# Skylight for a moon colony.



## skeptical (Nov 3, 2009)

A tunnel down into the moon, 88 metres deep, has been photographed.
First Moon "Skylight" Found -- Could House Lunar Base?

What a wonderful opportunity for the first moon colony!   Dig a couple of tunnels sideways from the bottom of this hole, if they do not already exist, seal it off, and add air.   Radiation proof and micro-meteorite proof.  Home away from home!


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Nov 3, 2009)

I'll say the same thing as I did in the space hotel thread.


Another silly way for silly rich people to spend their hard-stolen money.  A moon colony, really. *Shakes head* I'd never be caught dead in a place like that; it would have absolutely no atmosphere.


----------



## Sparrow (Nov 3, 2009)

And this "Moon Colony" would be there to do what?

Would this mind-numbingly expensive project have any real world value?





Guess what, we just broke the 12 Trillion mark!..

http://zfacts.com/p/461.html

... that's right gang, America has 12 Trillion in National Debt.  And what's the first thing that comes to mind, gosh damn it let's start a colony on the Moon!


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Nov 3, 2009)

Sparrow said:


> And this "Moon Colony" would be there to do what?
> 
> Would this mind-numbingly expensive project have any real world value?
> 
> ...


 


My thoughts exactly, Sparrow. I support Obama but the way some of those government agencies spend money is beyond ludicrously ridiculous. Money that could have gone towards health care or education or to support the country's work force....did it go to any of that? No....it's going to a useless moon colony.


----------



## The Judge (Nov 3, 2009)

Well, I can think of some people I'd like to send there...


----------



## skeptical (Nov 3, 2009)

Respectfully, I would have to say that the previous comments are utterly premature.

First :  the skylight is an opportunity for a moon colony.  No-one has yet proposed such a thing.
Second :  Any such development would be long term.   It will take something like 3 decades minimum, if not more.
Third :  Even though the cost of a moon colony would be mega-billions, it is absolutely a pittance compared to what the USA is spending on overseas military adventures, and on bailing out corrupt and failed corporations.
Fourth :  What is its value?    It is a stepping stone on the way to humankind's greatest adventure - the move off planet Earth.   Stephen Hawking stated that such a development is the only way to ensure the survival of the human species long term.   I would add, that when we move to other worlds, we will take our ecosystem with us (trees, bacteria, plants, animals), and this will ensure the long term survival of Earth life as a whole.

I wish that a moon colony already existed, and had reached a point where it was self sufficient.   There are numerous disasters that can strike Planet Earth, and many are human generated.   We need insurance.

If we think long term (tens of thousands of years) we can see the future of our species as out in the Milky Way galaxy.   This, if and when it happens, is only the start.


----------



## Nik (Nov 3, 2009)

Well, I doubt we'll get there, but our grand-children may.

Uh, IMHO, current rocketry is still akin to those ancient reed-rafts that shed as they went...

Per comments in parallel thread on what NASA should do next ( IMHO, resign themselves to basic research and museum curating ;-) the next decade may see a sea-change. 

By 2020, we'll know if this generation of controlled fusion designs will work: ITER, Polywell, whatever. Need nuclear power to go interplanetary efficiently, and launching fission-cores is barred by treaties. Fusion should be okay.

Again, by 2020, we should know if Skylon's Sabre engine is practicable. Runway to orbit to runway, easy-peasy. Assemble ships in orbit, per ISS' Canadarm grabbing Japanese supply module...

D'uh, there's still a role for mostly-expendable heavy-lift launchers, but anything smaller is a sounding-rocket or pure vanity...


----------



## skeptical (Nov 3, 2009)

Nik

Your time scale beautifully fits the bill for a moon colony.  We aint gonna live on the moon for some decades.   However, given 3 or more decades, we should have much better Earth to orbit shuttles, and we should be able to design and build craft that travel in space, but never land in a gravity well.

