Not talking about an orbiting space station, but how long do you think it will take until there's a manned colony in outer space - either on earth's moon (likely the first), mars, or another planetary moon?

Hopefully it won't be during my lifetime. I couldn't imagine a better way to piss money away.

i doubt it will ever happen.  choice #5.

I think we will, but it will be a longer timeframe than what you've presented. There are a lot of obstacles to overcome in 45 years to make that a reality.

Maybe I'm wrong. I kind of hope I am.

Not in our lifetime.

Quoted: Hopefully it won't be during my lifetime. I couldn't imagine a better way to piss money away.

Helium3.

More money has been pissed away by the government doing things for people that they could done for themselves. Instead of fighting an unwinnable 'war on poverty', they could have been leading the way to space and then getting out of the way once private industry could take over.

Quoted: Other than the one DU established on the Moon, I'd say not for another 50 years.   If you look back in history at 50 year increments, you'll note that our progress rate consistently increases.  So, 50 years from now, one could assume we would nearly double our technological advances compared to 1955-2005.

Actually, left to its own devices, progress is more of geometrical progression, since you end up creating the next generation of tools with the current generation - and with each generation producing more efficient and faster results.

Basically, change accellerates.

Quoted: Quoted: Other than the one DU established on the Moon, I'd say not for another 50 years.   If you look back in history at 50 year increments, you'll note that our progress rate consistently increases.  So, 50 years from now, one could assume we would nearly double our technological advances compared to 1955-2005. Actually, left to its own devices, progress is more of geometrical progression, since you end up creating the next generation of tools with the current generation - and with each generation producing more efficient and faster results. Basically, change accellerates.

however, this only occurs in times of relative political stability.  notice how technology wasn't advancing much, and even perhaps regressing for the 500 years or so after the fall of the roman empire.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Other than the one DU established on the Moon, I'd say not for another 50 years.   If you look back in history at 50 year increments, you'll note that our progress rate consistently increases.  So, 50 years from now, one could assume we would nearly double our technological advances compared to 1955-2005. Actually, left to its own devices, progress is more of geometrical progression, since you end up creating the next generation of tools with the current generation - and with each generation producing more efficient and faster results. Basically, change accellerates. however, this only occurs in times of relative political stability.  notice how technology wasn't advancing much, and even perhaps regressing for the 500 years or so after the fall of the roman empire.

yes, and the dark ages too. Which is why I added the 'left to its own devices' disclaimer. Political upheavel or repressive governments can retard scientific advancement. In some cases it can actually come close to reversing it (for example, when china shut itself off from the world)

Excessive taxation and focusing on socialist programs can have a similar effect, because it takes away capital and incentive to make technological advances.

No meaningful UNCLASSIFIED research into propulsion systems that operate in space is being pushed or funded.  Current propulsion systems are too slow and costly.  Private business can get small payloads of stuff or personel into space more cost effectively than NASA but thier is no feasible means of high speed space travel.

Also it would take decades to make Mars or moon livable.  The moon very possibly can not be made livable except in isolated enclosed biospheres.  To put plantlife and water on Mars that would generate atmosphere would take decades and countless trips.  

Also what do Mars and the moon have commodities-wise to make them of economic interests?

Quoted: Also what do Mars and the moon have commodities-wise to make them of economic interests?

The moon has Helium 3. Tons of it. Google Helium 3 to see what could be gained from exploiting the moon.

As far as mas goes, more exploration needs to be done to determine just what is of value there. If anything, it's another basket to have some eggs in.

Quoted: No meaningful UNCLASSIFIED research into propulsion systems that operate in space is being pushed or funded.  Current propulsion systems are too slow and costly.  Private business can get small payloads of stuff or personel into space more cost effectively than NASA but thier is no feasible means of high speed space travel. Also it would take decades to make Mars or moon livable.  The moon very possibly can not be made livable except in isolated enclosed biospheres.  To put plantlife and water on Mars that would generate atmosphere would take decades and countless trips.   Also what do Mars and the moon have commodities-wise to make them of economic interests?

And there in lies the key. Why would you want to establish colonies on the moon or on Mars?

