|
Post by The Astronomer on Apr 29, 2017 7:28:37 GMT
Er, chemical/NTR reboosting. But having a reboosting tether would help too, at least as a backup. Also, assuming Earth population = ~2.86 billion, would a Lunar population of ~10 million, an Earth orbital/Lagrange point population of ~250,000-400,000, a Martian population of ~100,000, a Venusian population of ~4,000, a Belt population of ~5,000-10,000 and a Miscellaneous population of ~1,000 make sense? Is Earth population too low, assuming declining fertility rates and no 'hot' warfare in the interim? Martian and misc. population looks too low. Mars should hold tens of millions and the misc. in range of 100,000 to 1,000,000. What is stopping people from flooding to Mars and outward? What is preventing the resource-based societies?
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Apr 29, 2017 8:12:55 GMT
Er, chemical/NTR reboosting. But having a reboosting tether would help too, at least as a backup. Also, assuming Earth population = ~2.86 billion, would a Lunar population of ~10 million, an Earth orbital/Lagrange point population of ~250,000-400,000, a Martian population of ~100,000, a Venusian population of ~4,000, a Belt population of ~5,000-10,000 and a Miscellaneous population of ~1,000 make sense? Is Earth population too low, assuming declining fertility rates and no 'hot' warfare in the interim? I'm not sure about the Earth population. Perhaps look at historical graphs of how global population increases to get an idea what a realistic value would be for Earth. Would the miscellaneous population include Mercury? Mercury would have a very low population (lack of water, being deep inside the sun's gravity well might make shipping more costly), but a disproportionally massive economy, due to the acces to massive amounts of solar power and metals. How big their economy is might be limited by how advanced automation is (with heavy automation, they would be an economic powerhouse, with little automation their economy would be heavily constrained by their tiny population).
|
|
|
Post by SevenOfCarina on Apr 29, 2017 8:23:23 GMT
Asteroid mining colonies can be heavily automated, hence the low Belt population. Mars is a good deal more expensive to reach than Luna or the Earth-Moon Lagrange points, at least in terms of time, accounting for food and radiation shielding masses. Getting there faster, like with constant-boost electric drives, would mean greater expense. Either way, Mars fares are likely to remain significantly higher than Lunar shipping costs, especially if you account for Earth-based skyhooks cheaply delivering velocity boosts to craft heading to Luna. Mars might be useful as a staging base for asteroid mining missions, though, considering plentiful water reserves on Phobos and Deimos. And as for miscellaneous population, it doesn't account for Earth-Sun Lagrange point colonies. But it should be higher, I guess. Maybe ~2,500. Misc. population accounts for Mercury (~500-1,000), the Jovian moons (~1,000-2,000), and beyond (~500-1,000). Free-floating habitats would probably account for another ~2,500. I think a Lunar population of ~1 million would make more sense, all things considered. I don't really think Mercury will have a disproportionately large economy, at least this early. On timescales of a decade or less, and with such a tiny population, I doubt they'd be able to build the large-scale solar collectors or mass drivers that are needed to make them competitive with the Belt. The lack of an atmosphere complicates problems, and its small SMA would likely necessitate solar shielding, and force electric-drive craft to follow long, winding trajectories. The lack of volatiles kills chemicals and NTRs, so Mercury is effectively helpless till it gets laser-boost capability.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Apr 29, 2017 8:27:38 GMT
Asteroid mining colonies can be heavily automated, hence the low Belt population. Mars is a good deal more expensive to reach than Luna or the Earth-Moon Lagrange points, at least in terms of time, accounting for food and radiation shielding masses. Getting there faster, like with constant-boost electric drives, would mean greater expense. Either way, Mars fares are likely to remain significantly higher than Lunar shipping costs, especially if you account for Earth-based skyhooks cheaply delivering velocity boosts to craft heading to Luna. Mars might be useful as a staging base for asteroid mining missions, though, considering plentiful water reserves on Phobos and Deimos. And as for miscellaneous population, it doesn't account for Earth-Sun Lagrange point colonies. But it should be higher, I guess. Maybe ~2,500. Misc. population accounts for Mercury (~500-1,000), the Jovian moons (~1,000-2,000), and beyond (~500-1,000). Free-floating habitats would probably account for another ~2,500. I think a Lunar population of ~1 million would make more sense, all things considered. What is the current year in-story?