The idea of old fashioned chemical rockets for trips from Earth orbit to the moon or to Mars is just ridiculous.   The best option with today's technology is ion drive engines.   The best arrangement would be a shuttle craft for Earth to orbit and back, and a rendezvous with a craft designed for deep space travel.  It will, in turn, rendezvous with a craft designed specifically for lunar surface to lunar orbit and back.

Sadly, it will take some decades before this happens.   As Nik said, it may benefit our Great Grandchildren.


----------



## Ursa major (Nov 3, 2009)

I knew Saddam was hiding that supergun somewhere....


That's a very interesting discovery. (Thanks for posting it, skeptical.) As is that statement that they think that there may have been volcanic activity on the Moon as recently as 2.5 million years ago; I hadn't heard about that until now.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Nov 4, 2009)

The moon is rich in titanium and magnesium and iron and aluminum and possibly other deep minerals we don't know about since we haven't drilled there yet. Hell, there could always be oil on the moon too. 

There is real value on the moon.

Not to mention that it can be used for storing hazardous wastes instead of the earth since the moon has no indigenous life forms. Also, hazardous manufacturing could be done on the moon and thus contain accidents from the rest of the population. There's a good article called the Management of Hazardous Materials for Manufacturing that you can probably google that explains many of the hazards to manufacturing workers that can happen during manufacturing and often do happen.

Another benefit of a lunar colony is preparing our race for venturing to outer space and setting up other colonies, for example on some of Jupiter's moons, some of which have moving water under deep ice and an atmosphere and thus may have indigenous life forms.

And another thing, you know, there are lots of things that have no real world value.  I think we should just get rid of all the arts and music programs too. I mean, really they have no real value and those arts and music grants are eating up money that can go to pay the ridiculous national debt.


----------



## skeptical (Nov 4, 2009)

DG

I agree that there is real value on the moon.   But dumping Earthly hazardous waste is not it.   The cost per kilogram rules that out entirely.

I read a very disquieting article a while back, about the risks of the Large Hadron Collider now getting ready to fire.    Most of you guys will know of the people who tried to stop it in court, because they feared it would create a mini-black hole or strangelet that would swallow the Earth.    The scientists involved calculated a risk one 1 in 2 million.   

However, the article I read pointed out that the people calculating the risk were totally biased towards the LHC and would have used the most LHC friendly assumptions in their calculations.   The author suggested that they were the wrong people to do a risk assessment, and that an independent assessment would probably have come up with a risk of perhaps 1 in 10,000 or less.   If he is correct, this is an utterly unacceptable risk.   Gaining a little knowledge 100 years earlier than we might otherwise have done, versus the risk of totally destroying the Earth, all of humanity and all of Earth life???

However, the moon would be the ideal place for the LHC.   It could not be built for another 100 years, since the moon would have to have reasonably sophisticated manufacturing.  But think of the advantages!   No need for tunnels.   Vacuum already there to be used.  Minimal gravity, reducing the need for heavy structural elements.   All the space you need without bumping into humanity.  And if the worst happened, we would have a black hole orbiting Earth.  That's all!


----------



## dustinzgirl (Nov 4, 2009)

Well with increased traffic the cost would go down, plus the companies manufacturing waste would have to foot the cost. 

But yes, there are other ideas that could help preserve this environment.


----------



## Drachir (Nov 4, 2009)

dustinzgirl said:


> Hell, there could always be oil on the moon too.



Not oil DG - oil requires an accumulation of organic matter as as far as I know there has never been life on the moon.  Other than US astronauts, of course.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Nov 4, 2009)

Drachir said:


> Not oil DG - oil requires an accumulation of organic matter as as far as I know there has never been life on the moon.  Other than US astronauts, of course.



As far as we know.....but we'll never find out.....if we don't explore.

Also, one of my favorite lunar theories is about the moon breaking off from the earth in its earliest formation days, which may mean that other minerals or chemicals or whatever you want to call it that we don't know about are on the moon. 

