Commander Chris Hadfield Predicts Permanent Lunar Colony

[Fanghawk]

Commander Chris Hadfield Predicts Permanent Lunar Colony

Chris Hadfield not only believes humans will live on the moon in his lifetime, but that we could reach Mars within 70 years.

These days, most people are a little skeptical about predictions that humanity will colonize space in the near future. It's a somewhat natural reaction, <a href=http://io9.com/5821954/1970s-nasa-film-predicted-wed-colonize-space-before-the-year-2000>given how many previous projections didn't work out, and <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/116811-NASA-Announces-Bake-Sale-Fundraiser>NASA's recent cuts haven't really helped. Yet when you hear that Commander Chris Hadfield, <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/123453-This-is-What-Happens-When-You-Wring-a-Washcloth-in-Space>one of the most recognizable personalities from the International Space Station, predicts the creation of a permanent moon base within 40 years, it's hard not to feel a little optimistic once again.

"It's a pattern we have been following for the last 70,000 years," Hadfield said at the Science Museum in London. "We gradually made our way around the world. In the last 100 years we have got to Antarctica and now there are people who live there for months at a time. I think within my lifetime we will see a permanent lunar base. Setting up a permanent habitation on the Moon will help make space exploration better."

Once we're on the moon, Hadfield hopes it won't be long before we reach even farther. "The International Space Station currently is an extension of our self-awareness beyond Earth," Hadfield continued. "One small step away from our own planet. The next logical step is to go the Moon. I am really hoping that within my lifetime we will start living on the Moon. <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/130358-NASA-Discovers-Evidence-of-Fresh-Water-on-Mars>We have found out in the last couple of weeks that there is water in the soil of Mars. So I am also really hoping that in the lifetime of our children we will be able to start digging that up that on Mars as well."

Hadfield adds that any future lunar base projects would likely include China and India, especially considering <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/130551-Chinas-Jade-Rabbit-Sends-Moon-Pictures-Home>China's soft landing on the moon last Saturday. How exact his prediction timeframe will be remains to be seen, but given the moon's current international focus, it may not be wise to bet against it.

Source: <a href=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/10521578/Humans-will-live-on-the-Moon-within-30-40-years-predicts-Commander-Chris-Hadfield.html>Telegraph

Permalink

 

[Therumancer]

He's too much of an optimist on a lot of levels. To be honest humanity really does need to get out into space and the sooner we do it, the better for the sake of our species. I however do not see it happening until we've first achieved a global unity, and right now I don't see anyone with the willpower, abillity and willingness to shed the nessicary blood to make that happen, and sadly it seems increasingly likely that when it does happen the guys that unify the planet will create a pretty hostile environment to all but one specific ethnicity, in this case my prediction that if the US doesn't get off it's keister China will get it's ducks in a row to conquer the world, and really I don't feel confident in our ability to pull off another 11th hour save if we do, or to in turn unify the planet ourselves even if we do.

All discussion about unity, warfare, etc... it's important to understand that you really can't put a base on the moon or engage in serious colonization and resource harvesting in the solar system without unifying the planet, because otherwise you wind up wasting a lot resources and effort duplicating effort, as well as breed increased paranoia and tensions. After all if one major nation puts bases on the moon, the other major nations are going to demand equal representation and want to build their own redundant moon bases under their own authority. Nations without the power or resources to make a show of this kind of thing will of course become more aggressive and militant, and put pressure on everyone else due to feeling increasingly trivialized, which will be the truth. Problems will then get worse if you move into the next logical step and start heading into the asteroid belts for minerals and materials and such as questions about who has the right to claim what will be a big deal... and at the end of the day your liable to see a huge war anyway but one much more difficult to control due to everyone having orbital and/or moon based weapon platforms. God forbid we actually meet an alien race or something coming up and saying "hey, we can now talk since your officially off your planet" since at the end of the day with hundreds of different nations and cultures all backbiting each other your not going to be able to have a clear voice for our race, planet, and it's interests. After all once we get out there it becomes quite clear it could have happened somewhere else and the further we get the possibility of there being alien life out there equivalent to us rises dramatically, as does an inevitable encounter. If nothing else we need one global culture because frankly in a conflict or meeting between two peoples the one that is clearly weaker typically comes out behind, and every weakness we allow, such as remaining divided, increases our chances of simply being conquered or manipulated as opposed to being able to deal as equals.

