important for the human race to spread out into space for the survival of the species," Hawking said. "Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers we have not yet thought of."
link
 
Last edited:
Earth has a built-in mechanism to stop runaway global warming, since we're outside of the "habitable zone" of the solar system (as such, we're only "habitable" because of the greenhouse effect). As such, our worst case scenario is another Ice Age, rather than burning to death.

As for nuclear war and genetically engineered viruses, all of those things will follow whatever colony we might be able to create. Even at that, I question whether sustainable colonies could even be created on lifeless planets like the Moon or Mars. Even if you could terraform an atmosphere, it would take thousands of years; but even then, you cannot modify the gravitational force of a planet. As such, even if you terraformed the atmosphere of Mars, you'd still face the same problem that currently plagues Mars, where its atmosphere leaks out into outer space.

Unless we can master interstellar/intergalactic space travel, I think we're going to find that our best bet is not to fuck up Earth. Otherwise, we'll create our own extinction.

Melon
 
And how, precisely, do we master interstellar travel? We can transport two or three astronauts to the nearest planet, with luck. After fifty years of space 'exploration'. I mean, never say never, but I don't see it happening soon.

Also, are we not exceptionally protected here on Earth? If the argument is that we must leave our planet because of the dangers, what of the truly harsh expanses of interstellar space? What would make any eventually-discover habitable planet any safer?

I don't know why I even bother.
 
"It is important for the human race to spread out into space for the survival of the species," Hawking said. "Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers we have not yet thought of."

:der:
 
Kieran McConville said:
And how, precisely, do we master interstellar travel? We can transport two or three astronauts to the nearest planet, with luck. After fifty years of space 'exploration'. I mean, never say never, but I don't see it happening soon.

Also, are we not exceptionally protected here on Earth? If the argument is that we must leave our planet because of the dangers, what of the truly harsh expanses of interstellar space? What would make any eventually-discover habitable planet any safer?

I don't know why I even bother.

:up:

I think some people watch too much Star Trek.
 
Interstellar travel is not out of the realm of reality. The solar sail has the realistic potential to revolutionize the notion of space travel. What's holding us back right now with this is construction materials. The ideal solar sail material can be constructed in the laboratory, but is too fragile to be unfolded. Undoubtedly, as nanotechnology continues to advance as it is currently, this problem will likely be solved.

I would say that "interstellar travel" is less of a long-term problem as much as it is a matter of finding a habitable planet within a reasonable time frame. That, I think, is asking too much.

Melon
 
melon said:

I would say that "interstellar travel" is less of a long-term problem as much as it is a matter of finding a habitable planet within a reasonable time frame. That, I think, is asking too much.


Interstellar travel is only part of the problem. Even if we find a habitable planet; construction, materials, labor training it's almost an impossible timeline. Imagine the timeline of establishing a brand new city today in the States. Now take into consideration the closest manufacturer of materials and labor is another planet away. Also consider that the materials, construction methods, and labor will be completely different than that on Earth. Let's not forget about cost, security, etc.

And we can't even make an alternate fuel source available to the public.:wink:
 
China has mastered the art of fast construction projects. It makes American construction seem lazy in comparison.

Of course, that "speed" comes at the price of safety generally, so adopting China's pace and methods of construction are not necessarily advisable.

Melon
 
melon said:
Of course, that "speed" comes at the price of safety generally, so adopting China's pace and methods of construction are not necessarily advisable.



it's amazing what central planning, combined with no democracy, can do.

;)
 
Interstellar travel is just not feesible, but limited colonisation of other planets and moons in our solar system is not beyond the realms of possibility - provided we could make money out of it.
 
Maybe we should just perish eventually?

Maybe that's our destiny. We are certainly stupid enough to ensure it happens.

Nobody says the human species has to endure no matter what.
 
The ability to precipitate mass extinction is no mere feat, the ability to harness the energy of the stars is a pretty damn smart way to end civilisation.
 
Irvine511 said:
it's amazing what central planning, combined with no democracy, can do.

;)

achievement.jpg
 
^ indeed.



