Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

Could humans start to live in another planets by 31th century?


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1
FutureMan50

FutureMan50

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

My prediction is that Humans will colonize Mars in 2497ish, Venus in 2669ish, Moon in 2750ish and Mercury in the 2990's and then by the early 3000's people will start living in Mars and Venus, Mercury and Moon won't be habitable til the 3090's due to the temperatures.

 

I also predict Jupiter and Saturn terraforming by the 3600's, but that's another subject, but i think we'll have skybases in Saturn/Jupiter first.

 

 

I also wonder what will happen to videogames and movies for people that live in Mars, will they be earth exclusive or will self-driven spaceships export new videogames and movies releases to Mars?



#2
Jakob

Jakob

    Groveling Goblin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,931 posts

Do you even know the basic properties of these planets? Have you read a single article of space-related news in the past five years?


  • As We Rise likes this

#3
FutureMan50

FutureMan50

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Do you even know the basic properties of these planets? Have you read a single article of space-related news in the past five years?

 

Not much, but colonizing Mars in 500 years doesn't seem that far off.



#4
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,199 posts
  • LocationLondon

My prediction is that Humans will colonize Mars in 2497ish, Venus in 2669ish, Moon in 2750ish and Mercury in the 2990's and then by the early 3000's people will start living in Mars and Venus, Mercury and Moon won't be habitable til the 3090's due to the temperatures.

 

I also predict Jupiter and Saturn terraforming by the 3600's, but that's another subject, but i think we'll have skybases in Saturn/Jupiter first.

 

What do you base these dates on? Why wouldn't Mars be colonised in the 21st century?

 

We've already been to the Moon. Why would it take another seven centuries to build a small bus-sized habitat there?


  • Jakob likes this

#5
Jakob

Jakob

    Groveling Goblin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,931 posts

 

Do you even know the basic properties of these planets? Have you read a single article of space-related news in the past five years?

 

Not much, but colonizing Mars in 500 years doesn't seem that far off.

 

Then you should do some bloody reading.



#6
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,354 posts
  • LocationLondon

I think maybe FutureMan50 is confusing colonisation with terraforming? Which could account for the somewhat lengthy timeframe?

 

This would line up with the order he has the planets being colonised, since I think

 

Mars, Venus, The moon, Mercury would probably be the descending order of terraforming difficulty? 

 

Some sort of permanent space habitat in the asteroid belt might be a thing as well if we start to get some serious industrial operations going on out there. 

we If we do build it, we should use it for mass production of spacecraft and habitats, and call it a forgeworld)


  • Jakob likes this

#7
YourGuest

YourGuest

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 173 posts

Mars, Venus, The moon, Mercury would probably be the descending order of terraforming difficulty? 

 

IMHO the wrong descending order, Venus must be much harder than Moon. In fact, Moon is the best candidate: ideal distance from the Sun, we "only" need to create the proper atmosphere. Of course, Moon is small and this atmosphere will very soon dissipate into the outer space. But this "very soon" is in geological scale of time, for us this time will be more than enough.

 

Other hand, terraforming Venus will be extremely difficult:

1) Thick atmosphere

2) Slow rotation speed

3) Too close to the Sun



#8
Vivian

Vivian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

 Maybe we shouldnt terraform venus, I think we should colonize it as it is and use floating cities. If optmistic carbon nanotube predictions become true, and we can use the CO2 in Venus to build carbon nanotubes, it can become a big floating city factory. Venus has some serious advantages over Mars, and depending on how viable the floating cities will be in the future, a big long term colony  in Venus could happen before a big long term colony in mars. 

 

 

Venus advantages: Closer to earth in distance, similar gravity( gravity is one of the most difficult things to change in a planet. If mars level gravity shows to be too harmfull to humans in long term, we will either have to genetic engeneer ourselves, creating a new human race , or only colonize planets with closer gravity). 

 

Venus disadvantages: if we cant build floating cities , its impossible to colonize without terraforming. 



#9
Outlook

Outlook

    Arab Muslim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts
  • LocationBarbary Lands
Venus is a literal hell. Much easier to colonize mercury than venus. My order would be: Moon, Mars, Mercury, Phobos and Deimos, Ceres, rest of Asreroid Belt, Saturn's moons, Jupiter's moons, Uranus' moons, Neptune's moons, Pluto and Cronos, Planet Nine, Venus.

The Prophet (saw) said: He who does not thank the people is not thankful to Allah.


#10
Vivian

Vivian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

 Venus is not  hell 50km above the surface. It has similar pressure there, and not so high temperature. Look at this video: 

 

https://www.youtube....5KV3rzuag&t=15s



#11
Outlook

Outlook

    Arab Muslim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts
  • LocationBarbary Lands
Yes, but what's the point living there? Can energy or minerals be properly harvested? People won't live on Venus for habitation's sake. The planet's just too hot to be useful.
  • Jakob likes this

The Prophet (saw) said: He who does not thank the people is not thankful to Allah.