Oil may also be made by hydrocarbon at massively high compression and heat, which may exist at the core of the moon as well as other places out there. Non-biological oil is found at some of the deepest points of the ocean vent thingies. 

So its possible.


----------



## Vladd67 (Nov 4, 2009)

skeptical said:


> And if the worst happened, we would have a black hole orbiting Earth.  That's all!


 That's all? I don't think a black hole orbiting the earth would be much different from a small black hole on earth.


----------



## Urien (Nov 4, 2009)

You're all missing the truth.

The tunnel is the first burrowing of intelligent super-gigantic interstellar termites. They're down there I tell you. And they're watching us, and breeding, and breeding. Soon a cloud will form around the moon, a cloud moving towards us. Then the winged horrors will descend and unless we know the telephone number of an intergalactic exterminater it's going to be a pulpy time on Old Earth.


----------



## chrispenycate (Nov 4, 2009)

Vladd67 said:


> That's all? I don't think a black hole orbiting the earth would be much different from a small black hole on earth.



Very different. If it is out of Earth's atmosphere, it can't start eating extra matter, and putting on weight. Since the overall mass wouldn't change, it wouldn't even modify the tides.

But this two million to one risk (which I consider absurdly pessimistic, by the way, although I admit there is no way of measuring the risk when there are so many unknown factors) takes no account of the time factor. Even if it did turn out that the thing turned out pico black holes, a hundred thousand years before they start to annoy anyone is a low estimate. I've seen the power cables leading to the installations; you're not going to get more than a microgram of energy through those (yeah, I know it should be in micrograms per second, but they store it up for long periods and let it out al at once). Particles more energetic than this hit the upper atmosphere every day, and, despite losing mass to Cherenkov radiation, a fair few of them reach the Earth's surface (they've got novae and proper black holes to generate them), without triggering a positive feedback collapse of the planet.

And when they exploded the hydrogen bomb in Bikini, they thought there was a one in fifteen thousand chance of starting a chain reaction in the ocean, and turning the Earth into a very small (and extremely short lived) star, but being military they didn't need the approval of the masses to go ahead.

That would have been a considerably faster end.


----------



## Sparrow (Nov 4, 2009)

> skeptical ~Fourth : What is its value? It is a stepping stone on the way to humankind's greatest adventure - the move off planet Earth. Stephen Hawking stated that such a development is the only way to ensure the survival of the human species long term. I would add, that when we move to other worlds, we will take our ecosystem with us (trees, bacteria, plants, animals), and this will ensure the long term survival of Earth life as a whole.




Oh my goodness, where to even begin...

First, a few words on Mr.Hawking... I have had it upto my gills with that fear mongering 'The End is Nigh'(again), preachy, overrated, Christian thinker.  His sloppy cosmology only sounds good if you've checked your brain at the door and you're willing to fill all his theoretical holes with shoddy notions of 'Intelligent Design'.  How is it the scientific community look the other way when he writes, "Yet it appears that God chose to make it [the universe] evolve in a very regular way, according to certain laws"...

The Universe has no goal, no mind, no conscience, it does not endeavor to make the perfect omelet.

The final sentence of _A Briefer History_ reads: "If we find the answer to that (why we exist), it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God".

What!

People, just because you conjure up Stephen Hawking to make a point, it doesn't make that point any more or less viable.  Stephen Hawking is a fraud.




And Mr.Skeptical, taking our plants and animals "ecosystem", as you call it, with us to another planet, would be the very essence of insanity.


----------



## skeptical (Nov 4, 2009)

Vladd

If the moon turned into a black hole, the only difference we would notice, here on the ground, is that we could no longer see it, and there would be no moonlight. A loss, sure, but not a catastrophe. It would still raise tides, and have all its normal gravitational effects.

The moon is slowly moving away from the Earth (over many millions of years) and a moon sized black hole would do the same. The only disasters it would cause would be if an astronaut fell into the black hole.

