Post AkQOdpWYp2O2qybouG by nyrath@spacey.space
(DIR) More posts by nyrath@spacey.space
(DIR) Post #AkOSqpoZ45CB1FZD9c by Aaron_DeVries@mastodon.social
2024-07-28T12:53:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Before we start colonizing space, I think we should all sit down and draft a treaty that says if an off world colony wants autonomy or full independence from Earth, just give it to them.Or better yet establish colonies with the understanding once they become self sufficient they are by default an independent entity and need to apply to the space UN if they want.Human history and sci-fi indicate this would likely sidestep a lot of potential problems down the road.
(DIR) Post #AkOSqrSewUrU7tKkHw by isaackuo@spacey.space
2024-07-28T13:07:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Aaron_DeVries I would look at seasteading, and ponder what differences from the current legal status quo you'd like to see, in order to make seasteading more legally "fair" or "good", in your view.(Seasteading has been at best an absolute clusterfudge so far, but at least some of the abject failure is due to the fact that it's been attempted by libertarians. In contrast, the anti-libertarian I.S.S. has proven at least functional, so ... ???)
(DIR) Post #AkOSqsUp5wBdKtLzIe by Aaron_DeVries@mastodon.social
2024-07-28T15:11:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@isaackuo I'm a fan of seasteding as a concept. But what sets it apart is governments can still enforce laws and impose rules easily and in real time. A settlement on Mars or a colony at a lagrange point would be very hands off.If the Martian colonists say no to Earth, not much Earth can do.
(DIR) Post #AkOSqtOTl0hq7VOR3A by isaackuo@spacey.space
2024-07-28T15:28:35Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Aaron_DeVries A Mars colony would be dependent on supplies from Earth, or the colonists die. That's a lot of leverage. It costs many orders of magnitude more to operate space hardware than a cruise ship.There's nothing stopping someone from living on a sailboat other than the high cost. Plenty of people who have enough money do so. But this is dirt cheap compared to space.1/2
(DIR) Post #AkOSqwKKqsArDWTfVY by isaackuo@spacey.space
2024-07-28T15:35:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Aaron_DeVries In Postcards from Cutty, I assume - optimistically - that Cutty's mom is able to cobble together functional hardware that is "jail-broken" of Capitalism-enforcing kill switches and purposeful limited design lifespans. Even so, Cutty's mom still needs money in case her daughter needs health care and such.Cutty goes "space hermit", because she prefers it to a lifetime of servicing her generational debt. But it's still basically a one way death sentence.
(DIR) Post #AkQ9wdYK3e39uiwWJs by Aaron_DeVries@mastodon.social
2024-07-28T16:49:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@isaackuo oh I know, that's why I specified "when a colony becomes self-sufficient". When a colony is still in the establishment phase they are linked to Earth regardless how they feel. It's when they become self-sufficient that it would be best to just let them become their own entity instead of trying to impose control over them.
(DIR) Post #AkQ9weN11AbERwf0Km by ThinkingSapien@mstdn.social
2024-07-28T17:24:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
How would a colony become self sufficient on Mars? I understand the regolith there to be toxic. They would only have the resources shipped from earth. I think Antarctica would be more hospitable to life than Mars. It doesn’t offer the resources for growing to sufficiency. @Aaron_DeVries @isaackuo
(DIR) Post #AkQ9wepNJjHhrtveXQ by Aaron_DeVries@mastodon.social
2024-07-28T18:13:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ThinkingSapien @isaackuo it wouldn't happen over night, but all the resources needed to maintain a settlement are there, plenty of raw material, might take decades but once food and manufacturing become fully local it's good to go.The soil is indeed toxic but people wouldn't be living out on the surface eating the soil so it's not a huge issue.Probably 50 years after establishing a colony it would be self sufficient.
(DIR) Post #AkQ9wfInYKovL9h9Oq by isaackuo@spacey.space
2024-07-28T18:52:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Aaron_DeVries @ThinkingSapien Maybe, maybe not. I mentioned the fact that some people live on sailboats. They aren't self sufficient, but that simply isn't their goal. So what if they depend on "importing" supplies from the rest of society?Most people simply don't set out to become truly "self sufficient". It's more practical to use money rather than attain the ability to produce everything yourself.Shipping costs to Mars will go down, which reduces pressure for 100% self sufficiency.
