Ok, let's say humanity spreads out past Earth (eventually, dumbfucks that we are taking our sweet time about something like this...) and end up managing to stretch out the length and breadth of our solar system.  

Where would we colonize, what would we construct? This is assuming that technology would fit more or less how we believe science to work right now (ie. no FTL, no weird scientific leaps, reasonable advances only)?

RPGPundit

I think that we would colonize Mars. I think that you would have a large network of buildings with tunnels connecting them. There would probably be a structure that would double as a vegetable garden and oxygen farm. Structures vital to survival would be decentralized. You would have several small O2 farms, power plants, storage centers, and hydroponic gardens spread out over a wide area. The tunnels that connect the different sections could be closed in case of an emergency. There would probably be a single large area used for community life, however housing and food storage would be in cells separate from it.

Sense such a place would have to be self sufficient, I guess you would need the means to produce new objects, mine fresh resources, and train people in their jobs. To make a hostile and technical environment viable, I guess you would need a lot of people.

Because of that, the colony would probably start out as a military base and expand its civilian resources over time. A capitalistic system where new resources that could be produced and sold on the planet for less than it would cost to ship them in could eventually make the colony self sufficient.

Without care, such a place could grow up haphazardly, causing flaws in construction where a disaster could cut large numbers of people off from help.

If the whole thing was designed ahead of time, and then populated after construction, it would work better but be a lot more advanced.

There would probably be shitty hodge podge stations on mars, and maybe more advanced ones built later on.

I'm not good at math, but I've heard that at 1 G, Mars is only 4 days away... that is decelerating for half the trip. I've also read in the Forever War that at 2 Gs, the edge of the solar system is only 3 weeks away. If there were powerful enough fusion starships that could puke out that kind of energy for that long, getting around wouldn't be too bad, at least to the inner planets.

I don't think you would see too much on Titan or Europa. Even if people are looking for life on those moons, the land scape is just too alien to be useful. I think our moon and Mars would be about it.

Without revolutionary technology like anti-grav, we have no economic reason to colonize Mars or anywhere else.  There are a few things we can get in space, but any raw materials are always going to be cheaper to get from the Earth.  

Realistically, the point when we'll start living outside Earth is when technology advances to the point that people can start living in very impractical places on whim -- aka a "post-scarcity" age.  The colonizers will be motivated by ideology rather than profit.  You may get a bunch of Mormons going to make their ideal world or find perhaps those other planets where women are all barefoot and pregnant, or other new religions or ideologies.

Maybe Mars, though I doubt that, same for the Moon.

Really, the most credible scenario I see is high orbit stations, permanent settlers on the Moon or Mars or really anywhere other than the hell hole that is Venus couldn't come to Earth because of the gravity disparities and that's a hell of a thing to sign your children up for if you're a potential colonist.

Orbital stations for the win IMO.

Based on this limitation

Quote from: RPGPundit;279231This is assuming that technology would fit more or less how we believe science to work right now (ie. no FTL, no weird scientific leaps, reasonable advances only)?
 
RPGPundit

Then, I basically agree with jhkim. We might explore every corner of the solar system, and even have some permanent stations scattered about, but not any colonies where people would be born, grow up, and die of old age.
 
Until we started having resource crises here on Earth. The most likely to me, would be energy, and that could be a colonization impetus as early as in 50 years. I would then expect something along Gerard O'Neill's ideas.
 
The only other impetus I can see might be global warming or some other environmental issue that would force us to migrate off the Earth. In an event like that, then I can reasonably forsee colonies around Jupiter or Saturn to get at those complex "organic" chemicals.
 
Just my 2 cents worth.....Still, it might be fun starting a thread to develop this as a setting....

Asteroids and comets are plentiful and easily accessible for raw material. Solar power is abundant and easy to get. Hell, it is a recipe for orbital habitats like those described in Colonies in Space by T. A. Heppenheimer. The only reason to be bound to a gravity well like Mars is for certain resources that are best found there because most of the resources are already in space for the taking.

As for being economically viable, if you have taken a look at any of the astronomical findings of the last 20 years about our solar system, you'd see that its raining soup out there.

For an RPG setting I see bases , followed op by colonies/Dome-towns or large structures in this order:

The Moon

Mars

Phobos and Deimos (moons of mars, small stations/bases)

Then the moons of Jupiter.


...and then the moons of Saturn.


- Ed C.

The moon, for any unusual resources it might provide, and a close spot for micro-gravity manufacturing. Mars might be a spot for research and the like as it, in the absence of anti-gravity and the like, would provide something close to Earth-like gravity.

