It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Five reasons why humans can't colonize space

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 03:51 PM
link   
1 Humans are not evolved for long term space travel. Where exposure from radiation, loss of muscle and loss of bone density are important factors to consider. Amongst others. Please see links www.nasa.gov... Or www.esa.int...

2 The speed of light is a major issue for human space colonization especially outside our solar system. For example. It would take 40 years to reach Alpha Centuari at 10% speed of light. This link says 20 years at 20% speed of light. www.space.com... Further out at 80 light years away is the Trappist Star System en.wikipedia.org... It has planet called 1e. 1e has an iron core and researchers said it might have an earth like magnetosphere. But. All 7 planets in the system are tidally locked. So. Without a nuclear reaction happening like in Earth's core. And not rotating on it's axis. I don't think it will have an Earth like magnetosphere. But may have a magnetic field. Although it still could have a habitable zone where a stable temperature band around the planet might have liquid water.

3 Earth has very good natural protection and, is the best protected planet in our solar system. Maybe our galaxy and possibly the entire universe. with a magnetosphere protecting us from harmful solar radiation en.wikipedia.org... A large moon protects against some Earth bound space debris. We can even see that evidence. Then a thick atmosphere protects from harmful solar rays www.space.com... The atmosphere also breaks up larger debris into smaller less harmful debris. Although evidence shows we do get hit occasionally. And not all impacts leave a crater as in the Tunguska event in 1908. Where a meteor burned up from speed heat and pressure as it entered the atmosphere en.wikipedia.org... And with 75% Earth covered in water. And humans populate only 3% of land. And they're scattered around the globe. The chances of human extinction from an impact event are not as big as maybe we are lead to believe.

Any target planet which didn't offer the same protection as Earth would not be a good idea to settle on. Impact events would actually be more likely.

4 Sustainability. Feeding humans in space is a real problem. Although space food is meant to be good. Can last for up to 8 years. A long journey is going to require food to be grown on board the ship. And then on the target planet.

They are trying though. and have worked very hard to try to solve this issue www.nasa.gov... They have also taken microorganisms in space en.wikipedia.org...

Biosphere 2 was a serious attempt at creating an ecosystem which would provide food, oxygen and clean the carbon dioxide en.wikipedia.org... Unfortunately. The 2 year experiment was a fail on a few levels. And, even if they learn from the mistakes. How long of an experiment would it take for it to qualify as workable?

5 Lighting for growing plants is essential. As there won't be any sunshine to make the plants grow. But, What choices are there? Not many. We're only really looking at LED's as all other older lighting is not suitable LED's www.ledgrowlightshq.co.uk... look great. They have 12 band full spectrum including infra red and ultra violet. Not being soaked in inadequate lighting. These LED units don't use luminosity. But use par value (photosynthetic active radiation) instead.

They're cooler running than old style grow lights. Although this is achieved by fans sucking air through the unit and the heat is reduced by a heat sink as big as the unit. The heat sink is heavy and the fans sometimes break down. If not noticed. Not only will it reduce the life of the diode. It could kill the diode or even catch fire.

The best selling point for these LED's are that the diodes last 7 years before they start to deteriorate and become less efficient. Great news here on Earth where we can get next day delivery to our door. Not so easy in space though.

On a long term space mission. The diodes would need to be changed one year before the pre packaged space food runs out.

On a mission to Alpha Centauri. The diodes would have to be changed 6 times before you got there at 10% speed of light.

It's a one way mission.

How many changes would you need for infinity and beyond?

What alternatives are there?

Defence against Earth bound impacts www.space.com... This makes sense.

NEO evacuation stations might be another possibility. And while they're not being used as evac stations. They could be space hotels. Giving people a real affordable space experience.

I will leave you all with a funny situation.

www.youtube.com...












edit on 1-7-2018 by blackcrowe because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-7-2018 by blackcrowe because: (no reason given)

edit on 7.1.2018 by Kandinsky because: fixed video embed



+7 more 
posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe


Yet.

All you have listed are just challenges, some of which we already have solutions for. It's just a matter of time.