|
|
|
Post by SevenOfCarina on Apr 29, 2017 8:29:27 GMT
Possibly around 12100 HE? Earth population figures likely need to be jacked up to around ~4 billion-8 billion. I'm going to assume that fertility rates continue to decilne, like they've been doing for some time now, rather than inventing up a war or something.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Apr 29, 2017 8:44:35 GMT
Possibly around 12100 HE? Earth population figures likely need to be jacked up to around ~4 billion-8 billion. I'm going to assume that fertility rates continue to decilne, like they've been doing for some time now, rather than inventing up a war or something. Ten billion. Eight billion will be reached before 2030 CE according to current estimation. The sea level will rise by anywhere from .5 m to 2-3 m by then, enough to flood many big cities. Earth'd be in crisis, but I doubt there'll be a lot of people in space by then. The effect of global warming is more than enough for people to flee. No need for war. Cislunar population by then is probably few millions using ITS, Mars' population is probably getting close to 1 million, and the colonization of outer solar system is on the way. Venus population is probably not much, but I put it anywhere between thousands to tens of thousands. Mass driver is probably not in place for Luna and Mercury yet, but there are chances for Earth and Luna space elevators. Fusion power is widespread, and antimatter rockets are in development stages. btw, 2100 CE, according to today's technology rate, is probably still in the Information Age. FutureTimeline.net
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Apr 29, 2017 8:52:50 GMT
Possibly around 12100 HE? Earth population figures likely need to be jacked up to around ~4 billion-8 billion. I'm going to assume that fertility rates continue to decilne, like they've been doing for some time now, rather than inventing up a war or something. Ten billion. Eight billion will be reached before 2030 CE according to current estimation. The sea level will rise by anywhere from .5 m to 2-3 m by then, enough to flood many big cities. Earth'd be in crisis, but I doubt there'll be a lot of people in space by then. The effect of global warming is more than enough for people to flee. No need for war. Cislunar population by then is probably few millions using ITS, Mars' population is probably getting close to 1 million, and the colonization of outer solar system is on the way. Venus population is probably not much, but I put it anywhere between thousands to tens of thousands. Mass driver is probably not in place for Luna and Mercury yet, but there are chances for Earth and Luna space elevators. Fusion power is widespread, and antimatter rockets are in development stages. btw, 2100 CE, according to today's technology rate, is probably still in the Information Age. FutureTimeline.netI'm a little skeptical about the fusion drives and antimatter drives this early. Lunar space elevator sure, kevlar is sufficiently strong. But an Earth space elevator? Not this soon. It's too big an investment and I very much doubt it would get of the ground when there would be reusable rockets (like SpaceX), single-stage-to-orbit reusable lightcraft and possibly Vernes guns for shooting payload into space.
|
|
|
Post by SevenOfCarina on Apr 29, 2017 9:04:33 GMT
Information-era is what I want. Easy to model, greater accuracy. Who knows what will happen after a significant technological development.
About 2080 CE is what I'll use. The Earth population estimate is a combination of low-end UN estimates, which I believe have been steadily descending downwards, if I'm not wrong, and the Jorgen Randers estimate. I believe a population of around 6.4 - 8.1 billion is reasonable. A sea level rise of ~1 m is likely by this time. Also, fusion has been twenty years away for fifty years. We're making excellent progress, but funding remains low. And antimatter rockets? I don't think they'll become feasable before 2150 CE, assuming microscopic amounts of seetee fuel.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Apr 29, 2017 9:11:30 GMT
... Fusion power is widespread, and antimatter rockets are in development stages... I'm a little skeptical about the fusion drives and antimatter drives this early. Lunar space elevator sure, kevlar is sufficiently strong. But an Earth space elevator? Not this soon. It's too big an investment and I very much doubt it would get of the ground when there would be reusable rockets (like SpaceX), single-stage-to-orbit reusable lightcraft and possibly Vernes guns for shooting payload into space. ._.
|
|
|
Post by SevenOfCarina on Apr 29, 2017 9:19:42 GMT
Magnetic fusion has been making strides, but I don't think it has reached break-even yet. And ICF has issues with power generation mechanisms and providing continuous power without having to store energy between pulses.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Apr 29, 2017 9:39:03 GMT
I'm a little skeptical about the fusion drives and antimatter drives this early. Lunar space elevator sure, kevlar is sufficiently strong. But an Earth space elevator? Not this soon. It's too big an investment and I very much doubt it would get of the ground when there would be reusable rockets (like SpaceX), single-stage-to-orbit reusable lightcraft and possibly Vernes guns for shooting payload into space. ._.
|
|
|
Post by SevenOfCarina on Apr 29, 2017 10:23:14 GMT
It might just be me, but that site seems to be overly optimistic.