Quote from: jeff37923;279265Asteroids and comets are plentiful and easily accessible for raw material. Solar power is abundant and easy to get. Hell, it is a recipe for orbital habitats like those described in Colonies in Space by T. A. Heppenheimer. The only reason to be bound to a gravity well like Mars is for certain resources that are best found there because most of the resources are already in space for the taking.

As for being economically viable, if you have taken a look at any of the astronomical findings of the last 20 years about our solar system, you'd see that its raining soup out there.

Just to be clear: I'm not saying that it's not economically viable in the sense that there is no way to accomplish.  Yes, it is possible to mine asteroids for metals.  With funding, our space programs could do lots of great things.  However, there isn't a payoff to Earth to do so.  If we want metals, it will always be much more expensive to mine asteroids than it is to mine here on Earth.  

There are many uses for things in orbit, but as technology advances we will have less and less need to have humans in space to maintain those.  We will keep up space habitats, but they will be funded by Earth's desire for them.  

Obviously, if the Earth is wiped out by some disaster, then space may become the alternative.  However, it would take a truly enormous disaster to make living on off-planet better than living on even the most inhospitable places on Earth (underground, undersea, or in Antartica, say).

Quote from: jhkim;279287However, there isn't a payoff to Earth to do so.

How about moving a lot of industry off-planet in order to let Earth be a parkland? I know its a very "Green" idea, but it is one that has been around for decades.

Quote from: jeff37923;279288How about moving a lot of industry off-planet in order to let Earth be a parkland? I know its a very "Green" idea, but it is one that has been around for decades.

They'd have to lift the ban on off-earth drilling first.

Quote from: CavScout;279290They'd have to lift the ban on off-earth drilling first.

I know you're saying that tongue-in-cheek, but there is already an entire book put out by the Sierra Club on the subject.  Beyond Spaceship Earth: Environmental Ethics and the Solar System goes into detail about the dangers of ruining the "pristine natural beauty of the moon" through strip mining, amoung other bugaboos about the exploitation of space resources.

For a better view of space colonization that is still accurate despite its age, try Colonies in Space by T.A. Heppenheimer.

Human Presence in Space will be defined by the means available to get them up there. If the trend in private space ventures continues I can see the following happening.

A small network of space stations and bases are established for tourism purposes from earth orbit to the lunar surface. Unfortunately this not likely to lead to human colonization as space is unbelievably hostile. So hostile that living there without large scale engineering (like a O'Neill colony) it is a pain in the ass. It is similar to reasons why people don't colonize underwater or in Antarctica.

Parallel to this will be government and university sponsored exploration and research. This will evolve similarly to what happens in Antarctica right now. A small series of stations and bases run for science.

Finally Space Power Satellites will be provide a new commercial reason for going into space. The techniques first developed on the ISS will be used to construct large scale SPS. This will be solely dependent on whether fossil fuel prices go high enough to justify the investment. At a minimum some experiments SPSs will be built because of the infrastructure used to support tourism.

In a best scenarios I feel that this situation will putter along for a few years or decades until a critical mass of people going up and down is reached. Cost will then drop another order of magnitude (because of the frequency) making rides into space available to a wider pool of people.

At this point you will start getting the fanatics and crazies going into space. Unlike underwater living or Antarctica Space has a romance and mystique that continues to attract many.

Some of these will actually succeed in living full time in space on a self sustaining. Of course they will be living in conditions that no normal person would want to live in. But then look what Jamestown or Plymouth was like in the first years of their existence.

The crazies would help future expansion in several ways. First by proving techniques for living off of the land so to speak. Second by creating a infrastructure that could be used by later settlers.

The best possible result is that the resource and interest is found to construct large scale O'Neill Colonies (similar to Babylon 5) which will allow normal people to live a relatively normal life in space.

However to get beyond the brief forays of tourists, scientists, and construction workers we are going to need water and lots of it. If we have to haul all of the water off of Earth  then I doubt space exploitation will get much beyond the tourist and scientist phase. Either a water ice asteriod/comet will have to place in order around earth or water ice found at the lunar poles.

Of of this assumes that there is no order of magnitude improvement in propulsion. If some method or technology is developed that drops launch costs by several orders of magnitude then everything changes. One example would be that material technology improves to allow the construction of a beanstalk or a space elevator.

I think, eventually, it won't be the search for money that drives people into space but instead the desire to get away from 'those assholes' that has always driven human migration.

The vast bulk of people are perfectly content to live their lives in the same comfortable pocket of land that they've always lived on, with the same comfortable grasp of what's available.

Unfortunately, there is always someone who doesn't like you and who ALSO thinks where you are living is somewhat spiffy. And if he's bigger and meaner than you... well... you can die well or find a new place to live.

Human nature at its finest.