(DIR) Post #AkQ9wfkRtWwEiudEUy by Aaron_DeVries@mastodon.social
2024-07-29T02:05:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@isaackuo @ThinkingSapien most reaserch into space colonization is centered around self sufficiency because if you plan on using Earth for your food, one missed shipment could mean 2 years of delay and everyone dieing. If we plan on keeping our offworld settlements entirely reliant on Earth we may as well not bother because we would never get very far.Imagin if every British colony was still reliant on England.
(DIR) Post #AkQ9wgNnXEPigx2epc by isaackuo@spacey.space
2024-07-29T02:20:05Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Aaron_DeVries @ThinkingSapien Droughts are a real thing that people here on Earth already had to deal with. The solution was to have food that could be stored for multiple years in case it's needed.Of course, a large amount of resource recycling and using nutrients harvested/generated ISRU can help a lot. But it's not really realistic to locally synthesize and manufacture all of the things you need, such as different medicines and various essential equipment.1/2
(DIR) Post #AkQ9whB4a1pT9m60dU by isaackuo@spacey.space
2024-07-29T02:23:24Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Aaron_DeVries @ThinkingSapien At some point, you're talking the choice between shipping thousands of tons of hardware to manufacture something locally or a few tons of supplies per decade to import from Earth instead.It just doesn't make sense to attempt 100% self reliance, even if the colony were allowed to (Capitalism extremely favors rent seeking via various schemes, none of which a Mars colony would be immune from).2/2
(DIR) Post #AkQ9whkATXtyucW2L2 by Aaron_DeVries@mastodon.social
2024-07-29T02:26:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@isaackuo @ThinkingSapien so even a colony that has been established for over 200 years will still be reliant on Earth? I have to very strongly disagree. Trade will always be a thing but the idea of planning space colonization around the entier colony dying if contact with earth is lost completely negates the point of space colonization and ensures we never leave the solar system.
(DIR) Post #AkQ9wiICR17kcARDNo by isaackuo@spacey.space
2024-07-29T02:34:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Aaron_DeVries @ThinkingSapien But there aren't any places on Earth that are self sufficient either. And ... what's wrong with that? We live in a global society. We have the ability to trade goods and services on a global scale. If some disaster happens that prevents this trade then ... yes, people will die. I'm sure that the disaster was no picnic either.If we expand into space, we will expand our interconnected community.
(DIR) Post #AkQ9wit4DwcASVgeqe by Aaron_DeVries@mastodon.social
2024-07-29T02:42:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@isaackuo @ThinkingSapien because the main reason for offworld colonization is to protect the species.Not to mention on Earth trade and communication happens fast. It is not practical or even planned by anyone working on offworld settlements to have colonies reliant on Earth indefinitely. Imagin sending a space habit to Tau Ceti, takes 150 years to get there. And you tell them they will be reliant on Earth. That's not practical.
(DIR) Post #AkQ9wjYBl3VYW2vUwa by isaackuo@spacey.space
2024-07-29T02:46:51Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Aaron_DeVries @ThinkingSapien If the goal is to protect the species, then self sufficiency is not a requirement. All you need is the capability to survive a disaster that takes out Earth. If this disaster results in, say, the death of 90% of your colony's population, then it still succeeded.A demand for self sufficiency actually harms this goal. A colony with a greater population and more supplies has more ability to survive a disaster.1/2
(DIR) Post #AkQ9wkBtNRGcVBVCpU by isaackuo@spacey.space
2024-07-29T02:53:17Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Aaron_DeVries @ThinkingSapien Eventually, we may get to a place where there are a lot of space colonies, so they won't be reliant on Earth specifically - but still reliant on each other. Why demand that they be self sufficient? Makes no sense.Interstellar colonization is a much bigger challenge, and I personally expect it probably won't be done with biological humans. I do think we can do some interstellar manned missions - just to show we can - but VNs will pioneer the galaxy.2/2
(DIR) Post #AkQ9wks4qb0kc1EtaC by Aaron_DeVries@mastodon.social
2024-07-29T03:03:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@isaackuo @ThinkingSapien I agree resource sharing is important. There will likely be colonize for mining and others with agriculture. Self sufficiency just means they can produce what they need to survive.Going back to the original point, an independent Mars doesn't mean no trade. The US is independent of China as entities and they still trade.As for interstellar travel I'm hopeful we can go, but long term yeah machine minds will play a big part probably.
