The problem with planetary colonization...

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by dswynne1, Mar 13, 2017.

  1. Tetragrammaton Invictus

    Tetragrammaton Invictus I like Ellie Bishop Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Location:
    About to steal the TARDIS

    Or you send the robots to get rid of the biology.....
     
  2. Spider

    Spider Dirty Old Man Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2004
    Location:
    Lost in time
    Space habitats that produce their own gravity are ultimately better, cheaper, and much faster than terraforming a planet. Terraforming a planet takes thousands of years, probably longer. Why go to all that trouble? There is only one earth, it produced us, and it's the only planet we can live on anyway. Even in a futuristic scifi universe it's still going to be easier to manufacture space habitats than terraforming alien planets.
     
  3. Lakenheath 72

    Lakenheath 72 Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2014
    The problem with planetary colonization is, can we survive the journey physically and mentally intact to a new planet? If we can not do that, then any talk of colonizing a planet is moot.
     
  4. Crazy Eddie

    Crazy Eddie Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    Your Mom
    ... which is basically what happened in the (background history of the) "Foundation" triology.
     
  5. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk Neil The Hippy Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Scumbag College
    And then you get rid of the robots.
     
  6. Noname Given

    Noname Given Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 22, 2001
    Location:
    None Given
    The other issue would be - do we KNOW enough about said planet to say that Humans could survive and build a colony/civilization there? IMO any possible candidate world would need to be studied/mapped, etc. for decades (perhaps even a century) before you could determine the overall surviveability of a group of Human colonists sent to live there
     
  7. Tetragrammaton Invictus

    Tetragrammaton Invictus I like Ellie Bishop Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Location:
    About to steal the TARDIS
    Well you do if they stay robots and don't become sentient, then it becomes a problem.
     
  8. Lakenheath 72

    Lakenheath 72 Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2014
    I was listening to people's opinions about the new game "Mass Effect: Andromeda". A good point was raised. Unless you are actually at the planet or in its system, transmitting information on it back to a command center, you would not know how a planet is now or relatively now, as you are looking at it as it was, at some point in history depending on how far you are from it. (In the game, explorers, bored with exploring the Milky Way Galaxy, ventured on a 600 year journey to the Andromeda Galaxy. They were looking for habitable planets.)
     
  9. Crazy Eddie

    Crazy Eddie Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    Your Mom
    Explained in-game: They converted one of the Milky Way's mass relays into an FTL telescope, which cut the time lag down to something like 100,000 years. The fact that the information was so delayed means they still had to have the Pathfinders to survey those planets and figure out what conditions were PRESENTLY.

    The real problem is, in the 600 years it took them to travel from the Milky Way to Andromeda, two completely different civilizations moved into the Helios Cluster, fought wars, went extinct, and left their technology behind along with a huge briar patch of dark energy that was basically tearing all of those planets apart.

    So it's kind of like finding a reading a five-star review for a restaurant, making a reservation for the end of the month, and then showing up for that reservation to discover that the chef has been fired, the wait staff are on strike and the owner has been on a crystal meth bender for two weeks ever since his dog got hit by a car.
     
    Asbo Zaprudder likes this.
  10. Asbo Zaprudder

    Asbo Zaprudder Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Location:
    In your head, doing stuff...
    According to Special Relativity, there is no objective now. Now depends on your frame of reference. Observers would agree on the order of causally-connectable events (one is within within the past light cone of the other) but not their timings. An event that appears to be simultaneous with another non-causally connected event (each one lies outside the past light cone of the other) as seen from one frame of reference might appear to be in the past or the future of the event as seen from another frame of reference
     
  11. Crazy Eddie

    Crazy Eddie Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    Your Mom
    At the risk of hobby-horsing this thread, this is why I don't believe in accelerative time dilation. The concept implies that one observer is the "true time" and the other is experiencing a distortion of his clock due to high relativistic velocity. The reality is that the "stationary" observer simply OBSERVES time running slower for the traveler, because no matter how long he watches the traveler with his fictional uber telescope, it still takes light a certain amount of time to reach the lens. and that time delay is getting longer and longer as the voyage goes on.

    Another Andromeda reference: one of the civilizations that colonized that region of space (300 years before the humans got there) left behind a lot of automated defenses and/or robots that are kind of a pain in the ass to deal with. The second civilization (arrived 80 years before humans got there) is kind of obsessed with the first.