Chris

I agree that the probability of the LHC causing a massive disaster is small.   Where we might be in trouble is if something happens based on unknown science.   Known science can predict certain things, but scientific research always turns up the unexpected.   If the unexpected from the LHC happened to be lethal ....
The biggest comfort to me is the fact of high energy cosmic ray charged particles.   However, there is no guarantee that the conditions within the LHC are exactly the same as those of cosmic ray impact, and something different might happen.   If we knew what it was, there would be no risk.    I am not paranoid about this - just skeptical of the odds as calculated by the very biased LHC scientists.

Sparrow
I did not say Stephen Hawking was infallible.  Just used a quote from him to illustrate a point.   Hawking, whatever his religious beliefs, is still a mega genius.   His mathematical brain is a once per 100 years event, and he compares closest to Einstein.   That does not make him infallible, but we still need to take heed when he say something.

On taking plants and animals with us out into the wider universe.
It will happen.   Initially we will take genetically modified green algae to replenish oxygen atmospheres and remove CO2.   We will use bacteria to destroy waste.   Eventually, we will plant food bearing green plants in ground up rock mixed with bacteria treated waste to produce food and replenish atmospheres.   We will introduce pollinating insects to increase yields.   etc.   etc.

It is inevitable that, when humanity terraforms other planets we will introduce Earth bacteria, archaea, fungi, protists, plants and animals.   Terraforming requires a new ecosystem to be established.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Nov 4, 2009)

Sparrow said:


> The Universe has no goal, no mind, no conscience, it does not endeavor to make the perfect omelet.



Prove it.

And where do you have your cosmology degree from? Or astronomy degree? Physics degree?


----------



## Ursa major (Nov 4, 2009)

To be fair, Dusty, it's very difficult to prove a negative (even where belief is not involved).


----------



## Sparrow (Nov 5, 2009)

> dustinzgirl ~Prove it.
> 
> And where do you have your cosmology degree from? Or astronomy degree? Physics degree?





The School of Hard Knocks.
And the burden of proof is shared.  If you believe we're all part of a grand scheme of some sort, than the Author of that scheme either exists or at one time existed.  If something exists you should be able to prove it.  If something does not exist I can only offer probabilities.
Read _The Blind Watchmaker_, you'll see what I mean.





> Hawking says: “As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences and so should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that the big bang was the beginning of time."




I call ********.
This is the clever way your "mega-genius" dodges a sticky subject; any theory that houses the Big Bang at it's primal center, must also consider what went on before the "beginning of time", and what exactly caused the explosion-- as opposed to a non-explosion, and what threshold was realized to set off such an explosion, and on and on... You also need to ask yourself if all these questions might be inherently flawed in ways we cannot comprehend.  I would prefer a honest "I don't know" as opposed to "stupid question".



> Hawking formulates: “The eventual goal of science is to provide a single theory that describes the whole universe…our goal is nothing less than a complete description of the universe…if we discover a complete theory…then we shall all…be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist”.



You would only ask why we exist if you already sorta kinda know the answer.  If it turns out there is no grand scheme, or intelligence behind creation, then how important is the _why_ of it?


----------



## dustinzgirl (Nov 5, 2009)

Ursa major said:


> To be fair, Dusty, it's very difficult to prove a negative (even where belief is not involved).





Sparrow said:


> The School of Hard Knocks.
> And the burden of proof is shared.  If it turns out there is no grand scheme, or intelligence behind creation, then how important is the _why_ of it?



So since neither of us can be proven, since its difficult to prove either side without well, a TARDIS, then I can't take your statements as absolute. 

I also do not think Hawking is a fraud as he poses theories, not creates laws, there is a differece between a theory and a law.

I often theorize that God is a multidimensionaltimetravellingsupraintelligentmultiuniversal being, which I believe is completely and totally possible. 