This kind of thought, which ultimately comes down to my general belief in space exploration, is one of the big reasons I am always so keen to just get on with World War III, blow theocratic cultures off the map, pre-emptively attack China, etc. I feel that time is wasting and at this point even the deaths of billions are simply worth the inevitable unity and getting off the planet for the future of our species, and being able to explore space for humanity, even if we never run into another intelligent life form.

At the end of the day the key thing is that we need to become the people of earth. China, India, The United States, all of these nations and separate cultures need to pretty much be destroyed and replaced simply by "Humans Of Earth" with a single government, culture, language, etc... which can then govern and administrate space colonization as one entity with only one real motive that doesn't involve international competition, or the danger of one nation firing on another because someone discovers a motherload of minerals they don't want to share or whatever, and we can wind up with colonies on things like the moon that actually serve purposes, other than pretty much duplicating the same basic function so each group of people can have their balls feel big and know they are up there doing the same thing as everyone else as opposed to the resources being spent doing something that isn't purely redundant.

Truthfully though the thing is that Hadfield is wrong because as things stand now we're not even likely to see competition in space. What's most likely to happen is the complete mess of international politics involved will lead to policians finding yet more reasons to ignore space exploration as "impractical" and waste money trying to solve problems purely one earth, which of course wont' happen due to issues of resource depletion that can only be solved by going into space and finding more resources. Rather than a paranoia fueled space race your more likely to see international pressure preventing anyone from doing much outside of placing satellites. Now that China's gotten the ability to show off a bit and flex it's national pride a bit, I suspect you'll probably see a lot of plans, but a huge amount of pressure to not do anything with those plans.... of course it might be a bit of irony if a the war that creates the needed global unity for space exploration happens as a result of stopping space programs.

 

[FalloutJack]

The truth is that we have the technology to set up some kind of habitation on the moon, certainly. Hell, there's a privately-funded longterm project to go and colonize Mars in progress, if I remember correctly. (Thinking really longterm there, given the time it'll take for them to get there.) The thing of it is that making any sort of permanent structure on the moon is going to be even harder than that of creating a deep water research station and for damn good reasons.

For one, it doesn't cost quite as much to ferry equipment down into the ocean as it does to rocket anything into space. There's no launch window for the Atlantic, just a careful eye on the weather. Also, no need of incredible amounts of fuel to get it there, forcing a tube against the powers that be holding this planet into a nice little ball. You go down, you go up, and all with the use of basically high-powered fans and ballast. So yeah, the getting there part is hell.

Actually, the getting there part is not two-fold, but three...if that's an acceptable term. Gotta time it, gotta fuel it, and gotta be able to carry it in the first place. Okay, SO! We have built and put satellites into space. We have created stations while IN space. Now, tell me something VERY important. How much effort in our rocket science calculations and effort is it going to take to haul the cargo needed to assemble the necessary materials and equipment for a permanent structure...all of this included in the difficulty that is safe lunar landings? If we could just fire rockets into space to hit the moon and dump the materials, we would, but we need to be able to safetly bring the stuff TO there and then have people up there working on it for untold hours until done. It's more complex than building a station in orbit, because of the extra needs of manpower and landing equipment going into calculations.

Now, all of this is possible. We have rocket scientists who'd be lining up to show their stuff, and astronauts looking for a mission. Totally possible, just taking years of work, no doubt. Now, make it viable. Make it worth doing. Make it more than just a station to be there for the sake of being there. We have gone to the moon, planted our flag, investigated the area, taken samples, created the portal gun, and so on already. We haven't done much with the moon because, unlike Mars, it's a ball of dirt. We need to do something with it. Helium-3? Galactic launch-point for a new breed of spaceship? Mobile Suits? Show me what you can do with it. Just don't tell me we're living in space just because it's space. Space is wonderful, but zero-g or low-g environments can cause bone necrosis, and you know damn well people need returns on an investment to make it worthwhile.