#12
Jakob

Jakob

    Groveling Goblin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,931 posts

Yes, but what's the point living there? Can energy or minerals be properly harvested? People won't live on Venus for habitation's sake. The planet's just too hot to be useful.

Yeah, until it's properly terraformed, we're only going to see research stations and tourism hubs in the upper atmosphere and maybe some heat-adapted robots on the ground. A few thousand permanent residents at most.



#13
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,199 posts
  • LocationLondon
Titan would be easier to colonise than Mars, according to the book I'm currently reading. The problem of radiation would be eliminated.

#14
Vivian

Vivian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

If carbon nanotubes become important , we could use the venus CO2 to make carbon nanotubes, space elevators.

 

The future of space colonizations depends on how much our species is dependent on gravity and how much gravity we need to stay healthy.   China sent a woman with the very specific mission of giving birth to a child in space, but we had no news on that anymore. Probably the  fetus died , or baby was heavily disabled and they didnt want to show it. 

 

A long term colony would be inviable without childbirth at the place. Even if people dont age anymore, accidents will still happen . If we want to make human species independent from Earth, children have to be born in other places, not only  Earth. We have a few options, if children cant be born and raised in very low gravity:

 

 

1 rotation space stations : vulnerable to asteroids, comets and debris, resources would still have to come from asteroids , planets and moons.

 

2 Venus: closer gravity to earth , so its likely the difference in gravity wont affect human body that much.  Its thick atmosfere would protect  from asteroids , and heat and pressure resistent robots wouldnt have to reach escape velocity to reach cloud cities. They could bring resources from the planets surface. 

 

3 Saturn: yeah the planet itself . Its gravity is close to earth´s gravity.On this forum, they discuss how to colonize saturn :  https://forum.kerbal...planets-saturn/  

 

We wont colonize saturn on this century , but it was interesting to read what they wrote on this link



#15
Jakob

Jakob

    Groveling Goblin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,931 posts

I think developing medical treatments to allow babies to develop healthily under sub-Earth gravity is a much more practical solution than wasting lots of space by building rotating habitats on the surface of planets or writing off most planets entirely.



#16
Outlook

Outlook

    Arab Muslim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 802 posts
  • LocationBarbary Lands
How to build artificial gravity stations.

The Prophet (saw) said: He who does not thank the people is not thankful to Allah.


#17
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,354 posts
  • LocationLondon

I think you're all right that venus would be harder than the moon and maybe mercury.

 

I think you'd definitely need a sun shield for mercury, and it would need to be proportionally bigger because mercury is closer to the sun, venus is also a bigger planet, but you'd get a lot more living space out of venus as a result even if the shield would be bigger overall. 

 

venus might not be that ​hard, the primary issue is it's atmosphere, If we could transform that then we get a planet almost as big as earth with perfect gravity for us.

 

if the atmosphere could be terraformed by just releasing artificial bacteria/nanobots/von neuman terraformers to process the atmosphere while multiplying and then doing something else for a couple of hundred years, it might be feasible. lots of people looking atmospheric manipulation at the moment so we might figure something out :biggrin:.

 

No idea if we could do anything practical about rotation speed? Both venus and mercury are very slow. I think venus's slow rotation Is thought to be why it has no magnetic field? chance to have a smaller sun shield if we could get it spinning faster.

 

I'd definitely expect the moon to be colonised first, but id guess we'd probably just build extensively underground and maybe cover the surface in domes rather than trying to get a breathable atmosphere in such low G.

 

Essentially we don't actually need to terraform the moon to make use of it, while venus' atmosphere is so hostile as it is that terraforming might be cheaper in the very long term. This is sort of true for mars, but its probably the easiest to terraform?



#18
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,148 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

Do you even know the basic properties of these planets? Have you read a single article of space-related news in the past five years?

 

 

 

My prediction is that Humans will colonize Mars in 2497ish, Venus in 2669ish, Moon in 2750ish and Mercury in the 2990's and then by the early 3000's people will start living in Mars and Venus, Mercury and Moon won't be habitable til the 3090's due to the temperatures.

 

I also predict Jupiter and Saturn terraforming by the 3600's, but that's another subject, but i think we'll have skybases in Saturn/Jupiter first.

 

What do you base these dates on? Why wouldn't Mars be colonised in the 21st century?

 

We've already been to the Moon. Why would it take another seven centuries to build a small bus-sized habitat there?

 

 

 

 

 

Do you even know the basic properties of these planets? Have you read a single article of space-related news in the past five years?

 

Not much, but colonizing Mars in 500 years doesn't seem that far off.

 

Then you should do some bloody reading.

 

I'm a tad flabbergasted by this early hostility towards a new user. Are we so insulated by Singularitarian timescales that we've forgotten that this is what the vast majority of people consider when it comes to future sci-tech and exploration? That space colonies, directed energy weapons, and artificial intelligence are still hundreds of years off to them?

Do we need a refresher?

 

Do we also need a reminder that I came into this decade thinking domestic robots, virtual reality, and autonomous vehicles wouldn't be around for 50+ years?


  • Zaphod and Erowind like this

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users