I also often theorize that there are things in the universe we can not possibly begin to understand, as it is impossbile to define the entire universe from our singular fixed physical point in time and space. 

I do not see why the Universe itself can't be an intelligent being, as it was born and it grows and it will one day die. 

I think its utterly arrogant to define life and intelligence simply from the planet earth, when we can't even figure out how to travel outside our solar system, and based on your other statements even if we could, we shouldn't.

So I read your collective statements as being ones of human fact--there are no facts other than what can be proven from our single point on earth, and there is no logic other than what humans can define. 

I wholeheartedly disagree. I believe the Universe is full of things we couldn't even begin to describe, let alone define. 

I have read many of your replies in many areas, Sparrow, and I have not once agreed with anything you have to say, as the majority of your statements have no scientific foundation and really seem to be extremely conservative, to the point of constricting invention and knowledge, things I find extremely sad. 

Hawking is not a fraud. A fraud is a person who intentionally deceives others. Hawking states his theories based on his education. Other scientists disagree with these theories based on their own education and their own theories. 

That, my dear, is called science.

The WHY is always important.


----------



## HareBrain (Nov 5, 2009)

Non-scientist here, about to get his coat ...

Why can't people leave the moon alone? Part of what makes it beautiful when I see it in the night sky is knowing that only a handful of humans have set foot there, that mankind hasn't yet exploited it and turned it into some shoddy commercial materials-grabbing venture.

Gah, I say. Gah!


----------



## dustinzgirl (Nov 5, 2009)

HareBrain said:


> Non-scientist here, about to get his coat ...
> 
> Why can't people leave the moon alone? Part of what makes it beautiful when I see it in the night sky is knowing that only a handful of humans have set foot there, that mankind hasn't yet exploited it and turned it into some shoddy commercial materials-grabbing venture.
> 
> Gah, I say. Gah!



But it will be so much prettier when it glows green and red!!

Also---its in our human nature to exploit resources, and has been ever since we figured out how to make fire.


----------



## Sparrow (Nov 5, 2009)

I have to agree with you Hare.

Leave the Moon as a pristine ornament circling Earth until the end of time.
Thus far we've only defiled the Moon by sticking an American flag in it, which says more about us humans than we would like.  And I guess just recently NASA bombed the Moon to find out if there might be water under the surface... which again doesn't really speak well of us. 

For all we know it was the Moon that helped propagate life on our planet?


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Nov 6, 2009)

The human race is going to die anyway no matter what happens.


For those of you who think that a moon colony is going to be our savior? Um, hello!!! What do you think all those giant bowl-shaped holes were created by? Hungry giant aliens who use them as cereal bowls?


There's also something I recall from The History Channel about how the moon is slowly drifting away from the planet, and therefore from the sun. No matter what technology we make, can we really survive another thousand thousand years if there's no properly-sized star in sight to provide us with natural heat and light? If we did create a moon colony, what would happen if, say, the moon was drifting away from us in a random direction and it just happened to bump into the orbit of a star that's the size of, say, Betelgeuse, which is said to be about four times the size of our sun. What then? There would be far too much heat and radiation for living creatures from Earth to cope.


Temporary mining expeditions and such like that? It seems to be far more likely than a permanent, birth-to-death life on the satellite. Not to mention the fact that humans breed and an exponential rate, especially if you eliminate a lot of the Earthly causes of death, and the fact that the moon is only a fraction the size of our planet, and our planet is groaning and creaking terribly under the strain of our influence on her......


----------



## skeptical (Nov 6, 2009)

Manarion

First : the moon is not humankind's salvation.   It is just a stepping stone.   As I keep saying, it is all a matter of time scale.  It will take hundreds of years, possibly a thousand, before the first human trip to another star.  Theoretically, it is possible to use an extension of today's physics to build a craft that can accelerate to 0.1c.   Of course, that will require a lot of development and we will not be able to do it for hundreds of years.