Hey, I'm lovin' the idea, but you gotta be careful with it.

 

[Pickapok]

Seems risky. What about those Moon Nazis who fled the Earth at the end of World War II? Are we prepared to deal with them?

 

[Me55enger]

It'll be China and India that push the frontier now. The West has stagnated, simple as that.

This guy was peddling his book on BBC Radio 2 yesterday. I gotta say, he is a really interesting guy. His perspective is both unqiue and eloquated(?) superbly.

 

[Lono Shrugged]

He said he hopes we do all these things. None of it was a "prediction"They are realistic hopes yes and they may and probably will come through. But nothing he said was a prediction. It might seem petty but he is a pretty cool guy and is not responsible for all space exploration. He just expressed a wish for more focus on exploration, not a prediction, lay off the guy he didn't invent space, he just made it cool.

 

[Tiamat666]

First, space elevator. Next, the solar system. Then, THE GALAXY!!!

 

[Pinkamena]

It only says he "hopes" these things will happen. I sincerely doubt it, unless it's done for some purpose that will turn profit for a private firm.

 

[Agayek]

-snip-

There will always be humans competing for resources, money, status, religion, or whatever else. It happens across nations, within nations, and, really, on every level of human civilization. It may not be overtly violent, but it sure as hell happens. If you think for a second global unification will actually solve most of the problems you've listed here, you're either blindly idealistic or have never read a history book.

Space will, eventually, be treated by the various nations of Earth as the New World was in the Age of Exploration. Everyone will be rushing out with the new and best stuff to claim as much of it as they possibly can get away with while they can, and it will eventually fragment, rebel, and drive them off, because that's how that shit always works.

There's only one catch to that comparison these days: Corporations. Business interests (especially in the mining and raw materials industries) will be, if they're not already, very much interested in space exploration and the opportunities it presents. There's a lot of money to be made for the first neo-Cortez or Columbus, and that is what is likely to end up really driving the Space Age. Once the technology is cheap enough, that will start moving right along.

 

[Inuprince]

I hope I'm not the only one who at first read the title with the name Chris Redfield ...
Although come to think about it a few more games, and the Resident Evil franchise will have to move to the moon, since they will have used up all the countries here on Earth ...

OT: The idea is nice, this would be great, but seems unlikely. To think about how much time has passed since the first moon landing and ever since then, technology developed so much, but it seems for some reason there's no effort to go further. This is not something I feel humanity is aspiring to achieve.

 

[Therumancer]

-snip-

There will always be humans competing for resources, money, status, religion, or whatever else. It happens across nations, within nations, and, really, on every level of human civilization. It may not be overtly violent, but it sure as hell happens. If you think for a second global unification will actually solve most of the problems you've listed here, you're either blindly idealistic or have never read a history book.

Space will, eventually, be treated by the various nations of Earth as the New World was in the Age of Exploration. Everyone will be rushing out with the new and best stuff to claim as much of it as they possibly can get away with while they can, and it will eventually fragment, rebel, and drive them off, because that's how that shit always works.

There's only one catch to that comparison these days: Corporations. Business interests (especially in the mining and raw materials industries) will be, if they're not already, very much interested in space exploration and the opportunities it presents. There's a lot of money to be made for the first neo-Cortez or Columbus, and that is what is likely to end up really driving the Space Age. Once the technology is cheap enough, that will start moving right along.

True, to an extent. However the level of competition is important, as is the scale of violence it can produce, and of course the very important point of us having limited resources especially to begin with, and it not being viable to simply keep duplicating efforts.

Competition within a single world unity is viable for this, but competition between nations, with no central authority, is not and will probably lead to space exploration destroying us. The age of exploration in the past didn't involve things like orbital weapons platforms, nor was there any kind of real threat of resource depletion.

This is of course before you even get into the point that even if we never meet aliens, we need to be prepared for the possibility, and that means humanity being able to speak with one voice, and react as one should the need arise.

