Future Chinese Space Colonisation Projects

Re: China's Space Program, News & Views

chuck731 said:

Arctic base is not exactly a colony. It is an bunch of small outpost stations. The cost of the entire world's annual artic research budget is a fraction of the the cost of one space shuttle launch.

It really doesn't matter how much sulfric acid there is on Venus if you will lose money on every kilogram you attempt to send to earth.

Fur trade with New World certainly wasn't profitable with Viking long boats either. Which is precisely why their colonization effort sputtered and died. The first successful colonization effort in America didn't occur until the Spaniards found gold in central America and silver in Andes. Again, profitable exploitation of local resources separates successes from furloin hopes in the colonization game.

Click to expand...

The point is that fur trade with the New World eventually *did* become profitable. The thing you're overlooking is that colonizing the Americas is not the same thing as colonizing Venus. They did not need new technology to colonize the New World. The same farming techniques that worked in Europe worked in the Americas. Any changes were very minor and could be picked up on the spot.

The same cannot be said of a Venusian colony. It takes a lot of time and research to be able to build a productive colony on Venus, research that can only be done on Venus. It makes no sense to wait a hundred years for space travel to become economically profitable before you start looking into colonizing Venus, when you could do both in parallel!

Re: China's Space Program, News & Views

solarz said:

The point is that fur trade with the New World eventually *did* become profitable. The thing you're overlooking is that colonizing the Americas is not the same thing as colonizing Venus. They did not need new technology to colonize the New World. The same farming techniques that worked in Europe worked in the Americas. Any changes were very minor and could be picked up on the spot.!

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if fur trade became profitable 600 years later. The vikings didn't have a profitable trade in furs, hence their colonization in Newfoundland failed very quickly.

As it turns out, your notion that no new technology is needed for Vikings to successfully colonize the Americas is incorrect. Vikings in fact needed considerable amount of prosaic, but vital, technological improvements and adaptations to make it in the long term in Americas. But contrary to public perception, the vikings were technologically and culturally conservative, and proved extremely resistent to adopting vital native technology that would have helped them make it in Greenland and North America. Jarad Diamond's book Collapse (ISBN-13: 9780143117001) gives a detailed analysis of the failure of Viking colonization efforts in North Atlantic.

So, Viking colonies in Greenland died a long, lingering, agonizing death because there was suitable raw material to support an profitable trade, but there wasn't the willingness to learn useful native technologies that would have helped the vikings survive.

Viking colonies in Newfoundland, on the other hand, failed very quickly, even before they had a chance to die slowly, because there was no suitable raw material to economically exploit and trade.

Re: China's Space Program, News & Views

chuck731 said:

It doesn't matter if fur trade became profitable 600 years later. The vikings didn't have a profitable trade in furs, hence their colonization in Newfoundland failed very quickly.

As it turns out, your notion that no new technology is needed for Vikings to successfully colonize the Americas is incorrect. Vikings in fact needed considerable amount of prosaic, but vital, technological improvements and adaptations to make it in the long term in Americas. But contrary to public perception, the vikings were technologically and culturally conservative, and proved extremely resistent to adopting vital native technology that would have helped them make it in Greenland and North America. Jarad Diamond's book Collapse (ISBN-13: 9780143117001) gives a detailed analysis of the failure of Viking colonization efforts in North Atlantic.

So, Viking colonies in Greenland died a long, lingering, agonizing death because there was suitable raw material to support an profitable trade, but there wasn't the willingness to learn useful native technologies that would have helped the vikings survive.

Viking colonies in Newfoundland, on the other hand, failed very quickly, even before they had a chance to die slowly, because there was no suitable raw material to economically exploit and trade.

Click to expand...

What does this have to do with a Venus colony? There is no argument that a Venusian colony would not become profitable for a long time. The difference is that European colonists can hunt, trap, and farm almost right away once they land in North America, where you need to invest far more time and effort into establishing a colony on Venus.

You can wait 100 years for space travel to become cheap enough that gathering sulfuric acid on Venus is profitable before you start looking at Venus, but the guy who sent a colony there 50 years ago, and has been financing it for the last 50 years, will be holding the monopoly on the Venusian sulfur trade.

Obviously this kind of planning require long-term vision, something that is not currently possible with private enterprises. This is why national governments need to step up to the plate.

Re: China's Space Program, News & Views

solarz said:

What does this have to do with a Venus colony? There is no argument that a Venusian colony would not become profitable for a long time. The difference is that European colonists can hunt, trap, and farm almost right away once they land in North America, where you need to invest far more time and effort into establishing a colony on Venus.

