The Speculist

I think it's going to require a lot more than "merely" nanomanufacturing. I think we're still many, many generations away from the point where space colonization will be viable. I would expect colonization of the ocean floor and deep crust before space beyond the moon. Keep in mind that Mars and Earth can be on nearly opposite sides of the solar system for considerable spans of time. "Regular shipments" of materials would be a logistical impossibility, and even telecommunications would be difficult. The "available raw materials" route would be the only viable one. You would need not only molecular manufacturing for physical products, but for organic ones as well--that, or hydroponics technology that makes the best American and Israeli technology of today look like a watering can. Also, the fact that a Mars colony would be largely cut off from our Internet (at least, they could not maintain a consistent connection), a handicap that might be more significant than many seem to believe.

I think we're going to have to get to Ray Kurzweil's Singuarity on Earth before we ever get beyond the moon. I'm not saying I fully believe the Kurzweil vision, just that he being right is the real "prerequisite to space colonization," per the title of the original post. (Then again, he being right might also be a precondition for serious nanomanufacturing, which would bring us full circle to the beginning of the argument.) Absent that, it's more likely that a Mars colony would need a lifeboat than be one.

I disagree. We don't need some sort of magical tech to live in space. 60's level technology was IMHO sufficient. Even basic ion drives can be made with that sort of technology.

I haven't thought about the technology that is needed, but my take is some of the requirements are: able to smelt and machine aluminum, iron, platinum group metals, able to build basic integrated circuit chips, access to the basic "building block" elements (hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon plus enough of the less needed elements, phosphorus, iron, sulfur, etc), able to make plastics starting with ethylene, machine high quality optics, build radar, basic ion drive, and radiation detector, build and use a greenhouse, able to travel in the environment (space suit or other protection may be needed), able to make concrete or an equivalent, and recycle most stuff very efficiently.

In other words, we don't need high technology to do it (well higher than 60's level technology). We need existing infrastructure in space. The benefit of fab lab and nanomanufacturing is that it lowers the barrier to entry.

I don't see a serious disagreement between Stephen and myself on that point. What I disagree with is the idea that we can't do it at all without higher technology than we have now.

Karl: Even there, you're asking for a lot more than 60s technology could provide, especially when you get into specifics ... where those materials would come from and how. I don't think even a moon colony could survive with the level of tech you're suggesting, much less an extralunar one.

Maybe so. But I really don't see anything on my list that requires post-60's level technology. If something about zero gee smelting or machining is too complicated, then it can always be done in an artificial gravity (eg, by spinning the whole thing) environment.

Gramarye and Karl:

I had considered ending my title with a question mark. You guys demonstrate that there is room for debate on this issue.

I think a key distinction is whether the settlement or colony is permanent or not. Planting a flag on Mars wouldn't require fablabs or nanofactories - just a big craft loaded with supplies.

If we were to go to Mars in the next twenty years, I think that's what you'd see - a big ship loaded for a three-four year expedition. There'd be little point in going that far without staying awhile. They'd set up camp for a few months at least.

But that is a far cry from a permanent colony.

Difficult things are possible given the political will. The Apollo program proved that. But considering the ultimate fate of Apollo and our retreat to Earth orbit, I suspect that a permanent Martian base without the ability to manufacture what it needed from the surroundings would be very fragile politically. If by some miracle it got built... it wouldn't last.

That's why I think that highly advanced fab labs or nanofactories would be a prerequisite to a permanent Martian colony (or anything further away).

Self-sufficience becomes more important the further away you go. And at some point - I'm guessing Mars would be that point - it becomes essential.

Stephen: I hadn't even considered the political aspects of the issue. I personally would not want to move to any colony where my very existence depended on the beneficence and steadfastness of the U.S. Congress, however. My guess is that private enterprises will have to be at the front and center of any long-term commitment even to a moon colony, much less an extralunar one. They don't change their personality every two years.

First we need to let go of incorrect interpretations of risk. Then we could use 1960's and 1970's tech for project SuperOrion. Use nuclear bombs that work to launch 8 million ton space ships with 3 million tons of cargo to go the L5, moon and Mars. 3 million ton is over 200,000 fourteen ton shipping containers.
I describe this here

Since I expect that people will remain to scared to use something so sensible.

We will need minimag Orion and Z-pinches. Z pinch endorsed and link to minimag orion

Nuclear lets us up the energy density and move a lot. Nanotech will let us make it light and use more feeble propulsion.

Other ways forward without waiting for full blown molecular nanotech are to be more clever like using magnetically inflated cables to build light and big Not just structures to live in but big lens for propulsion.

The other thing about being clever is to make robots that can help 'live off the land' in space. Take lunar regolith and make solar panels on the robot rover and lay them out the back end. Use robots and/or magnetically inflated and/or nuclear and get up to gigawatts of power. With gigawatts of power now you can power an industry and now you can build more stuff.

A plan with appropriate scale. Not colonize Antarctica with 4 guys in 20 years with 10 kilowatts generators and whatever we can load into the pickup truck. Then I guess you will need a molecular nanotech pickup truck. Load up the nuclear powered container ships. Now we are talking something that could work.

I don't think SuperOrion is going to launch from Earth. My take is that the perception of high risk with any nuclear (particularly nuclear bombs) isn't going away any time soon and we don't really have a need to launch 3 million tons into Earth orbit at once. It is after all probably easier to assemble that much mass in space than in a high gravity environment. It's a nice mass fraction though.

Second, while I claim that 60's level tech is sufficient, my take is that initial colonization will be at a higher level. But people in isolated areas will rather quickly develope lower tech alternatives to reduce external dependency. So I see an exploration of the low tech alternatives.

>Don't have a need for SuperOrion

I believe the original article of this thread was about waiting for nanomanufacturing in order to start space colonization. If we can launch 3 million tons at once then no more waiting. The reason for space colonization is so that we can be insured against earth-wide disaster. Improved survival of the race, species and life.

Yes, the "perception" of risk for SuperOrion is high. The actual risk is not.

But it is reasonable to expect people to continue to get this wrong as they have for decades.

Metamaterial, z-pinches and advancing physics and then after that molecular nanotechnology will make better systems easier.

Assembling that much mass in space versus here.
Well we have built supertankers and aircraft carriers here. Meanwhile assembling the few pieces of the space station is taking a long time and has problems. SuperOrion is about casting a big disk of metal with a hole in the center then stacking the bombs and injection chamber and cargo on top of it. Plus making a big piece of metal on the ground so that the blasts do not kick up a lot of fallout. Casting big honking pieces of metal seems like stuff we know how to do here.

Meanwhile a people prefer to sit on top of a few millions of pounds of chemical explosive to send 1-7 people into space and at most 100 tons of cargo at time and usually 20 tons or less. Thus the multiple trips and costs mentioned by Stephen. Land all at once with a lot of stuff. Solve the problems.