(DIR) Post #AkQ9wlcs2cRQx98GWG by isaackuo@spacey.space
2024-07-29T03:22:16Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Aaron_DeVries @ThinkingSapien Okay, but trade between the USA and China is two way. Trade between Earth and Mars would be one way. There simply is nothing a Mars colony could produce which could be sold on Earth at a competitive price. This will result in a severe power imbalance.An ability for some of the colony's population to survive isn't something that the individuals that die from cutting off supplies would be entirely happy about.
(DIR) Post #AkQBN33LyCaOUAcC8m by nyrath@spacey.space
2024-07-29T11:29:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@isaackuo @Aaron_DeVries @ThinkingSapien Something that Mars colony could sell to Earth at a competitive price is what I call "MacGuffinite"It does not seem to exist, alas.https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/macguffinite.php
(DIR) Post #AkQD0FeVA0CaoEFS5o by isaackuo@spacey.space
2024-07-29T11:47:36Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@nyrath @Aaron_DeVries @ThinkingSapien As I see it, the lack of MacGuffinite implies that any Mars colony will have a minimal population for a very long time ... in my PFC setting, Mars Station has a population on the order of a dozen (a decline from a peak getting close to triple digits).I think it's interesting to ponder who is paying for all this and who is going?1/2
(DIR) Post #AkQDxa5colIlHRE30K by isaackuo@spacey.space
2024-07-29T11:54:15Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@nyrath @Aaron_DeVries @ThinkingSapien I think inevitably masses of ordinary people pay for it - whether it's through taxes or Capitalism vacuuming money to billionaires or both.I split "who is going" into two groups:1) The "Space Cadets", who are national space program astronauts, sent for "scientific" (national pride) reasons.2) The "Moneybags", who have insane amounts of money to spend, for whom orbital MS The World is a place to live away from the plebs (mere billionaires).2/2
(DIR) Post #AkQOGmWToaEesua4sy by Aaron_DeVries@mastodon.social
2024-07-29T13:12:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@isaackuo @nyrath @ThinkingSapien Honestly a Mars colony would be just there for the sake of living there. The ones with financial motive would be space habitats that mine asteroids, or small settlements on the moon/outer solar system that produces propellant for ships from ice. Mars dosen't seem to have financial value, just scientific and human value.
(DIR) Post #AkQOGnfjXfEQRtuywq by isaackuo@spacey.space
2024-07-29T13:24:56Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Aaron_DeVries @nyrath @ThinkingSapien I don't think asteroids or the moon/outer system are promising for financial motive either. If there's something worth mining, it's only worth mining with robots - not manned missions. The cost difference is orders of magnitude.
(DIR) Post #AkQOdpWYp2O2qybouG by nyrath@spacey.space
2024-07-29T13:57:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@isaackuo @Aaron_DeVries @ThinkingSapien Agreed. That's why my MacGuffinite definition includes the restriction "must be harvested by a human beings on the spot, not by teleoperated drones or autonomous robots"
(DIR) Post #AkQQcHIulYVMLAc7fc by Aaron_DeVries@mastodon.social
2024-07-29T14:07:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@isaackuo @nyrath @ThinkingSapien Well, at least human ambition isn't only motivated by financial interests. Other pressures such as political, prestige, and scientific.The ISS being a cash sink yet everyone wants more space stations fills me with hope. If the future is just robots in space and humans do nothing and the human spirit is dead due to capitalism. I would honestly rather die in a nuclear war.
(DIR) Post #AkQQcIXq9Y2QBkbYZc by nyrath@spacey.space
2024-07-29T14:20:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Aaron_DeVries @isaackuo @ThinkingSapien Yes, but chances are that would be a slow lingering death as the infrastructure gradually breaks down. Bur for me, since I live near to Washington DC, with any luck I will be instantly converted into a shadow on the brick wall.
(DIR) Post #AkQQvzihqvE7b24yWm by Aaron_DeVries@mastodon.social
2024-07-29T14:23:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@nyrath @isaackuo @ThinkingSapien I live in the Canadian prairies so I would not be as lucky. Which is why I vibe off space optimism and the human spirit.NASA and China wanting to build outposts on the moon has no viable financial gains, yet they are doing it. We could just send robots but we choose to go ourselves. That's humanity, that's why I'm optimistic WE will be out there, not just robots even if its financially illogical.Why go to the stars? because they are there.