Quoted: Quoted: No meaningful UNCLASSIFIED research into propulsion systems that operate in space is being pushed or funded.  Current propulsion systems are too slow and costly.  Private business can get small payloads of stuff or personel into space more cost effectively than NASA but thier is no feasible means of high speed space travel. Also it would take decades to make Mars or moon livable.  The moon very possibly can not be made livable except in isolated enclosed biospheres.  To put plantlife and water on Mars that would generate atmosphere would take decades and countless trips.   Also what do Mars and the moon have commodities-wise to make them of economic interests? And there in lies the key. Why would you want to establish colonies on the moon or on Mars?

Read my previous reply to your first question.

Helium 3.

Then google it.

Then get back to me.

The job of the government isn't to do everything - it's to make it possible that americans and american businesses can eploit the resources of the moon. Show the way and then get out of the way.

Quoted: Quoted: Also what do Mars and the moon have commodities-wise to make them of economic interests? The moon has Helium 3. Tons of it. Google Helium 3 to see what could be gained from exploiting the moon.

Oh lovely. I can't wait to see fuel prices when Exxon Mobile has to start mining the shit on the frickin' moon! This of course will lead to Lunar Ecologists bitching about how we're destroying the moon. Then you'll get the miners living up on the moon who will undoubtedly organize and drive up production costs. Other nations like Russia, China and India will almost certaintly want a piece of the action so we'll end up having Lunar wars and of course the UN will want a hand in governing the mining and delivery of Helium 3.

It has all the makings of a bad Sci-Fi original movie.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Also what do Mars and the moon have commodities-wise to make them of economic interests? The moon has Helium 3. Tons of it. Google Helium 3 to see what could be gained from exploiting the moon. Oh lovely. I can't wait to see fuel prices when Exxon Mobile has to start mining the shit on the frickin' moon! This of course will lead to Lunar Ecologists bitching about how we're destroying the moon. Then you'll get the miners living up on the moon who will undoubtedly organize and drive up production costs. Other nations like Russia, China and India will almost certaintly want a piece of the action so we'll end up having Lunar wars and of course the UN will want a hand in governing the mining and delivery of Helium 3. It has all the makings of a bad Sci-Fi original movie.

Wow, that proved a lot.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Also what do Mars and the moon have commodities-wise to make them of economic interests? The moon has Helium 3. Tons of it. Google Helium 3 to see what could be gained from exploiting the moon. Oh lovely. I can't wait to see fuel prices when Exxon Mobile has to start mining the shit on the frickin' moon! This of course will lead to Lunar Ecologists bitching about how we're destroying the moon. Then you'll get the miners living up on the moon who will undoubtedly organize and drive up production costs. Other nations like Russia, China and India will almost certaintly want a piece of the action so we'll end up having Lunar wars and of course the UN will want a hand in governing the mining and delivery of Helium 3. It has all the makings of a bad Sci-Fi original movie. Wow, that proved a lot.

I think it proved your sarcasm detector has busted.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Also what do Mars and the moon have commodities-wise to make them of economic interests? The moon has Helium 3. Tons of it. Google Helium 3 to see what could be gained from exploiting the moon. Oh lovely. I can't wait to see fuel prices when Exxon Mobile has to start mining the shit on the frickin' moon! This of course will lead to Lunar Ecologists bitching about how we're destroying the moon. Then you'll get the miners living up on the moon who will undoubtedly organize and drive up production costs. Other nations like Russia, China and India will almost certaintly want a piece of the action so we'll end up having Lunar wars and of course the UN will want a hand in governing the mining and delivery of Helium 3. It has all the makings of a bad Sci-Fi original movie. Wow, that proved a lot. I think it proved your sarcasm detector has busted.

No, it's working fine.

But it really set off my "I'm clueless about the issue at hand so I'll make up some other shit to hide the fact" detector.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Also what do Mars and the moon have commodities-wise to make them of economic interests? The moon has Helium 3. Tons of it. Google Helium 3 to see what could be gained from exploiting the moon. Oh lovely. I can't wait to see fuel prices when Exxon Mobile has to start mining the shit on the frickin' moon! This of course will lead to Lunar Ecologists bitching about how we're destroying the moon. Then you'll get the miners living up on the moon who will undoubtedly organize and drive up production costs. Other nations like Russia, China and India will almost certaintly want a piece of the action so we'll end up having Lunar wars and of course the UN will want a hand in governing the mining and delivery of Helium 3. It has all the makings of a bad Sci-Fi original movie. Wow, that proved a lot.