You can wait 100 years for space travel to become cheap enough that gathering sulfuric acid on Venus is profitable before you start looking at Venus, but the guy who sent a colony there 50 years ago, and has been financing it for the last 50 years, will be holding the monopoly on the Venusian sulfur trade.

Obviously this kind of planning require long-term vision, something that is not currently possible with private enterprises. This is why national governments need to step up to the plate.

Click to expand...

Ahhh.

The guy who has been financing venusian colony for 50 years is likely bankrupt. And if he isn't, he is welcome to maintain his monopoly on lifting a substance, whose manufacture on earth is cheap enough for it to be used mostly in, out of the gravity well of venus.

This whole line of discussion started with whether Mars or Venus makes for a better colonization candidate. Mars obviously has the advantage of allowing humans, as well as equipments remotely possible within foreseeable technology, to reach and stay on the dirt and prospect for minerals without being incinerated, dissolved, or crushed to a pulp. Therefore Mars offers a much clearer and shorter path towards becoming economically self-sustaining and viable. Mars also offers clearer path towards enabling humans to live on it with only a reasonable amount of environmental support and no big balloons floating 50 miles up.

You repeatedly objected to the concept that ease of economic viability counts as the primary determinant of choice of colonization sites, and offered suggestions that colony floating in veusian atmosphere can be supported merely by selling the vision of shipping raw material for fertilizers from venus all the way to earth.

You want to change topics?

Re: China's Space Program, News & Views

chuck731 said:

Ahhh.

The guy who has been financing venusian colony for 50 years is likely bankrupt. And if he isn't, he is welcome to maintain his monopoly on lifting a substance, whose manufacture on earth is cheap enough for it to be used mostly in fertilizers, out of the gravity well of venus.

This whole line of discussion started with whether Mars or Venus makes for a better colonization candidate. Mars obviously has the advantage of allowing humans, as well as equipments remotely possible within foreseeable technology, to reach and stay on the dirt and prospect for minerals without being incinerated, dissolved, or crushed to a pulp. Therefore Mars offers a much clearer and shorter path towards becoming economically self-sustaining and viable. Mars also offers clearer path towards enabling humans might live on it with only a reasonable amount of environmental support.

You repeatedly objected to the concept that ease of economic viability counts as the primary determinant of choice of colonization sites, and offered suggestions that colony floating in veusian atmosphere and selling the vision of shipping raw material for fertilizers from venus all the way to earth.

You want to talk about something else?

Click to expand...

I have clearly stated that the first and foremost objective of any off-planet colony should be research, Mars or Venus. I brought up the colonization of Venus because I believe it is more technologically feasible than colonizing Mars. You are the one who brought up the economic aspect of it.

The problem with your line of reasoning is that you are basing your arguments on 2013 economics. Sure sulfur is cheap on Earth, but what about on the Moon, or Mars? Or on a space station orbiting Jupiter? Venus can't compete with Earth on Earth's market, but when we're talking about interplanetary trade, all the disadvantages that you listed about Venus suddenly vanishes!

Your idea that Mars is more economically viable than Venus is nothing more than a wild guess, based solely on your belief that a ground-based colony is more productive than a sky-based one. I would disagree, but it's entirely irrelevant. Neither Mars nor Venus will be profitable in the foreseeable future, but when they do become productive, we will necessarily have acquired the technology to colonize both planets. So the point is entirely moot.

The choice between Mars and Venus is not based on hypothetical profits, but on technological feasibility.

Re: China's Space Program, News & Views

I detect a rapid drift to the outer fringe and maybe into the frozen emptiness beyond.........
Lets stay with the Space Programme China has and not the fantasy ones, irrespective of how fascinating they may be.
Feel free to continue the discussion in the Club Room if you are so minded.

Re: China's Space Program, News & Views

Deleted

Re: China's Space Program, News & Views

Well, I might be off topic here (fingers crossed!), but if our ancestors were not adventurous or daring enough to just bring to reality our wildest imaginations or fantasies, we'll all still be stuck on tree-tops in the Southern tip of Africa.

Mankind didn't invent fire, nope. What is a "wheel"? Columbus who? Nope, none of those ever happen. Because those are just simply silly ideas!

Re: China's Space Program, News & Views

Now Now! I have no desire whatsoever to squash an interesting conversation. It is simply that this thread is not really the place to have it. I have no objection to moving the appropriate posts to a new thread in the Club Room so you can discuss Future Chinese Colonisation missions to your hearts content. (assuming that I can do so and not the lose the lot!)

So anyone want me to to move the posts?

This thread is for the hear and now and we all need to respect that.

OK managed to get the post move right.

Talk away gents...