It's not a pleasant thing, and I understand a lot of people don't want to accept it because it pretty much plays havoc with everything a lot of people want to believe about what is right and necessary but this is the truth.

That said it's likely a moot point because I think the opposite of it becoming a new frontier will happen, I think the lack of a global unity and the very real security concerns space presents when the planet isn't unified will lead to space exploration not happening.

At the end of the day we'll have to agree to disagree, but I've put a lot of thought into this, as well as read things put forward by some of the greatest minds to contemplate it (through fiction or otherwise). It's messed up but the best, and most optimistic thing that could happen is a huge world war, the decimation of 90%+ of the human race including entire cultures and ethnicities, followed by a world unity, population control to keep the population in line with available resources and only allow the population to expand as our available colonies do, and similar things. It's just when people think in terms of "90% of the population dying" they just can't get how that could ever be a good thing, even when they are aware of the problems that necessitate it. I blame a lack of perspective, education, and perhaps most importantly willpower.

 

[Agayek]

-snip-

Oh, I'm not disputing your point about WWIII at all. I'm not convinced it's the only solution to the many and varied problems of the world as you seem to think, but it's certainly a solution.

I'm disputing your idea that 1) a One World Order with One Human Culture and One Human Drive is even possible, let alone feasible, 2) that a multi-national planet inherently makes space colonization impossible, and 3) that treating with an alien species automatically necessitates a unified species.

None of those are true. You might, might be able to swing #1 if you forcibly keep the population absurdly low (read: tens of millions at the absolute most, and even that is pushing it) and indoctrinate every single one of them in some kind of twisted Big Brother scheme, but even then it'd be rather absurdly difficult.

#2 and #3 are just flat out untrue.

For #2:
Having several nations competing for space would absolutely necessitate duplicated efforts and could very well harm the program, but the issue you're missing is that competition and necessity is what drives innovation and progress. If there was no competition, there'd be no drive to go beyond "good enough", and our space program would accomplish what it was originally meant to and then stagnate there. Forever. There needs to be an impetus to actually continue to reach out and expand, and both the best and simplest example of that is competition between rival nations (see: The Space Race. There's a reason we went from the very first satellite to landing men on the Moon in less than 12 years.).

For #3:
You're both assuming a unified humanity would be a meaningful threat/force against an interstellar alien race (read: we wouldn't be) and that the alien race in question is not also splintered. Neither of those assumptions hold much validity, the first because it's absurd and the latter because there's no way to predict alien mindsets. I can't say much more on this though because of that same reason. There's no way to predict alien motives, thought patterns, or behavior, and so we can't really do anything beyond he-said-she-said back and forth about it.

 

[Therumancer]

-snip-

Oh, I'm not disputing your point about WWIII at all. I'm not convinced it's the only solution to the many and varied problems of the world as you seem to think, but it's certainly a solution.

I'm disputing your idea that 1) a One World Order with One Human Culture and One Human Drive is even possible, let alone feasible, 2) that a multi-national planet inherently makes space colonization impossible, and 3) that treating with an alien species automatically necessitates a unified species.

None of those are true. You might, might be able to swing #1 if you forcibly keep the population absurdly low (read: tens of millions at the absolute most, and even that is pushing it) and indoctrinate every single one of them in some kind of twisted Big Brother scheme, but even then it'd be rather absurdly difficult.

#2 and #3 are just flat out untrue.

For #2:
Having several nations competing for space would absolutely necessitate duplicated efforts and could very well harm the program, but the issue you're missing is that competition and necessity is what drives innovation and progress. If there was no competition, there'd be no drive to go beyond "good enough", and our space program would accomplish what it was originally meant to and then stagnate there. Forever. There needs to be an impetus to actually continue to reach out and expand, and both the best and simplest example of that is competition between rival nations (see: The Space Race. There's a reason we went from the very first satellite to landing men on the Moon in less than 12 years.).