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Apr 29, 2017 10:28:07 GMT
It might just be me, but that site seems to be overly optimistic. Or you being pessimistic or lack information about technological advance. Though, it looks like today's scientific researches are too dependent on politics.
|
|
|
Post by SevenOfCarina on Apr 29, 2017 10:58:26 GMT
I fully believe in exponential growth. I just don't think that politics and fearmongering will let it happen.
|
|
|
Post by thorneel on Apr 29, 2017 11:19:08 GMT
About hydrogen steamers, they have issues, sure. But it's a bit like nuclear submarines having issues compared to planes or ICBM. They still can be useful. The thing to remember is that either they can be used, which has an impact, or there are countermeasures, which by itself also has an impact. If you go for the mass-sensors to get rid of it, then it means sensors are powerful, extremely cheap and massively distributed across the System (in addition to communication and computing power necessary to run it). Which means pretty much everyone knows what everyone is doing in space. That's not a bad thing, of course, only one to keep in mind in the story.
About colonising Jupiter, for some reason I wrote Ganymede instead of Callisto earlier, my bad. You were right, is indeed Callisto which is the best place to escape the Jupiter radiation belt.
If you want to kill Earth, I'd suggest you to avoid naturally occurring giant asteroid impact. Those are extremely rare at this timescale, so having one hit Earth exactly at the right time to break Humankind as it was to engage in the path of exponential development (soon becoming invincible to such dangers and probably start sending self-replicating things to other stars) would either strain suspension of disbelief or hint at an outside power intervention - unless you are fine with such hint, of course.
What else do we have?
- Asteroid deflection, industrial accident. The enormous asteroid Deepspace Horizon was to be brought to Earth orbit to be mined. It, uh, didn't go quite as planned. Maybe we should have followed industrial norms a bit more closely. Also, putting stressful pressure on teams to cut costs and overworking them may not have been the best idea. Anyway, we're sorry.
- Asteroid deflection, terrorist act. The man only known as the Red Comet declared that Humankind was a disease that was killing Earth. As such, he and his group diverted two massive asteroids to hit Earth, rendering it uninhabitable for millions years (to most living organisms, which incidentally include Humankind, though to a lesser extent). Being driven by altruistic views, he specifically aimed at two major population centres, the historically rich and immemorial spiritual centre of Lhassa, and the culturally vibrant and worldwide service centre of Hong Kong. Update: the man has been identified as a former surgeon, researched for murdering cancerous patients with firearms in "an attempt to save them".
- Catastrophic climate change, accidentally caused. Climate change was a concern for a long time. While by itself it wouldn't have killed or severely endangered Humankind, it could have caused serious difficulties. As such, attempts were made to correct it. Unfortunately, if there is one thing we know about climate today, in particular Earth climate, it is that it is much, much more complex and hard to work on that previously thought. Now I know what you're thinking. Given how bad it is, what could we loose at trying again (apart from billions in resources)? Well, it can always be worse. So before some bright young engineer turn it into the next Venus, we have taken steps to forbid any attempt to meddle with it further.
- Nuclear war. A classic, which was recently be thought off-the-table. Then again, it is a classic for good reasons (for a story perspective of "good"), and geopolitics can be a fickle things. Fallout would stick for a long time. It may not kill everyone, but it would make Earth more or less out of the picture for enough time story-wise. Also if Red Comet get its hands on a few warheads, he will probably install cobalt casing on them to make a salt bomb, causing centuries-long heavy, deadly fallout. Interestingly, recently Russia "accidentally" leaked plans for putting the full 100 Mt Tsar Bomba on a nuclear torpedo (as in, a giant torpedo with a nuclear reactor so it can cross half an ocean by itself). Given how shockwaves propagate in water, I wouldn't be surprised if attacking a coastal city with such weapon would kill pretty much anything living in the wrong half of said ocean. And then you can put a cobalt shell on that for extra hilarity. Antimatter-triggered fusion, which may or may not arrive in the coming decades, would make nuclear proliferation considerably worse, but would also severely limit fallout, which would make earth less inhabitable. Still, with enough bombs, you can probably wreck it. Also don't quote me on it, but it should be possible to put cobalt on such a pure-fusion bomb.
- "Oops" plague. Working on deadly micro-organisms is fun. Working on engineered planet-killing micro-organisms is not as fun, with all those security procedures, but it can be pretty useful for research on immunity. Also, we have a newcomer, everyone, say hello to R. C.! Make sure to show him our security measures in detail, we wouldn't want to let this plague escape. I mean sure, the other worlds would probably escape it with planetary quarantine on Earth, but I doubt many people here would survive, even in underground bunkers.
- Something happened. Do not go to Earth. Do not receive their transmissions. For any reason. Our job is only to make sure nothing can come out of it. And whatever happens, do NOT listen to Its voices.
|
|