However, if we look far enough ahead, we can envisage craft exploring other star systems.   Such craft would need to be enormous, and capable of supporting life indefinitely.   It is a small extension of this idea to imagine them mining ice and minerals from moons, asteroids, or planetary rings, and building more such craft.  Once humanity gets going, the expansion can quickly become exponential.   You just have to think in terms of thousands of years.

Second : the moon is definitely moving further from Earth, but it will remain in orbit.  It will, on average, move no further from the sun than it is now.

There is no reason why a moon colony should not be pretty much self sustaining.  However, it is probable that such a colony would be underground.   It would need its own source of energy.  Hopefully, by then, we will have access to nuclear fusion, which would be almost unlimited.  Within 100 years, that should be possible.

Ditto for a Mars colony.   Humans can turn troglodyte when needed, and Mars may end up with a network of human inhabited tunnels lit by artificial light, and kept at a balmy 22 C.

Of course, if you are going underground, and generating heat and light by nuclear fusion, there is nothing to stop us colonising the moons of Jupiter, or Saturn, as well.

When we get to Alpha Centauri, I am sure there will be assorted orbiting debris to colonise and exploit also.


----------



## Sparrow (Nov 6, 2009)

> skeptical ~There is no reason why a moon colony should not be pretty much self sustaining. However, it is probable that such a colony would be underground. It would need its own source of energy. Hopefully, by then, we will have access to nuclear fusion, which would be almost unlimited. Within 100 years, that should be possible.




What?
They've yet to create a self-sustaining (under glass) environment here on Earth much less the Moon.  Biosphere2 broke down within a few months, and even that was after some cheating by the participants.


And Alpha Centauri is over four light years away and is not believed to be a good candidate for supporting life.  It's thought that with binary star systems it may be much trickier for a planet to develop and retain a heavy atmosphere.  Also, I wish folks would stop assuming that mining operations will be the salvation of every deep space voyage.  Once you've extracted god knows what from god knows where, you then have to refine and process the raw material!  These are massive undertakings on Earth and are often dangerous under the best conditions.  To think we're actually going to plop down on some asteriod, or moon, or planet, and start mining away is absolutely absurd.  Mining has been a favorite trope of science fiction tales almost from the begining, but like most things fictional it works better on paper than in real life.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Nov 6, 2009)

Sparrow said:


> What?
> They've yet to create a self-sustaining (under glass) environment here on Earth much less the Moon.  Biosphere2 broke down within a few months, and even that was after some cheating by the participants.
> 
> 
> And Alpha Centauri is over four light years away and is not believed to be a good candidate for supporting life.  It's thought that with binary star systems it may be much trickier for a planet to develop and retain a heavy atmosphere.  Also, I wish folks would stop assuming that mining operations will be the salvation of every deep space voyage.  Once you've extracted god knows what from god knows where, you then have to refine and process the raw material!  These are massive undertakings on Earth and are often dangerous under the best conditions.  To think we're actually going to plop down on some asteriod, or moon, or planet, and start mining away is absolutely absurd.  Mining has been a favorite trope of science fiction tales almost from the begining, but like most things fictional it works better on paper than in real life.



Yes, and before they made a cure for polio there was no working cure for polio.

So, I kind of fail to understand.

I think it can work in real life, I really don't see why its so absurd. We've already landed on another planet. 

Within the next hundred years, as long as we are devoted to scientific discovery, then I don't see why not.


----------



## skeptical (Nov 6, 2009)

Sparrow

Again you ignore the time factor.   I am talking of a minimum time of 100 years hence.   Think of technology 100 years ago.  What we can do now that we could not then.

If something is impossible in theory (eg faster than light travel) I will agree with you.  We aint gonna do it.   However, if something is theoretically possible with today's physics, then it is reasonable to assume we will achieve it, even if it takes 100 years.

Setting up a working biosphere is entirely possible in theory.   The fact that the first attempt failed means absolutely nothing.  Each failure teaches us more, and eventually we get it.