For #3:
You're both assuming a unified humanity would be a meaningful threat/force against an interstellar alien race (read: we wouldn't be) and that the alien race in question is not also splintered. Neither of those assumptions hold much validity, the first because it's absurd and the latter because there's no way to predict alien mindsets. I can't say much more on this though because of that same reason. There's no way to predict alien motives, thought patterns, or behavior, and so we can't really do anything beyond he-said-she-said back and forth about it.

In the case of the first point it depends entirely on what the dominant culture/society is like. The central idealogy and culture of the USA for example COULD unify the planet (please not I'm talking about the ideas behind it, not nessicarly how it winds up being practiced right at the moment) namely because it allows for a great degree of variance within the society and doesn't inherently promote the dominance of one ethnicity as a master race. This in comparison to most other cultures out there which despite their claims tend to be very limiting and usually mono-ethnic. If you tried to say convert everyone to Islam and have people accept ethnic arabs as god's chosen people entitled to rule over everyone else, that would not work, nor would China's culture which puts the ethnic Chinese as a sort of divinely mandated overseer race (China is referred to as "The Middle Kingdom" with some frequency because it's supposed to exist between heaven and earth, more than the other mortal races, but not as much as the gods in the heavens). By US philosophy everyone more or less exists as an equal, there is no state mandated spiritual authority, etc. This is a big part of why for all of my criticisms of the USA I usually take a very pro-American mindset in the long run because really it's the only philosophy that has any chance of working without leading to the kind of problems your talking about. The big problem in unifying the world under such government is that it comes into conflict with all of the master race and spiritually founded societies, to the point where what's tantamount to genocide might have to happen in some cases to ensure that everyone else who can live together will be able to without constant pressure from people trying
to destroy the entire thing because of what they believe is a divine mandate.

To be honest with you, the USA is already conquering the world as much as it can be done through the spread of ideas alone, at least as far as people able to co-exist together go. This is one of the big reasons why you see so many arguments about the need for national firewalls and "cultural preservation", not to mention concerns over American media and such making it's way into other countries so the people want to be more like us, at least philosophically if not in practice. While a global unity would require World War III and the deaths and eradication of countless peoples and ways of life, I think you'd be surprised how much of it would simply happen due to the exchange of ideas that has already happened.


On the second point your still going to see competition by various factors within the society itself wanting to get ahead, not to mention the simple "competition" with the new frontier. Stagnation is highly unlikely, and most importantly it's the kind of competition that isn't going to lead to extinction once we're out there and people eventually wind up desperately trying to exterminate each other when one group gets too far ahead. The difference between that and the kind of global war I'm talking about is that I think we're able to contain the situation to the point where the danger of humanity being exterminated is minimal despite alarmists, once you get out into space and are dealing with everyone filling orbit with missiles, armed stations, and of course the ability to chuck accelerated asteroids at each other.... earth is just too fragile to survive it, which is why the unity has to happen before we get into space to that extent, as internal conflict after that point becomes a guaranteed extinction class event.


On the third point, a divided species will never be able to successfully confront or compete with a unified one. Hoping that anyone we potentially run into is as divided as we are is foolish, we need to be as ready as possible, and able to both deal as a species, and react to potential crises as a species without thirty different points of view, different agendas, and tons of buearucracy getting in the way. Right now the UN can't even deal with the simplest things here on earth, especially when it lets the very people it's supposed to be policing, like China, be members of the organization. God forbid we need to deal with that in something akin to a first contact situation or intersteller crisis.

Asimov's "Foundation" more or less made this point, as paranoid as it was. I didn't much care for how it went about achieving the unity (psionically forced hive-mind communism... but what can I say, it was written by a Russian) but the central point and it's long-running analysis to get there was fairly valid, it just took it a lot further than I would have. Of course then again at the same time not doing that probably would have amounted to the first and second foundations pretty much wiping out humanity when they continued to go at it.

 

[Gilhelmi]

Lots of long posts to read, I am in heaven.

I am an optimist, the world is much different today then it was 50 years ago. My national pride wants America to do this, but I am not sure if the majority have the will. If it is China, so be it, they will reap the benefits of being the scientific center of our world then (I am not a fan of their government, but they have been improving. so Lord only knows).