+3 more 
posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 04:08 PM
link   
We can colonize space we are just busy killing each other instead and arguing about politics.

None of the reasons you suggested are a matter of tech, but a matter of cost.

If they had an infinite budget and brain power from world scientists and quantum computing models to help it all move along, well. i can tell you Babylon 5 would not just be a show.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe

We may one day invent tech that allows humans to live happy and healthy in space.


I think history has proven that if humans can dream it they will find a way to do it.

It's why we are so awesome.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe

Let's start with baby steps and get a Moon or Mars base going. I agree with Musk that doing that gives our species a distinct advantage at survival.

Once we have that down , then we can talk interstellar.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: watchitburn

Thanks watchitburn




posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: blackcrowe
1 Humans are not evolved for long term space travel. Where exposure from radiation, loss of muscle and loss of bone density are important factors to consider.


Put in shielding, Spin for artificial gravity.


2 The speed of light is a major issue for human space colonization especially outside our solar system.


Break the speed of light. This is our CURRENT understanding, but we don't know everything about physics. There may be a way around it. Bending space, for example, is theoretically possible.


3 Earth has very good natural protection and, is the best protected planet in our solar system.


Bully for Earth. It's also a Killer Planet. Tectonic plate movement, super volcanoes, and asteroid impacts will send us back to the stone age in a heartbeat. If not that the Sun will go nova. We can't stay just here.


4 Sustainability. Feeding humans in space is a real problem. Although space food is meant to be good. Can last for up to 8 years. A long journey is going to require food to be grown on board the ship.


So grow it aboard ship. This is not a real issue.


5 Lighting for growing plants is essential. As there won't be any sunshine to make the plants grow.


So invent better lights.

The basic problem with your objections is that you are seeing what we have in the way of current technology, taking our current knowledge of physics, and assuming we can do no better. In the 1800s we couldn't get to the Moon, either, but people like Jules Verne had the foresight to recognize it could be done. So he wrote his book, "From the Earth to the Moon" postulating that we could construct a space capsule that looked remarkably like Apollo and shoot it out of a large cannon to get there. That was in 1865. A mere 104 years later, we did it. But the critics at the time brought forth pretty much the same issues you have. That was before we had cars and before we had harnessed electricity. Computers were a pipe dream, though Ada, Countess Lovelace, had the basic idea down. We had absolutely NO IDEA how to surmount the problems of getting to the Moon in 1865. But within my grandmother's lifetime (She lived to 101) we went from horses to Apollo 11.

In more recent times we have some great YouTube videos of "serious scientists" proclaiming that we could not, simply COULD NOT bring a rocket booster back to Earth and reuse it. They said it was impossible. Only problem is Musk and SpaceX have now accomplished it a couple dozen times. Makes those guys look pretty silly, doesn't it? Saying something is "impossible" just presents a challenge. It also represents a singular LACK OF VISION. These problems you have enumerated are real problems, no doubt, but they are not insurmountable. We can solve those just as we have every other problem we have encountered.


edit on 7/1/2018 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: SR1TX

Thanks SR1TX.

If only eh?




posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

Thanks pavil.

I have nothing against Neo or the moon. It makes sense.

Mars is a different matter. But it would be possible with Earth supplies.




posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Thanks schuyler.




Put in shielding, Spin for artificial gravity.


Gravity is a must. And there are plans.




Break the speed of light. This is our CURRENT understanding, but we don't know everything about physics. There may be a way around it. Bending space, for example, is theoretically possible.


Space travel is what the OP is about. And as of this time. Science says light speed cannot be broken. And you can't alter how long the light from a star takes to reach us.




Bully for Earth. It's also a Killer Planet. Tectonic plate movement, super volcanoes, and asteroid impacts will send us back to the stone age in a heartbeat. If not that the Sun will go nova. We can't stay just here.


So. We move to another Earth like planet. Because it doesn't have all the same problems as Earth?




TextSo invent better lights.


They're the best we have. It's taken 20 years to get them this good.