About Alpha Centauri.   It is 4.3 light years away.  However, we are not going to travel at anything like light speed.   Assuming the theoretically possible speed of 0.1c and a time to accelerate to that speed of ten years, and a time to decelerate of another ten years, then the trip to Alpha Centauri will take 55 years.

Can a space vessel travel 55 years?   Obviously not with today's technology.  However, we are talking at least 500 years, and more likely 1000 years in the future.   So I would have to say, yes!

Could such a vessel find sustenance at Alpha Centauri.   If it was pre-prepared, yes.   We cannot expect an Earth like planet.   However, as long as Alpha Centauri has moons, asteroids, planetary rings, comets etc., there will be water and minerals.  Water will be the most important item, but that is abundant in our own solar system, and there is no reason to believe it will be less so at Alpha Centauri.

I used to work for a company that had a number of industrial processes going.   One was to use electric arc furnace to melt basalt rock, and blow it into fibres for fire-proof insulation.  Sold under the brand name Rokwool.    They had to extract the iron from the basalt first, since it was an impurity that stuffed up the fibre forming process.   Each year, they produced thousands of tonnes of pig iron, which they sold.   The point here is that rocks and minerals contain vital materials that can be extracted and used if enough energy is available.   Fusion power will give ample energy.

In addition, 500 to 1000 years in the future will see enormous advances in artificiial intelligence and robotics.   With that resource, it would probably be possible to send an unmanned vessel, loaded with robot equipment first, and get it to build a habitat for humans before they even leave Earth.


----------



## Sparrow (Nov 6, 2009)

> skeptical ~Could such a vessel find sustenance at Alpha Centauri. If it was pre-prepared, yes. We cannot expect an Earth like planet. However, as long as Alpha Centauri has moons, asteroids, planetary rings, comets etc., there will be water and minerals. Water will be the most important item, but that is abundant in our own solar system, and there is no reason to believe it will be less so at Alpha Centauri.




No matter how advanced the spaceship the occupants will at some point need to come in from the cold.  A terrestrial planet with exploitable resources will need to be at the other end of a journey.  As I said before, the thinking is that binary star systems are not nearly as stable as our own solar experience so we don't at all know what Alpha Centauri has to offer.  Our solar system is lucky enough to have four "gas giant" planets which probably had something to do with attracting nearby comets and such into the inner planetary orbits where they sometimes collided with Earth, Mars, Venus, Mercury.  It doesn't appear Alpha Centauri can support gas giants.

But who knows.


----------



## skeptical (Nov 7, 2009)

Sparrow

You asked : "Who knows?"

It is rather likely to be _Homo sapiens_ who knows, long before we ever send any person to Alpha Centauri. There are already tentative plans for enormous space telescopes that will be able, not only to image planets around Alpha Centauri, but to carry out spectroscopic analyses of their surface composition.

In addition, robot probes will be sent to Alpha Centauri probably 100 years or more before the first people. The robot reports will tell us pretty much *exactly* what is there.

I do not believe that humans have to live on planets. Lots of our people already live in seriously artificial habitats now - air conditioned high rise buildings, where food comes out of a freezer or a tin can, or McDonalds.   I have met people who show no interest at all in ever leaving the confines of the big cities, and who find happiness in shopping malls.

Is it such a stretch of the imagination to suggest that people in future might live in giant, city size, habitats in space? These can be cylindrical shapes to spin for gravity. Store their water supplies outside the hull as a two metre thick shell, so that it doubles as a radiation shield. And have a very long axis around which it rotates that is also a linear accelerator, as its star drive engine.

Once we have communities of such people, it is no stretch to suggest they might build more habitats in space, using the debris of stellar systems as raw materials. These habitats will be equipped for mobility - capable of travelling vast distances through space.

Given enough time (1000 years plus), and no catastrophes in the mean time, I suspect that these developments will be almost inevitable.


----------

