English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The International Space Station doesn't count; low Earth orbit isn't what I mean by "space"....

A colony on the Moon or Mars would count.

2007-04-28 13:01:55 · 8 answers · asked by Skepticat 6 in Science & Mathematics Astronomy & Space

8 answers

If you had asked this question back in the 70's, I would have definitely answered "by the year 2000" ... and, obviously, I would have been wrong :(

What is needed is a "breakthrough" in space science and/or space manufacturing. If there's a reason for the development of space then it will happen.

Personally, I'd prefer to see O'Neill habitats built rather than Lunar Colonies... the habitats would be proving grounds for deep space exploration... development of generation ships (assuming we never develop FTL drives... current physics says they don't look too good but you never know :))

If there's a breakthrough in generating solar power from orbit, that would be a big start... supplying power to O'Neill habitats and other orbital platforms would go a long way to creating the demand for space habitats.

If we can ever find a way to utilize Vacuum Energy, it would be another reason for developing space habitats.... and that's a bit more promising than a vague "hope for a breakthrough" :)

So, to answer your question directly, I'd have to say we'll probably have Space Colonies in our own Sol system sometime between 20 years from now and the end of the century... probably closer to the end of the century... but I'm keeping my fingers crossed :)

Now, if you were asking about when we'd have Colonies in Space on planets around other stars.... add another century.... unless, as I said, there's a breakthrough in FTL physics.

2007-04-28 14:03:16 · answer #1 · answered by John T 5 · 3 0

At the moment, it costs about $50,000 per kilogram to send any cargo into orbit. It cost 1 billion dollars to send two men to the moon in 1969. It would cost even more now. Considering neither the Moon, nor Mars can support life at the moment, it means that everything will need to be transported, every drop of water, scrap of food etc. Mars might hold some hope, but it will not be viable until we can establish an automated, self contained biosphere, which recycles water, etc, and generates food and nutrients so that it does not need to be transported from Earth.
Also, consider that spending a long time in a lower gravity environment will mean bones become less dense, coming back to Earth may be difficult.

2007-04-28 20:45:42 · answer #2 · answered by Labsci 7 · 1 0

moon observatory and radio telescope... 25 years
first mars landing... 30 years
first mars base... 37
first colony in mars... 60 years
first extra planetary business venture... 78 years
discovery of an advanced way to travel to another star in a live time... 105 years
being alive to witness that... has no price

2007-04-28 20:48:38 · answer #3 · answered by doom98999 3 · 1 0

Over 100 years. A base sooner, but not a colony.

2007-04-28 20:29:21 · answer #4 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 0 0

Its a question of benefit and cost. Technologically it could be within a decade. Practically speaking, however, 250 years. The will does not exist to prioritize the technology development and expenditure. Sad to say.

2007-04-28 20:05:58 · answer #5 · answered by boss_alwi 2 · 0 0

haha there are alot of issues with this topic
first the health and safety departments wont allow it becuase its well..not quite safe to live out there in space...
2nd is we could do it in the next decade...but probably not actually do it until the end of this century

2007-04-28 20:11:24 · answer #6 · answered by Brody 3 · 0 0

My guess is that we might have something like that going on in the year 3000.

2007-04-28 23:05:19 · answer #7 · answered by zahbudar 6 · 0 1

not anytime soon... i'm still waiting for our flying cars or the floating skate boards.

2007-04-28 20:11:26 · answer #8 · answered by Silentgoodbye@myspace 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers