my kids are going to space

[Gandalf Parker]

OK maybe not my kids, but possibly my grandkids. It seemed to be weekly that I was seeing articles abouit finding other planets. First such as "planet found outside our solar system" which was a huge gas planet like jupiter. Then they found a bunch of those. Then they found one that was earth sized (but in the wrong orbit). Now this one....
TIMES.com
Call it one giant leap for mankind's search for life on other planets. Researchers now have the first conclusive evidence of water on a planet outside our solar system, according to a paper in today's issue of the journal Nature.

But Im confused. They keep jumping on the ice found on Mars, and the water found on another planet; and they mention it as a building block of life. Ok fine, it makes it more likely that life might exist beyond earth. I never really doubted that anyway.

The reason I think of it as a big deal is that water is a major problem for large scale colonization. You can make gases (oxygen and hydrogen from water), or you can compress gases. You can ship plants as seeds and grow them with no dirt in water (hydroponics). But shipping water is a pain. And its heavy! One of the more creative concepts I saw was the idea of building a spaceship out of water but it still involved getting it from earth to space.

Then they found water in comets. Cool. Mineable. Hopefully not all of it was earth derived.

NOW they find a planet only 64 light years away that has water! To me that is a great find. Way cool. Not for the possibility that it has its own life but for the possibility it holds for OUR life.

(yeah yeah, lets not jump on the ET thing or the "only" 64 light year thing)

[Saulot]

Well, somewhat tangental, but as good of a time to discuss it as any... this far off world may have the same problems as Mars does. The problems with colonizing Mars are twofold, and neither of these have anything to do with water.
1. Mars has a very limited atmosphere.
2. Mars' core is not molten.
(Let's ignore the poisonous atmosphere, the low pressure, and the dangerous gale winds and extreme dust storms, for a moment.)

These issues are both very related, and two is by far the more important one. The molten core of earth both creates our atmosphere, and protects it from solar wind, and protects us from radiation from space. Most of our atmosphere is created through the result of rather continuous (on a geological time scale) volcanic eruptions. (The rest comes from comet impacts.) The second part is that because our core is still molten, the iron inside it spins, creating our magnetic field, which protects the planet and the atmosphere, and consequently life since both the magnetic field and the atmosphere on earth prevent much radiation from reaching the ground. Since Mars is both smaller, and farther from the sun, it has cooled quicker. Without that molten core, maintaining an atmosphere on mars will be difficult, and without both field and atmosphere, there will be very significant amounts of radiation. I suppose one could survive underground on mars, but I don't imagine that would be any different from living in a deep underground bunker here on earth.

[Gandalf Parker]

The chances of finding a world that can be terraformed are much smaller than one that can be colonized. But terraforming isnt totally needed for colonization.

Besides, even on earth there are microbes that live in deadly extremes of gases, heat, cold, pressure, darkness, everything as long as there is water. And microbes can be used to create atmosphere I think.

[Baron Munchausen]

Gandalf Parker said:
The chances of finding a world that can be terraformed are much smaller than one that can be colonized. But terraforming isnt totally needed for colonization.

Besides, even on earth there are microbes that live in deadly extremes of gases, heat, cold, pressure, darkness, everything as long as there is water. And microbes can be used to create atmosphere I think.

Don't you mean this the other-way 'round? It seems to me that the chances of finding worlds close to our required environment but not 'perfect' are much higher than the chances of finding ready-to-colonize worlds.

The problem with terraforming is that not only do you have to change the world initially, you have to maintain it in the habitable condition you want/need. Think: If Mars currently has almost no atmosphere, how fast would an earth-like atmosphere bleed away into space? In a historical time-scale, very quickly.

[Atrocities]

I just want to light a match on a methane world.

[Morkilus]

Atrocities said:
I just want to light a match on a methane world.

I think you'd be disappointed.

[capnq]

Saulot said: Well, somewhat tangental, but as good of a time to discuss it as any... this far off world may have the same problems as Mars does. The problems with colonizing Mars are twofold, and neither of these have anything to do with water.
1. Mars has a very limited atmosphere.
2. Mars' core is not molten.
[...]
Without that molten core, maintaining an atmosphere on mars will be difficult, and without both field and atmosphere, there will be very significant amounts of radiation. I suppose one could survive underground on mars, but I don't imagine that would be any different from living in a deep underground bunker here on earth.

Getting to Mars or this extrasolar planet are both going to require a lot of radiation shielding anyway. The extrasolar mission is likely to be a one way trip; we may as well design it to cannibalize the ship when it gets there. After spending the entire trip inside a relatively small spacecraft, an expandable underground complex is going to seem luxurious.

IMO, the psychological challenges are going to be harder to solve than the technological ones.

[Gandalf Parker]

Yes, there are some great conversations on www.RedColony.com

I particularly liked the conversation about a project to tie in the consultations to an upcoming game about colonizing/terraforming Mars.