Well gee, let's see....

We already have a far more efficient, clean, abundant, VIABLE (which Helium 3 is NOT) and potentially profitable alternative fuel sources here on Earth. Hydrogen for example, which is very slowly gaining accecptance.

And on top of the fact that scientists have been unable to produce any usable energy in the 50 years that they have been experimenting with Helium 3, you have the additional challenges of developing a method for mining Helium 3, transporting it and then converting it into energy. None of which can be done. On top of that the mining, transporting and use of Helium 3 falls into the category of commerce which means that there will absolutely be governmental involvement. None of the powers on Earth will want any of the the other powers to controll the market on Helium 3 (if it ever becomes a viable fuel source), so there would be increased efforts by other nations to get to the moon, mark off their territory and start mining.

And all while we have Nuclear engery and other alternative fuel sources here on Earth.

Again, why establish a colony on the moon?


ETA - If you think that somehow the world is going to change it's mind about interfering with the private sector and allow energy companies to develop cost effective and profitable means of mining and transporting Helium 3 from the moon to Earth, then I encourge you to IM me so that I can help you stake a claim on the moon (complete with mineral and gas rights) before the rush and for a very low fee.

Before SpaceShip 1 I would have guessed a Hundred years.

We would not have gotten around to it without a revolution in the way NASA approaches things.  A huge burocracy wedded to a one size fits all solution that does not seem to do anything well at collasal expense...

China would have done it before we did.

With SS1 showing the way, maybe much sooner than later.  I read somwhere getting a given weight to real orbit is 100 times harder than what they did, but come on!  

If private industry tried it, 20 years. If the .gov tries it, 100 years minimum.

Quoted: No meaningful UNCLASSIFIED research into propulsion systems that operate in space is being pushed or funded.  Current propulsion systems are too slow and costly.  Private business can get small payloads of stuff or personel into space more cost effectively than NASA but thier is no feasible means of high speed space travel. Also it would take decades to make Mars or moon livable.  The moon very possibly can not be made livable except in isolated enclosed biospheres.  To put plantlife and water on Mars that would generate atmosphere would take decades and countless trips.   Also what do Mars and the moon have commodities-wise to make them of economic interests?

Not quite.
LOTS of meaningful research going on in the field of propulsion. Inside the atmo, hypersonic propulssion and aerodynamics are being researched in the U.S. Japan and Australia. Outside the atmo, LOTS of work is being done on various types of plasma propulsion in the U.S. Australia and Europe. There are lots of private launch companies doing cheap launches at the moment. Lots of old Sov ICBMs carrying satellites on their warhead busses now (Google ISC Kosmotrass and Denipr) and the most exciting LV provider is SpaceX with their Falcon LV. Very cheap, and reliable enough that the U.S. DoD is the "Launch" customer.

As for high speed space flight, well, we can get to the moon in three days, and using the high end plasma propulsion that NASA has been working on (google VASIMR, and Franklin Chang-Diaz), you can get to Mars in 3 months. As I recall, once upon a time, Portsmouth to Botany Bay was a 9 month voyage by sailing ship, cooped up in a tiny boat with a couple hundred other ppl, so 3 months with a dozen or so, without the risk of scurvy, is not too much to ask.

What's wrong with living in biosphere domes? If you signed on to the trip, you would have an idea what you are in for, and wouldn't expect an exact replica of Earth.

On the topic of resouces, there are lots to choose from. Solar power from the Moon, for starters. Big solar arrays in constant sunlight for a loooong time, beaming their power back to Earth via microwaves, HE3, useful minerals, etc. Most of that is pie in the sky in the short to mid term, but tourism is a gold mine waiting to happen. Billions to be made. Only for the rich, initially, but they will pay for the R&D to make space holidays more accessible to progressivly lower incomes, much like air travel. At the end of the day, someone will be able to find a way to make a buck out of space (can anyone say "live via satellite"?) and provided that .gov and the UN get out of the way, it will happen.