Even if we could make the diodes last 100 years. On a one way mission. You would still need an infinite supply.




posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Thanks scraedtosleep




posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 04:49 PM
link   
based on my own experiences of witnessing UFO events I think we already have



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe

If they can do it, we can do it.

Our inguinity proves this.


If I were them, I would recognize the potentiality of Earth human allies. It is damn obvious...

edit on 712018 by CreationBro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

Thanks toysforadults.

interesting.




posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: schuyler

Thanks schuyler.

Gravity is a must. And there are plans. Space travel is what the OP is about. And as of this time. Science says light speed cannot be broken. And you can't alter how long the light from a star takes to reach us. So. We move to another Earth like planet. Because it doesn't have all the same problems as Earth? They're the best we have. It's taken 20 years to get them this good. Even if we could make the diodes last 100 years. On a one way mission. You would still need an infinite supply.


(I consolidated your quote in an attempt it make it easier to read and reply to.) "Lights" are a small technical issue that can be solved. We must move from Earth because our habitation on Earth is TEMPORARY. Earth will kill us or the Sun will. We have to get out of here. Not tomorrow or anything, but eventually. Gravity is not an issue. We can create it--today. ALL these objections so far are small and inconsequential. The biggest objection is the speed of light issue, but even you have said "AS OF THIS TIME science says it cannot be broken." I understand that. I am suggesting that we don't know everything and that there may be ways around that issue. We have a number of scientific hints that this may be true. To put it in metaphorical terms, "As of now science says we cannot walk through walls." I believe that. I surely have not been able to walk through walls. But did anyone notice that door over in the corner? I'm guessing that if we try to open that door we can get around the problem of walking through walls.

It's going to require a paradigm shift as profound as that provided by Einstein to get beyond Newtonian Mechanics, but the fact is the discovery of relativity and quantum mechanics did not alter the "truth" of Newtonian Mechanics at all. All those equations and all those discoveries remain as valid as they originally were. It's just that we have a broader context now in which Newtonian Mechanics explains a PART of reality, whereas in the 19th century it was thought to explain the whole thing. Consider some Ben Rich quotes. You know Ben Rich, head of Lockheed's Skunkworks, right? These are credible. You wont find a disclaimer on Snopes:

"The U. S. Air Force has just given us a contract to take E. T. back home."

"We also know how to travel to the stars."

"Anything you can imagine we already know how to do."

"If you've seen it in Star Trek or Star Wars, we've been there and done that."

"We have things in the Nevada desert that are alien to your way of thinking
far beyond anything you see on Star Trek."

I really don't think the speed of light is going to be a real problem.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: CreationBro

Thanks CreationBro.

Obviously.




posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

I understand your points.

But disagree.

The growing lights issue can't be solved yet. Or it would be. It will take a big leap to make them efficient enough for infinite use.

As for the quotes.

I don't believe them.




posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 06:09 PM
link   
It's been over 40 years since we were on the moon. We have had the technology for a long time to establish a moon base for a quest of other planets.

There is a reason we don't have a moon base. There is a reason we are stuck on this prison planet.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: schuyler

I understand your points.

But disagree.

The growing lights issue can't be solved yet. Or it would be. It will take a big leap to make them efficient enough for infinite use.

As for the quotes.

I don't believe them.


The lights issue is so trivial that it need not be mentioned. It is so far down the list of what will be necessary to traverse the cosmos as to be laughable. The Ben Rich quotes are solid. I heard the person who was witness to them, and engineer himself who is still alive, relate the context in which he gave them. But you bring up a good point. Belief in the old gods stifles acceptance of the new. Just as in the acceptance of Evolution, it's not that those opposed to it ever changed their beliefs. It's just that they died off leaving a new generation who had grown up with the idea to accept it. Too many people stare at their feet and see no way forward. Getting beyond them is the biggest barrier to progress and always has been.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: blackcrowe
The growing lights issue can't be solved yet.

It can. First, you design the system to be less efficient, like those old light-bulbs that last many, many years. It sounds silly, but being less efficient makes them last longer.

Second, you add a LED factory to the ship.







 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join