[q]George Bush: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000[/q]
 
Although there are theory's about getting around the Universal speed limit of 186,000 miles per second, right now, that is as fast as anything can go, and the only think we know travels that fast is light. If your lucky, you may be able to build a spaceship that can hold a few people that could reach a spead of about half that. Add in the time that it would take to reach that spead, as well as decelerate, and it would probably take two decades to make it to the nearest star, which has no habitable planets if any planets at all.

The fact is, will be lucky if there are 10 planets(with all the right stuff, Solar System orbit etc etc) in the entire Galaxy that could suit our needs, and the nearest one is probably over 1,000 light years away! Rare Earth indeed!
 
This is a nice idea and I'm sure it will happen someday but I read in a recent issue of Popular Science the problems with travelling to other planets. Just getting humans to Mars would take a year and a half or more in travel time and the problem is radiation. The astronauts would be subjected to massive amounts of it. Until they can come up with a feasible way to protect humans during space travel, nothing like this will happen. The article explained several ways to either protect from or counteract the effects of radiation to humans, but they would be extremely expensive and not feasible at this time. That said, I'd like to go to Mars :cool:

Or maybe we should take care of this planet better? Hmmm? Nice idea, no?
 
Last edited:
^ One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I for one welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.











(p.s. -- have the Rolling Stones killed)
 
Maoilbheannacht said:
Although there are theory's about getting around the Universal speed limit of 186,000 miles per second, right now, that is as fast as anything can go, and the only think we know travels that fast is light.

Well, here's where we get into a whole bunch of arcane science theory, but, in short, time dilation would make it theoretically possible for a space traveller to circumnavigate the entire known universe in a lifetime with a constant 1g acceleration.

Of course, the major twist of time dilation is that while you could travel the universe in a lifetime, billions of years would pass in the meantime and there'd really be no point to travelling those kinds of distances to anyone except the traveller himself--i.e., there'd be no one left on Earth to share the information with, assuming that even the universe still exists.

That aside, it's believed that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, so there is something that goes faster than light...heh.

Melon
 
Energy restrictions put any interstellar travel out of reach for the forseeable future, but in shorter term (i.e. over the next 50 years) the idea of a space elevator is not entirely crazy - and it would dramatically reduce the payload costs to get the materials.

I wonder what economic mineral potential there is on planets without active plate tectonism :hmm:

Because unless it can make it's own money directly then it will always be impossible, a privately funded space elevator would be probably be a short term monopoly for launches if it ever came to be.
 
I used to disagree with space travel and such. Now, however, I'm all for everyone who's dead keen to launch themselves off into orbit. I'll even wave goodbye. Then those who remain can go about cleaning up this beautiful planet and we can ensure we dont screw it up any further.
 
melon said:


Well, here's where we get into a whole bunch of arcane science theory, but, in short, time dilation would make it theoretically possible for a space traveller to circumnavigate the entire known universe in a lifetime with a constant 1g acceleration.

Of course, the major twist of time dilation is that while you could travel the universe in a lifetime, billions of years would pass in the meantime and there'd really be no point to travelling those kinds of distances to anyone except the traveller himself--i.e., there'd be no one left on Earth to share the information with, assuming that even the universe still exists.

That aside, it's believed that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, so there is something that goes faster than light...heh.

Melon

Wow, that is a very cool theory. Then you read the practical problems of actually implementing it and realize that its not possible, at least based on what we know now and what would be required to transport humans in space at such speeds and the problems that go with that. Its still a fascinating theory though.
 
Last edited:
Angela Harlem said:
I used to disagree with space travel and such. Now, however, I'm all for everyone who's dead keen to launch themselves off into orbit. I'll even wave goodbye. Then those who remain can go about cleaning up this beautiful planet and we can ensure we dont screw it up any further.

:up:
 
Angela Harlem said:
I used to disagree with space travel and such. Now, however, I'm all for everyone who's dead keen to launch themselves off into orbit. I'll even wave goodbye. Then those who remain can go about cleaning up this beautiful planet and we can ensure we dont screw it up any further.

bush wants a colony on the moon, and manned flights to mars....

he should be the first to go :up:
 
Back
Top Bottom