The biggest impediments are actually .gov and the UN. The first is changing, slowly, to be more private enterprise friendly, but the UN is, well, the UN. They hold the position, by treaty, that space is under their jurisdiction. The worst of the treaties, the "Moon Treaty", actually states that no one can make money out of the moon without distributing the proceeds "for the good of all mankind", meaning that tinpot backwaters like Lesotho must be given a cut. Fortunatly, the US is not a signatory to it, so can safely ignore it. Look it up. Its one of the most socialist documents that I have ever read

If the'res money to be made, ppl will do it. How much money and how many lives were spent to get America going? Its a shame that the mob that put up the money originally didn't get a chance to recoup on their investment

I'm going with 50 years or so. After we thin out the trouble makers on this planet.

2075, not an option in your poll.

Quoted: Quoted: No meaningful UNCLASSIFIED research into propulsion systems that operate in space is being pushed or funded.  Current propulsion systems are too slow and costly.  Private business can get small payloads of stuff or personel into space more cost effectively than NASA but thier is no feasible means of high speed space travel. Also it would take decades to make Mars or moon livable.  The moon very possibly can not be made livable except in isolated enclosed biospheres.  To put plantlife and water on Mars that would generate atmosphere would take decades and countless trips.   Also what do Mars and the moon have commodities-wise to make them of economic interests? Not quite. LOTS of meaningful research going on in the field of propulsion. Inside the atmo, hypersonic propulssion and aerodynamics are being researched in the U.S. Japan and Australia. Outside the atmo, LOTS of work is being done on various types of plasma propulsion in the U.S. Australia and Europe. There are lots of private launch companies doing cheap launches at the moment. Lots of old Sov ICBMs carrying satellites on their warhead busses now (Google ISC Kosmotrass and Denipr) and the most exciting LV provider is SpaceX with their Falcon LV. Very cheap, and reliable enough that the U.S. DoD is the "Launch" customer. As for high speed space flight, well, we can get to the moon in three days, and using the high end plasma propulsion that NASA has been working on (google VASIMR, and Franklin Chang-Diaz), you can get to Mars in 3 months. As I recall, once upon a time, Portsmouth to Botany Bay was a 9 month voyage by sailing ship, cooped up in a tiny boat with a couple hundred other ppl, so 3 months with a dozen or so, without the risk of scurvy, is not too much to ask. What's wrong with living in biosphere domes? If you signed on to the trip, you would have an idea what you are in for, and wouldn't expect an exact replica of Earth. On the topic of resouces, there are lots to choose from. Solar power from the Moon, for starters. Big solar arrays in constant sunlight for a loooong time, beaming their power back to Earth via microwaves, HE3, useful minerals, etc. Most of that is pie in the sky in the short to mid term, but tourism is a gold mine waiting to happen. Billions to be made. Only for the rich, initially, but they will pay for the R&D to make space holidays more accessible to progressivly lower incomes, much like air travel. At the end of the day, someone will be able to find a way to make a buck out of space (can anyone say "live via satellite"?) and provided that .gov and the UN get out of the way, it will happen. The biggest impediments are actually .gov and the UN. The first is changing, slowly, to be more private enterprise friendly, but the UN is, well, the UN. They hold the position, by treaty, that space is under their jurisdiction. The worst of the treaties, the "Moon Treaty", actually states that no one can make money out of the moon without distributing the proceeds "for the good of all mankind", meaning that tinpot backwaters like Lesotho must be given a cut. Fortunatly, the US is not a signatory to it, so can safely ignore it. Look it up. Its one of the most socialist documents that I have ever read If the'res money to be made, ppl will do it. How much money and how many lives were spent to get America going? Its a shame that the mob that put up the money originally didn't get a chance to recoup on their investment

The only problem with going to mars is space travel, mostly the no gravity part, is very hard on astronaughts.  3 months will basically void the warrenty on the human body.  Bone density falls, muscle mass drops to almost nothing.  Its a bad mix for a team that must build a viable colony amid the other hardships of spacetravel.  Granted we've had people stay on mir and the international space station for longer than 3 months but theyve always returned to earth to fall into the arms of teams of doctors, who not only want to study the effects of weightlessness but also want to rehabilitate them.

Whatever happened to the manned space colony on the moon back in 1999?

Quoted: Hopefully it won't be during my lifetime. I couldn't imagine a better way to piss money away.

Then your imagination is obviously quite limited.  "Bridge to nowhere" ring any bells?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Other than the one DU established on the Moon, I'd say not for another 50 years.   If you look back in history at 50 year increments, you'll note that our progress rate consistently increases.  So, 50 years from now, one could assume we would nearly double our technological advances compared to 1955-2005. Actually, left to its own devices, progress is more of geometrical progression, since you end up creating the next generation of tools with the current generation - and with each generation producing more efficient and faster results. Basically, change accellerates. however, this only occurs in times of relative political stability.  notice how technology wasn't advancing much, and even perhaps regressing for the 500 years or so after the fall of the roman empire. yes, and the dark ages too. Which is why I added the 'left to its own devices' disclaimer. Political upheavel or repressive governments can retard scientific advancement. In some cases it can actually come close to reversing it (for example, when china shut itself off from the world) Excessive taxation and focusing on socialist programs can have a similar effect, because it takes away capital and incentive to make technological advances.

This period of poor technical progress was largely due to following Aristotle's wacky ideas about science which took a while to throw off, plus progress  was hindered by the Catholic Church.

I agree that we are currently in a time where politics and social problems are countervailing to engineering and scientific progress.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Other than the one DU established on the Moon, I'd say not for another 50 years.   If you look back in history at 50 year increments, you'll note that our progress rate consistently increases.  So, 50 years from now, one could assume we would nearly double our technological advances compared to 1955-2005. Actually, left to its own devices, progress is more of geometrical progression, since you end up creating the next generation of tools with the current generation - and with each generation producing more efficient and faster results. Basically, change accellerates. however, this only occurs in times of relative political stability.  notice how technology wasn't advancing much, and even perhaps regressing for the 500 years or so after the fall of the roman empire. yes, and the dark ages too. Which is why I added the 'left to its own devices' disclaimer. Political upheavel or repressive governments can retard scientific advancement. In some cases it can actually come close to reversing it (for example, when china shut itself off from the world) Excessive taxation and focusing on socialist programs can have a similar effect, because it takes away capital and incentive to make technological advances. This period of poor technical progress was largely due to following Aristotle's wacky ideas about science which took a while to throw off, plus progress  was hindered by the Catholic Church. I agree that we are currently in a time where politics and social problems are countervailing to engineering and scientific progress.

But oddly enough, most of the progress we got came back due to researchers within the church.  It was the same people hindering progress then that are hindering progress now . . . those who stand to gain something from the status quo remaining the same.

Read "The Case For Mars."

The author is a bona fide rocket scientist and lays out how we could go to Mars within a reasonable budget using off-the-shelf technology.

It's a book that gets you thinking about this stuff.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Other than the one DU established on the Moon, I'd say not for another 50 years.   If you look back in history at 50 year increments, you'll note that our progress rate consistently increases.  So, 50 years from now, one could assume we would nearly double our technological advances compared to 1955-2005. Actually, left to its own devices, progress is more of geometrical progression, since you end up creating the next generation of tools with the current generation - and with each generation producing more efficient and faster results. Basically, change accellerates. however, this only occurs in times of relative political stability.  notice how technology wasn't advancing much, and even perhaps regressing for the 500 years or so after the fall of the roman empire. yes, and the dark ages too. Which is why I added the 'left to its own devices' disclaimer. Political upheavel or repressive governments can retard scientific advancement. In some cases it can actually come close to reversing it (for example, when china shut itself off from the world) Excessive taxation and focusing on socialist programs can have a similar effect, because it takes away capital and incentive to make technological advances. This period of poor technical progress was largely due to following Aristotle's wacky ideas about science which took a while to throw off, plus progress  was hindered by the Catholic Church. I agree that we are currently in a time where politics and social problems are countervailing to engineering and scientific progress. But oddly enough, most of the progress we got came back due to researchers within the church.  It was the same people hindering progress then that are hindering progress now . . . those who stand to gain something from the status quo remaining the same.

I wonder about that - the kings and various other baronies hired court mathematicians and philosophers, too.  It would be interesting to look at the distribution of mathematicians, philosophers, natural scientists, and alchemists amongst the courts, universities, and monasteries.